|
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 12/31/2014 7:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Most financiers are not involved in manipulating, but rather in predicting where markets are going. I was gonna suggest that the rich ones are. But financiers may not be the right word. I was fixated on the people manipulating the stock market to suck every bit of money they can out of it. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:24:29 AM UTC-8, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:15:38 -0800, mike wrote: On 12/30/2014 6:41 AM, wrote: "Few economists saw our current crisis coming, Understanding economy may not matter. Might be as simple as the aftermath of some terrorist act. Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Same to ya, but I had a rotten Christmas. Too much trouble with the gf. ;( It's been said that, if you can make a fist, a gf is superfluous. If you can't make a fist, that's probably the least of the things you can't make and the gf is still superfluous. High five...other hand please. ;-) He needs to maintain his open hand in order to repeatedly slap himself on the forehead at his own stupidity, mike. As to the other hand, who knows where that thumb has been... Now let's stop giving these jerks airtime, OK? -- Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. --anon Larry Jackass still can't conceive that adults can make up their mind without his endless offers to be a babysitter. Larry Jackass is a worthless, ****ing, ****. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:04:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top consulting firm. Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here with his answer. His reaction: "Stuart who?" g He doesn't know about Kauffman. Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? No, those models *do* use complexity theory. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:23:50 -0800, mike wrote:
On 12/31/2014 7:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: Most financiers are not involved in manipulating, but rather in predicting where markets are going. I was gonna suggest that the rich ones are. But financiers may not be the right word. I was fixated on the people manipulating the stock market to suck every bit of money they can out of it. There are enough of those to make the whole system unstable and to line the pockets of the manipulators. Fortunately, the legitimate ones don't like it and may yet reform the system. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:11:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: snip It's always a little surprising to me to hear people talk about how bad things are today, without thinking about how much better they are, in most ways, than they've ever been before. /snip Don't try to confuse me with the facts!!!!! My mind is made up!!!! -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:31:24 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: snip I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? No, those models *do* use complexity theory. /snip You may find the following of interest: http://tinyurl.com/79epfea http://tinyurl.com/ppoez4o http://tinyurl.com/om5aykk In many cases "economics" does not appear to be required, only a good memory. For example, limiting companies to a size small enough to fail [without bringing the entire economy down], and preventing people from gambling [speculating] with other peoples' [depositors'] money. Other restrictions from the insurance industry such as not allowing a homeowner to insure their house multiple times, or prohibiting someone with no interest in a house from insuring it, would seem to apply to derivatives. For example, why should more credit default swaps be sold/traded than the amount of underlying debt? Why should futures trading contracts in excess of the available physical quantity for the contract period be allowed? [This is an invitation to a "short squeeze"] Why should organizations which are neither consumers or producers be allowed to engage in commodity hedging, thus promoting speculation/manipulation? -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:49:01 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:11:55 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: snip It's always a little surprising to me to hear people talk about how bad things are today, without thinking about how much better they are, in most ways, than they've ever been before. /snip Don't try to confuse me with the facts!!!!! My mind is made up!!!! The RCM motto! g -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:06:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top consulting firm. Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here with his answer. His reaction: "Stuart who?" g He doesn't know about Kauffman. Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? Both are kinda like chemistry before 1800, when the best minds continually struggled to update their observation-based theories to fit embarrassing new discoveries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Expe...ed_by_Friction Oh, my! They did hold some interesting theories before him, and some after. Remember when going faster than 25mph would make your blood boil? -- Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. --anon |
A billionaire explains the middle class
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:06:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top consulting firm. Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here with his answer. His reaction: "Stuart who?" g He doesn't know about Kauffman. Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? Both are kinda like chemistry before 1800, when the best minds continually struggled to update their observation-based theories to fit embarrassing new discoveries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Expe...ed_by_Friction Oh, my! They did hold some interesting theories before him, and some after. Remember when going faster than 25mph would make your blood boil? Who do you think I am? Barney Oldfield? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Oldfield |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote:
I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child, miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:06:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Ed Huntress writes: Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top consulting firm. Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here with his answer. His reaction: "Stuart who?" g He doesn't know about Kauffman. Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? Both are kinda like chemistry before 1800, when the best minds continually struggled to update their observation-based theories to fit embarrassing new discoveries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Expe...ed_by_Friction Oh, my! They did hold some interesting theories before him, and some after. Remember when going faster than 25mph would make your blood boil? Who do you think I am? Barney Oldfield? Nah. He had a sweeter disposition. I meant _reading_ about those old theories, BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Oldfield Cool, he invented 'drifting' in old 999. "Oldfield agreed to drive against the current champion Alexander Winton. Oldfield was rumored to have learned how to operate the controls of that car the morning of the event.[4] Oldfield won by a half mile in the five mile (8 km) race. He slid through the corners like a motorcycle racer did instead of braking. It was a great victory for Ford and led both Barney Oldfield and Ford to become household names." -- Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. --anon |
A billionaire explains the middle class
Gunner Asch on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% In September, it was 100%. Then I got the call from the placement people. -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:35:20 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:23:50 -0800, mike wrote: On 12/31/2014 7:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: Most financiers are not involved in manipulating, but rather in predicting where markets are going. I was gonna suggest that the rich ones are. But financiers may not be the right word. I was fixated on the people manipulating the stock market to suck every bit of money they can out of it. There are enough of those to make the whole system unstable and to line the pockets of the manipulators. Fortunately, the legitimate ones don't like it and may yet reform the system. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful. You don't look good in blue either??? |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% If all the socialistic give away's were stopped, I wonder what the unemployment rate would be? -- Cheers, John B. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Oh, my! They did hold some interesting theories before him, and some after. Remember when going faster than 25mph would make your blood boil? Who do you think I am? Barney Oldfield? Nah. He had a sweeter disposition. I meant _reading_ about those old theories, BTW. The best examples I've seen of convoluted logic to support flawed theories are the Earth, Water, Air, Fire ( =solid, liquid, gas, plasma) explanations of Renaissance scientific discoveries. The heavenly-sphere model of the motions of the planets was a close second. The scientists of the time undoubtably knew these were wrong but they had no better alternative. Chemistry was particularly difficult because natural isotope mixtures distort the combining ratios by weight, which atomic theory suggested should be an exact ratio of small integers. Newton brought order to physics, optics and calculus but the basis of chemistry eluded him. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ne...ton-Isaac.html The missing key was Lavoisier's experimental determination that hydrogen and oxygen combined in the ratio of 2.00 to 1.00 by volume. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webproject...sain/water.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier "It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry largely stem from the fact that he changed the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one." When I was in school Biology was still at the stage of collecting and trying to make sense of observations. We knew about DNA but hadn't yet learned to read how it codes for proteins. This was the key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction -jsw |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 08:05:00 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: Oh, my! They did hold some interesting theories before him, and some after. Remember when going faster than 25mph would make your blood boil? Who do you think I am? Barney Oldfield? Nah. He had a sweeter disposition. I meant _reading_ about those old theories, BTW. The best examples I've seen of convoluted logic to support flawed theories are the Earth, Water, Air, Fire ( =solid, liquid, gas, plasma) explanations of Renaissance scientific discoveries. The heavenly-sphere model of the motions of the planets was a close second. The scientists of the time undoubtably knew these were wrong but they had no better alternative. Chemistry was particularly difficult because natural isotope mixtures distort the combining ratios by weight, which atomic theory suggested should be an exact ratio of small integers. Newton brought order to physics, optics and calculus but the basis of chemistry eluded him. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ne...ton-Isaac.html Until just then, seeing his picture, I never realized how much they resemble aging rock musicians of today. Who could take them seriously with that hair? ;) Zack was brilliant, tho. The missing key was Lavoisier's experimental determination that hydrogen and oxygen combined in the ratio of 2.00 to 1.00 by volume. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webproject...sain/water.htm Neat trick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier "It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry largely stem from the fact that he changed the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one." Wow, studied in chemistry, botany, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, geology, finance, and even law? He was truly a force to be reckoned with. Looking at the picture of Lavoisier there, I'm amazed at the unique scientific glassware produced back in the 1700s. When I was in school Biology was still at the stage of collecting and trying to make sense of observations. We knew about DNA but hadn't yet learned to read how it codes for proteins. This was the key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction Although still quite a bit beyond me, 5 hours of firework-disturbed sleep notwithstanding, that gave me a slightly better understanding of the electrophoresis stain samples I've seen in movies and documentaries. Amplifying = growing more DNA in agarose gel and reading the enzymatic waste (digest), if I get that right. I thought it interesting that viral load could be read by PCR. OK, crosseyed now. Thanks for the scientific history lesson. Happy New Year! yawn, blink, blink I think I'll nap later. -- Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. --anon |
A billionaire explains the middle class
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 08:05:00 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ne...ton-Isaac.html Until just then, seeing his picture, I never realized how much they resemble aging rock musicians of today. Who could take them seriously with that hair? ;) Zack was brilliant, tho. Are you old enough to remember when "longhair" music meant Classical? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier "It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry largely stem from the fact that he changed the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one." Wow, studied in chemistry, botany, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, geology, finance, and even law? He was truly a force to be reckoned with. It was easier when there wasn't as much of each to learn. I can at least follow discussions of all of them. Looking at the picture of Lavoisier there, I'm amazed at the unique scientific glassware produced back in the 1700s. The designs avoid tee joints which were difficult to make before Pyrex. The problem is stresses from cooling contraction. When I was in school Biology was still at the stage of collecting and trying to make sense of observations. We knew about DNA but hadn't yet learned to read how it codes for proteins. This was the key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction Although still quite a bit beyond me, 5 hours of firework-disturbed sleep notwithstanding, that gave me a slightly better understanding of the electrophoresis stain samples I've seen in movies and documentaries. Amplifying = growing more DNA in agarose gel and reading the enzymatic waste (digest), if I get that right. I thought it interesting that viral load could be read by PCR. OK, crosseyed now. I was in a bar talking shop with a girl who sold PCR equipment when the owner overheard us, came over and told us he was a cancer researcher. She asked a few loaded questions that confirmed he was legit, the bar was how he funded his non-mainstream research. -jsw |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:57:05 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
They're hoping to accomplish market-share inroads before their costs rise too much. So far, they're not doing very well at that, in automobiles, industrial equipment, and so on. There are factories in China turning out good products but they're almost always run by Western companies, who are putting up with horrible productivity in order to gain the labor-cost savings. That will go away. Now their goal is to ride it out as the Chinese domestic consumer market expands. Their economy *must* become more consumption-based, or they're going to lose much of their export market as their costs increase. -- Ed Huntress I saw in the paper that Hyundai is now planning on opening two new automotive plants in China. Previous plans were for just one more plant in addition to the three plants they already have in China. Dan |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 10:21:46 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . it interesting that viral load could be read by PCR. OK, crosseyed now. I was in a bar talking shop with a girl who sold PCR equipment when the owner overheard us, came over and told us he was a cancer researcher. She asked a few loaded questions that confirmed he was legit, the bar was how he funded his non-mainstream research. Har! What a hoot. -- Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. --anon |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:11:11 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:31:24 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: snip I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? No, those models *do* use complexity theory. /snip You may find the following of interest: http://tinyurl.com/79epfea http://tinyurl.com/ppoez4o http://tinyurl.com/om5aykk My, my. I think I'll save those for retirement. g It's interesting stuff, George. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have the time to catch up with it. I think it would take me a couple of years... In many cases "economics" does not appear to be required, only a good memory. For example, limiting companies to a size small enough to fail [without bringing the entire economy down], and preventing people from gambling [speculating] with other peoples' [depositors'] money. Here's the thing that keeps me from becoming an activist about this stuff: Once the cat was let out of the bag and all forms of banking became integrated (except, perhaps, in Canada), multinational finance and investment banking's cost of entry went into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of "assets under management." The new institutions were "too big to fail," because, if they fail, the world economy fails. They don't even have to go under, as we saw in 2008. They just have to lose the confidence of their investors. Bailouts restored confidence but at an enormous cost to the real economy. If you limit their operations, you essentially preclude them from competing in the world's financial markets. The consequence of doing that, with your domestic banking institutions, is unknown. But our political leaders, starting with Reagan (even Carter, to a limited extent) have decided they don't want to find out. One of the most likely scenarious, their experts told them, is that your economy slowly winds down as intestment and credit become tighter, and you lose your position on the world economic stage. You become dependent on foreign banking institutions and you start racing to the bottom. I have no idea if that is true. But the genie is out of the bottle, to mix metaphors, and I couldn't begin to judge what would happen if we unilaterally tried to stuff him back in. There's no question that we have an enormous problem and a real vulnerability because of all of this. I just have no idea what the right course of action would be. My suspicion is that no one else really knows, either. -- Ed Huntress Other restrictions from the insurance industry such as not allowing a homeowner to insure their house multiple times, or prohibiting someone with no interest in a house from insuring it, would seem to apply to derivatives. For example, why should more credit default swaps be sold/traded than the amount of underlying debt? Why should futures trading contracts in excess of the available physical quantity for the contract period be allowed? [This is an invitation to a "short squeeze"] Why should organizations which are neither consumers or producers be allowed to engage in commodity hedging, thus promoting speculation/manipulation? |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment That's U6, you dimwit. You know this, and you've been corrected about it many times. However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% Comparison between countries is done in U3 or its local equivalent. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 12/31/14 F. George McDuffee wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:31:24 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: snip I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact (alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it. Kinda like global warming computer models, eh? No, those models *do* use complexity theory. /snip You may find the following of interest: http://tinyurl.com/79epfea http://tinyurl.com/ppoez4o http://tinyurl.com/om5aykk not allowing a homeowner to insure their house multiple times, or prohibiting someone with no interest in a house from insuring it, would seem to apply to derivatives. For example, why should more credit default swaps be sold/traded than the amount of underlying debt? Why should futures trading contracts in excess of the available physical quantity for the contract period be allowed? [This is an invitation to a "short squeeze"] Why should organizations which are neither consumers or producers be allowed to engage in commodity hedging, thus promoting speculation/manipulation? *intent* seems to be the ethics problem in international finance, not certain types of re-alterable, even re-issuable structured financial products (only offered by stock and bond brokerages, investment banks, etc...), because this *intent* can usually be found underlying the product offered and those offering it. This age-old *intent* is to steal all money from all things possible *without* facing legal consequences... guaranteed. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 08:09:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:57:05 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: They're hoping to accomplish market-share inroads before their costs rise too much. So far, they're not doing very well at that, in automobiles, industrial equipment, and so on. There are factories in China turning out good products but they're almost always run by Western companies, who are putting up with horrible productivity in order to gain the labor-cost savings. That will go away. Now their goal is to ride it out as the Chinese domestic consumer market expands. Their economy *must* become more consumption-based, or they're going to lose much of their export market as their costs increase. -- Ed Huntress I saw in the paper that Hyundai is now planning on opening two new automotive plants in China. Previous plans were for just one more plant in addition to the three plants they already have in China. Dan They're basing those plans on anticipated growth of consumer markets in China. Let's hope they're right. Wages are increasing pretty rapidly and that will slow their exports down while building a domestic consumer market. That's the best of all outcomes for the rest of us, from South Korea to Europe to the United States. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 1:54:01 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
They're basing those plans on anticipated growth of consumer markets in China. Let's hope they're right. Wages are increasing pretty rapidly and that will slow their exports down while building a domestic consumer market. That's the best of all outcomes for the rest of us, from South Korea to Europe to the United States. -- Ed Huntress I think they are basing those plans on the fact that they produce a million cars a year in China now and could sell more. GM currently makes and sells three million cars a year in China and is expanding so it will be able to make five million a year at the end of this year. And VW says it is building two new factories in China. http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/.../capacity.html Dan |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 12:32:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: SNIP There's no question that we have an enormous problem and a real vulnerability because of all of this. I just have no idea what the right course of action would be. My suspicion is that no one else really knows, either. /SNIP A perfect example of "paralysis by analysis." Because we don't [and most likely never will] completely understand the problem(s) nothing can be done... In the natural world, we cannot predict earthquakes, we can predict hurricanes only to a limited extent, and we can control neither. This does not stop us from taking common sense precautions to limit property damage and loss of life when these events do occur. For example prohibiting construction on the flood plains, using storm resistant shingles in hurricane prone areas, securing roofs to prevent these from easily being blown off, and requiring straps to secure water heaters to prevent gas line rupture if the tanks fall over during an earthquake. Brick facades and decorative cornices on multistory buildings or un reinforced masonry walls are no longer allowed, in most seismically active areas. In earthquake prone areas the utilities are required to install automatic cutoffs on utilities, automatically activated by tremors above a certain level. http://tinyurl.com/k5cq9l9 http://tinyurl.com/ljbyue6 http://tinyurl.com/23klno7 http://tinyurl.com/msy9oms Are the current regulations completely adequate? NO Are they better than nothing? YES Will these regulations evolve? Yes Have these been effective in significently minimizing property damage and loss of life? YES Do the reactionaries, building contractors and home buyers complain about the additional cost and paperwork? YES The question is "why don't we have analogous financial regulations in place restricting known dangerous products and behaviors, even though this may "restrict market liquidity, and reduce the bonuses by a few dollars?" We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 19:57:26 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 12:32:44 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: SNIP There's no question that we have an enormous problem and a real vulnerability because of all of this. I just have no idea what the right course of action would be. My suspicion is that no one else really knows, either. /SNIP A perfect example of "paralysis by analysis." Because we don't [and most likely never will] completely understand the problem(s) nothing can be done... In the natural world, we cannot predict earthquakes, we can predict hurricanes only to a limited extent, and we can control neither. This does not stop us from taking common sense precautions to limit property damage and loss of life when these events do occur. For example prohibiting construction on the flood plains, using storm resistant shingles in hurricane prone areas, securing roofs to prevent these from easily being blown off, and requiring straps to secure water heaters to prevent gas line rupture if the tanks fall over during an earthquake. Brick facades and decorative cornices on multistory buildings or un reinforced masonry walls are no longer allowed, in most seismically active areas. In earthquake prone areas the utilities are required to install automatic cutoffs on utilities, automatically activated by tremors above a certain level. http://tinyurl.com/k5cq9l9 http://tinyurl.com/ljbyue6 http://tinyurl.com/23klno7 http://tinyurl.com/msy9oms Are the current regulations completely adequate? NO Are they better than nothing? YES Will these regulations evolve? Yes Have these been effective in significently minimizing property damage and loss of life? YES Do the reactionaries, building contractors and home buyers complain about the additional cost and paperwork? YES The question is "why don't we have analogous financial regulations in place restricting known dangerous products and behaviors, even though this may "restrict market liquidity, and reduce the bonuses by a few dollars?" We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? Because, unlike protecting against storm damage, your "protections" can wind up destroying our entire economy. Storm-resistant shingles have no risk attached; just a small, known cost. I don't believe that anyone knows the consequences of unilaterally forfeiting control of international finance to, say, the Chinese. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 12/31/2014 10:48 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% In September, it was 100%. Then I got the call from the placement people. That's the problem with statistics. Works great for sizing a power plant or a water reservoir. When it gets closer to home, it's either 0 or 100%. I take no comfort in the fact that most of YOU are employed. ;-) -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 1/1/2015 4:41 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% If all the socialistic give away's were stopped, I wonder what the unemployment rate would be? Where I grew up, in some segments of the population, the primary industry was producing babies so you could get a bigger welfare check. I believe there should be a big building somewhere with a one-way door. When you can no longer provide for your own support, you'd be invited thru the door...which might lead to a cascade of your progeny being invited. Would be a self-limiting process. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:57:27 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 12:32:44 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: SNIP There's no question that we have an enormous problem and a real vulnerability because of all of this. I just have no idea what the right course of action would be. My suspicion is that no one else really knows, either. /SNIP A perfect example of "paralysis by analysis." Because we don't [and most likely never will] completely understand the problem(s) nothing can be done ... In the financial world, they've said that the more things change, the more they remain the same. That goes for these problem(s). (ever changing) |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:57:27 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote:
We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? -- Unka' George Because the rule is " Let the buyer beware ". The individual or company is responsible for determining the risk in an investment. If you want an investment that is government guaranteed , buy U.S. Bonds. The cost of analysing the risk of all investments is way beyond what the government can do. To do that would require a new government agency many times larger than the IRS. Dan |
A billionaire explains the middle class
Jim Wilkins wrote:
I've repeatedly heard that it won't be economically practical to manufacture the widget I've just prototyped in the US, because the pain of wringing adequate quality from China is less than the pain of US regulations and unions. Sometimes that's based on direct experience with the previous model, built here with some imported parts. It depends upon what mainstream lead industry advisors and consultants recommend. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 06:59:17 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:57:27 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote: We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? -- Unka' George Because the rule is " Let the buyer beware ". The individual or company is responsible for determining the risk in an investment. If you want an investment that is government guaranteed , buy U.S. Bonds. The cost of analysing the risk of all investments is way beyond what the government can do. To do that would require a new government agency many times larger than the IRS. All of that is true, and George's recommendation for "risk testing" is impractical and probably not even desirable.. But let's not forget that much of what was involved in the financial crisis was outright fraud, not financial risk. And much of the rest, while not outright fraud, was a tantamount to fraud. For example, allowing multiple "insurance" claims on the same asset. If we can't detect and deal with fraud, we have a bigger problem. The whole financial system has a problem. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 03:58:14 -0800, mike wrote:
On 12/31/2014 10:48 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Gunner Asch on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% In September, it was 100%. Then I got the call from the placement people. That's the problem with statistics. Works great for sizing a power plant or a water reservoir. When it gets closer to home, it's either 0 or 100%. I take no comfort in the fact that most of YOU are employed. ;-) -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." Some of US are semi-employed but are looking for a full time gig. Sigh Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child, miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke |
A billionaire explains the middle class
|
A billionaire explains the middle class
|
A billionaire explains the middle class
Ed Huntress writes: On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. Not his, which are mostly business applications, but he says there is a lot of academic research in applying complexity theory to econometric models. He touched on it in grad school but he doesn't use it. Equilibrium models are the basis for business applications, and Real Analysis is the highest-level math that's ordinarily called for. Huh. Brian Arthur [1], who is much smarter than I am (and who *is* an economist) has described models with multiple equilibria, path dependence, positive feedback and other features pretty much in direct contradiction to the current wisdom (or dogma). I think he may be much excoriated in venues where egos or careers are dependent on genuflecting before the corrent wisdom. - Mike [1] Quotes, excerpts and squibs: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/W._Brian_Arthur -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 02 Jan 2015 12:48:09 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote: Ed Huntress writes: On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote: Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-) Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or anything along those lines enters into his econometric models. Not his, which are mostly business applications, but he says there is a lot of academic research in applying complexity theory to econometric models. He touched on it in grad school but he doesn't use it. Equilibrium models are the basis for business applications, and Real Analysis is the highest-level math that's ordinarily called for. Huh. Brian Arthur [1], who is much smarter than I am (and who *is* an economist) has described models with multiple equilibria, path dependence, positive feedback and other features pretty much in direct contradiction to the current wisdom (or dogma). I think he may be much excoriated in venues where egos or careers are dependent on genuflecting before the corrent wisdom. Getting my son to talk much about it when he's on vacation is not very fruitful. "Hey, Dad, I don't want to think about work today." g However, we had some good discussions about "behavioral economics" a year or so ago, and this was my takeaway: Doing econometrics requires data, and the available data does not lend itself very well to models of complexity or to the varieties of human behavior. Big Data holds some promise in that regard, but the state of the art is still a matter of modelling what you can from the data that is available. Existing modelling methods work perfectly well to answer a majority of economics questions, particularly the kinds of narrower questions that businesses will pay to have analyzed. The ones we discuss here on this NG, however, such as where an entire country's economy is going or what's going to happen to people's buying habits as an economy evolves, are much more difficult to model -- maybe impossible, with the tools available today. That's where the range of human behaviors, and sensitivity to initial conditions, and the rest of the panoply of complexity and chaos theories come into play -- with mixed success. For example, the failures of behavioral models in finance to predict the crash. (Although some of the quants *did* predict the crash. The point is, other quants disagreed, and no one knew who was right.) All of this makes for great academic fodder. If you need a PhD thesis topic, this is your meat. But most of the paying work in econometrics is not of that type. -- Ed Huntress |
A billionaire explains the middle class
David R. Birch wrote:
On 1/2/2015 8:59 AM, wrote: On Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:57:27 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote: We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? -- Unka' George Because the rule is " Let the buyer beware ". The individual or company is responsible for determining the risk in an investment. As the last few years have shown, even those with degrees in finance have trouble tracking market manipulations and other chicanery. There was a misplaced level of trust in the banking industry to not screw the depositor/investor. The money that was driving house prices upward came from private investors that were looking for high rates of return from high risk investment. The govt doesn't prevent investors from gambling with their own money. Before the bubble and after the bubble almost 100% of mortgages were financed by either in-house loans from deposit taking facilities or by government sponsored loan guarantees and pass troughs. During the bubble there were about $6 trillion in loans that were not financed in this traditional way. The money for those loans came from private investors who were looking for high-risk high-return investments. Most of the reckless lending was funded by those private investors. How do we know they funded most of the bad loans? because that is where most of the loan losses were. According to Moody's analytics the actual realized loan losses from 2006-2012 a Fannie $77 Bn Freddie $51 Bn Privately backed $713 Bn https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/d...on-of-RMBS.pdf If you want an investment that is government guaranteed, buy U.S. Bonds. Oddly, that was seldom recommended by the banksters. It was recommended to anyone seeking a low risk investment. The cost of analysing the risk of all investments is way beyond what the government can do. Yet you seem to expect it to be within the ability of individuals. Are you saying free markets don't work? Are you saying the invisible hand is bull****? To do that would require a new government agency many times larger than the IRS. There seem to be a lot of people nowadays who think that it is govt's job to be the investor's nanny. |
A billionaire explains the middle class
Gunner Asch on Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:21:43 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 03:58:14 -0800, mike wrote: On 12/31/2014 10:48 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Gunner Asch on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:44:59 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote: I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp 11.4% for US unemplyment However...some places its at 4%..many others its still over 20% In September, it was 100%. Then I got the call from the placement people. That's the problem with statistics. Works great for sizing a power plant or a water reservoir. When it gets closer to home, it's either 0 or 100%. I take no comfort in the fact that most of YOU are employed. ;-) Some of US are semi-employed but are looking for a full time gig. Or a "gig" in "the field". I'm starting to realize that I soon may be starting to be getting too old for the factory floor gig to be a viable option much longer. Sigh Deep sigh. -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
A billionaire explains the middle class
On 1/2/2015 8:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 06:59:17 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, January 1, 2015 8:57:27 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote: We mandate safety glass, 4 wheel brakes, seat belts and air bags in cars, and we prohibit, or severely restrict lead, mercury and asbestos in consumer products, so why not a few "safety enhancements" in the financial sector? Why is there no government mandated "crash test" of financial products? Why no evaluation of their safety and efficacy comparable to FDA drug screening? -- Unka' George Because the rule is " Let the buyer beware ". The individual or company is responsible for determining the risk in an investment. If you want an investment that is government guaranteed , buy U.S. Bonds. The cost of analysing the risk of all investments is way beyond what the government can do. To do that would require a new government agency many times larger than the IRS. All of that is true, and George's recommendation for "risk testing" is impractical and probably not even desirable.. But let's not forget that much of what was involved in the financial crisis was outright fraud, not financial risk. And much of the rest, while not outright fraud, was a tantamount to fraud. For example, allowing multiple "insurance" claims on the same asset. If we can't detect and deal with fraud, we have a bigger problem. The whole financial system has a problem. A few simple rules would make a huge difference. You can do anything you want between individuals. Any investment available to the general public must be attached to physical assets...all the way down to the deal built on the deal built on the deal. Transparency and accountability. No shell corporations. I want my broker to get 10% of my gains and share 10% of my losses. Every usenet thread needs some personal stories. I went to a seminar marketed to baby boomers. Had to do with investment in shopping centers and had great return numbers. And he was there to help for free. So, I went to the personal consultation. He was really disappointed that I wouldn't pull the trigger, but I took the brochures and did some research. Deep in the verbage was a paragraph that could have been totally replaced by "ponzi scheme"...but it was full disclosure. Turns out that for his free advice, the company paid him 9% off the top. But he was well up in the chain and got another 9% as district manager. The corporation was a tall and wide stack of shell corporations, each of which provided services to the endeavor and charged a fee plus real estate commissions. And at the top of each one was the same one person as sole owner. I didn't find anything I'd accuse of being illegal, but it was very misleading. The part that should have been illegal was selling this stuff. He had baby boomers fighting for the opportunity to give him their entire retirement fund. He oughtabeenshot. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter