My Sunday morning reads:

• Some Stock Bulls Tread Lightly Into 2014 (WSJ) see also Economist Robert Shiller is waving a warning flag on stock valuations. Some call his methods misleading (WSJ)
• Surveys of retirement spending (Bogleheads)
• BlackRock: JPMorgan settlement undermines mortgages (Housing Wire) see also $13 Billion, Yes, but What Took So Long? (NYT)
• ETF Investors Ignore Growth Stocks  (Barron’s)
• How Do You Make Money Off Stolen Art? (Priceonomics)
• Blame the NSA, not Facebook and Google (USA Today)
• A War Over Solar Power Is Raging Within the GOP (New Republic) see also How Much Do Americans Blame Washington for Their Economic Woes? – Emma Green (The Atlantic)
• Are Bitcoins the Criminal’s Best Friend? (Bloomberg)
• There’s a Whole New Way of Killing Cancer (Esquire)
• You Can’t Take a Bullet for Someone Hollywood-Style, Because Physics (Scientific American)

What is for brunch?

 

Democrats Rein In Senate Filibusters

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.

12 Responses to “10 Sunday AM Reads”

  1. theexpertisin says:

    Perhaps the large amount of nominees dissed by the Republicans before Senate Democrats changed the rules was due more to the strident ideology of the nominees President Obama often selects rater than more centrist choices, as a whole, submitted for confirmation by his predecessors.

    We expect Presidents to nominate friends and common political bedfellows. We should not expect expect nominees off the ideological charts that throw common practices of consent between the branches of government into a pissing match. Bork in the Reagan years was good example of a nominee off the charts. Examples in the Obama pipeline of nominees are more numerous.

    It is a moot point now, for the worse.

    • RW says:

      There were no Republican senators who dissed the nominees — they apparently agreed, at least tacitly, that they were well qualified — what they claimed was that the court didn’t need the empty positions filled and what they dissed was Obama’s right to nominate anyone.

      As to the rest, viz “examples in the Obama pipeline of nominees are more numerous,” this might be a trifle more persuasive if you named a couple and gave an example of how each was “off the charts.”

    • Iamthe50percent says:

      Man what are you smoking? Obama is the most right wing Democratic President ever and his nominees are all business suck-ups.

    • Low Budget Dave says:

      Expert:

      As you say, no one expects the President to appoint enemies to positions of power. But you are incorrect when you say that Obama is more biased than any other President has ever been.

      During 2102, for example, Obama had a series of circuit court appointments the even Republicans agreed were bipartisan success stories. Bacharach, Srinivasan, Phillips, Kelly and Chen were approved by a combined vote of 472 to zero. If these were partisan hacks, why did every single Republican Senator vote for confirmation? (Are you saying that every single Republican in the Senate is a shrinking violet who can be bullied into accepting unqualified ideologues?)

      President Bush used the power to great effect, with 94% of his judicial nominees confirmed. The Bush league includes every bit as many (and by voting standards, more) partisan lightning-rods. By common definition, Obama has been less likely to appoint partisan extremists, and yet has had only about 76% of his appointments confirmed.

      In short, the statements you are making are easily disproven.

  2. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Are Bitcoins the Criminal’s Best Friend?

    Interesting article.

    It fails to address, however, the vast quantity of our currency that has been counterfeited by these same “criminals.” Why smuggle, at risk, what you can manufacture at a fraction of the cost? There is a reason our money keeps changing (the $10 bill is now, demonstrably, an “Orangeback”).

    The article also brings into question the definition of the word ‘criminal’.

    Nowadays, one should clarify whether one is referring to legitimate criminals (those gaming the system under the color of law, via regulatory/legislative capture and/or lobbying and/or by generating fiat dollars to back out-of-control fractional reserve lending; or by being Clarence Thomas or his wife, for example), or their arch-enemies/BFFs — the illegitimate criminals (those with underworld cash, and the attendant (fire)power that comes with it).

    I have a feeling that if the “monies” were followed, it would quickly become apparent that the two kinds of criminals are giving one another a rogering/reach-around, on a regular and alternating basis (as the article points out — banking profits from handling drug deal money is already a given).

    If Bitcoins allow anonymous ownership and transfer of wealth, it won’t be long until the banks start trading fiat for them (watch out Cayman Islands), or TPTB set out to utterly destroy them (the “War on Bitcoins” sounds about right).

  3. Mbuna says:

    Re: Blame the NSA, not Google…. If you look at who wrote the article, he is fundamentally employed by Google. Additionally he a member of a think tank, who’s chairman is Eric Schmidt. At this point I don’t care what the content of the article is because it clearly is by the Google, for the Google and of the Google.

  4. RW says:

    Shoot, hope I don’t have to close that account in Provence.

    FATCA Agreement with France

    On November 14, the US Treasury Department announced that it had signed an agreement with France relating to the implementation of the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) law. That makes the 10th such agreement signed between the US and other countries to date …

  5. Moss says:

    It is amusing to watch the convoluted GOP stance over the Economics and public opinion of Renewable Energy. They must somehow tie the logic of supporting it to some ideological pillar. Another thing they are on the wrong side of.

  6. hue says:

    NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software (nrc.nl)

    Snowden offers to fix healthcare.gov (Borowitz)

    When I threw my boyfriend in front of a car (Salon)

    • Petey Wheatstraw says:

      When I threw my boyfriend in front of a car (Salon)

      Screw Margaritas — somebody needs a valium.

  7. rd says:

    A thought on the cloture motions:

    It used to be that nominees were nearly all older white guys. Occasionally, some real diversity would show up like younger white guys or a different religion (JFK had to prove that being a Catholic was ok if you will be President). Most of them had gone to the same school, studies the same subjects, went to the same parties, and lived in the same communities. Even the famous example of Robert Bork was an older white guy getting Borked.

    Once the impact of the Brown vs B.of Ed., Civil Rights Act, Title IX, etc. hit home in the 70s and 80s, we started getting other people who didn’t look or act like the familiar older white guys graduating from university and showing up on the docket a few years later. This appears to have really raised the level of stress in the nominating process in the 1990s and 2000s. There are just so many things to object to by so many people about so many candidates. The number of cloture motions have been rising steadily over the past 30 years although it is possible we may have reached a plateau since so many nominees have been hung up in the process that it is hard to imagine a lot more getting stalled.

  8. ninaforrest says:

    Barry, The cancer article in Esquire was amazing. Thanks for all the terrific, diverse articles you share.