Welcome back to the Jungle. Throw a coconut, and enjoy some morning reads:

• Assessing Fannie’s Past and Future (WSJ)
• At Jackson Hole, a growing fear for Fed independence (Yahoo Finance) see also Fed Moves Toward Open-Ended Bond Purchases to Satisfy Bernanke (Bloomberg)
• Why not to expect recovery anytime soon (Economist)
• The High Cost of Europe’s North-South Divide (WSJ) see also Money Managers Seeking Stocks to Navigate the Euro-Zone Crisis (WSJ)
• Global House Price Watch (Parkash Loungani)
• Investors lack basic financial literacy, study finds (CS Monitor)
• Federal government push to collect on student loans amid bad economy fuels growth in filings (Palm Beach Post) see also Young and without a future (Washington Post)
• Verdict Shows Samsung Needs to Copy Apple Design Culture (Bloomberg)
• Does Inequality Stunt Economic Growth? (Toppling Inequality)
• A Watershed Moment for Real-Time Fact-Checking (American Journalism Review)

What are you reading?

 

Money Managers Seeking Stocks to Navigate the Euro-Zone Crisis

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.

9 Responses to “10 Tuesday AM Reads”

  1. VennData says:

    To the question, “Are you better off?”

    http://www.ostroyreport.com/2012/09/youre-damn-right-were-better-off.html

    If you’re poor, you’re better off
    If you’re middle-class, you’re better off
    If you were unemployed, you’re better off
    If you have Medicare, you’re better off
    If you’re sick, you’re better off
    If you were without affordable, accessible heath care, you’re better off
    If you’re a female wage earner, you’re better off
    If you’re a college student, you’re better off
    If you’re gay, you’re better off
    If you’re a homeowner, you’re better off
    If you’re looking to buy a home, you’re better off
    If you’re seeking credit, you’re better off
    If you’re invested in the stock market, you’re better off
    If you’re a corporate CEO, you’re better off
    If you work on Wall Street, you’re better off
    If you work in the auto industry, you’re better off
    If you work in banking, you’re better off
    If you work in retail, construction or manufacturing, you’re better off
    If you’re a consumer, you’re more confident and are better off
    If you or your loved one was fighting in Iraq, you’re better off
    If you or your loved one is fighting in Afghanistan, you’re better off
    Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi are not better off

  2. VennData says:

    At Jackson Hole, a growing fear for Fed independence

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/02/us-usa-fed-politics-idUSBRE88109Q20120902

    That’ll teach not to undermine Obama.

    I wonder how these “Conservative” economists are all back-flipping – re-writing their old dogma – to get into line behind this new “theory” that the Fed should not help the economy, if there’s a Democrat in the White House.

  3. VennData says:

    The Joys of Urban Tech

    Goodbye, office parks. Drawn by amenities and talent, tech firms are opting for cities

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619441778073340.html

    Google/Motorola just moved to downtown Chicago, wait for it, six hundred thousand square feet in the gorgeous Merchandise Mart (which has its own “L” stop and its own zip code.)

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/business/chi-motorola-mobility-leaving-libertyville-for-downtown-chicago-20120726_1_motorola-mobility-kevin-willer-lightbank

  4. willid3 says:

    hyper inflation…can happen in a democracy but its always been triggered by some thing else. like loosing a war (Germany).
    in generally it seems that hyper inflation is cause by what I heard economists call externals.

    Hyperinflation, here, has a clear quantitative definition: prices rising by at least 50% per month. (Remember that, the next time some scaremonger starts talking about how US monetary policy risks causing hyperinflation.) And after some three years’ work, Hanke and Krus have managed to come up with an exhaustive list of every hyperinflationary episode in history — 56 in all, or 57 if you include North Korea in early 2010, where the data aren’t solid enough to merit inclusion in the list.

    Every entry gets its own footnote, and while there are a lot of relatively easy-to-obtain IMF publications in there, there’s also no shortage of much more obscure source material: Simeun Vilendecic’s Banking in Republika Srpska in the late XX and early XXI century, for instance, or Abram van Heyningen Hartendorp’s 1958 History of Industry and Trade of the Philippines.

    The earliest hyperinflation on the list came in France, at the end of the 18th Century, when inflation hit a monthly rate of 304% in mid-August 1796. The famous Weimar hyperinflation in Germany is pegged as taking place between August 1922 and December 1923; it reached a monthly peak of 29,500% in October 1923, with prices increasing at 20.9% per day, and doubling every 3.7 days. And the longest period of hyperinflation comes in Greece, which saw hyperinflation for a whopping 55 months, from May 1941 to December 1945. There’s no particular reason, looking at this list, why Germany should have been particularly scarred by hyperinflation, to the point at which it fiercely attacks even the possibility of relatively modest inflation, where France and Greece (not to mention Hungary or China or Argentina) have been much less deeply affected.

    There is, however, a very strong correlation between the length of time that a period of hyperinflation goes on, and the levels that it can reach at its height. If you look at the top six hyperinflations on the list — which include both Germany and that 55-month period in Greece — all but one lasted for longer than a year. Meanwhile, five of the bottom six hyperinflations took place in just a single month, with the sixth lasting just three months.

    At their highest, the numbers start to beggar the imagination: in mid-November 2008, for instance, inflation in Zimbabwe reached a monthly rate of 79,600,000,000%. That’s 79 billion percent per month. At that rate, prices pretty much double every day. And Zimbabwe doesn’t even manage to grab the top spot: in July 1946, Hungary saw hyperinflation of 41,900,000,000,000,000%. That’s 42 quadrillion percent in one month, with prices doubling every 15 hours.

    The real value of this paper is its exhaustive nature. By looking down the list you can see what isn’t there — and, strikingly, what you don’t see are any instances of central banks gone mad in otherwise-productive economies. As Cullen Roche says, hyperinflation is caused by many things, such as losing a war, or regime collapse, or a massive drop in domestic production. But one thing is clear: it’s not caused by technocrats going mad or bad.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/03/why-you-wont-find-hyperinflation-in-democracies/

  5. VennData says:

    Today, a CNBC poll re: “Are you better off…” a whopping 58% said no AND things will get worse.

    Interesting how people who self-describe themselves as doing poorly overwhelmingly watch CNBC… could it be that so many of them missed the rally?

  6. JoseOle says:

    >>Throw a cocoanut

    It’s coconut, actually. Is this Dan Quayle?

    ~~~

    BR: Damn you autocorrect!

  7. wannabe says:

    As far as “fact” checking:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/glenn-kesslers-shameless-lie/261891/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/fact-checking-a-clarification/261945/

    Your “facts” aren’t.

    “Third, and most important, is a related point: This vogue for “fact-checking”, far from raising the level of debate in this country, as it was presumably intended to do, is driving it down to new depths of infantilism. How do the “fact-checkers” get their page-views? By declaring statements of one side or the other illegitimate. That’s the appetite they’re feeding. Instead of saying, “You’re mistaken and here’s why,” people who need no additional encouragement to be angry and unreasoning are empowered to say, like a petulant child, “Pants on fire, you’re a liar.”

    What do you do if your opponent isn’t just wrong, but is determined to lie and keep on lying? You ignore him, and talk among your friends. I’d say there was plenty of that even before the brave new “fact-checkers” came along, but for the sake of a dumb marketing gimmick–pants-on-fire, four Pinocchios–they’re making things worse. Seething intolerance for the other side’s point of view is the main thing wrong with American politics right now. The “fact-checkers” sure didn’t start it, but they’ve made themselves part of the problem.”