Back in the saddle! My early morning reading:

• Blood in the water (Economist) see also As Libor Fault-Finding Grows, It Is Now Every Bank for Itself (DealBook)
• Monti Calls For More Crisis-Fighting Urgency In ECB Standoff (Bloomberg)
• Why Do We Keep Swooning Over Failed Bankers? (Pro Publica)
• Cocaine Cowboys Know Best Places to Bank (Bloomberg)
• Why Washington Accepts Mass Unemployment (NY Mag)
• A Password So Secure, You Don’t Even Know What It Is (Businessweek)
• Next Act in Software Will See Microsoft Play to Its Strengths (WSJ)
• The Story of Steve Jobs: An Inspiration or a Cautionary Tale? (Wired)
• Human cycles: History as science (Nature)
• Luck vs. Skill: Seeking the Secret of Your Success (NYT)

What are you reading?


Never very popular in late-stage bull markets

Source: Hussman Funds

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.

12 Responses to “10 Monday AM Reads”

  1. VennData says:

    On “Bloomberg Rewind” Friday, Joe Brusuelas got really animated discussing the Obama “you didn’t build this” out-of context GOP “outrage.” He said… And I quote directly “Everyones talking about it at football games.”

    Now… which “football games” did you go to last July? And no excuses about putting it into “context” or telling us that “We know what you meant” You quote Obama’s exact words out of context, I quote your exact words out of context.

    Joe Brusuelas goes to “football games” and hears lots of people talking politics in July. OK. …Partisan Clown.

    ‘…Executives at many small banks complain that the rules could force them to cut back on loans to small businesses or homeowners…”

    Well, get more deposits. Offer higher rates to build your deposit base. You want to have special rules for you the than the whole rest of the world agrees to? “Free-market” fairies are what you clowns are. You want “free-markets” for everybody else except you want to be have special treatment for yourself. And of course, those pre-existing conditions so your employees can’t leave because they can’t get insurance elsewhere.

    Look, if you can’t compete on an even playing field, the times and the technology have passed you by. Just because your great grandpa started a bank, doesn’t mean we Americans need to give you preferential treatment so you can keep your lifestyle.

    “…The length of time for tax reform if I became president is dependent, in part, upon whether we elect Republicans in the Senate and the House…”

    “…Why the President did not seize upon that? If he thought some aspects of it needed to be adjusted, make some adjustments if he wanted to. Take it to Congress. But instead, it just died. This — we need to have presidential leadership…”

    This is an example of the danger of the “outrage” routine the GOP uses. When you combine the two Illogical arguments “against” Obama into one speech you realize that there is no philosophy behind the GOP. You can’t be a compromiser and non-compromiser. One or the other, Mitt.

    “…Today, the other side of your buy or sell order goes into the maw of a nameless, faceless, bloodless army of trading machines that chomp through millions of trades in a second…”

    Jason Zweig is a little off the rails here. The normally knowledgeable supporter of the individual investor is missing the boat. Fact is, individual investors leaving the market is a bullish sign. Without an asset allocation, a plan they should stick to through thick or thin, they are at the mercy of their emotions, which are easily manipulated by people who high political stakes.

    Uh… well this is an easy one for Harry Reid… Hey Romney YOU’RE the one who has to put up… put up your tax returns like every other candidate for office. Why are you special? Because you’re rich?

    “… BOTH PARTIES are now considering what was once unthinkable: It may be better to let the Bush tax rates EXPIRE FOR THE SHOCK VALUE, forcing concessions ..”

    And watch when nothing happens, except the deficit starts dropping.

    But… but… Warren, ignores the double-secret inventory that he will help build over the next fifty years… the Flophouse Cliff! Ahhh!!! we will build fifty years of housing in the next fifty years and we know that right now!!! … ROFL.

  2. willid3 says:

    Does the clothesline paradox apply to information technology? There is a relationship between the clothesline paradox and digital dark matter, but there is also a subtle and important difference. It is important to keep those differences straight. It makes a difference to several contemporary policy debates.

    That will take some explaining. There are some terms to define.

    The clothesline paradox comes from energy economics. For a definition here is a quote from this well-meaning article from the Whole Earth Catalogue:
    If you take down your clothes line and buy an electric clothes dryer the electric consumption of the nation rises slightly. If you go in the other direction and remove the electric clothes dryer and install a clothesline the consumption of electricity drops slightly, but there is no credit given anywhere on the charts and graphs to solar energy which is now drying the clothes.

    In other words, standard approaches to economic measurement do not count inputs that lack a price. The clothesline paradox leads to under-counting the importance of activity that uses free endowments from nature. It is one of the quirks of modern economic measurement. No price equals no value.

  3. Jojo says:

    Nice history review of how the Bush tax cuts got passed and how Congress knew that they would be near impossible to rescind after 10 years.
    The Fiscal Cliff We All Saw Coming
    By Brendan Greeley on August 02, 2012

    In early 2001, Paul O’Neill, the new secretary of the Treasury for a new president, began work on a plan for radical tax reform. He wanted simpler forms and fewer deductions, which would make it easy for people to prepare their taxes and cost the government less to process them. He presented a 5-inch-thick binder of research to a senior White House official. “Don’t ever let that see the light of day,” O’Neill says he was told. George W. Bush didn’t want to deliver tax reform. He wanted to deliver the tax cuts he’d promised as a candidate.

    He did, in 2001 and then again in 2003. But the kinds of cuts he’d promised–large ones–would create unsustainable deficits after 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projected. So they were designed to expire in a decade, at least on paper. It was “baloney,” says O’Neill, who publicly supported them at the time. Republicans never intended to let the cuts lapse. “It was put in there so they could make a fiscal claim that it wouldn’t damage us. It had nothing to do with reality.”

    It’s now more than 10 years later, and Bush’s tax cuts are still with us–adding to the debt, exactly as predicted. The temporary tax cuts have become a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, to take them away is to create a period of painful readjustment. Politicians worry loudly about the “fiscal cliff”–the economic turmoil waiting at year’s end when deep federal spending cuts go into effect and the tax cuts lapse–as though no one could have seen it coming. There is nothing we know now that we didn’t already know a decade ago.

  4. TAT says:

    I am still shocked that we can justify instability with liquidity:

  5. VennData says:


    Congress didn’t allow the PO to get into email, then they made them fully fund their pensions. If you made businesses fully fund their pensions, the Chamber of Commerce would call you anti-business, and snarl and pout. i

    In fact Bush allowed business pension payments to fall behind, but the Post Office? They gotta pay theirs, now.. all of it. The GOP then relies on simpletons such as yourself to repeat headlines and forward them to your like-minded clueless email pals. Then you all congratulate yourselves for being “up on politics.”

  6. Jojo says:

    Looking for another career path? How about stand-in prisoner? Works in China. Why not here also?
    Double Jeopardy
    In China, the rich and powerful can hire body doubles to do their prison time for them.
    Posted Thursday, Aug. 2, 2012

    In May 2009, a wealthy 20-year-old was drag racing through the city streets of Hangzhou, China, when his Mitsubishi struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The car was traveling so fast that the victim–a 25-year-old telecom engineer of a modest, rural background–was flung at least 20 yards. Afterward, bystanders and reporters photographed the driver, Hu Bin, as well as his rich friends, who nonchalantly smoked cigarettes and laughed while waiting for the police to arrive at the scene.

    These images, soon posted online, provoked a public outcry. Anger over the callous behavior of these wealthy Chinese youths was followed by accusations of a police cover-up. First, the local authorities admitted that they had underestimated the speed Hu’s vehicle was traveling by half. (Incredibly, the police had first suggested that Hu was going no more than 43 mph.) Public furor rose again when Hu received a three-year prison sentence, an exceptionally light punishment in a country where drunk drivers guilty of similar accidents can receive the death penalty.

    But the most stunning allegation was that the man appearing in court and serving the three-year sentence wasn’t Hu at all, but a hired body double.

  7. VennData says:

    What will the paranoid Gold (and silver) bugs do now?

    Oh right, blame Obama for allowing the rampant speculators to drive down their precious “undervalued” holdings.

    LOL, the paranoid and delusional march on.

  8. Molesworth says:

    Go VennData. VennData on a roll.

    After learning that Clint Eastwood supports Romney, my previously Obama supporting spouse has come up with an argument to support Romney.
    How stupid is that?
    I think that if you support someone, you have to know what they might do or say that would change your mind.
    If you are against someone, you have to know what they could do or say to make you change mind.
    But Clint is for him, so I’m for him? WTF?
    To me, they are both disappointing but for different reasons. Disappointed the Reps, with all the wind at their back, couldn’t come up with someone other than Romney.

  9. Jojo says:

    Has the CFTC EVER found evidence of speculation in any investigation they ever have done? [lol]

  10. Jojo says:

    Clint Eastwood also supported McCain in 2008. Setting himself up as a two-time loser?