My morning reads:

• Japan’s mini crash: Blame China(FT Alphaville) see also Dumb money returns to Japan (
• Extreme Fear (Joe Fahmy)
• Bernanke to Congress: I’m Not the Problem. You Are. (The Fiscal Times) see also Wonkbook: Bernanke lashes Congress (Wonkblog)
• Why Investors Fail (Motley Fool)
• Dudley Says Decision on Taper Will Require 3-4 Months (Bloomberg)
• Investing in Gold: Does It Stack Up? (Knowledge at Wharton)
• Teens are tired of Facebook ‘drama,’ find refuge on Twitter and elsewhere, says Pew (The Verge) see also Teens, Social Media, and Privacy (Pew Internet)
• Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal (ProPublica)
• Putting Apple in an Xbox (WSJ) see also The race to a “smart” television is over. Xbox won (pandodaily)
• Inside Google’s Secret Lab (Businessweek)

What are you reading?


Japanese Stocks Fall 7.3% Overnight
Tokyo Tumble
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.

12 Responses to “10 Thursday AM Reads”

  1. huxrules says:

    We will have to see the new xbox in the wild before pronouncing it the “king of the living room”. The fact that you have to pay for xbox live gold just to access netflix,hulu,etc and then pay for those services will continue to hamper it’s adoption. Gamers are already complaining about it’s lackluster specs and its built in anti-piracy (and anti used and old games) tech. So what if it can hook up to your TV- tv is dead anyways.

    • Dervin says:

      Oh God This.
      Do we all forget the press hype for the Zune, Windows Phone, Surface, Surface RT?

      You think tech reporters can deduct their drinking/drug as job related expenditures? Because there’s no way to do that job with long term memory functions.

  2. hue says:

    Is Apple’s tax avoidance rational? (Beeb)

    Smart Rifle Could Shake Up Gun Control Debate (businessweak) The weapon incorporates laser and computer technology, as well as a three-dimensional color graphics display, to allow even a novice shooter to hit moving targets at 500 yards (five football fields) or farther

    ESPN Layoffs Are A Sign The Monopoly’s Worst Nightmare Is Finally Coming True (BizInsider)

  3. Al_Czervik says:

    According to Knowledge by Wharton: “Siegel maintains a long-run chart of real returns for various asset classes — returns adjusted for inflation. Because of inflation, a dollar acquired in 1802 would have been worth just 5.2 cents at the end of 2011. A dollar put into Treasury bills at the same time would have grown to $282, or to $1,632 had it gone into long-term bonds. Held in gold, it would have grown to $4.50. True, that’s a gain even with inflation taken into account. But the same dollar put into a basket of stocks reflecting the broad market would have grown to an astounding $706,199.”

    This is a HUGE strawman argument. I don’t know *anyone* who buys anything with an investing horizon of 211 years. OTOH, you can find prolonged periods (10 to 20 years, or longer) when bonds, stocks, and gold have performed relatively well or poorly…that is a time frame with real meaning to human beings.

  4. James Cameron says:

    “The riots in one of Europe’s richest capitals have shocked a country that prides itself on a reputation for social justice, and fueled a debate about how Sweden is coping with both youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants. . . . After decades of the ‘Swedish model’ of generous welfare benefits, Sweden has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.”

    Swedish riots rage for fourth night (The Guardian)

  5. VennData says:

    So much for cutting government waste.

    Issa and the GOP will spend unlimited amounts to try to deflect attention from the improving economy and continue to fish in a rehash of Whitewater.

    Now, he plans to haul the director of the IRS’s tax-exempt department back to the committee for questioning. “When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

    GO GOP spend my money on your show trials.

  6. VennData says:

    Obama Restarts Bid to Close Guantanamo

    ​We have a perfectly good prison here in the US for them.

    The GOP is nuts with their, “See! he hasn’t kept his campaign promise to close it!!!” When THEY are the ones filibustering it and then laughingly claim on Fox news that “The president is doing what Bush did.. See, Bush was right..​.”

    Who are the suckers that fall for this? As a nation we need to tell the GOP to just shut up.

    GOP morons, realize this is our enemies number one recruiting tool. Take it away, we create fewer terrorists. (If you do not understand the preceding sentence, you are not necessarily dumb, just ignorant about the way the world works. Learn about the world before you vote again, as a favor to the sentient beings, K?)

  7. willid3 says:

    hm…just when does a social welfare organization cross the line from social…to politics?

    and why is political organizations tax free any way?

  8. RW says:

    Not really an investment topic but a very useful illustration of the difference between a moral or constitutional (majority rule) approach to policy/problem solving and an outcome-analytic approach.

    Rights, outcomes, and the Golden Rule in drug policy

    If you think of problem users and non-problem users as different people, it’s natural to ask which group’s interests ought to make way for the other’s. That seems to be a moral or constitutional question. But if you think of yourself as a potential user of a drug (or …the parent of a potential user), unable to know in advance whether your (or your child’s) use will remain controlled or will instead progress to dependency, and ask how much inconvenience in controlled use you want to sacrifice for protection against a bad habit, then you confront a practical problem rather than a moral one.

    NB: I would actually argue in this case that the “practical problem” has an ethical dimension because it implies consideration of Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance; i.e., what society would you want if there was a chance you would be born disadvantaged in it.