My afternoon train reading:

• Can mighty Wall St. bull keep charging in 2014? (USA Today) see also Ten Market Guarantees for 2014 (WSJ)
• Answers to 5 questions about legalized pot in Colorado (USA Today)
• Dollar bulls see greenback gaining strength (WSJ) see also No Bounce Seen for a Deflated Commodities Sector in 2014 (WSJ)
• Ideas adjust to new ‘facts’ of finance (FT)
• U.S. Home Sales Post First Yearly Drop in 29 Months (World Property Channel)
• Billionaires Worth $3.7 Trillion Surge as Gates Wins 2013 (Bloomberg)
• Evolution Is More Popular Than Ever With Americans (Liberty Voice) but see GOP support for modern biology drops (MSNBC)
• A Small Bank in Utah Has Launched Wall Street’s War on the Volcker Rule (New Republic)
• What 2014 means for Obamacare (Washington Post)
• Bitcoin Is a High-Tech Dinosaur Soon to Be Extinct (Bloomberg)

What are you reading?

 

Current Post-Financial Crisis Retracement Level

Source: Chart of the Day

 

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.

4 Responses to “10 Thursday PM Reads”

  1. rd says:

    An interesting article on the Marine Corps struggle with fitness requirements for women:

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-after-half-fail

    What I found interesting is that they have three women who underwent the same training as men in the elisted infantry school. I would imagine that they could evaluate how these and other women who graduate from that program score on various physical fitness tests like pull-ups to set an appropriate standard:

    “But the following fall, three Marines became the first women to graduate from the Corps’ enlisted infantry training school in North Carolina. They completed the same test standards as the men in the course, which included a 12-mile march with an 80-pound pack and various combat fitness trials such as timed ammunition container lifts and tests that simulate running under combat fire.”

    “Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

    The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.”

    • Iamthe50percent says:

      Upper body strength is where men excel over women because that’s what steroid hormones (i.e. testosterone) do. Look at prepubescent kids. If they are all active, there is no notable difference in their arms, but in High School there is a huge difference even comparing athletic girls to athletic boys.

      It is interesting that the USMC picked for women, the one test they are most likely to fail at. Outside of the ammunition lift, none of the simulated combat tasks require extraordinary arm strength. Scaling a wall requires arm strength but often big men have a problem because big men have big weight too. I was a skinny runt in High School but could beat the whole class in chin-ups because I weighed the least.

      Woman tend to have better hand-eye coordination and so may make better pilots. In my experience, they tend to be more alert also. Pullups (chin-ups) don’t indicate piloting skill or marksmanship, either.

      • rd says:

        I think we have an evaluation crisis in America that shows up in many places including this Marine Corps example, the common core curriculum, bank stability, etc. Instead of approaching fundamental questions from an experimental design and statistics approach to develop sampling and evaluations, we get half-assed, badly executed assessments that are generally not relevant to the actual real-world requirements, either unintentionally or intentionally. Deming must be rolling over in his grave. We should be able to do much better.

  2. rd says:

    Re: New facts in finance

    The big shock to me in 2008 was that these “new” facts of finance were not established wisdom. It was inconceivable to me that adults could have thought that these facts did not apply.

    BTW – this list of the four biggest economic surprises of the past 25 years was very interesting:
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579292371446291660