My afternoon train reading:

• Bear Hunting (FT Alphaville) see also Where are the global growth optimists? (FT Alphaville)
• Stock Tribes (Reformed Broker)
• Funds of hedge funds recast dismal model (FT) see also Being Wrong Works at Scale…Hedge Funds and Bank of America (Howard Lindzon)
• Which CEO Will Be Next to Talk Down His Own Stock? (Yahoo)
• Fed Balance Sheet Not Seen Returning to Normal Until at Least 2019 (WSJ) but see Hilsenrath: December Taper Not Off the Table (WSJ)
• The App Store Era’s Biggest Winners And Losers (Splat F)
• How You Subsidize the Minimum Wage (Motley Fool)
• A New View of the Corporate Income Tax (Economix)
• Out of this world: Britain’s ‘top scientist’ Martin Rees says our brains may not yet have evolved sufficiently to unlock the secrets of the cosmos (FT)
• Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds Did Not Touch Off a Nationwide Hysteria. Few Americans Listened. Even Fewer Panicked. (Slate)

Whats up with that?


Why Are Taxpayers Subsidizing Wealthy Companies?

Source: Motley Fool

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.

13 Responses to “10 Midweek PM Reads”

  1. mmahon04 says:

    Long time reader, first time poster. Your chart at the bottom was reminded me of my long form read of today (CNN, surprisingly enough):

  2. Maybe this will have better luck than the “Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle,” which after development costs of nearly $300 million was recently sold back to the contractor for $301,000.

    “The metal suit the Pentagon wants would be all but impervious to bullets and shrapnel, and be able to continuously download and display live video feeds from overhead drones.”

    U.S. military wants to create ‘Iron Man suit’ (LATimes)

    • ilsm says:

      Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) Is an aerostat. This one does not have connections! $300M does not create many connections.

      Another US Army Aerostat (this one tethered) program, Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) was supposed to track, fix and provide data to shoot down cruise missiles and other low flying threats on the “battlefield”. Its development cost: through FY2011 was $1.9B (summed budget dollars spent from then to complete development another $.7B in R&D money was planned). Connections come in the billion $ range.

      The Army, had planned “productions” 16 sets, is walking, the “development” model which passed some tests in Utah, consists of twin blimps; one carrying a “search” and the other carrying an “imaging” radar along with its ground system maybe be deployed to defend the DC beltway from low flying and ground “threats”.

      At roughly a billion for each blimp the operating costs could be $80M a year for high paid contractor support.

      In comparison F-35 has cost nearly $88B for R&D and has not passed much of anything. Money talks!

  3. willid3 says:

    banks and mobsters????? any surprises there?
    and of course we had one comment that banks shouldn’t have to pay such fines. guess who made that? and what else they did?

  4. willid3 says:

    not just ‘visionaries’ talk their own companies. as Fiat has shown in the Chrysler IPO

  5. willid3 says:

    maybe i am just cynical. but it seems that every time corporations want to cut their taxes, or other costs (benefits any one?) they say that employees are the ones that would gain from doing so. now why in the world would they do that/ it would make them much more profitable (and its not like some dont already pay no taxes at all!). and they get a tax credit from paying employees. or for benefits. so that is already cutting their taxes, it just not applied to their profits. sort of like when some advocated taking away the tax benefits for employee benefits, that employees would benefit because their pay would go up. not sure why any one would think that.

  6. Concerned Neighbour says:

    Aside from the transparent fundamentals-be-damned pumping from central banks, perhaps stocks are also increasing because the 1% – those that can afford to speculate in this no-price-discovery environment – believe the government is so beholden to big business that small and medium-sized businesses will never be allowed to challenge them, thus justifying the current very high profit margins going forward indefinitely.

  7. Bob A says:

    Why are UK ratepayers being locked into excessive subsidies for new nuclear?

  8. RW says:

    Call me cruel and unfeeling but I’d rather see a dozen Citi’s broken up into parts (along with their CEO’s) and every coal/oil producer lose their megabuck subsidies rather than cut a single penny from NASA or any other science/tech program extant. Just say’n.

    Mars Flyover

  9. winstongator says:

    Much global growth will be driven my the middle-classification of the BRICs, mainly China. Consider, a worker in China assembling iPhones is less ‘productive’ than an American worker assembling cheeseburgers at a fast-food restaurant. (Average factory wage in China $1.35/hr, well below minimum wage in the US). Chinese productivity has too far to rise to even get to half US productivity, that plenty of growth will flow from there.

    I would be all for higher capital gains and dividends taxes to offset the corporate income tax. Throw in more aggressive estate taxation, and corporations would be effectively taxed. At some point, we have to tax people, right? Plus, the tax avoidance by corporations is terrible. Trouble is, no Democrat would put forward a reduction in the corporate tax, while no Republican would increase taxes on cap-gains & dividends (let alone the ‘death’ tax – said in my scariest Halloween voice)

  10. winstongator says:

    Is it surprising that someone writing about GM’s bankruptcy and restructuring would focus on the brilliance of his own plan? As a commenter there pointed out, w/o Obama, GM might not get the funding it needed for any plan to work.

    Saying Wagoner was brilliant because he guided a particular plan that worked is short-sighted. He was CEO for 8 years before the crisis. Where were the fuel efficient vehicles? He also had been at GM long enough that to absolve him from what was pushing them to their problems is not accurate.

    Any commentary on GM needs to highlight 2 things: a comparison to how Ford weathered the storm, and the importance of the government assistance. There will be other situations like this, I’d rather have companies go the Ford way of being ready for it, but also want a government willing to step in when needed.