My morning reads:

• Separating Investment Advice From Financial Pornography (Huffington Post) see also Things Investors Should Read. Things Investors Should Avoid. (Motley Fool)
• More than $100 billion trapped in ‘zombie funds:’ industry data (Reuters)
• Just how bad is the EM sell-off? (FT Alphaville) see also Still got your money in emerging markets? Here’s what to worry about—and where (Quartz)
• When Bernanke Confounds, Wall Street Reaches for Theories (DealBook)
• The Properly-Formulated Bagehot Rule Has Four Parts (Brad DeLong)
• The Biggest Economic Mystery of 2013: What’s Up With Inflation? (Atlantic)
• The Food Lab: 7 Old Wives’ Tales About Cooking Steak That Need To Go Away (Serious Eats)
• Birthday Song’s Copyright Leads to a Lawsuit for the Ages (NYT)
• Waze Winners and Losers (Stratechery)
• This Is the End May Be the Greatest Stoner Movie Ever Made (io9)

What are you reading?


America Is Feeling a Bit Less Industrious
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 Friday AM Reads”

  1. Mike in Nola says:

    Sweden orders council to stop using Google Apps. The reason they are cheap is Google wants to suck up your data.

    At least MSFT only gives it to the NSA :)

  2. Mike in Nola says:

    But seriously, the NSA scandal could have serious implications for all US companies providing data services. The EU countries (although some, like the UK, practice data gorging themselves) aren’t going to appreciate the NSA doing it to their own citizens. At least not without their getting it.

    I believe the old Echelon project got around barriers against snooping on US citizens by allowing the UK to gather the data on US citizens and give it to the US government.

    • willid3 says:

      wonder shat happens to the safe harbor that the EU created for US companies? might disappear . and that upcoming trade deal with the EU might have issues getting done.

  3. farmera1 says:

    Would you choose Geithner or Yellen to head the FED when Ben cashes in his chips????

  4. GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

    To me, once data leaves my computer it’s analagous to a postcard. When I write a postcard, I’d prefer that people other than the recipient not read it, but there’s no real way to prevent them from doing so, other than the odds that other people don’t care enough to bother to read it.

    Ignoring the whole national security issue, there are any number of techs who need to access computer networks in such a way that they could, if they wished to violate company privacy policies, read my emails, etc. And of course there’s also hackers.

    Even more of an issue are all the data mining that goes on. I’ve locked down my cookies including the more hidden stuff that Adobe and others add in, and yet Google knows what websites I visit even after I delete their cookies. Obviously they’re tracking me in ways I can’t control, all in the name of “enhancing my user experience” while supposedly not giving this info to anyone except in aggregate ways. But the spam I get is targeted enough that someone is getting info from somewhere.

    There’s a reasonable debate about what personal information should be available to governments and to businesses. But at the moment, anyone who thinks that anything that goes through the web is protected unless they use encryption is misinformed.

  5. willid3 says:

    hm…the most disruptive new technologies to employment? and capitalism too? as most companies customers are workers some where.

    not sure that all of them are all that. either. as new energy storage (AKA batteries) will only make them more competitive with current forms. but then oil has a lot more usage than just energy. its also used in thing like drugs, and materials and more. so even if you could replace it totally with some thing else we would still need it.

  6. VennData says:

    These anti-NSA whackos are no different than people angry at the government when they told them to drive on one side of the road.

    Stop the government telling me what to do.
    I want to use the roads the way I want
    Why tell good drivers to drive on one side of the road

    When They NSA steals your family secrets and sells them to Australia , then go ahead an complain

  7. willid3 says:

    the top 1% may actually be noticing that things are going so well for the rest of us?

    • rd says:

      One of the reasons that I don’t think this thing is over yet, is the order of the wealthy has not been redefined yet. The secular bears usually end with many of the profligate wealthy bankrupt or severely diminished. To date, the governments and central banks have directed all of their actions to preserving these people. however, I don’t believe the political will to do this will be present in the next stage down and we will see more financial titans actually go down. The companies themselves will probably survive in altered form (like GM) but the individuals will not be made whole, unlike post 2008. It would be very difficult to get Congress today to agree to a TARP-deal today with similar benevolent terms. Even Jamie Dimon has used up much of his political and PR capital.

      There is still way too much confidence today that the financial system is sound while only the worst aspects were addressed in 2008-2009. most of the same players are still calling the shots.

  8. willid3 says:

    coming soon, more seats on airliners

    which probably means less leg room,

    wonder how long it will be till they have passengers almost standing up in their seats?

  9. rd says:

    A very annoying column by Brett Arends:

    Apparently, he has just discovered that 5% withdrawals from a 60/40 portfolio has had periods where the money disappeared in less than 20 years.

    Ummmm…Bill Bengen demonstrated this in 1994 and developed the 4% rule in a series of papers over the next few years for the financial return data set up to about 2000. With 2% long-bond rates and 2% dividend yields, we are probably in a more precarious position today than any time periods included in Bengen’s analyses, so that 4% is probably 2.5% to 3% for somebody retiring today.

    I had a much higher opinion of Brett Arends before this column. Financial journalism is in a very sorry state today.