Unemployment: Initial Claims Down, Continuing Claims at Record High [View article]
Yes, the numbers are better, but I can't cheer. A year ago 500,000 weekly initial claims would have been considered disastrous. That reduces my enthusiasm about the drop to 565,000.
Are Stocks Always Best for the Long Run? [View article]
I think this article is one that would serve the average citizen who is a casual investor well. Many people who just idly put money into some IRA, 401(k) or other retirement mutual fund accounts each year which are basically indexed have no idea what they are doing. They believe the pablum that these fund and plan sponsors feed that says they can be successful on auto pilot.
The previous commenter has added some valuable discussion of why the auto pilot small retail investor has so much angina. The average guy on the street might not understand and appreciate the analysis of the commenter (most SA readers will), but the oversimplified presentation of the author would be more understandable to the guy on the street who hasn't been able to figure out why his retirement accounts have made so little progress.
thiazole, I am reading this several days late so you may never see my comment. But here it is anyway.
If you have such a "round-robin as you describe, if the financial health of anyone in the group comes under question the impact is spread over everyone. That is why Lehman Bros. had such a dramatic effect on the financial sector last fall.
This is such a simple presentation of some very profound information. This entire subject of the productivity of debt seems central to the subject of public policy planning, but I doubt that it is high on the radar of anyone in Washington. Let's hope that can change. That would be the "Change We Need".
I especially appreciate the comments by Fred Voetsch and Dirk McCoy. I am looking back at what the market was doing in December and what people were saying. So far we are following a similar pattern in this rally. If this continues we will be topping out on continued lower volume for the next couple of weeks and then start back down. It will take increased volumes and rising prices, at least modestly, to start a different pattern this time.
Any discussion like this would be better served by a book, rather than an article, but you have done a good job of getting many of the issues on the table. One area that could use some more discussion is taxes. In 1932, Hoover raised the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%. We now know that such drastic tax changes produce severe dislocations in economic activity. Obama has proposed raising the top bracket from 35% to 39.6%, the top bracket that was in effect before 2001. What evidence is there for the effects on economic activity for this smaller change in tax rates? There may be some changes on the margins, but will economic behavior be changed in the same way as larger changes? I don't know if there are any answers, but I think there is a lot of room for discussion.
Please don't take my comment as criticism of your fine article. I just think it is the beginning of the topic, not the culmination, which would take a book to cover.
All this talk by people who could make over $250,000 but won't because their tax bill will go up 3.6%, reminds me of the petulent child who says: I'll kill myself and then you'll be sorry.
How Much Downside Could Still Exist? [View article]
Rakesh Saxena:
You have written some good articles, but this is not one of them. There are too many unelaborated generalities. One example: "And, as far as systemic risk is concerned, Ben Bernanke’s definition is proving to be entirely academic, restricted by numerous, self-serving scholarly texts of the 1929-1939 era." What value does that statement have without an explaination of "self-serving"?
You have enumerated a number of the important issues for the current time and coming years. But the value of the article stops there. It's like you started to make a sandwich and stopped when all that was done was to put out two slices of bread. Where's the beef?
boats:
You wrote: "There you go confusing freedom and capitalism. Capitalism makes slaves of 99% of the population."
If I accept your statement, then I would add to it. Communism makes slaves of 99.9% of the population. But hunter-gatherers are 100% free.
Perhaps There Are Unseen Green Shoots [View article]
Unemployment: Initial Claims Down, Continuing Claims at Record High [View article]
Are Stocks Always Best for the Long Run? [View article]
Are Stocks Always Best for the Long Run? [View article]
The previous commenter has added some valuable discussion of why the auto pilot small retail investor has so much angina. The average guy on the street might not understand and appreciate the analysis of the commenter (most SA readers will), but the oversimplified presentation of the author would be more understandable to the guy on the street who hasn't been able to figure out why his retirement accounts have made so little progress.
Weekly Economic Wrap: Truth in Government [View article]
Where Are the Trillions Going? [View article]
If you have such a "round-robin as you describe, if the financial health of anyone in the group comes under question the impact is spread over everyone. That is why Lehman Bros. had such a dramatic effect on the financial sector last fall.
On the Radar: Recent Intermarket Relationships [View article]
The Declining Usefulness of Debt [View article]
What Will This Crisis Lead to? [View article]
Great article.
John Lounsbury - - -
Thanks for taking a long comment out of this comment stream to an Instablog. It makes reading the other comments much easier.
The Seduction of America [View article]
The Worst Isn't Over Yet [View article]
I especially appreciate the comments by Fred Voetsch and Dirk McCoy. I am looking back at what the market was doing in December and what people were saying. So far we are following a similar pattern in this rally. If this continues we will be topping out on continued lower volume for the next couple of weeks and then start back down. It will take increased volumes and rising prices, at least modestly, to start a different pattern this time.
A New Kind of Bank Stress Test [View article]
A History of Market Violence [View article]
Any discussion like this would be better served by a book, rather than an article, but you have done a good job of getting many of the issues on the table. One area that could use some more discussion is taxes. In 1932, Hoover raised the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%. We now know that such drastic tax changes produce severe dislocations in economic activity. Obama has proposed raising the top bracket from 35% to 39.6%, the top bracket that was in effect before 2001. What evidence is there for the effects on economic activity for this smaller change in tax rates? There may be some changes on the margins, but will economic behavior be changed in the same way as larger changes? I don't know if there are any answers, but I think there is a lot of room for discussion.
Please don't take my comment as criticism of your fine article. I just think it is the beginning of the topic, not the culmination, which would take a book to cover.
Five Predictions for This Market [View article]
How Much Downside Could Still Exist? [View article]
You have written some good articles, but this is not one of them. There are too many unelaborated generalities. One example: "And, as far as systemic risk is concerned, Ben Bernanke’s definition is proving to be entirely academic, restricted by numerous, self-serving scholarly texts of the 1929-1939 era." What value does that statement have without an explaination of "self-serving"?
You have enumerated a number of the important issues for the current time and coming years. But the value of the article stops there. It's like you started to make a sandwich and stopped when all that was done was to put out two slices of bread. Where's the beef?
boats:
You wrote: "There you go confusing freedom and capitalism. Capitalism makes slaves of 99% of the population."
If I accept your statement, then I would add to it. Communism makes slaves of 99.9% of the population. But hunter-gatherers are 100% free.