My morning reads:

• Polls Show a Strong Debate for Romney (fivethirtyeight) see also Political Wisdom: A Big Night for Romney (Washington Wire)
• ‘Dumb Money’ Is Staring Most of Us in the Face (Bloomberg)
• QE3 Misconceptions And How To Profit (A Dash Of Insight) see also Why QE will fail, dissonant voices edition (Credit Writedowns)
• How Does a Currency Drop 60% in 8 Days? Just Ask Iran (The Atlantic)
• Private Equity: Rental Market’s Big Buyers (WSJ)
Keynesian Investing: Changing Facts, Changing Minds (Psy-Fi Blog)
• Stingy Founder of ‘Genius Grants’ Was No Fan of Charity (Bloomberg)
• Fewer Computerized Trading Systems Urged as SEC Debates HFT (Institutional Investor)
• Never Underestimate Wall Street’s Ability To Overestimate Washington (Capital Gains And Games)
• The Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary (The Office Life)

What are you reading?


Buoyant Markets Must Navigate Treacherous Earnings Season

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.

8 Responses to “10 Thursday AM Reads”

  1. Gary says:

    I am reading a remarkable post on why Obama is truly vulnerable on the economic issue:

    According to the author, Obama made the wrong choice at the outset of his presidency by adopting the Japanese model for handling the crisis instead of the Swedish model, thereby making the real economy and social safety nets subservient to bankers’ profits. Japanese Model vs. Swedish Model — a continuing choice.

    A must read.

  2. Molesworth says:

    Voting with the wallet
    Democrats have been better for equities, Republicans for bonds

  3. Gary says:

    One other, from across the pond, on why neither party’s candidate addresses the elephants in the room:

  4. Frwip says:


    Well, that’s nice. Everybody knows that swift and efficient resolution is always the best approach to deal with a financial crisis. But…

    But, woulda, shoulda, coulda, everybody seems to forget that swift and efficient resolution means that the beneficiaries of the prior situation are the one who are gonna take on the chin something really good.

    And it turns out, that by virtue of having been the beneficiaries of the prior situation, said beneficiaries are the one who tend to have a lot of money and a lot of influence by the time the crisis blows up. Said beneficiaries will inevitably use whatever influence they have amassed in the period prior to make sure that swift and efficient resolution does indeed NOT happen. And the longer the prior conditions prevailed, the more power and influence the winners have accumulated and the harder and the slower it will be to loosen their stranglehold on power and allow for a less destructive path. And sometimes, it’s just well nigh impossible (see Greece).

    So, no surprise here about what happened in 2008 in DC.

    That’s also why I’m rather pessimistic about China. The problems are very clear. The solutions are fairly obvious. The future looks actually rather good. But too many people made out like bandits for the past 15 years (since Deng Deng Xiaoping and China’s leadership switched from a liberalization to a state-capitalism model) and they won’t let go of power gently.

  5. Frwip says:

    Woops, something got stuck in editing

    ” since Deng Xiaoping retired and China’s leadership switched from a liberalization to a state-capitalism model “

  6. Gary says:


    If you’re saying that the Blob (see The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins) has a stranglehold on power and will fight to retain opacity, then you will find me in agreement. David Weidner has a column today in the Wall Street Journal regarding that issue and last night’s debate.

    Perhaps it is quixotic to hope that meaningful change will come about in our lifetime. Certainly, the real power in Washington is making certain that what should be done is not. That’s why when I read someone who is brilliant, brave and original, I pass it along.

  7. Frwip says:


    What I object to is giving grief (or credit) to Obama or anyone for doing or not doing anything along those lines.

    It’s the nature of the inherently corrupt and unaccountable political landscape in the US and what is possible in Nordic countries simply isn’t in the US. the US has a lot more in common with China than with Sweden or Iceland.

  8. Equityval says:

    Back on 9/10, a 3 point move on Obama’s Intrade contract was deemed noteworthy in this space.

    Kinda odd, there is no mention of the 7 point move we’ve seen since yesterday, or are those charts only noteworthy when they are going up and to the right?


    BR: I tweeted that in real time during the debate.

    I also assumed most traders would recognize the difference between a breakout from a long base/trading range and a retracement following a rally . . .