My by-the-time-you-read-this,-I’ll-be-in-the-Hamptons afternoon reads:

Important discussion on how shareholders are getting robbed: Owner Earnings (Seeking Wisdom)
• How Money Actually Buys Happiness (HBR)
• Golden Troubles (Joe Tax Payer) see also Bear market in gold pummels Einhorn’s Greenlight fund (Reuters)
• Why Doesn’t Apple Enable Sustainable Businesses on the App Store (Stratechery)
• Full Employment: The Big Missing Piece (Economix) see also Is There Hope for Recent College Grads? (WSJ)
• What’s Wrong with Technological Fixes? (Boston Review)
• As Bond Market Tumbles, Pimco Seeks to Reassure Investors (DealBook) see also Coercive Monetization (Gamasutra)
• Acts of Journalism and the Espionage Act (boing boing) see also Secret-court judges upset at portrayal of ‘collaboration’ with government (Washington Post)
• Dark Money Group Spent on House Race, Then Told IRS It Didn’t (ProPublica)
• Lou Reed Loves Kanye West’s Yeezus (Talkhouse)

What are you reading?


Weak Links Mar Investing in China
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.

5 Responses to “10 Tuesday PM Reads”

  1. Internet Tourettes says:

    “The Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday to raise the amount of capital that big banks must hold to prevent their collapse and reduce the threat they pose to the broader financial system……”

    “Fed officials also signaled Tuesday that they are considering moving forward on even tougher standards for the nation’s largest banks.”

    “He said there were four rules being considered that would increase capital requirements for eight big banking organizations that have been identified as having global systemic importance. This group includes Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.”

  2. frodo1314 says:

    From: Dark Money Spent on House Race, Then Told IRS It Didn’t:

    “Such social welfare nonprofits are not supposed [11] to have political campaign activity as their primary purpose — but the ambiguities around how the IRS measures such activity and how it screens the groups are at the center of the recent investigations [12] of the IRS’s treatment of Tea Party groups.”

    Um, no dumbasses, what’s at the center of the investigations is how both sides do this, yet only one side was being harassed by the IRS. But of course if you only read liberal publications, you’ll only get the one side of the story. Why should I expect anything else here.

    • RW says:

      We all need to do a better job of keeping up than the average dumbass, eh?

      Darrell Issa and the overblown scandals by Dana Milbank

      This is how a scandal implodes:

      First, the head of the investigation overpromises. “This was a targeting of the president’s political enemies, effectively, and lies about it during the election year so that it wasn’t discovered until afterwards,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House oversight committee, said in May of the IRS targeting scandal. He later declared President Obama’s press secretary a “paid liar” for stating otherwise.

      Next, facts emerge to undermine the investigator’s presuppositions. Documents released by Ways and Means committee Democrats this week show that the IRS, in addition to targeting tea party groups, also had “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) lists for groups using descriptors such as “progressive,” “health care legislation,” “medical marijuana,” “paying national debt” and “green energy.”

      Finally, evidence surfaces that the investigator stacked the deck. Tuesday night, the Hill newspaper quoted a spokesman for Treasury’s inspector general, Russell George, saying the group was asked by Issa “to narrowly focus on tea party organizations.” The inspectors knew there were other terms, but “that was outside the scope of our audit.”

  3. theexpertisin says:

    The move today by the Obama administration to postpone the mandated coverage aspect of the Affordable Care Act directed at business until 2015 was a master political stroke.

    One major hurdle off the table for the 2014 mid term elections.

    You have to admire the political genius of the regime.

  4. RW says:

    Tougher Regulation of Bank Leverage Will Be Costly To Banks, Not To You

    …Normal businesses simply can’t finance themselves with 3 percent capital and 97 percent debt. The interest rates would get exorbitant. The ability of banks to profitably finance themselves with that much debt reflects the availability of direct and indirect guarantees of bank debt, from the FDIC coverage of your checking account up to TARP and beyond. It is true that it will be costly to American banks to need to compete with European banks that are receiving a higher level of subsidy. But that’s not the same as saying it’s costly to the American people. American citizens will actually be the indirect beneficiaries of European governments’ largess.

    The question then becomes whether the United States has a kind of strategic interest in building up high finance as a global export industry. For much of the 1990s and 2000s era, I think that was the implicit goal of American financial regulation policy. But in retrospect, it didn’t turn out so well for us and the countries that were even more deeply invested in that model (think: UK, Ireland, Iceland) are doing even worse. I say it’s time to turn away from that path …

    NB: Neglected to complete the link above; this one works Darrell Issa and the overblown scandals by Dana Milbank