Sunday assorted links

by on January 10, 2016 at 12:39 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 Ray Lopez January 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm

@#1 – my chickens love me…even when they know I will slaughter them. LOL I am humane and use a sharp knife, relax (I tell them).

2 IVV January 11, 2016 at 2:54 pm

They’re too polite. They won’t tell you they prefer your girlfriend who is half your age.

3 mikeInThe716 January 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm

@#6 – In a litigeous and 3-felonies-a-day world, the growth potential is probably limited. Furthermore, small firms are doing this sub-rosa, especially in Tech.

4 Don Reba January 10, 2016 at 1:49 pm

1. This just in: chicks prefer handsome guys.

5 msgkings January 10, 2016 at 4:00 pm

We have a winner already!

6 Ray Lopez January 10, 2016 at 1:58 pm

@# 7- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s story is really good. Remember the Marshallian scissors speaks of both supply and demand–a lot of Keynesians seem to forget supply. Also his cryptic one-liner “The next step is to print money to fund state spending directly, and probably behind capital constraints in a less “globalized” world.” is chilling. Indeed the US Treasury funded directly by the Fed, who simply prints money for the Treasury without them having to rely on primary dealers to supply collateral, would be a ‘logical’ next step, to be followed by Zimflation.

7 rayward January 10, 2016 at 2:01 pm

7. The Habsburgs? The Oklahoma City bombing was an FBI sting operation? And who killed Vince Foster? Evans-Pritchard is a nut, not someone remotely qualified to discuss the economy. Is he seeking the Republican nomination?

8 prior_test January 10, 2016 at 2:15 pm

No – he does work for what is often referred to as the Torygraph in the UK.

9 chuck martel January 10, 2016 at 5:45 pm

AEP is presenting the information provided by the BIS, followed by what he clearly represents as his own opinion. You must be an American. Not too long ago the head of the European Central Bank quoted Goethe in a speech. So on that basis he must be bonkers.

10 Kevin Erdmann January 10, 2016 at 2:11 pm

7. Under severe supply constraints, housing demand becomes inelastic. Ironically, as housing expands, debt should decline. The idea that there is too much credit, a decade into a previously unthinkable housing contraction caused by credit contraction, is bonkers. It’s counterintuitive, but open the mortgage floodgates, real housing will grow, rates will rise, prices and rents will moderate, and other forms of investment will grow. Because the stagnation is so tied up with housing, a capital intensive service, a negative demand shock is actually a negative supply shock, which ends up looking like a positive demand shock that lacks any benefits.

11 Derek January 10, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Open the spigot? One of the reasons that 2008 happened was house prices out paced incomes. The various schemes that bankrupted the government mortgage agencies made it easier to borrow.

12 Edward Burke January 10, 2016 at 2:15 pm

#3. “Fame: immortal, in the present tense.”

Additionally and/or alternatively: the Warhol Standard itself can only be deemed inherently anti-democratic, since it permits fame to accrue to only c. 35,000 annually.

13 CL January 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm

What about a #8. Ross Douthat in the NYT:

“It means that Angela Merkel must go — so that her country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for her high-minded folly.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html

14 Stephan January 10, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Echoes of Rotherham. The authorities tried to cover up that there was a problem for fear of upsetting migrants or appearing prejudiced. German women were told to conduct themselves appropriately by the Mayor of Cologne.

15 AsdfG January 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

What is with right wingers and rallying cries? You aren’t winning any new converts at this point with “Rotherham!!!”, “Benghazi!!!”, or “Remember the Maine!!!” Keep it fresh.

16 Careless January 10, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Do you not realize you wrote this in response to a thread on the new topic, Cologne?

17 So Much For Subtlety January 10, 2016 at 6:03 pm

So what are you saying? That all the people who care about murdered soldiers and raped children are already voting Republican?

I suppose that would explain a lot.

18 AsdfG January 11, 2016 at 12:13 am

Might want to read up on the Spanish-American war and reflect on what else you are ignorant about.

19 So Much For Subtlety January 11, 2016 at 3:36 am

I still don’t get it. Are you saying that all the people who care about murdered soldiers and raped children but who don’t care about Cuban independence are already voting Republican?

20 Adrian Ratnapala January 10, 2016 at 4:47 pm

#1 is a very important topic, and so I am disappointed see it’s rubbish.

They trained chickens to respond to faces of a given human sex. Then they measured the response of the chickens and compared it to attractiveness as rated by humans. Result: humans rate femine females as more attractive than masculine females, and mutatis mutandis for males. Reel at eleven.

It is impressive that even chickens can discriminate human sexes.

21 rich January 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

“Nor is it clear exactly how, why or when the central banks first entered into their Faustian Pact.”

The ‘Faustian Pact’ probably started to get serious with the US Central Bank in 1994, with the signing of the Riegle-Neal Act. That pact then blossomed with the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Lifting the limits on leverage in 2004, killing off mark-to-market accounting and the passing of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, was set and match. So what we have now is a shadow banking system with a derivatives exposure to the tune of hundred of trillions of dollars, and a consumer based economy running on the fumes of highly leveraged government and individual debt. What could possibly go wrong?

22 So Much For Subtlety January 10, 2016 at 6:17 pm

I welcome the Louis Vuitton tie up with Final Fantasy. I assume there is an Asian connection there as their biggest markets now must be Tokyo, Hong Kong and more and more Shanghai.

But I would like to see them go further in expanding their European market. I suggest a Grand Theft Auto tie in.

23 Alain January 10, 2016 at 6:58 pm

I would love to hire based upon alternate metrics, as would many others.

However, we would be smashed by regulation. Whatever upside exists would quickly be obliterated by the state and courts.

The lack of any innovation in hiring is entirely due to the maze of regulations created over the last 50 years.

24 Nathan W January 11, 2016 at 3:01 am

Which regulation is stopping you from using a test or some other (non explicitly discriminatory) criteria as a basis for hiring?

25 Roy L January 11, 2016 at 9:39 am

Disparate impact

26 Roger Sweeny January 11, 2016 at 1:37 pm

When any employment qualification results in disparate impact, e.g. 50% of whites do well on it but only 30% of blacks do well, the burden of proof moves to the employer to prove that the qualification is very closely related to job performance. Else they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Griggs and its progeny). This is generally impossible to do, especially for something new for which there is no track record.

Interestingly, employers can generally require various amounts of schooling, even though that has a tremendous disparate impact–perhaps because all judges and policy-making bureaucrats did pretty well at school (and because they honestly believe “more schooling” and “better qualified” are just about synonymous).

27 dux.ie January 10, 2016 at 6:59 pm
28 dkn January 10, 2016 at 8:22 pm

As for #4, the answer is that the debate itself — usually framed as between larrikinism and wowserism — is the culture of Australia.

29 Unanimous January 12, 2016 at 2:07 am

And the fact that it is reported in NZ media sums up the culture that is NZ.

I actually think this dude would get the same reaction most places. The unique thing is the guy, and he’s just one data point.

30 Dale January 11, 2016 at 8:28 am

The link about Microeconomic Insights is important and deserves its own post. This is an important and potentially very worthwhile attempt to bridge some gaps between academic research and policy. However, it has a (fatal, if not corrected) flaw. There is no requirement that data be publicly provided – and it is not. Much (perhaps most) of the research was funded by private interests who want to sway policy. It is time that the profession self police to at least require that data be publicly provided if it is trying to influence policy. It is disturbing to me that this attempt to provide unbiased analysis to help policy makers has not taken any steps towards requiring open data. This invites continuation of some of the worst practices of the profession, in my mind.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: