My Tuesday morning travelin’ reads:

• Are Mom and Pop Heading for Wall Street? (WSJ)
• How we got here (The Economist) see also Why financial markets are inefficient (VOX)
• New Secular Bull: Yes or No? (The Reformed Broker)
• Before the Fall: Disaster Myopia at the Fed (The New Yorker) see also The real surprise in the Fed’s 2007 transcripts: How much they knew, how little they understood (Wonkblog)
• The View from the Top: Gundlach, TCW and MetWest (MPI Research Corner)
• Inflation Hawks Are Waging War Against Their Own Hallucinations (The Atlantic)
• Biotech Catches Eye of Bill Gates (WSJ)
• The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (Spencer Weart & American Institute of Physics) see also Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds (Scientific American)
• NASA’s Kepler suggests 17 billion Earth-sized planets in Milky Way (The Raw Story)

• How to Think About Our Steroid Supermen (The New Atlantis)

What are you reading?

Speech Signals a President Set to Fight Over New To-Do List

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.

20 Responses to “10 Tuesday AM Reads”

  1. Oral Hazard says:

    Buy the news… sell low… something like that:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21145592

    For some reason, UK man having hard time unloading the 7,000 Lance Armstrong cycling-tips DVDs he bought a few days before the Oprah interview.

  2. James Cameron says:

    “LESS common but vastly more effective is the cognitive approach that Professor Argyris called double-loop learning. In this mode we — like Mr. Chang — question every aspect of our approach, including our methodology, biases and deeply held assumptions. This more psychologically nuanced self-examination requires that we honestly challenge our beliefs and summon the courage to act on that information, which may lead to fresh ways of thinking about our lives and our goals.”

    Secret Ingredient for Success (NYT Sunday Review)

    http://goo.gl/qg1i1

  3. danm says:

    Too much talk against inflation.

    I believe we are in the calm befroe the storm. If governments need inflation, they will get it. Had it not been for bailouts and QE , who knows how low GDP would be. It certainly would not be where it is now. Markets would not be where they are now. In my book, that’s inflation.

    It’s only a matter of time before paper asset inflation hits the cost of day to day living. My bet is that we get another cyclical downturn where rates don’t get cut for obvious reasons. Bankruptices galore. M&A and capacity reduction. A wave of boomers collecting their cheques… and voilà, a tsunami of inflation.

    In a couple of years.

  4. danm says:

    If your basket of goods increases by 2% but your income drop by 50%, is that inflation or deflation?

    My focus is on what quality of life my net worth can purchase.

  5. RW says:

    Cripes, it’s Tuesday already? I’m still digesting Abnormal Returns Sunday links for cry’n out loud! Closest read thus far, Jeff Miller’s weekly projection (I better hurry up, TBP’s Tuesday links are waiting!).

    Are we really in a new bull market?

    My answer is another question: Does it matter?

  6. mad97123 says:

    Poor John Hussman keeps trying to invest in this market using historical data. He should just accept we’re in a new secular bull market which has no valid relationship to the past given the government maniplulations of teh market.

    “Anyone who followed me in 2000 or 2007 will easily recall a similar frustration before the bottom fell out of the market on each occasion. I can’t assure that the same will occur in the present case, but I believe it would be reckless to assume that the Fed has these risks covered. With margin debt over 2% of GDP as it was on three prior occasions – 2000, 2007 and early 2011 – it’s clear that investors are all-in when it comes to faith in the Fed. Still, when an investment thesis becomes so universally embraced and so apparently easy to follow that anyone who resists is considered foolish (as was the case with tech stocks in 2000), my risk aversion needle hits the red zone. ”

    http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc130122.htm

  7. thomas hudson says:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/eu-carbon-permits-worthless-without-change-of-rules-ubs-says.html

    it now costs more to buy a small bag of kingsford charcoal briquets than it does to buy a permit for a metric ton of carbon ( about $6).

  8. VennData says:

    Existing home sales

    “…With the housing market far stronger than during the housing bust, the number of homes on the market is falling. At the end of December, the inventory of previously owned homes listed for sale contracted to 1.82 million, the smallest supply since January 2001. That represented a 4.4-month supply at the current sales pace, the lowest level since May 2005. Compared with a month earlier, sales grew 3.2% in the Northeast and 5.1% in the West but fell 5.9% in the Midwest and 3.0% in the South. The median price of homes sold in December was $180,800, up 11.5% from $162,200 a year earlier. That gain was a result of more sales of expensive homes and fewer sales of less-expensive houses…”

    How can the rich be buying more houses? With Obama’s punishment of them? Maybe they are all SELLING their houses! Yes! That’s it!

    People are selling their houses!

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323940004578257642282865394.html

  9. DeDude says:

    Krugman does a nice little “nail ‘em” today.

    “Moreover, most of the deficit scolds don’t really care about the deficit; it’s all really about using deficit fears to bully us into downsizing government and tearing down the safety net”

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/unappeasable-scolds/

  10. DeDude says:

    @danm;

    Yes if you can’t get inflation by its standard definition, then you can always get “inflation” by changing how the word is defined. At least you will not have to face the horror of realizing that the reason your previous predictions turned out to be wrong, was that they were build on wrong presumptions. “In a couple of years” he said for the 10’th year in a row.

  11. AHodge says:

    im just nauseated
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/egan-jones-faces-18-month-ban-on-sovereign-asset-backed-ratings.html
    Egan Jones the only decent rating agency of any size
    now being persecuted brutally and arbitrarily by Khuzami for more trival bullshit
    Khuzami is the lowest variety of self dealing financial scum, SEC regulator variety
    this is actually a good republican type theme of regulatory abuse
    and as i have said before
    im for wiping out the SEC and laying off everyone
    as start of a complete do-over.

  12. AHodge says:

    Khuzami is apparently keeping his new (payoff) job a secret
    a quick websearch of Khuzami new job employer doesnt turn up anything?

  13. czyz99 says:

    AHodge

    Egan Jones is what? 12 against thousands. Every last vestige of anything resembling opposition must be stamped out. Trotsky ended up with an ice pick in his brain.

  14. Pantmaker says:

    Ha! Hilarious…I was just thinking this morning any day now that they march Jeffrey Saut out for a nice ambiguous, non-committal market direction statement. Hey Fonzie…nice shark jump!

    “Whatever happens in the near-term, there is nothing to suggest the path of least resistance is not higher over the intermediate and longer-term,” Jeffrey Saut, who helps oversee about $350 billion as chief investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida, wrote in a note to clients today. “Therefore, I would accumulate favored stocks, as well as the indices, on any ensuing pullbacks.”

    I love this guy!! “higher over… the longer term”…no Sh$t Sherlock.

  15. Japan and the Formation of Inflation Expectations at http://carolabinder.blogspot.com/2013/01/japan-and-formation-of-inflation.html

    I’m an economics PhD student at UC Berkeley and have a fairly new economics blog, http://carolabinder.blogspot.com
    I would love to have more readers and comments, thanks!

  16. thomas hudson says:

    nate silver looks at gov’t expenditures:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/

    ‘Nevertheless, the declining level of trust in government since the 1970s is a fairly close mirror for the growth in spending on social insurance as a share of the gross domestic product and of overall government expenditures. We may have gone from conceiving of government as an entity that builds roads, dams and airports, provides shared services like schooling, policing and national parks, and wages wars, into the world’s largest insurance broker.

    Most of us don’t much care for our insurance broker.’

  17. DeDude says:

    I think Nate Silver is missing the point. When the baby boomers (the population “pig in the python”) pass through to later ages you are expecting entitlement programs to grow (just like you expect military spending to grow during a world war). We actually expected this to such an extend that we build up huge trust funds to deal with that problem (thankfully retirement booms are easier to predict and prepare for than world wars). There is no doubt that health care cost cannot continue to increase the way it has without consuming the whole economy (private and government). However, social security (which he conveniently throw in with Medicare/Medicaid so he can sacrifice both) is not in bad shape and the the long term prediction actually show that (with NO change at all) after a certain number of years where recipients get no less than 75% of the benefit they were promised and have paid for, then we will be back in black again and begin building up another surplus trust fund. Leaving the generation after the boomers to get only 75-99% of their promised benefit is not fair and some minor adjustments to avoid that would be in order. I guess it is more about bulling people to downsize these government programs and then when they get back in the black, having another rounds of short sighted tax-cuts to benefit the rich.

    A much more balanced look a government spending can be found at another NYT blog.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/the-non-surge-in-government-spending/