My morning reads:

• How to Understand What the Fed Says (Bloomberg) see also 5 Ideas to Help You Read Bernanke’s Mind (Fiscal Times)
• On what really is different this time around (FT Alphaville)
Is this a good thing? Quant Trading Comes to Main Street (Fortune)
• How’s that “End-of-the-World’ Trade working out for ya? (The Reformed Broker)
• Bond Investors Head for the Hills (WSJ) see also Making the Case for a Rise in Inflation (NYT)
Krueger: Sequester Cuts Hurting Key Research (Washington Wire)
• CBO’s Case for Immigration: $197 Billion Cut in U.S. Deficit (Daily Beast)
• CBO: Senate Immigration Bill Would Increase Population, Decrease Deficits Over 10 Years (Talking Points Memo)
• You’re Too Cheap to Fly Faster (Medium)
• Eliminating stupidity is easier than creating brilliance (Sabermetric Research) see also 3 Pieces Of Advice I’d Give My 18-Year-Old Self If I Could (Thought Catalog)

What are you reading?

 

Price to Earnings Ratio (PE Ratio) from 1900 to Present
Chart
Source: Chart of the Day

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.

15 Responses to “10 Mid-Week AM Reads”

  1. willid3 says:

    top 100 polluters?
    http://www.peri.umass.edu/greenhouse100/

    seems like the most bang for your buck would be to find a way to generate electricity without creating huge amounts of pollution. and why is the US government number 4 on the list? maybe its the TVA?

  2. willid3 says:

    how monopolies made spying easier?
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/why-monopolies-make-spying-easier.html?mbid=social_retweet

    not noted but also important, because companies collect the data (mostly for marketing) it also helps, otherwise there wouldnt be any thing to collect now would there? the other problem was that companies long ago claimed this data as their own, which means its not yours, so there is no constitutional protection of the data. if they hadn’t done that, it would have been protected, but then they wouldnt own the data. and what was noted in the link, i didnt know that western union (who had a monopoly on early communications) actually was one of the early electronic spies, and who helped a party win an election by doing so (also did to for economic gain too). hm. wonder if the phone companies aren’t doing that too?

  3. Francisco Bandres de Abarca says:

    “Eliminating stupidity . . .”. That right there was my morning chuckle. Thanks!

    What am I reading this morning? Chanced upon this story when checking up on the Pacific region:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8817353/Spaghetti-eating-driver-in-fatal-crash

    Heck. And I thought trying to eat a Big Mac while driving was a generally bad idea.

  4. RW says:

    The author of the FT Alphaville article quotes Krugman generously from his latest blog entry but still misreads the direction of his thinking IMO (admittedly Krugman’s thinking doesn’t appear to have gone very far on this topic …yet).

    She summarizes Krugman by saying, “In short this time may be different because the economy is changing from a material growth economy to a knowledge economy.”

    Umm, no. Krugman appears to be probing the idea that extracting rents from intangibles is where the real profit in business increasingly lies and, eo ipso, a police force probably becomes more critical than a market force in that regard; e.g., protection of licensing, copyright, brand, etc elides into active governmental support of monopoly.

  5. theexpertisin says:

    Eliminating stupidity is an interesting concept.

    Perhaps we could start with eliminating those who believe that any individual who has a different view from their own is stupid.

  6. nofoulsontheplayground says:

    Rosenberg (courtesy of Business Insider) “Here’s the Chart that Predicts Recessions Without Fail”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/measure-predicts-recessions-without-fail-2013-6

    Key sentence: We will start to get worried then when it breaks below 75 (it is now 96) as it did in August 2007, December 2000, and May 1990 — all gave us 2-4 months of prepatory time ahead of the fact.

  7. willid3 says:

    would you believe that business majors are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than any other graduate?
    http://www.businessinsider.com/business-majors-most-underemployed-graduates-2013-6

    seems to be case

  8. rd says:

    We are just focused on stabilizing the world’s financial system. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-america-ordered-us-to-lie-ex-workers-say-2013-06-19

  9. rd says:

    Eliminating stupidity is easier than creating brilliance

    Clearly this author has not spent much time working with regulators or school boards.

  10. Anonymous Jones says:

    Huh…

    I guess I should have expected more chatter on the “eliminating stupidity” link than the “three pieces of advice” link.

    But, wow, that “three pieces of advice” link is the opposite of wise.

    “Spend your time and money on things that make your life better, rather than things that make you feel good.” What does that even mean? What is better? I like feeling good. This is the type of intertemporal mismanagement those who like to “save for good” at all times perpetuate. They are like the people who save that special bottle of wine and never drink it until well after the peak. I’m glad I traveled in my mid-20s rather than waiting until my 50s. Let me tell you. I’ve traveled at both ages. It’s not the same.

    “If I could have back all of the thousands of hours I spent playing video games alone, I could have learned several languages, built several businesses, saved a fortune, become a killer guitar player, and built the body of a Roman demigod.” WHY WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN BETTER? He’s presupposing that life (after gaining these attributes) would be better (even though he’d have sacrificed want he really wanted to do, even though tomorrow was never promised to him). Let me propose that it would only have been better if he enjoyed doing those things that left him with these attributes.

    I happen to be on the “workaholic” end of the spectrum, but that’s what *I* enjoy. Not what everyone else enjoys. I don’t just work to improve tomorrow, I work because I get satisfaction from it today.

    Maybe I’m taking too much from what he says with my own personal bias, and I do completely understand that one must balance the carpe diem of today with the prudent planning of tomorrow, but seriously, you want to tell your child this? To get an “ROI” on his time, without understanding that consumption should also be a big part of his youth? Ugh. Let me give that poor kid some advice: ENJOY YOUR YOUTH. YOU WILL NEVER GET IT BACK. AND YOU WILL NEVER ENJOY THE WORLD AS FULLY AS YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE HEALTHY, ENERGETIC, AND IGNORANT.

    The second one, I have no problem with.

    But the third? “Don’t work for someone else”? What planet does he live on??? It wouldn’t be WORK if it wasn’t for someone else. You *always* work for someone else! I’ve been blessed enough to eliminate most of the middle men between me and the ultimate consumer of what I produce, but I would never want to have lost the valuable experience that many of the previous “traditional bosses” have given me either. What a bizarre and unproductive way to view the world. You want to achieve satisfaction? Do things that please other people. You are always “working for someone else”. I want to go save this kid. I know he’s supposedly ignoring his father from the coda of the piece, but this insidious advice is certainly preying on his mind and probably going to lead him to much worse mistakes than his father made.