My afternoon reading:

• Hedge funds have had another lousy year, to cap a disappointing decade (Economist)
Its Garbage Time (TRB)
• “Fiscal cliff” creates waiting game for payrolls firms (Chicago Tribune)
• Household Formation is the Most Overlooked Statistic in Economics  (The Atlantic)
• We know nothing because we read newspapers (Fabius Maximus) see also The media – a broken component of America’s machinery to observe and understand the world (Fabius Maximus)
• Regulatory ‘Whale’ Hunt Advances (WSJ)
• Guns Are Out of Stock at Wal-Mart; Magazine Prices Surge (Bloomberg) but see Gun control and the waning influence of the NRA (Eclecta Blog)
• 2013 may look a lot like 2012 (The Buzz)
• Why are we debating cuts to Social Security? (Yahoo News) see also Medicare Spending Isn’t Out of Control, HealthCare Spending Is  (Economix)
• Sandy Tops List of 2012 Extreme Weather & Climate Events (Climate Central)

What are you reading?

 

Venture Capital to Suppress Its Appetite for Risk in 2013

Source: WSJ

Category: Markets

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 Wednesday PM Reads”

  1. extraordinary measures of $200 billion will give respite for eight weeks – negotiations results are very predictable: extension will equal long-term cuts (eg 1 trillion raise in Debt Limit for $1 tri in entitlement cuts)

  2. howardoark says:

    You’ve been quite adamant regarding the futility of predictions lately, and yet…

    2013 may look a lot like 2012

    Though, technically, since they have a “may” in the title, that’s not a prediction (as in, “monkeys may fly out of my butt and 2013 may not look like 2012 after all”).

  3. slowkarma says:

    The story about the investigation into JP Morgan and the Whale — I have a genuine question here, because I don’t know the answer. Wasn’t that JPM’s money that was lost? Did they steal anybody else’s money along the way? Why is the Comptroller investigating? Is it because the government now has a legal interest in seeing that the too-big-to-fails don’t fail, or what? Are private businesses no longer allowed to lose money, or is there some “tipping point” amount that you’re not allowed to lose?

    With MF Global, I was ready with the torches and pitchforks, but then not much happened. Why all the fuss with JPM? (Again: I’d like somebody to explain this to me, because I really don’t know.)

  4. RW says:

    Would have posted this to the gun stats list but …

    The Simple Truth About Gun Control by Adam Gopnik

    …the central insight of the modern study of criminal violence is that all crime—even the horrific violent crimes of assault and rape—is at some level opportunistic. Building a low annoying wall against them is almost as effective as building a high impenetrable one. …What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer.

  5. found this to be, all, too, Telling..

    from..
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R73AFB6FG6F09/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004JKBVBY&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful

    Customer Review

    Leave it to Polariod to not support iPhones!, August 6, 2012
    By
    Jen “Jen”
    This review is from: Polaroid GL10 Instant 3X4 Mobile Printer for Digital Cameras and Smart Camera Phones (Camera)
    Are they crazy, or just plain silly? Why would you possibly make a product like this that doesn’t work with the World’s number one selliing mobile phone? Leave it up to a company that the digital age has completely passed by to do this. They could have made it work ONLY on the iPhone and it would have soled twice as many. Good grief.
    ~~~
    JulieG says..

    It is not that Polaroid doesn’t want to work with the Iphone… it’s that Apple doesn’t want anything that isn’t made by Apple to work with the Iphone. Polaroid doesn’t have access to the technology that is proprietary to Apple to make things work with the Iphone. Apple doesn’t make it available to other companies because they don’t want to lose any sales of any accessories to their Iphones. Don’t blame Polaroid and downgrade their product for something that is the fault of your precious APPLE!
    ~
    Jerem J. Stark says:
    A jailbroken iphone with the airblue sharing app will allow you to print via bluetooth.
    ~
    AmandaGal says:
    Apple crippled the iPhone’s bluetooth, so there’s nothing wrong with the printer (evident by what Jerem said: if you jailbreak it, it works just fine). It’s the phone. Most bluetooth devices (besides headsets) don’t work with the iPhone because the bluetooth is pretty much disabled. I have an iPhone and I love it, but Apple makes a lot of bad decisions for their consumers.

    I do agree that it would be worth it to Polaroid to work with Apple and make something iPhone compatible, but I don’t think that would happen. It wouldn’t benefit Apple much, so I can’t see Apple doing it.
    ~
    In Search of Value says:
    Like Apple would allow that. If you buy an iPhone you should do so knowing that apple only wants you to use their approved apps and proprietary devices. If you want choice, get an android device.
    ~~~

    AAPL, you know, for the “I want the one with the more GBs”-crowd..

    looks like ‘People’ are ‘catching on’..~

    for those looking to Trade the (AAPL) ’400 in 4(April)’ Trend..

    these.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL130420P00475000 are only up ~20% in last couple of Weeks..~
    ~~

    for more, on this ‘phenomenon’, see the Whole Page..
    http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-GL10-Instant-Printer-Digital/product-reviews/B004JKBVBY/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

    really, truly, a-Maze-ing~

  6. CSF says:

    Social Security by itself is not a major cause of our deficits, but it’s dishonest to state that Social Security contributes nothing to our long-term fiscal dilemma.

    From the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees: “Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.” http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

    Social Security will be about 66 billion in deficit from 2012-2018, with larger deficits thereafter. This forces the sale of intra-governmental (Trust Fund) debt to the Treasury, which issues new public debt to cover the costs.

    It’s demographics: fewer workers per retiree, and we’re living longer. Social Security cost 4.2% of GDP in 2007, and it will rise to 6.1-6.2% by 2035, stabilizing there.

    If we want to do the right thing for our low-income seniors we need facts, not denial.

  7. “…This forces the sale of intra-governmental (Trust Fund) debt to the Treasury, which issues new public debt to cover the costs…”

    Quite. But, of course, that is Not ‘Double Taxation’/Theft. (as if..)

  8. RW says:

    Facts rather than denial is good policy so by all means continue rather than stopping where convenient:

    The Nonsense About a Demographic Crisis

    One of themes that recurs endlessly in news coverage is that the United States and other countries face a disastrous threat to their living standards as a result of a falling ratio of workers to retirees. This is one that can be easily dismissed with some simple arithmetic.

  9. louiswi says:

    Slowkarma raises some extremely important points here:
    “The story about the investigation into JP Morgan and the Whale — I have a genuine question here, because I don’t know the answer. Wasn’t that JPM’s money that was lost? Did they steal anybody else’s money along the way? Why is the Comptroller investigating? Is it because the government now has a legal interest in seeing that the too-big-to-fails don’t fail, or what? Are private businesses no longer allowed to lose money, or is there some “tipping point” amount that you’re not allowed to lose?”

  10. CSF says:

    The 2012 Report from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees compares future Social Security revenue and future GDP, which obviously includes productivity gains. The Trustees conclude that we need to make some changes. There’s no reason for politicized hysteria or denial. We’ve been here before (1983), and we know what to do: raise FICA taxes, move the retirement age, change the COLA calculations, or institute means testing.

    If only Medicare and the Pentagon were so easy to fix.

  11. RW says:

    No panic and no pretense when predicting the future either.

    Futurism and Policy

    …conventional wisdom is that the next several decades will look like the last several decades, but that’s not quite true. If you look, for example, at the CBO’s long-run budget outlook, it assumes that productivity growth over the long term will be 1.7 percent a year (p. 34), which is roughly equal to average productivity growth since 1973. But it also assumes that compensation will grow roughly in line with productivity, which has not at all been the experience of the past 30 years.

    PS: Means testing would be an inefficient policy response: It would add a bureaucratic layer, increase administrative costs and increase the level of govt scrutiny. Just use the existing structure and bureaucracy of taxation; e.g., those declaring an AGI above a certain level pay a higher tax on SS benefits up to 100%; means testing and additional SS funding done.

    Admittedly this sort of rational response would require a preponderance of legislators who did not consider their oath of office subordinate to other oaths and allegiances.

  12. Joe Friday says:

    CSF,

    Social Security by itself is not a major cause of our deficits

    It’s not even a minor “cause of our deficits”, as it has no impact whatsoever on our federal deficits.

    Tax cuts are the “major cause of our deficits”.

    but it’s dishonest to state that Social Security contributes nothing to our long-term fiscal dilemma.

    That’s ass-backwards.

    From the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees:

    As I’ve delineated in previous threads, ALL of the trustees appointed by Chimpy Bush advocated scrapping Social Security, privatizing it, and then giving it to Wall Street to skim commissions from, PRIOR to their appointments.

    Social Security will be about 66 billion in deficit from 2012-2018, with larger deficits thereafter.

    The Social Security actuaries state that the system is solvent through 2085, and they only do 75-year forecasts:

    TRUST FUNDS

    This forces the sale of intra-governmental (Trust Fund) debt to the Treasury, which issues new public debt to cover the costs.

    That would be a violation of federal statute.

    It’s demographics: fewer workers per retiree

    And ?

    There will be about 79 dependents (children and retirees) for every 100 workers in 2030, compared to 95 dependents per 100 workers in 1965.

    So, back when the boomers were still children, their parents and the government found ways to adequately provide for them, build lots of new housing, build lots of new schools, and later finance expensive college educations for many of them.

    If America’s much smaller economy could sustain such a larger share of non-workers almost a half a century ago, the retirement of the baby boomers should be quite manageable, as long as the nation avoids the failed RightWing economic policies we’ve experienced over the past decade or so.

    and we’re living longer.

    Nope.

    * The increases in ‘life expectancy’ are almost entirely due to decreases in infant mortality. In the aggregate, people who live to retirement age only live about two years longer than they did when Social Security was first enacted. Men live about one year longer, women about three years longer.

    * The fact that Social Security beneficiaries tend to live SLIGHTLY longer today than they did in 1935 is true of wealthier beneficiaries, whereas poorer beneficiaries die sooner.

    If we want to do the right thing for our low-income seniors we need facts, not denial.

    Could not agree more.