Good snowy morning. Here are my weather-delayed commuting reading materials:

• Private Investment and the Business Cycle (Calculated Risk), see also Recession’s True Cost Is Still Being Tallied (NY Times)
• Decision making under uncertainty (O’Reilly Radar)
• UBS at Davos: ‘Technology will save the day’ (FT Alphaville), see also Macro problems, micro solutions (PDF) (UBS)
• Managing Risk In A Mature Bull Market (Ciovacco Capital)

 

Continues here

Category: Markets

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 Midweek AM Reads”

  1. hue says:

    The Politics of Smack Talk (Esquire)

    Since the PC has been pronounced dead again at the CES, here are a few other things on death row:

    The Last Days of the Internet of Everything (Techpinions)

    The Next Big Thing You Missed: Email’s About to Die, Argues Facebook Co-Founder (Wired)

    The Death of Expertise (The Federalist)

    The Fanboy story is great, but I’m still reading that layout, effort to scroll to the beginning

  2. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    What you see. (imgur.com)

    What a geologist sees. (imgur.com)

  3. Feinstein and especially Rogers are shills for the NSA . . . these talking heads regularly appear on the Sunday news shows and make claims regarding Snowden without providing a shred of evidence. Sheer smear to turn the focus on Snowden . . . and away from the NSA.

    Snowden denies receiving assistance from Russian intelligence with NSA leaks (WAPO)

    http://goo.gl/G1enSY

  4. “Young adults are significantly more supportive than their elders of Edward Snowden and his leaks of classified details of the National Security Agency’s telephone and internet surveillance programs, a new Pew Research Center/USA TODAY survey finds.”

    Most young Americans say Snowden has served the public interest (Pew Research)

    http://goo.gl/sJAaSa

  5. rd says:

    Re: Five Big Questions

    In general a good article. A couple of things though:

    1. This reporter along with many others equate regulation and inspection; however, they are not the same thing. A regulation requires that an entity do or refrain from doing specific things. Inspections are an enforcement tool of those regulations. Freedom Industries had a regulatory requirement and a common law duty duty to provide adequate containment and secondary containment. They were responsible to build it, inspect it, and maintain it regardless if anybody from a regulatatory agency showed up to look or not. Industry is always complaining about onerous inspections and how disruptive they are; the way to reduce the need for inspeactions is for industry to actually do what the Chicago School says their rational thinking tells them they should be doing, namely, not allowing spills because the consequences are so big that they can destroy your company. Spills like this inform the general public that industry is not looking out for its own, or their, long term interests and therefore they should be regulated more heavily and inspected more frequently.

    2. Chemicals are kind of like financial derivatives. There are numerous individual ones and more being created all the time. They can be grouped into general different categories by characteristics and purpose. From there, it takes a tremendous amount of work to figure out all of their attributes and risks. Nobody figured out all components and attributes of the various tranches of the various sub-prime CDOs in 2006 and nobody is figuring out all of the toxicity and carcinogenic characteristics of all of the chemicals. That is why there are fundamental universal rules in place for transport, containment, and handling procedures for these chemicals even if their properties are somewhat unknown. This is no different than having basic financial rules regarding disclosure, leverage, and limitations on who can own specific categories of risky assets. The financial sector blew itself up in 2008 by trying to skirt those basic rules (either principles or specific regulations) and Freedom just blew itself up by skirting the basic chemical containment rules and principles. You don’t need to know much about the chemical if it is actually transported ,stored, and handled appropriately. You only need to know details about it if you release it into the general population which is a place everybody cwaqn safely assume it should not be.

    It’s not difficult to do the right thing. You just have to want to do it.

  6. willid3 says:

    more out sourcing of government work?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/georgias-debtors-prisons-belong-in-a-dickens-novel/283204/

    supposedly to save money? or was it to grab money?

    • rd says:

      Some info on spill reporting requirements here:

      http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/index.htm

      when a company spills enough oil in water to make a sheen on the surface, it is generally a reportable spill. Based on that criteria, a typical marina on a summer day would have dozens of reportable spills if the recreational boaters were corporations.

      The typical reporting limit for a chemical is one pound, although it can be as high as several thousand pounds if the material is proven to be relatively low hazard. A cup of water weighs about one pound, so for many chemicals spilling one cup of the fluid would be reportable.

      7,500 gallons is a bit more than the typical reporting limit. This size of spill is relatively rare.