My morning reads:

• What the Bull Giveth, the Bear Taketh Away (GestaltU)
• Most $100 Bills Live Outside The U.S. (npr)
• 5 Reasons a Crash Is Unlikely (Barron’s) but see also The Bull Market’s Last Stand? (Barron’s)
• Jeremy Grantham on how to feed the world and why he invests in oil (theguardian)
Wall Street Analysts: Flip a Coin (The Reformed Broker) see also Your Choice: Jim Cramer or William F. Sharpe (HuffPo)
• Efforts to Revive the Economy Lead to Worries of a Bubble (DealBook)
• Gold is broken (Charts etc.) but see The Attraction of Gold (Crossing Wall Street)
• “The Great Divergence of Policies” (Econbrowser)
• Fish’s DNA May Explain How Fins Turned to Feet (NYT) see also Moore’s Law and the Origin of Life (MIT Technology Review)
• Don’t let Silicon Valley fool you—millennials are the least entrepreneurial generation (Quartz)

What are you reading?


Stocks Tracking Fundamentals

Source: Dr. Ed’s Blog

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 Thursday AM Reads”

  1. RW says:

    Still shaking my head WRT the Rogoff & Reinhart debacle.

    Whoops! Turns out debt doesn’t ruin economies

    It is sort of shocking, to me, that respected economists can release a widely cited paper without just putting their damn Excel spreadsheet online for people to check their work, but apparently the economics field operates at a lower level of scrutiny than elementary school arithmetic. Next time you hear someone on TV confidently state that “economists say” that high debt kills economic growth remind yourself that they’re chanting a mystical incantation, not referencing objective data.

    My own take is that Reinhart & Rogoff committed a Type I error in their research — they positively but incorrectly asserted that 90% debt/GDP was a statistically significant threshold WRT national growth — an error that, in a real science, would minimally mean rigorous review of their work and professional censure. It will be interesting (and revealing) to see how much of either they receive.

    Beyond that, well, the elites who run things for the oligarchy and the self-righteous moralists who applaud them would still have promoted austerity policies in the teeth of a financial/unemployment crisis but a little less ‘research’ support might have made it easier for those of better nature and more rational thought to force further amelioration of the pain through the cracks. Very much like the warmongers these economic moralists: If it isn’t “let’s you and him fight” it’s going to be “let’s you and him wear the hair shirt.”

  2. hue says:

    The Remarkable Decline in the Wall Street Journal’s Long-Form Journalism (Atlantic)
    Of course length isn’t everything, but check out the step drop around 2007. BR has blogged about the ideological and de-financializing of the paper.

    The Market for Good News: Introducing the Butter Side Up Theory (Minyanville)

    Bubblicious? San Francisco Cup Cake Baker Accepts, Invests in Bitcoins (Marketplace) Bumping Phones Before Bumping Fuzzies: App Lets Icelanders Know They’re not Cousins (Slate)
    audio version of marketplace is “longer”

  3. James Cameron says:

    I’ll I can say to military personnel and contractors is . . . get in line.

    “The campaign was an opening shot in the escalating battle between advocates for weapons programs and advocates for service members, with the two groups fighting to preserve their shares of a shrinking defense budget.”

    MOAA: Proposed cuts betray military personnel

    • rd says:

      The weapons will probably win. They have bigger lobbying budgets.

    • ilsm says:

      GAO reported that F-35 will spend an average for $12.9B a year in 2013 dollarsthrough 2037 to finish acquiring the F-35 which has yet to define the military “capability” it might try and deliver.

      Cut TRICARE (health benefits) for retirees and servicemembers’ families, the F-35 is too important to the Lockheed coupon clippers.

  4. VennData says:

    The White House and some Democrats say the cybersecurity bill doesn’t protect privacy

    The Republicans say Universal background checks invade your privacy

    I wonder how the lawyer lobby in the case of the first and the gun industry in case of the second feel about the other bill and its privacy concerns? I bet you can guess.

    When politicians talk about privacy – politicians who know how much you spends, where you spend it and whether you’ll probably vote for them in the next cycle – politicians aren’t really talking about privacy but something else.

    I could care less if somebody knows I drink beer. Don’t let privacy be the motherhood and apple pie of this century. It’s not.

    • willid3 says:

      it all depends. if its their right to invade yours, its ok, if its the right of the government get into theirs, its not.