Hope the weather has been good in your part of the world.

While you await your significant other to get ready to head out this evening, here are some reads to keep you busy:

• The Fed’s magic jobs number (Fortune)
• Gold – Has the ‘Narrative’ Failed? (Acting Man)
• Elizabeth Warren Tackles Wall Street (The Nation)
• Release of Pent-up 2Q 2013 Manhattan Sales Report (Miller Samuel Inc.)
• Why doesn’t Apple enable sustainable businesses on the app store? (Stratechery)
• The Answer is a Click Away: The Internet Era’s Great Placebo Effect (Medium) see also 4 Steps to Viral, Or How to Create Infographics That Blow up the Web (visual.ly)
• Pandora Paid Over $1,300 for 1 Million Plays, Not $16.89 (The Understatement) see also Pandora and Royalties (Pandora)
• The Immortal Life of the Enron E-mails (MIT Technology Review)
• Top Romney adviser calls for third party (Matt Miller) but see The Crazy Republican War on Food Stamps (Atlantic)
• Mariano Rivera: A Singular Pitcher (NYT)

Where are the good fireworks show tonight?

 

How Much Samsung is in Apple’s iPhones?
Chart
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.

4 Responses to “10 July Fourth PM Reads”

  1. Internet Tourettes says:

    US should press corrupt practices charges against Murdoch, says MP

    Murdoch says: “We’re talking about payments for news tips from cops. That’s been going on a hundred years, absolutely. You didn’t instigate it.”

    Bryant believes this is enough for the US authorities to act: “American law is much tougher than UK law: you don’t have to prove that a director knew it. The mere fact that a company engaged in paying public officials is enough to bring a body corporate charge … the charge can be brought because the directors did not have a governance system in place to stop it.”

    He said he had been told by the Met that they had been in talks with the FBI.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/04/rupert-murdoch-us-mp-fbi

  2. Herman Frank says:

    I didn’t want to withhold from you this gem which struck my eye “doing my reading”:

    …..there are many threats “but nothing is more dangerous than general ideas in empty heads …”

  3. Icouldabenacontendah says:

    Regarding Pater Tenebrarum on gold (Acting Man blog), I learned something noteworthy from reading the blog:

    BR has “democratic leanings.”

    Oh really! Reader beware, this means that BR has a predisposition to favor elected government that broadly reflects the will of the people, vs. …. what system do YOU favor?

    That’s what democratic with a small d means. And this is not arcana for the 32nd-degree initiate. I should think that small d/large D distinction is covered in any high school civics or government class, not to mention Poli Sci 101.

    However, if one assumes that he meant Democratic, it tells you a lot about the audience for which the good father of the shadows (his Latin blog moniker translated) writes. To be sure, he shows considerably more nuance — that is, some vs. none — compared with the faithful readers exemplified in his comment space. The latter should hardly be viewed as investors, and he doesn’t treat them as such. He expects them to be persuaded that they can ignore BR simply because he seems like a Democrat. Investment authorities do not address their readers that way. And besides, BR is hardly what one would call a diehard partisan.

    BR’s latest comments on the gold trade, as well as his less recent opinions, have been directed toward people that he assumes are investors. And if you follow him with any regularity, he always qualifies his views by acknowledging that no one knows for sure which way the market is headed and that he could be wrong.

    Some people made some very good moves by buying gold when its price dropped below $700/oz. in late 2008 or, say, in the $700 to $1,000 range through much of 2009. Even later purchases proved to be savvy over a considerable span. But these were good investments only if the buyers sold their gold holdings when they hovered way above their purchase price — at $1,900 if they were lucky, but even at prices well below that. If you bought at $680, $900 or $1,200, why are you still holding onto it?

    One can make a case that an intractable long-term uncertainly about monetary affairs means that you should hold a small portion of your portfolio in gold, maybe 5% at the outside. But an investor at least would have taken profits when the holding swelled to 7%, 8% or 10% of the portfolio. I see scant evidence that Pater Tenebrarum is writing for that type of audience or that such audience, as shown by the comments, is the least bit disposed toward that investor discipline.

    His resort to ad hominem attack, calling BR’s reference to “yellow-metal jihadists and other assorted suckers” racist and elitist is yet more indication that he is not interested in persuasion with empirical evidence. BR’s words were neither racist nor elitist, unless you are playing the phony victim card by labeling any opposition to goldbuggism as elitist. No, BR just came up with a rather colorful caricature of unspecified remaining gold bulls. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to agree with it. But please explain why they don’t deserve such a label instead of hurling epithets because of a bit of hyperbole.

    When you look at gold’s spectacular drop, what is the purpose of attacking the position that the secular bull market in gold is over? How is the claim outlandish if you look at a chart pattern such as gold’s? Yes, the outcome is uncertain at some level, but it’s like arguing that a baseball team with a 12-1 lead is not routing its opponent. What is the compulsion to argue against that? If gold someday soars back above $1,900 or scales $2,000, after dipping below $1,000, it won’t prove that you were a good investor to have held it throughout the last several years and continue to hold it until that next breakout.

    BR has spoken on numerous occasions of people who have made gold ownership a kind of religion. Pater Tenebrarum’s blog seems to reflect just that kind of mindset.