My afternoon train reads:

• Bond Wars (Pimco) but see No, Bill, losing money on bonds is not like dying at the Somme (FT Alphaville)
• Confessions of an Institutional Investor (The Reformed Broker)
• The Tragedy of Errors (Above the Market)
• The Elephant In The (Money Management) Room (Capital Spectator) see also Sweeping changes under way at DFA (Investment News)
• Sorry, It’s Not A ‘Law Of Capitalism’ That You Pay Your Employees As Little As Possible (Business Insider)
• 5 signs Wall Street’s zombie apocalypse is at hand (MarketWatch)
Medical Tourism: The Growing Popularity of Having Surgery Overseas (NYT)
• Conservatives once ridiculed Ayn Rand (Salon)
• How can we preserve the software of today for historians of tomorrow? (Slate)
• An Apple History Nerd’s Take on the Jobs Movie (Technologizer)

What are you reading?

 

Facebook vs US Treasuries
Chart
Source: Bespoke

 

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.

9 Responses to “10 Thursday PM Reads”

  1. DeDude says:

    You kind of have to emphazise with commenters on that “MarketWatch” story. The guy is attacking zombies with his own zombies. He refutes the concept of “cash on the sideline” and “bonds to stock rotation” with an argument that only holds if cash was hard money gold coins. In reality money is created right out of thin air every day or destroyed, all depending on whether stocks go up or go down, and what is exchanged between the Fed and the banks. The best spin you can give it is that if this guy really is interpreting the concept of “cash on the sidelines” as folks sitting with little gold coins in their hands, then he needs to be beamed back a few centuries.

  2. Angryman1 says:

    One problem with modern day fiscal “belief” is the government spends to much.

    I disagree, the government spends to wrongly and that is influenced by the wealthy rentier class. IMO, since the early-mid 90′s(and really going back to the 80′s in full), fiscal injections have been to small. Instead we got government spending on tax cuts and 9-11 war mongering while real government spending toward investment was slashed. The former especially, benefited the rentiers.

    Another mistake was taking the Y2K generated surpluses and using them as tax cuts or in the big 2000 surplus’s case, “paying down the debt”. That was contractionary in nature. Instead, those surpluses should have been spent on improving America’s infrastructure which would have reduced the long term debt burden.

    Americans must learn they are spending to much on rentier policies and not enough nationally. Gutting social welfare and further investment isn’t going to solve that. The nominal debt may fall but nominal growth will fall as well making any real “gains” of the budget fictionary.

  3. VennData says:

    Racist taunts at Obama should worry us all

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/opinion/whitaker-obama-arizona-race/index.html

    No they shouldn’t.

    These are fringe idiots who hurt their political party, hurt their causes, and are laughed at, mocked, ridiculed. They are on Facebook, Linkiedin, their pictures published everywhere. Their ancestors will be shamed, the way the all the GOP who are stridently fighting Obamacare will be jokes of their day.

    • S Brennan says:

      Okay, I’ll bite. You think those* who oppose Obamacare are as bad as a Jim Crow lynch mob…please explain?

      *I’m one, I think a bare bones Medicare for all…independent of employment is FAR BETTER…and NO, Obamacare preserves the status quo, it prevents reform of the worst** healthcare delivery system in the world.]

      **Bang/buck

  4. Concerned Neighbour says:

    Arends is correct, and is it ever refreshing to see this stupidity finally outed in a major publication. For every buyer there is a seller. As some of the comments to that article correctly grasped, supply and demand impact the price at which transactions occur, not how much money is on the sidelines.

    New stock issues can bring money off the sidelines. Buying stock on the secondary market can not.

    Increasing stock prices increases the amount of money in the stock market, but has no bearing on the amount of money on the sidelines.

  5. RW says:

    Sorry, real tax reform does not require ‘balance,’ it requires clarity, reason, fairness and a sense of history.

    Threatening to “Reform” the EITC

    …I’m careful not to shoot everything that moves, but the more I hang around the DC tax debate, the more I’m exposed to deeply misguided thinking that seems largely motivated by the conviction that poor people—in this case, the working poor—have too much money and the wealthy have too little.

    NB: Arguments along the lines that being fair or serious means being balanced and, by extension, that everyone has sinned pretty much equally (even when they obviously have not AKA false equivalence) I think of two aphorisms, the first from Anatole France, the second from Hanna Arendt:

    “How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!”

    “Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.”

  6. d_dd says:

    In reply to: Sorry, It’s Not A ‘Law Of Capitalism’ That You Pay Your Employees As Little As Possible

    Adam Smith:
    “We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate [...] Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people”. In contrast, when workers combine, “the masters [...] never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.”

    • The more ironic comment would have been to point out that most of the content farms pay slave wages

      • d_dd says:

        Yes, but isn’t it interesting to go back and read some of the economic greats.

        Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics – collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a proletariat that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism (The Magical World Where McDonald’s Pays $15 an Hour)

        Thank you for the wonderful thought provoking blog.