Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> There are many people ... who consider pleasure boating ... to be > excesses of the bourgeoisie and that boating should be banned > as a crime against the proletariat.
And then:
> As for ... sailboats, who but the idle rich have the money and time > to own one and learn to sail it?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> "The pension will soon be dead as the dodo." > And all thanks to Bill Clinton
The data -- which may not be as fun as rampant partisan speculation -- seems to indicate that significant pension declines began in the early 80s or before:
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good > idea does it?
If their mission to promote intelligent investment or trading related discussions and someone starts spinning political conspiracy theories, then yes, it is a good idea to delete such a comment.
There are many other sites for that, perhaps you might look into visiting them instead of this one?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> The broadcasters are attempting to prevent media companies > from selling their content to the likes of Intel (INTC) and others, > including through the use of financial incentives and penalties, > and contract clauses that forbid the sale of channels to Internet > distributors.
Witness the modern definition of "competition in markets".
Can't add real value? Throw lawyers and accountants at the other guys...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
To digress a bit, the book on algorithms that I mentioned above, closed with a very astute commentary on the use of human capital in our economy:
The wiz kids from potentially useful disciplines like computer science, engineering, mathematics, etc, are mostly swept up out of college by the likes of the financial industry to apply their super brains to finding better ways make money without adding value.
Much of silicon valley is no better, where the likes of Facebook recruit them to come up with super smart methods of getting people to click on ads for stuff they don't need or even really want.
I wonder, will the larger monetary compensations in our society ever be better aligned with adding real value to society, rather than simply gaming the system or exploiting human weaknesses?
I suspect not, but I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> People have the choice whether to ask their doctor is there an > alternative that costs less.
Sort of. When you hands hurt so much that you can't carry a bag of groceries, and your doctor says that this super-expensive drug is the only option for you because you didn't respond to the old stand-by (read the article), you're not going to be inclined to second-guess him.
The simple truth is that the profit motive as applied to healthcare leaves a lot to be desired. Almost every other developed nation in the world regulates drug prices with something resembling common sense, and they get both lower costs and better results for doing so.
A good read on the subject, that should be required reading for students, politicians, and random internet commenters alike: http://bit.ly/11z1109
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Big Pharma/Healthcare is BY FAR the largest spender on lobbying: http://bit.ly/16d1Dg7
> Amgen's medicine costs 25x what other equally effective > generic treatments cost!!! It makes me wonder why the US > spends vastly (emphasis added) more money on healthcare > than any other country in the world, but yet achieves results > that place it, according to the WHO, 39th in the world?
This is capitalism as applied to a market that people have no (reasonable) choice but to participate in.
Recently, the market learned that youth unemployment in Italy hit 40% in April to go along with a 36-year record high of 12% overall unemployment. Never fear though, Italy's trade union CGIL is out with its estimate of when the Italian economy will recover pre-crisis (un)employment levels: 2076, a mere 63 years from now. (original article) [View news story]
> The government did get involved in raising taxes during the > Depression which contracted the economy.
To digress a bit in the name of facts...
Tax rates were raised in 1932 after several years of depression. In the same year, unemployment stopped skyrocketing. In 1932, unemployment finally began to decrease, and kept decreasing for several years. In 1933, GDP finally began to increase, and kept increasing for several years.
Specifically, unemployment: in 1929: 3.2% in 1930: 8.9% in 1931: 16.3% in 1932: 24.1% in 1933: 24.9% (leveling off) in 1934: 21.7% (decrease) in 1935: 20.1% (decrease)
GDP (in recent-year dollars): in 1929: $103.6 billion in 1930: $91.2 in 1931: $76.5 in 1932: $58.7 in 1933: $56.4 (leveling off) in 1934: $66.0 (increase) in 1935: $73.3 (increase)
So it is a thoroughly false implication that raising taxes correlated to a contraction the economy. (Certainly, other forces were at play: government spending rose and government debt as a % of GDP rose.)
History doesn't change just because some might want it to.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
RIQ - As probably the only techie around here, I want to assure you that linguistic processing and general data analysis has come a LONG way since simple word-matching. Most inferences are made by making connections based on context, more so than by the actual words mentioned.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> excesses of the bourgeoisie and that boating should be banned
> as a crime against the proletariat.
And then:
> As for ... sailboats, who but the idle rich have the money and time
> to own one and learn to sail it?
Cognitive dissonance much? (look it up)
:-)
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> And all thanks to Bill Clinton
The data -- which may not be as fun as rampant partisan speculation -- seems to indicate that significant pension declines began in the early 80s or before:
http://1.usa.gov/127IeIx
(see the first chart on Page 4)
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Here are some people you might listen to, telling you how the high gas prices of ~$4.10 in 2008 can't possibly be the fault of a U.S. President:
http://bit.ly/HQyOg7
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Politics, yes.
Crazy conspiracies, no.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> idea does it?
If their mission to promote intelligent investment or trading related discussions and someone starts spinning political conspiracy theories, then yes, it is a good idea to delete such a comment.
There are many other sites for that, perhaps you might look into visiting them instead of this one?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> from selling their content to the likes of Intel (INTC) and others,
> including through the use of financial incentives and penalties,
> and contract clauses that forbid the sale of channels to Internet
> distributors.
Witness the modern definition of "competition in markets".
Can't add real value? Throw lawyers and accountants at the other guys...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> capitalism.
I disagree. To quite the article I linked to above, the reality is that regardless of who pays, "all the prices are too damn high."
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
The wiz kids from potentially useful disciplines like computer science, engineering, mathematics, etc, are mostly swept up out of college by the likes of the financial industry to apply their super brains to finding better ways make money without adding value.
Much of silicon valley is no better, where the likes of Facebook recruit them to come up with super smart methods of getting people to click on ads for stuff they don't need or even really want.
I wonder, will the larger monetary compensations in our society ever be better aligned with adding real value to society, rather than simply gaming the system or exploiting human weaknesses?
I suspect not, but I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> alternative that costs less.
Sort of. When you hands hurt so much that you can't carry a bag of groceries, and your doctor says that this super-expensive drug is the only option for you because you didn't respond to the old stand-by (read the article), you're not going to be inclined to second-guess him.
The simple truth is that the profit motive as applied to healthcare leaves a lot to be desired. Almost every other developed nation in the world regulates drug prices with something resembling common sense, and they get both lower costs and better results for doing so.
A good read on the subject, that should be required reading for students, politicians, and random internet commenters alike:
http://bit.ly/11z1109
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
http://bit.ly/16d1Dg7
> Amgen's medicine costs 25x what other equally effective
> generic treatments cost!!! It makes me wonder why the US
> spends vastly (emphasis added) more money on healthcare
> than any other country in the world, but yet achieves results
> that place it, according to the WHO, 39th in the world?
This is capitalism as applied to a market that people have no (reasonable) choice but to participate in.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> a decade at major banks.
The financial industry is lying, cheating, and stealing? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
Okay, not really. :-)
What will be shocking is if anyone does any jail time. :-(
Recently, the market learned that youth unemployment in Italy hit 40% in April to go along with a 36-year record high of 12% overall unemployment. Never fear though, Italy's trade union CGIL is out with its estimate of when the Italian economy will recover pre-crisis (un)employment levels: 2076, a mere 63 years from now. (original article) [View news story]
> Depression which contracted the economy.
To digress a bit in the name of facts...
Tax rates were raised in 1932 after several years of depression.
In the same year, unemployment stopped skyrocketing.
In 1932, unemployment finally began to decrease, and kept decreasing for several years.
In 1933, GDP finally began to increase, and kept increasing for several years.
Specifically, unemployment:
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3%
in 1932: 24.1%
in 1933: 24.9% (leveling off)
in 1934: 21.7% (decrease)
in 1935: 20.1% (decrease)
GDP (in recent-year dollars):
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4 (leveling off)
in 1934: $66.0 (increase)
in 1935: $73.3 (increase)
Highest marginal tax rates:
http://bit.ly/12CNhI8
So it is a thoroughly false implication that raising taxes correlated to a contraction the economy. (Certainly, other forces were at play: government spending rose and government debt as a % of GDP rose.)
History doesn't change just because some might want it to.
Facts: good. :-)
Vague platitudes: bad. :-(
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
If the investigation reveals no wrong-doing, then that's that.
That's how all developed societies work.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
My favorite example is a commercial one:
http://onforb.es/Nd5VM0
Also, it's not like terrorists go around saying they're going to commit "terror". :-)