Good Friday morning. Here are my end-of-the-week, Hey! its a 3 day weekend reads:

• How to Detect a Market Bubble (FT) see also 3 signs that stocks cost too much (MarketWatch)
• How Washington Beat Wall Street (Politico)
• Retail store traffic has fallen, and may just stay that way (WSJ) see also A First Look at the Target Intrusion, Malware (Krebs on Security)
• Noah: Why Economics Gets a Bad Rap (The Week)

 

Continues here

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 Friday AM Reads”

  1. hue says:

    How Isaac Newton went flat broke chasing a stock bubble (soveReign man)

    Cash Or Credit? How Kids Pay For School Lunch Matters For Health (NPR)

    Kindle Fuhrer: Adolf’s Ebook Gold Mein (vocativ)

  2. Why does this no longer surprise me . . . ?

    Four Questionable Claims Obama Has Made on NSA Surveillance (ProPublica)

    goo.gl/tLMD8W

  3. Robert M says:

    IN BR’s business this doesn’t matter but for the domestic economy as a wholeone has to wonder what the results of this will mean when the economic cycle is no longer extended by QE for these folks; The Growth of College Grads in Dead-End Jobs (In 2 Graphs)

  4. Jim says:

    best nugget I’ve read today:
    “assent bias: Human beings tend to believe whatever we hear unless we make an affirmative effort to question it. As a result, our heads naturally accumulate intellectual junk. The obvious remedy is to try harder to “take out the trash” – or refuse to accept marginal ideas in the first place.”

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/the_discipline.html

  5. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    Three more views on internet security…

    Target credit card data was sent to a server in Russia (computerworld.com) “The data was quietly moved around on Target’s network before it was sent to a US server, then to Russia… ”

    Fighting China’s Military a Daily Task for US Companies (theepochtimes.com) “Economic espionage is the dirty underbelly of globalization. Nation-states—particularly China—steal intellectual property from U.S. companies at an extraordinary pace. And they don’t just use computer hacking to do so: insider spies plant hidden audio devices in light switches, or retrofit smoke detectors with audio and video feeds. The idea that businesses need to fend off attacks from heavily equipped nation-states makes it “An unfair game … not a balanced fight,” said Michael Oberlaender, the principal security strategist Cisco Systems in the United States….”

    Hackers And Spambots Are Going After Your Fridges and Smart TVs Now (techcrunch.com) “…Example A: according to a new study by security firm Proofpoint, hackers have already started crackin’ away at smart appliances in hopes of further expanding their zombie spambot armies. Between December 26th, 2013 and January 6th, 2014, Proofpoint says they detected upwards of 750,000 spam emails being sent from over 100,000 compromised routers, multimedia centers, smart TVs, and, in one case, a smart fridge….”

  6. willid3 says:

    that new Target mess? seems like a repeat of an old one

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/target-hack/

    from 2005.

    repeat repeat rinse….and repeat some more?

    seems that the way police interrogate can lead to false confessions.

    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/hephzibah-lords-challenge-of-dallas-police-interrogation-underscores-debunked-techniques.html/

  7. RW says:

    Noah Smith is my kind of snotty kid but his article doesn’t cut it even as an apologia for ‘microeconomics’ much less an argument that macroeconomics (and macroeconomists) are the logical targets for torching and pitchforking

    First, a significant swath of microeconomics is itself strongly dependent upon priors established in macroeconomics. As John Quiggin points out: “…standard neoclassical microeconomics is itself a macroeconomic theory in the sense that it’s derived from a general equilibrium model as a whole. The standard GE model takes full employment …as given, and derives a whole series of fundamental results from this. Conversely, if the economy can exhibit sustained high unemployment, there must be something badly wrong with standard neoclassical microeconomics. …with respect to labour economics, finance theory, public economics and industrial organization. None of the standard conclusions of these fields of microeconomics can be assumed to be valid under conditions of sustained high unemployment.

    The second issue is more subtle and prevalent in many disciplines including the field of economics writ large. As a commenter at Thoma’s blog phrases it: “Economics deals with choices people make in response to their perceptions of circumstances. It doesn’t deal with mechanical causal relations. Yet the discourse of economists obsessively reverts to inappropriately axiomatic formulations …”

    A comment in the same thread cites Ruma Falk’s Probabilistic Reasoning is not Logical which points out (from the abstract) “… probabilistic inferences are sometimes subject to the same rules as logical involvement and some other times they diverge from them. Though applying the logical rules to inferences under uncertainty may often be …expedient, it is wrong in principle and it may incur faulty conclusions in important situations.

    In short, there is no evidence that microeconomics (however it is defined) deals any more successfully with ambiguity than macroeconomics does; it may be better at masking ambiguity behind its conventions however.

    NB: What we really need is a calculus of fuzziness, a mathematics that avoids mechanical rules in the project of describing and analyzing the ambiguity or incompleteness which is the normal lot of the living.