Some morning reads:

• Meaning of weakness in Dow transports (MarketWatch)
• Rally Has People Feeling Better About Stocks (Marketbeat)
Jonathan Weil: Did We Just Find Someone to Take On the Banks? (Bloomberg)
Interview: Alan Greenspan on His Fed Legacy and the Economy (BusinessWeek)
• ‘Why Nations Fail’: Can elites choke American prosperity? (CS Monitor)
• Same old nonsense: Arthur Laffer’s Anti-Stimulus Curve Ball is a Foul (Time)
• Yes, College Is Worth It — With Some Caveats (Real Time Economics) see also Commoditized business education comes to Yale; “How can we become as awful as other MBA programs?” new Dean asks (NYT Magazine)
• Craigslist’s Challenger Could Be an App, or Several (NYT)
• What if there was a robot apocalypse? How long would humanity last? (What If)
• iPad Takes Slight Dive, Samsung, Google See Tablet Success in July (Chitika) see also Explaining the iOS and Android mobile browser usage disparity (Salon)

Whats on your agenda for the weekend?


Weather Pushes Up Food Prices

Source: WSJ

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “10 Friday AM Reads”

  1. machinehead says:

    ‘Interview: Alan Greenspan on His Fed Legacy’

    Kind of like interviewing Bernie Madoff on his ‘fund legacy.’

    Has the Dirty Old Lizard no shame?

  2. The Retired CNBC Sucks says:

    I found Forbes’ smirky coverage of NFLX CEO and FB board member Reed Hastings’ trades amusing:

    If Hastings’ buying of FB is as good a predictor of stock movement as his selling of his own company’s stock, FB is due for a pop, which would be all the more remarkable with its lockup period starting to expire.

  3. ilsm says:

    Andrew Jackson called it the “Vices of the elties”.

  4. Jojo says:

    It pays to die at Google!
    Google Keeps Paying Deceased Employees’ Families for a Decade
    By Megan Garber
    Aug 9 2012

    Many of the perks Google famously offers its employees are designed to help those employees enjoy a healthier life. Organic food in the cafeteria! On-site gyms! Subsidized massages! Nap rooms!

    Turns out, though, that the company also wants its employees to enjoy a better death. More specifically: a wealthier death. In an interview with Forbes’s Meghan Casserly, Laszlo Bock — Google’s, Chief People Officer (in non-Google terms: head of HR) — shares a Google benefit that is all too literally out of this world. “This might sound ridiculous,” Bock tells Casserly. “But we’ve announced death benefits at Google.”

    Yes. It’s like this: Should someone pass away while employed by Google, that person’s surviving spouse or domestic partner will receive a check for 50 percent of the deceased’s salary. And that spouse or domestic partner will receive that check every year. For the next decade.

    Let’s just take a moment to pause and appreciate that. You can get rich at Google even through dying.

  5. eliz says:

    Re: “Did We Just Find Someone to Take On the Banks?”

    GO Benjamin Lawsky!!! May he have the guts to follow through.

    In the meantime, the evidence of corruption throughout the Federal Reserve and the judicial system just grows and grows. When will the masses wake up?

  6. with..

    • Yes, College Is Worth It — With Some Caveats (Real Time Economics)

    this.. (generally..)

    Audrey Watters

    MOOCs. They’re all the rage these days, it seems — so much so I’d make them an early pick for one of the major ed-tech (startup) trends for 2012. Of course, describing MOOCs as an “ed-tech startup trend” and associating it with 2012 overlooks the history of Massive Open Online Courses that’s not associated with Silicon Valley startups — heck, that’s not associated with Silicon Valley at all.

    But it’s the story of the “success” of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence class last fall that seems to dominate the mainstream narrative surrounding MOOCs. The 160,000 students that enrolled in Peter Norvig and Sebastian Thrun’s class was certainly a watershed moment — most of all for Thrun, who announced at the DLD conference in Munich that he couldn’t go back to teaching at Stanford and was founding his own online education startup, Udacity.

    The “this changes everything!” excitement about MOOCs is echoed in the media, no doubt. Take the recent description in The New York Times, for example: “Welcome to the brave new world of Massive Open Online Courses — known as MOOCs — a tool for democratizing higher education. While the vast potential of free online courses has excited theoretical interest for decades, in the past few months hundreds of thousands of motivated students around the world who lack access to elite universities have been embracing them as a path toward sophisticated skills and high-paying jobs, without paying tuition or collecting a college degree.”

    Read more:

    MOOCs are really a platform

    We can officially declare massive open online courses (MOOCs) as the higher education buzzword for 2012. Between Coursera, edX and smaller open course offerings, nearly $100 million in funding has been directed toward MOOCs in that past 8 months. Newspapers from NYTimes to Globe and Mail to publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, TV programs such as NPR, radio programs such as CBC, and a few hundred thousand blog posts have contributed to the hype. In higher education, there is joyful abundance of opinions on the topic, ranging from breathless proclamations of their disruptive potential to general dismissal of any value. I’ve captured numerous articles here on diigo.

    Largely lost in the conversation around MOOCs is the different ideology that drives what are currently two broad MOOC offerings: the connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs?) that I have been involved with since 2008 (with people like Stephen Downes, Jim Groom, Dave Cormier, Alan Levine, Wendy Drexler, Inge de Waard, Ray Schroeder, David Wiley, Alec Couros, and others) and the well-financed MOOCs by Coursera and edX (xMOOCS?).

    Our MOOC model emphasizes creation, creativity, autonomy, and social networked learning. The Coursera model emphasizes a more traditional learning approach through video presentations and short quizzes and testing. Put another way, cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication. I’ve spoken with learners from different parts of the world who find xMOOCs extremely beneficial as they don’t have access to learning materials of that quality at their institutions. xMOOCs scale, they have prestigious universities supporting them, and they are well-funded. It is quite possible that they will address the “drill and grill” instructional methods that is receiving some criticism. ….

  7. ConscienceofaConservative says:

    Carl Levin is angry at the DOJ over Goldman ,
    and considering Holder and Breuer’s record on Wall Street no surprise to me

  8. willid3 says:

    uh,…it seems that Medicare and Medicaid are growing slower than private medical insurance…wonder how that is. since the elderly are guaranteed to need care

  9. willid3 says:

    hm/…better pay can make good business sense (even if that tends to be an oxymoron)

    seems low pay ends up low results.

    and high turnover