My morning train reads (Continues here):

• Small Stocks Hurting; Bad Omen for the Market? (Barron’s) but see Don’t short this dull market (MarketWatch)
• Gold Dreamers Face Harsh Reality (Bloomberg View)
• Absolute(ly No) Return Bond Funds (Chief Investment Officer)
• The Recession’s Lost Generation of Homeowners Isn’t Millennials – It’s the Middle-Aged (Trulia) see also Why plummeting Millennial homeownership isn’t as alarming as it seems (WonkBlog)

(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.

7 Responses to “10 Thursday AM Reads”

  1. hue says:

    And now: The criminalization of parenthood (WaPo)

    Corporate armies, drone terrorism, laser weapons – MoD’s vision of future (theguardian)

  2. RW says:

    Numbers without context are rarely meaningful and economic numbers without context can also be actively misleading. It’s easy to persuade yourself you understand those numbers though particularly when it comes to the question of inflation which, for most people, has little to do with the technical meaning of the term and everything to do with their personal perception of purchasing power.

    Measuring Worth

    One can imagine that a hamburger of the same price is “worth” more to a starving homeless person than to a very wealthy one. An allowance of five pennies a week was worth more to a child in 1902 than it is to a child today. …

    It can be more difficult when the question is to determine the “historical” worth of something. The price, even deflated for inflation, is not enough. Was Andrew Carnegie richer than Bill Gates? Did Babe Ruth make more than Tiger Woods? Was the cost of a loaf of bread more then than now? These questions all depend on the context and the calculators on this web site enable users to make their own comparisons.

    This site is not only informative it is genuinely clarifying; something of great worth in this era of noise.

  3. willid3 says:

    oh dear. globalization is about to strike in a new way

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/us-port-strike-threat-highlights-supply-chain-risk.html

    seems the major US port on the west coast has been shutdown by strikes.

    and now all of those Chinese goods have to go Canada to enter the US. only there is a slight problem in that Canada’s ports are being over whelmed by this.
    seems like globalization has increased risks for business.

  4. Robert M says:

    http://www.trulia.com/trends/2014/07/recessions-lost-generation/
    What I would like to know is “who” are the middle aged who lost their homes demographically?

  5. ch says:

    The guy who wrote the disparaging gold op-ed in BBG (Noah Smith) ironically doesn’t understand gold either.

    Barry – you’re a correlations guy – correlate the price of gold to the price of oil over the past 40 years…the correlation is frighteningly high, especially considering that oil is the most useful commodity known to man while gold is (as everyone these days seems to know) is useless.

    Gold = oil. End of discussion. And if you think oil prices are going to fall over the next 2, 5, 10, 20 years, you are a true doomer…the only source of supply for the past 10 years has been the US, and any dip in oil prices below $80-85 and US supplies go off line.

    ~~~

    ADMIN: What you are really saying is they are priced in dollars. Gold = Dollars; Oil = Dollars; therefore Gold= Oil

  6. ch says:

    No, that is not what I am saying – if that is the case, then computers = dollars; oil = dollars; therefore computers = oil…or 1,000 other iterations, none of which correlate like gold and oil.

    Gold has a “stock-to-use” (total inventories/annual production) ratio of 40-50x; oil has a “stock-to-use” ratio of just over 1x…economics 101 would suggest that over the long run, a commodity with a stock to use ratio like gold should bear no correlation to a commodity with a stock-to-use ratio like oil. Yet they do.

    Run the correlation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.