[QUOTE]…"wheat dollars".[/QUOTE]How about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_cent#Wheat_cent_.281909.E2.80.931958.29"]wheat pennies[/URL]?

(We had a jar full of them when we were little.)

Anytime we hear a word like "wheat" we have to link to this:

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=320962[/url]

#2

:smile:

[QUOTE=jasonp;337207]Mass dumping of gold for bitcoins?[/QUOTE]Maybeso. I think there might be some overlap between gold holding government/money distrust and bitcoin afficianados. If there is, they might twitch and shift their precioussss.

Well, the guy on "Marketplace" [i]did[/i] say it might be time for investors to consider rebalancing.

This looks interesting. There were three types of errors in a frequently cited paper on economic growth of countries with debt. Five of the 20 countries in an Excel spreadsheet (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, and Denmark) were excluded due to a coding error. This linked article, APR 16, 2013 by Mike Konczal, includes an Excel picture. He says: "Being a bit of a doubting Thomas on this coding error, I wouldn't believe unless I touched the digital Excel wound myself. One of the authors was able to show me that, and here it is."
[URL="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/researchers-finally-replicated-reinhart-rogoff-and-there-are-serious-problems"]Researchers Finally Replicated Reinhart-Rogoff, and There Are Serious Problems.[/URL][QUOTE]In 2010, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff released a paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt." Their "main result is that...median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower." Countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 90 percent have a slightly negative average growth rate, in fact.

This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession. Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget states their study "found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth." The Washington Post editorial board takes it as an economic consensus view, stating that "debt-to-GDP could keep rising — and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]In a new paper, "Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff," Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst successfully replicate the results. After trying to replicate the Reinhart-Rogoff results and failing, they reached out to Reinhart and Rogoff and they were willing to share their data spreadhseet. This allowed Herndon et al. to see how how Reinhart and Rogoff's data was constructed.

They find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don't get their controversial result.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]So what do Herndon-Ash-Pollin conclude? They find "the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent as [Reinhart-Rogoff claim]." [UPDATE: To clarify, they find 2.2 percent if they include all the years, weigh by number of years, and avoid the Excel error.] Going further into the data, they are unable to find a breakpoint where growth falls quickly and significantly.

This is also good evidence for why you should release your data online, so it can be properly vetted. But beyond that, looking through the data and how much it can collapse because of this or that assumption, it becomes quite clear that there's no magic number out there. The debt needs to be thought of as a response to the contingent circumstances we find ourselves in, with mass unemployment, a Federal Reserve desperately trying to gain traction at the zero lower bound, and a gap between what we could be producing and what we are. The past guides us, but so far it has failed to provide an emergency cliff. [B]In fact, it tells us that a larger deficit right now would help us greatly.[/B]

[UPDATE: People are responding to the Excel error, and that is important to document. But from a data point of view, the exclusion of the Post-World War II data is particularly troublesome, as that is driving the negative results. This needs to be explained, as does the weighting, which compresses the long periods of average growth and high debt.][/QUOTE]I've bolded a line above; it lands directly in Paul Krugman's kingdom. Just for fun, I'm including a Paul Krugman internet prognostication from [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/19980610100009/www.redherring.com/mag/issue55/economics.html"]days of yore[/URL]:[QUOTE]The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.[/QUOTE]

The 2012 fourth [URL="http://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/derivatives-quarterly-report.html"]quarterly quarter report on bank derivatives activities[/URL] from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has a lot of data. "Derivatives activity in the U.S. banking system continues to be dominated by a small group of large financial institutions. Four large commercial banks represent 93% of the total banking industry notional amounts and 81% of industry net current credit exposure."

I'm hoping that this is a positive sign: [QUOTE]Net current credit exposure is the primary metric used by the OCC to evaluate credit risk in bank derivatives activities. [B]NCCE for insured U.S. commercial banks and saving associations decreased 3% ($13 billion) to $386 billion in the fourth quarter[/B], as the $188 billion decline in gross receivables (GPFV) exceeded the $175 billion decline in the dollar amount of netting benefits. NCCE peaked at $800 billion at the end of 2008, during the financial crisis, when interest rates had plunged and credit spreads were very high. Although market interest rates are now lower than back in 2008, [B]net current credit exposure is well below the $800 billion peak in 2008.[/B][/QUOTE]added: Although it was about $200 billion for the years leading into 2006.

[URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/did-harvard-economists-excel-error-lead-economic-austerity-185852805.html?vp=1[/URL]

[QUOTE]Reinhart and Rogoff found countries with government debt loads equivalent to or greater than 90 percent of economic output saw their median growth rates fall by 1%. Their average growth rates fell considerably more. In other words, high government debt was bad for economies.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Well now [I]another [/I]set of academics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst have replicated the study. They discovered that thee Harvard professors made an Excel coding error in their research – one that mattered for the results, along with a few other issues.[/QUOTE]

Apparently it's been something some politicians have relied on.

sorry I see it's been brought up already.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;337599][URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/did-harvard-economists-excel-error-lead-economic-austerity-185852805.html?vp=1[/URL]
Apparently it's been something some politicians have relied on.

sorry I see it's been brought up already.[/QUOTE]It's good to have extra coverage. This from your link is helpful:
[QUOTE]It’s an academic debate that’s likely to continue and readers can draw their own conclusions.
As for the idea that an Excel error or any other possible problems with the Reinhart/Rogoff paper was wrongly responsible for justifying modern austerity as we know it, Annie Lowrey in the New York Times points out that other studies have found similar results showing higher debt economies suffered slower growth. The studies are from organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank of International Settlements.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;337610]It's good to have extra coverage. This from your link is helpful:[/QUOTE]

ah but according to one thing at 4:00 into the video says one of the people who made this study error apparently used to run the IMF. if he was at the IMF at the time could this invalidate those studies as well ?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;337616]ah but according to one thing at 4:00 into the video says one of the people who made this study error apparently used to run the IMF. if he was at the IMF at the time could this invalidate those studies as well ?[/QUOTE]Nah. I just took a look at the video. It's better balanced than normal fluff reporting. The only thing I conclude is that if the data had been published with the research, errors would have been caught sooner.

[QUOTE=only_human;337622]Nah. I just took a look at the video. It's better balanced than normal fluff reporting. The only thing I conclude is that if the data had been published with the research, errors would have been caught sooner.[/QUOTE]

a rough compound interest of 8% per interest period shows me that based on the basics of compound interest as I know it to pay a 90% GDP debt off in just over 10 interest periods would take around 12.5 to 13% GDP/interest period and that assumes you use all saved interest towards the debt and no borrowing occurs, and it's all at the same interest rate ( which most debt that I have heard of isn't) just my two cents.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;337638][url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/excel-spreadsheets-krugman-and-question.html]Mish's on the Reinhart-Rogoff tempest[/url] - I like his friend Peter Tenebrarum's take, which focuses on fundamentals rather than academic studies. Recognize that all deficit spending is deferred taxation, ignore the "Nobel prize winning economists" whose arguments reduce to "there is indeed such a thing as a free lunch" and reason things out from there.[/QUOTE]

Mish extensively cited R&R when it suited him. Now it is back to fundamentals.
I bet Mish is enjoying the rogering gold got last week.

Ooh and this masterpiece from Tenebrarum.
[QUOTE]Empirical studies cannot be used to settle points about economic theory.[/QUOTE]

This is up there in the annals of faith-based policy-making. Idiot!

[QUOTE=ewmayer;337827]...said the resident of a nation which gave up any shreds of sovereignty and which is now completely bank-owned real estate due its own disastrous experiment with "how many debt straws can we load on the camel's back?"
[/QUOTE]
Ah come off it dude! What does that have to do with the point I was making? And being resident in Ireland does not mean I agree with the economic policies of the government. My wife will attest that I had told her in mid-2008 that the country was bankrupt.

On this Reinhart/Rogoff tempest, Mish quotes the LA Times, which pulls in some info from the Slate. One sentence further than the LA Times quoted into [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2011/07/deluded_about_debt.single.html"]Robert Schiller's article in the Slate[/URL] is this small paragraph (standing alone for emphasis, I suppose):[QUOTE]We should remember this from high school science: Always pay attention to units of measurement. Get the units wrong and you are totally befuddled.[/QUOTE]
This has been a bit of issue for me. Quite some time back I jumped all over an entry on [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis"]Dimensional Analysis[/URL] because of this line in Wikipedia: "Critics of mainstream economics, notably including adherents of Austrian economics, have claimed that it lacks dimensional consistency."

Schiller goes on in the Slate article to say:[QUOTE]Most people never think about this when they react to the headline debt-to-GDP figure. Can they really be so stupid as to get mixed up by these ratios? Speaking from personal experience, I have to say that they can—because even I, a professional economist, have occasionally had to stop myself from making exactly the same error. Economists who adhere to rational-expectations models of the world will never admit it, but [B]a lot of what happens in markets is driven by pure stupidity—or, rather, inattention, misinformation about fundamentals, and an exaggerated focus on currently circulating stories.[/B][/QUOTE]Dimensional inconsistency may not be a serious flaw in this case because what people are actually doing is producing a number and trying to get hunches about behavior. In this case, Economists are acting a bit like Chartists trying to ride the stock market. That's why I bolded part of the last quote above. Economics is less sciency than most other sciences. Economics + politics + policy = TNT

Sincere question: if a government presides over 'good times' and wants to 'save for bad times', what should it do? What store of value is applicable at the scale of a US or UK-size government, that can be 'cashed in' later for whatever purpose?

[QUOTE=jasonp;337926]Sincere question: if a government presides over 'good times' and wants to 'save for bad times', what should it do? What store of value is applicable at the scale of a US or UK-size government, that can be 'cashed in' later for whatever purpose?[/QUOTE]Simple, possibly simplistic response: pay off incurred debt, if any, to reduce future interest payments.

[QUOTE]Sincere question: if a government presides over 'good times' and wants to 'save for bad times', what should it do?[/QUOTE][url]https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/41?lang=eng[/url]

:snake1:

[SIZE="1"][URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_was_Imhotep"]?[/URL][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;337827]
ZHs Bruce Krasting [URL="http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-21/econogate-and-japan"]is likening the Reinhart/Rogoff tempest to Climategate[/URL], [/QUOTE]... but he gets it backward:
[quote=Bruce Krasting]In 2009 there was [I][B]“Climategate”[/B][/I], where scientists who wanted to see action on reducing greenhouse gases fudged data to “prove” their point.[/quote]No, none of the climatologists fudged any data. It's only science-education-deficient conservatives who still believe that climate scientists fudged data. I guess Kasting's on their side, so beware the soundness of his conclusions.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;337658]a rough compound interest of 8% per interest period shows me that based on the basics of compound interest as I know it to pay a 90% GDP debt off in just over 10 interest periods would take around 12.5 to 13% GDP/interest period and that assumes you use all saved interest towards the debt and no borrowing occurs, and it's all at the same interest rate ( which most debt that I have heard of isn't) just my two cents.[/QUOTE]
The problem here, at least with the US, is that American paper money is debt-based. A Federal Reserve Note, erroneously referred to as a dollar, is a promise to pay back a dollar's worth of gold to the Federal Reserve Bank. So we have a situation which is kind of like paying of a credit card debt with the same credit card.

Off-topic(feel free to ignore):

The situation continuously generates profits for the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank, so they have no reason to suddenly call in the debt. They'll continue like this for another hundred years, I'm guessing, if they can get away with it.

This is also connected to how we got away from the type of taxing system I approve of. You'll notice that Federal Reserve Notes and the Great Depression are linked together. Debt-based banking created a boom, then the creaters of the boom pulled out the rug from under things and bought out a ton of American companies for pennies on the dollar.

[QUOTE]This is also connected to how we got away from the type of taxing system I approve of. You'll notice that Federal Reserve Notes and the Great Depression are linked together. Debt-based banking created a boom, then the creaters of the boom pulled out the rug from under things and bought out a ton of American companies for pennies on the dollar. [/QUOTE]

While I agree with some of the basics, the conclusions above are unsupported. You might review the gold backed currency and Nixon taking us off of a gold backed currency. This did not happen in the 1930's or even the 1940's, but in 1971 and was a direct result of an inflationary environment where we had more dollars floating than gold to back them.

DarJones

[url]http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/hacked-ap-twitter-feed-rocks-market-after-sending-false-news-flash/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;338091][URL]http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/hacked-ap-twitter-feed-rocks-market-after-sending-false-news-flash/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Pitiful, jest pitiful. -JC

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;338090]While I agree with some of the basics, the conclusions above are unsupported. You might review the gold backed currency and Nixon taking us off of a gold backed currency. This did not happen in the 1930's or even the 1940's, but in 1971 and was a direct result of an inflationary environment where we had more dollars floating than gold to back them.

DarJones[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because a guy like Nixon was so damn honest. I mean he couldn't possibly have sided against the American people for his own political gain.

This one should get Literka's blood seething. Greece is laying off public sector employees! They have already cut loose a policeman who was stealing debit cards and another person who had 110 days of unexcused absences. At this rate, they might fire a yoyo or two in the next 3 years.

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0426/Greece-starts-firing-civil-servants-for-first-time-in-a-century?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem[/url]

DarJones

This one is not a surprise. None of the big players have been taken down. They get some small bit player and nail them.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/mortgage-processor-executive-gets-20-162938188.html[/url]

[QUOTE]GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- The former president of a mortgage document processing company has been sentenced to up to 20 years in prison on a racketeering charge in a Michigan case.

Lorraine Brown pleaded guilty in February. The attorney general's office says she was sentenced in Kent County on Thursday. Circuit Judge Mark Trusock ordered Brown to serve 40 months to 20 years.

The state says the 51-year-old Brown orchestrated a robo-signing scheme in which employees fraudulently signed another authorized person's name on mortgage documents to expedite foreclosures. [/QUOTE]

DarJones

I think the smartest thing to do is realize that the world doesn't make sense, and won't suddenly make sense simply because we're mad at it.

Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.

[QUOTE=jasong;339704]I think the smartest thing to do is realize that the world doesn't make sense, and won't suddenly make sense simply because we're mad at it.

Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.[/QUOTE]It's not clear to me that either of those claims are true.

As an extreme example, almost everyone has more than the average number of limbs.

As for the question as to whom you meet, I suspect that a typical teacher for the educationally sub-normal meets far more people of below-average intellectual abilities than does the typical university professor.

[QUOTE=xilman;339709]It's not clear to me that either of those claims are true.

As an extreme example, almost everyone has more than the average number of limbs.

As for the question as to whom you meet, I suspect that a typical teacher for the educationally sub-normal meets far more people of below-average intellectual abilities than does the typical university professor.[/QUOTE]
I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.

[QUOTE=jasong;339777]I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that Paul's point was "anal-retentive about details". He was simply pointing out that several of your claims are obviously not true. Statistics is potentially the most powerful branch of mathematics, primarily because it can make predictions about the future. When you make claims about averages that can't be supported, you are relying on your intuition, rather than mathematics, and you should certainly be prepared for the possibility, as any good scientist, that your intuition may possibly be wrong. Do you have any actual evidence that "significantly more than half believe they're above average"? In statistics, significance relates to the sample size. You may be right, but a little knowledge of statistics plus some actual data is what you would need to back up such a claim. The problem is defining "average". As a community college math instructor, I would not be surprised to find that 52% of people in the general population think that they are "above average" in their ability to do arithmetic with fractions, as we often find incoming students with an inflated conception of their capability to do basic math. But even though only 50% can be above average, even if 52% think they are above average, is this "statistically significant" in a large enough sample? I hope you see my point.

If you are interested in furthering your knowledge of mathematics, I would encourage you to study statistics, because of its many useful applications. The beauty is that you will soon discover many real-world applications for your new-found knowledge, and if you are able to apply this knowledge, it will certainly make you a more contributing member of society.

Good luck!

Phil

[QUOTE=jasong;339704]Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.[/QUOTE]Averaging. heh. A food server once ratcheted her thumb in some way and flipped a quarter off her wrist. Will Rogers: [I]I've never met a man I didn't like.[/I]

[QUOTE=jasong;339777]I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.[/QUOTE]Amongst other things, I'm trying to teach you how to argue your case more effectively because, frankly, you often don't do a very good job of it.

First off, you should read what you've written and think: do I really mean that, is what I wrote really true? If not, how should I rephrase it to remove inaccuracies and unintentional ambiguities?

Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average". The same goes for "mode".

Thirdly, if you inadvertently make an error, and we all do, you should accept the correction graciously, admit the error and make corrections and/or clarifications as needed.

[QUOTE=xilman;339835]Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average". [/QUOTE]

I obviously made the same mistake as Jason above, talking of 50% being "above average" instead of "above the median". I should take my own advice and do statistics more often!

[QUOTE=philmoore;339852]I obviously made the same mistake as Jason above, talking of 50% being "above average" instead of "above the median". I should take my own advice and do statistics more often![/QUOTE]Thank you. A perfect object lesson in how to follow my third point. Jason take note.

I have now taken a Coursera class (more than half done now) to re-learn all terminology in English: [URL="https://class.coursera.org/biostats-002/wiki/view?page=syllabus"]Mathematical Biostatistics Boot Camp[/URL]. It was very helpful. I felt like I was back to school. Hearing a live person using an active subject-specific terminology over and over again was very refreshing.

Also, of course it helped me to refresh the Bayesian way of thinking (because [I]NN[/I] years ago, the classes that I had were in a frequentist vein and in Russian). Now when I hear e.g. "marginal probability" I am no longer confused into thinking that this refers to a [I]very small value[/I]; it is an integral of a multivariate density over one of the variables. (Surely, median, average, variance etc are not hard, but there are many technical terms that are in interpreters' lingo are called "[URL="http://masterrussian.com/blfalse.shtml"]interepreter's false friends[/URL]".) Lastly, a "posterior" usually doesn't refer to somebody's lower back. ;-)

[QUOTE=xilman;339835]Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average". The same goes for "mode".[/QUOTE]

In everyday usage here, it is very common to use "average" ambiguously. If I were to use the word "median", I suspect I would get some very puzzled looks. I'm curious, in the U.K. is "median" used in typical conversation?

[QUOTE=Prime95;339861]In everyday usage here, it is very common to use "average" ambiguously. If I were to use the word "median", I suspect I would get some very puzzled looks. I'm curious, in the U.K. is "median" used in typical conversation?[/QUOTE]
Hoping that Paul doesn't mind me, as an ex-Brit, answering this one:

Just as in the USA, "average" is ambiguously used in the UK. The expressions "median" and "mode/modal average" would be rarely understood at all outside specialist circles, and even "mean" would sometimes be met with incomprehension. I suspect there's no difference between the different sides of the Atlantic.

Obviously the distinction was important in the discussion above, though. And the confusion is a good illustration of why statistics, even though widely used in the psyche of the general population, are so poorly understood. The vocabulary is frequently inadequate to express the ideas properly.

[QUOTE]A statistician to another statistician:
-- Does this assumption make my posterior look too large?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Wheat"].[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Batalov;339875]A statistician to another statistician:
-- Does this assumption make my posterior look too large?[COLOR=Wheat].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
ROFL!!!!!:rofl::missingteeth: (Well, a genuine LOL anyway!)

Jason, I'm sorry I didn't notice this sooner: [QUOTE=jasong;332717]Did you know Republicans are more likely to laugh at stuff that parodies their point of view than Democrats in a similar situation?[/QUOTE]There's "laugh at" and then there's "learn from".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;339853]Don't know to what extent such self-flattery extends to other aspects of life. Perhaps analogously with driverdom, "90% of people believe they have a sold grasp of statistics"?[/QUOTE]

Most people think that they are really great in bed. Of course, this is really annoying to those of us who really are. :whistle: (H/T to Only Human, I think.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;341924]A reader - we'll just refer to him as "A reader" - just asked me about the recent wild run-up in share price of Tesla motors.[/QUOTE]

In your opinion...

Is the ability to "short" a stock or a currency a good thing?

Or a bad thing?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;341929]Good, because it allows price-skepticism to be explicitly expressed (by way of contrast to the "this thing is overpriced - so I simply won't buy it" choice which would be the only one, absent options).[/QUOTE]

A classic "The Economist" response.

Now, how does one who owns shares (or currency) stop shorting?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;341932]The free-market (that is, strictly hypothetical, since there ain't no semblance of such a thing anymore) way of doing that is to prove the shorters wrong about the stock and cause them to lose their money. I know, it sounds crazy...[/QUOTE]

Theoretically, a "shorter" could lose an infinite amount of money.

Somehow, they never do....

[QUOTE=ewmayer]Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 29 May 13 at 22:39 Reason: No, they can only have their puts expire worthless ... 100% < oo[/QUOTE]

Could I please ask that the "supermods" not do tricks like this?

If you have something to say, say it in a manner which everyone is alerted to.

{OT}

[QUOTE=chalsall;341934]Theoretically, a "shorter" could lose an infinite amount of money.

Somehow, they never do....[/QUOTE]... in real life.

But Hollywood Stock Exchange (hsx.com) implemented a version of shorting that does allow the shorter to lose more than 100% (though still not infinite). In such a case, the shorted security, when covered (forced at expiration, or voluntarily earlier), returns a negative amount of "HSX money" to the holder, reducing his/her net worth.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;342054]But Hollywood Stock Exchange (hsx.com) implemented a version of shorting that does allow the shorter to lose more than 100% (though still not infinite).[/QUOTE]

Sorry.

Too much BS. And a "ticker tape" at the bottom of the screen is so, like, yesteryear. That's what 'bots are for.

[QUOTE][B]Short Futures or Options:[/B] These are really for sophisticated investors. In the case of futures, you can lose more than your initial investment. Something else: if you do not offset your contract, you will get actual delivery of the commodity. So what can you do with 5,000 ounces of silver?[/QUOTE]My partner worked for a commodities broker for more than 20 years. I was always intensely confused by acrobatics like the above. However, I have always been delighted by some of the proverbs I heard of from that line of business. To wit-

[QUOTE]He who sells what isn't his'n
Must buy it back or go to prison.[/QUOTE]I only wish that this was truly the case with these high rollers, especially when the "commodities" are bizarre financial instruments which have the potential for crashing the economy, as well as chiseling hundreds of billions out of the taxpayers.

EDIT: Source for opening quote: [url]http://investorplace.com/2011/05/3-ways-to-short-commodities/[/url]
I have no idea of the reliability of this source, but it provided a reasonably pithy description.

No We Are Not Living Beyond Our Means -Robert Reich
 

[URL]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17698-focus-no-we-are-not-living-beyond-our-means[/URL]

[YOUTUBE]_GFYi6bi7G4[/YOUTUBE]

Have at it, but don't expect me to defend. I have neither the skill nor the inclination to take on the heavy hitters here. That's why I post expert discourse. The link includes text discussion.

A central issue with the economy is wage stagnation. Many industries have given pay raises less than the rate of inflation. Quite a few have had no raises at all in 5 or more years. The money is flowing into pockets somewhere, but the average employee is losing ground.

DarJones

We have a Hindenburg Omen, as of last Friday. (It should be noted that this technical indicator is used as a lure to the site [URL="http://www.technicalindicatorindex.com"]www.technicalindicatorindex.com[/URL])

"This Stock Market Omen Has Been Confirmed"
[URL]http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/this-stock-market-omen-has-been-confirmed.html/[/URL]

One could ask, "How many successful dockings did the [I]Hindenburg[/I] and other hydrogen-buoyed dirigibles make without burning?"

(This may not be causally related to the stock market.)

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;342306]A central issue with the economy is wage stagnation. Many industries have given pay raises less than the rate of inflation. Quite a few have had no raises at all in 5 or more years. The money is flowing into pockets somewhere, but the average employee is losing ground.

DarJones[/QUOTE]

My father, an American Airlines pilot, has not seen a "raise" [I]per se [/I]since the early 1990s; he (as did all AA pilots) in fact endured *cuts* in pay immediately following the post-9/11 recession and its devastating blow to the airline industry. The company then stonewalled any negotiations with the pilots' union for a new pilot contract, claiming that the pilots were attempting to bleed the company into bankruptcy, as all the while, executives claimed their usual seven- and eight-figure bonuses. All of this, of course, came to a head with the airline declaring bankruptcy in late 2011. Now it looks as though American will merge with US Airways, and wages should improve, albeit probably nowhere near where an inflation-indexed COLA scheme would peg them.

This situation is endemic in many other industries and within many other companies. The question that I have been pondering quite frequently is that if wages have by-and-large stagnated for the last 10, 20, even 30 years, yet prices of everything from food to fuel to building materials have doubled, tripled, or worse, who is pocketing the difference? And perhaps more importantly, how is the average Alice, Bob, and 0.8 children (the US average birth rate recently dropped from the infamous 1.5 children/family to below 1 child/family ostensibly due to economic constraints (colleges and Sallie Mae, anyone?) forcing Millennials to delay marriages and families into their 30s or beyond) making up the difference between their stagnated wages and the inflating prices? Extra debt on the credit card? Less contribution to the 401(k)? Borrowing from the parents? The long-term ramifications of any of these options - a credit card debt bubble and mass default, an entire generation overly dependent on Social Security that may well not be 100% funded, or aging, tapped-out Baby Boomers unable to afford housing, medical treatments, or long-term care in their later years - are not pretty, any way you consider them.

Anyone noticed how expensive it has become to take a family out to Mickey D's? If four people each order a sandwich, fries, and drink, the bill can exceed $20. This has basically (at least) doubled in the last fifteen years. What is especially troubling is how the employees will rattle off totals like $20 or $25 without even hesitating or blinking an eye...an indication that we have become desensitized to these high prices *despite* wage stagnation! It's easier than ever to *spend* $20, but it's still not an easy feat to land a job paying $20 an hour!

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;342727]My father, an American Airlines pilot, has not seen a "raise" [I]per se [/I]since the early 1990s; he (as did all AA pilots) in fact endured *cuts* in pay immediately following the post-9/11 recession and its devastating blow to the airline industry. The company then stonewalled any negotiations with the pilots' union for a new pilot contract, claiming that the pilots were attempting to bleed the company into bankruptcy, as all the while, executives claimed their usual seven- and eight-figure bonuses. All of this, of course, came to a head with the airline declaring bankruptcy in late 2011. Now it looks as though American will merge with US Airways, and wages should improve, albeit probably nowhere near where an inflation-indexed COLA scheme would peg them.

This situation is endemic in many other industries and within many other companies. The question that I have been pondering quite frequently is that if wages have by-and-large stagnated for the last 10, 20, even 30 years, yet prices of everything from food to fuel to building materials have doubled, tripled, or worse, who is pocketing the difference? And perhaps more importantly, how is the average Alice, Bob, and 0.8 children (the US average birth rate recently dropped from the infamous 1.5 children/family to below 1 child/family ostensibly due to economic constraints (colleges and Sallie Mae, anyone?) forcing Millennials to delay marriages and families into their 30s or beyond) making up the difference between their stagnated wages and the inflating prices? Extra debt on the credit card? Less contribution to the 401(k)? Borrowing from the parents? The long-term ramifications of any of these options - a credit card debt bubble and mass default, an entire generation overly dependent on Social Security that may well not be 100% funded, or aging, tapped-out Baby Boomers unable to afford housing, medical treatments, or long-term care in their later years - are not pretty, any way you consider them.

Anyone noticed how expensive it has become to take a family out to Mickey D's? If four people each order a sandwich, fries, and drink, the bill can exceed $20. This has basically (at least) doubled in the last fifteen years. What is especially troubling is how the employees will rattle off totals like $20 or $25 without even hesitating or blinking an eye...an indication that we have become desensitized to these high prices *despite* wage stagnation! It's easier than ever to *spend* $20, but it's still not an easy feat to land a job paying $20 an hour![/QUOTE]

As college costs continue to inflate at greater than 6%/yr..........

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;342736]As college costs continue to inflate at greater than 6%/yr..........[/QUOTE]

It does not serve the elites' perceived interests to over-educate the servant class.

Another data point in this mystery economic theatre of the absurd: [URL="http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-rent-a-tire-20130609,0,2490443,full.story"]High prices are driving more motorists to rent tires[/URL][QUOTE]Soaring costs for natural rubber and petroleum used to manufacture tires have pushed up prices. The average price of a passenger tire in the U.S. increased 57% in 2012 from 2006, according to data from trade publication Modern Tire Dealer. The prices on some popular sizes have more than doubled.

Consumers, meanwhile, have an increasingly difficult time affording big-ticket purchases.

Since 2009, median household income has fallen more than 5%. And in the wake of the recession, the number of households in the country with credit histories too damaged to qualify for most credit cards has risen to 35% from 27% five years ago.

With more people shut out of traditional financing, the rent-to-own industry has flourished. Promising no credit checks, small down payments and the option to return merchandise at any time with no questions asked, chains such as Rent-a-Center are raking in huge profits from a customer base that's swelled to 4.8 million people, up 67% since 2007, according to the Assn. of Progressive Rental Organizations.[/QUOTE]

IMO, there is one valid reason for renting to own. That is for someone who does not have a credit history. For that person, rent to own can be a way to establish a credit record. Otherwise, the prices are outrageous. And for the record, I have never rented to own anything.

There are two things I despise worse than rent to own. Pawn your title pawnshops and payday loan lenders. I'm not saying what I think of pawn shops that make payday loans.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;342930]Earlier today while quick-looking on Amazon.com for a paperback copy of [i]1984[/i] to fill the hole in my bookcase...[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, Niccolò Machiavelli's [URL="http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm"]The Prince[/URL] is considered seminal, and is legally available for free.

Thanks Sonny Bono for the "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act"]Mickey Mouse Protection Act[/URL]".

May you rest in piece for all the good you did.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344259][I'm going to be optimistic and assume that at least one other person besides us still reads this crap.][/QUOTE]Nope. There's no-one here but us chickens.

[QUOTE=xilman;344291]Nope. There's no-one here but us chickens.[/QUOTE]
Paul, have you been carefully breeding with your hens to produce specially intelligent offspring? One of them appears to have hacked your account.

[QUOTE=xilman;344291]Nope. There's no-one here but us chickens.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;344292]Paul, have you been carefully breeding with your hens to produce specially intelligent offspring? One of them appears to have hacked your account.[/QUOTE]
I can resist anything but temptation...

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWsYfvHi1U]Louis Jordan[/url]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;344292]Paul, have you been carefully breeding with your hens to produce specially intelligent offspring? One of them appears to have hacked your account.[/QUOTE]

:grin::big grin::goodposting: +1!

Oops! Sorry, Paul. This may be hard to believe, but I honestly didn't mean to include the word "with" in my last posting, Kieren's enthusiasm notwithstanding. I think possibly David's posting alerted me to the crude side of what I had written. All I meant to imply was some inbreeding among the hens (with roosters).
:blush:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344317]Ah - so next time Paul uses the initialism SWMBO we know it's just a symptom of being a henpecked husband.[/QUOTE]Got it in one.

I was going to make a comment about using a cock to breed with the hens but thought better of it.

But, on the bright side, [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115685/quotes"]in Guatemala[/URL],
[QUOTE]Armand: ...A woman is said to be worth her weight in hens. And a man's wealth is measured by the size [SPOILER]of his cock[/SPOILER].[/QUOTE]

I suggest that we should put this sub-thread to bed now. I'm surprised that Unc willy hasn't already leapt in.

[QUOTE=xilman;344362]I suggest that we should put this sub-thread to bed now. I'm surprised that Unc willy hasn't already leapt in.[/QUOTE]
Another attempt at double entendre?

[URL="http://www.toobighasfailed.org/2013/06/26/bank-of-america-chalk/"]Californian Jeff Olson Faces 13 Years In Jail For Writing Anti-Wall Street Messages In Chalk[/URL][QUOTE]Huffington Post has the headline, and an ABC station in San Diego has the story: Jeff Olson, a California man, wrote sidewalk messages last year that derided Bank of America, and he’s currently in trial, facing 13 years of jail and $13,000 in restitution fees.

Oh, and the messages were written in water-soluble chalk. But Bank of America claims that it cost them $6,000 to clean them up.

It’s no wonder, then, that Olson said, “Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this is happening” as he left the courtroom.

It’s a surreal story, especially following last week’s revelations six former Bank of America employees admitted that the bank systematically lied to customers in order to foreclose on them. This way bank employees could get bonuses in the form of cash and gift cards.[/QUOTE]via Adam Liss on g+[QUOTE]In other words, just so we're all clear:

Protest with chalk: 13 years in jail
Illegally foreclose on customers: 0 years in jail
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;344486]Aside: Gold getting hammered (into leaf, obviously :) again today - if it drops below $1000/oz I may be tempted to start buyin'. A global mass-liquidation-to-meet-margin-calls event could drive it much lower, in fact. But not sustainable so - there has simply been too much money printing in the past 5 years.[/QUOTE]
I've always felt that gold reflects the world economy, so if I'm correct then gold crashing means the world economy is improving, or about to improve. Maybe the ultra-rich know something us mere mortals don't?

[QUOTE=jasong;344627]I've always felt that gold reflects the world economy, so if I'm correct then gold crashing means the world economy is improving, or about to improve. Maybe the ultra-rich know something us mere mortals don't?[/QUOTE]For the last few decades the gold price has been denominated in dollars. Strong gold is equivalent to weak USD and vice versa.

[QUOTE=xilman;344634]For the last few decades the gold price has been denominated in dollars. Strong gold is equivalent to weak USD and vice versa.[/QUOTE]
If I were to actively make a comparison, I'd do it by the weight of gold. So if a person were worth $10k in 1950 and $50k in 2013, I'd determine who was better off by how much gold they could buy in their respective years with the money they had at that time.

Mind you, I don't literally own gold at the moment, I don't think my assets are enough to where tying up my money in gold would be a good idea. But my basic idea is that when gold goes up, the economy is either going bad or about to go bad, and when gold goes down, it means the economy is improving, or about to improve. I mean the world economy, not just the US economy, so locally things could run contrary to the gold predictions without me being wrong.

Of course, the problem is,"What happens if a large chunk of the population thinks my theory is top-notch and starts buying and selling gold themselves?" Then, of course, my theory goes to shit. It may have already gone to shit, my research happened 20 years ago, and consisted of me noting gold prices for different time periods and then picking the brains of people who remembered that time about the economy. Not exactly scientific, although I didn't tell them why I was asking.

What does PM and ETF stand for? Also, I've never heard of Zero Hedge. I'm guessing, but not assuming, that you think I've heard of these magazines, or websites, or whatever they are.

I googled "What does MET mean?" and got this:

[url]http://www.abbreviations.com/MET[/url]

I'm assuming the acronym is financially related, but nothing jumps out.

I googled "What does MET mean?" and got this:

[url]http://www.abbreviations.com/MET[/url]

I'm assuming the acronym is financially related, but nothing jumps out.

Wait, Metal Equities Trading? Is that what it stands for?

[QUOTE=jasong;344679]I googled "What does MET mean?" and got this:

[URL]http://www.abbreviations.com/MET[/URL]

I'm assuming the acronym is financially related, but nothing jumps out.[/QUOTE]At the top of this page:

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php"]mersenneforum.org[/URL] > [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=27"]Extra Stuff[/URL] > [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20"]Soap Box[/URL]
[b]Mystery Economic Theater 2013[/b][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=344679#post344679"][/URL]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;344684]At the top of this page:

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php"]mersenneforum.org[/URL] > [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=27"]Extra Stuff[/URL] > [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20"]Soap Box[/URL]
[b]Mystery Economic Theater 2013[/b][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=344679#post344679"][/URL][/QUOTE]
lol, ok, so the research hint was mis-followed.

Reading jasong's posts is entertaining in a twisted way.

On a more relevant note, the collapse in precious metals prices is on the verge of triggering another massive selloff. So far, the impact of falling prices has been compartmentalized with little effect on the broader market. But this may change if PM's implode with a price collapse below $800. There is a high probability of market damage that could drive people back into cash positions. Thoughts?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;345497][B]Samedi rêveries:[/B]

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/opinion/sunday/dowd-goodbye-old-world-bonjour-tristesse.html?ref=opinion"]Frenchistential Crisis[/URL]

Ms. Dowd notes economic themes in her piece, thus quite on-topic despite the jesting tone.
[/QUOTE]

This may be the funniest Dowd piece I've seen since the one which involved George HW, Babs, Baker, and maybe Pickles trying to coax W out of his locked office to do something sensible regarding the Middle East, while the dog, trapped in the office with W, scratches at the door to be let out.

Perhaps I can look that up via Dan's subscription access.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;346412][i][sup]*[/sup]Note that "God's Work" is an official trademark of Goldman, Sachs Inc.[/i][/QUOTE]

Just wondering ewmayer...

When are you going to go beyond commentary, and begin making explicit comment?

Like a child's toy... Just wind them up a little bit, and watch them go....

definitely not the energizer bunny though.

The Detroit bankruptcy is just one more step in the ongoing saga. I told a few friends last weekend that it would happen within 3 weeks.

What can be expected now? Well, there will be massive screaming and pulling of hair as various lenders are clipped to a multi billion dollar tune. There will also be gnashing teeth as the unions and retirees realize that their cash cow is a scrawny bag of bones that does not give milk any more. Buy a bag of popcorn and a drink, pull up a lounge chair and watch the fireworks. This will be interesting to say the least.

DarJones

Big piece on gaming metals storage: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]A Shuffle of Aluminum, but to Banks, Pure Gold[/URL] But all this middle-man action has got to help liquidity (availablility, timeliness, etc.), right? Glad you asked. It doesn't:[QUOTE]Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories. But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than 20-fold — to more than 16 months, according to industry records.[/QUOTE]But they paid for their position and it should take decades for them to recoup right? No:[QUOTE] To Metro, it keeps the delays long, allowing the company to continue charging a daily rent of 48 cents a ton. Goldman bought the company for $550 million in 2010 and at current rates could collect about a quarter-billion dollars a year in rent.[/QUOTE]But these paragons of virtue might dominate one commodity but they can't do the same with others right? Well,[QUOTE]In 2010, JPMorgan quietly embarked on a huge buying spree in the copper market. Within weeks — by the time it had been identified as the mystery buyer — the bank had amassed $1.5 billion in copper, more than half of the available amount held in all of the warehouses on the exchange. Copper prices spiked in response.

At the same time, JPMorgan, which also controls metal warehouses, began seeking approval of a plan that would ultimately allow it, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, a large money management firm, to buy 80 percent of the copper available on the market on behalf of investors and hold it in warehouses.[/QUOTE]Good to see that cheap fed money is being applied toward benevolent social benefit.
Some of us in California are still stinging over the electricity manipulation. None of these guys would do that kind of thing, right?[QUOTE]In the last year, federal authorities have accused three banks, including JPMorgan, of rigging electricity prices, and last week JPMorgan was trying to reach a settlement that could cost it $500 million.[/QUOTE]Bye now. Thanks for playing.

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/21/bankruptcy-lawyers-detroit-creditors_n_3630960.html"]Bankruptcy Lawyers See Land Of Opportunity In Detroit Crisis[/URL][QUOTE]Orr, the emergency manager, has outlined in court papers his plans to create a new water and sewer management authority, transfer Detroit's Belle Isle Park to the state of Michigan, and restructure Coleman A. Young airport, which has not serviced commercial jets in 13 years but which the city must maintain to keep some federal subsidies.[/QUOTE]Perhaps Pittsburgh has advice on water and sewer management authorities. Coleman A. Young airport is actually [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman_A._Young_International_Airport"]Coleman A. Young [B]International[/B] Airport[/URL]. What a waste. The FAA shut down the tower there in March. Gotta keep the drama going though so that the cargo cult subsidies continue.

Looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic, what's to stop Michigan or federal authorities expanding the definition of Detroit to cover all the Detroit metro area, at which point the rich suburbs join the tax base and get to pay to save the city?

American -people? pay a bit to help other? I'm sorry, but based on a few example I know, that is not an USAan idea. Unless it is tax-deductible, like charity. But maybe that's a stereotype.

[QUOTE=fivemack;346948]Looking at this from the other side of the Atlantic, what's to stop Michigan or federal authorities expanding the definition of Detroit to cover all the Detroit metro area, at which point the rich suburbs join the tax base and get to pay to save the city?[/QUOTE]

[SPOILER](Please turn off your irony detector before proceeding. Otherwise, you risk burning it out.)[/SPOILER]

You miss the point of the whole thing, which is to stick it to the less well off for the benefit of the wealthy. The folks in outlying gated communities don't want THEIR money wasted on those deadbeats in the inner cities. Downtowns should be turned into nice, safe, Disney-like environments so that the deserving rich have a place for an occasional pleasant night out. This also provides appropriate servant employment for the aforementioned deadbeats.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;346902]
And speaking of those doers-of-God's-work-on-earth at Goldman ...

[b]Sunday Humor:[/b]

[url=www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-13/goldman-banker-knocked-out-screaming-racial-slurs-serious-condition]Drunk Goldman Banker Knocked Out For Screaming Racial Slurs, In Serious Condition[/url]

There really needs to be a "justifiable KTFO" exemption in assault laws for this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

It appears to be a clear case of self defense to me.....

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;346971]It appears to be a clear case of self defense to me.....[/QUOTE]

[SNARK]Indeed, except that the respective skin tones preclude that conclusion.[/SNARK]

[QUOTE=only_human;346862]Big piece on gaming metals storage: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]A Shuffle of Aluminum, but to Banks, Pure Gold[/URL] [/QUOTE]This "The House Edge" article may be an extension of an earlier NYT series, [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/series/house_advantage_series/index.html"]"House Advantage"[/URL], that examined "the ways that Wall Street banks can, and often do, gain advantages over their customers."

We can hope
 

Fed eyes new [URL="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/24/big-banks-worst-fears-realized-as-federal-reserve-eyes-new-regulations-over-commodities-trading/"]regulation[/URL] of banks in the commodities biz.

A lot of money is wasted on botched and delayed IT projects. The technical reasons they fail may belong in another thread but the sheer wastefulness of throwing away taxpayer money and the hubris of reinventing the wheel multiple times to have a precioussss project of their very own belongs here I think.
[URL="http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/pennsylvania-wont-renew-ibms-contract-for-botched-project"]Pennsylvania Won't Renew IBM's Contract for Botched Project[/URL][QUOTE]Pennsylvania’s Labor and Industry Secretary Julia Hearthway announced Wednesday that the state has decided not to renew its contract with IBM to modernize the state’s 40-year-old unemployment compensation computer system. According to an AP report, the contract, which was awarded in 2006 and is set to expire in 2013, is currently 42 months late and over $60 million above its original contract amount of $106.9 million.[/QUOTE]Here in LA LA land, Californians have experienced similar failures multiple times: [URL="http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/15/california-computer-projects-delayed-overbudget/"]California and its troubled tech projects[/URL][QUOTE]This week’s [Feb 2013] announcement that state technology officials have fired the firm in charge of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ $208 million system upgrade was just the latest setback for a state with a difficult history on such projects.

The DMV has spent seven years and $135 million to upgrade its driver’s license and vehicle registration systems, but minimal progress was being made on the registration end.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Delays and cost overruns have become familiar for government technology upgrades in California. The growing list of setbacks and boondoggles is particularly disheartening to some given California’s worldwide reputation as the cradle of the tech revolution. Recent examples:

• This month, Controller John Chiang fired the latest company tasked with guiding a $371 million overhaul of the state’s payroll system. Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has called for a hearing, citing the $254 million of public money that has already been spent “with apparently little to show for it.”

• Last year, state court officials abandoned a $2 billion project designed to unify 500 court facilities under one computing system. Officials were reportedly told it could take an additional $1.3 billion to complete a decade-long undertaking that already cost $500 million but produced noteworthy court upgrades in only seven of 58 counties.

• In 2011, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System finished its computer system two years late and at nearly twice the budgeted amount — from $279 million to more than $514 million. CalPERS apologized after thousands of retirees or their survivors received incorrect payments, and some retirees got notices saying their health insurance policies were being canceled.

• In San Diego, the computing system that allows city employees to interface more efficiently through their computers was last reported to be behind schedule and $11 million over its $42 million budget. The city attributed the setbacks to an overambitious schedule, low cost estimates and too many project managers. Officials could not provide U-T Watchdog a status update this week.[/QUOTE]

Interesting trivia thought, but what would happen if Amazon and Ebay combined? It would add together the largest online retailer with the largest online auction market. Market cap based on today's value would be about $205 Billion. This would launch both businesses into the stratosphere where only a few large companies currently reside.

It will never happen.

DarJones

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;348969]Interesting trivia thought, but what would happen if Amazon and Ebay combined? It would add together the largest online retailer with the largest online auction market. Market cap based on today's value would be about $205 Billion. This would launch both businesses into the stratosphere where only a few large companies currently reside.

It will never happen.

DarJones[/QUOTE]
Talk about a complete feature set. Ebay owns PayPal too.

This one speaks for itself.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-incredible-con-the-ba_b_3768208.html[/url]

Too bad he is not treasury secretary or federal reserve chair.

That's a long article. What point did you want to make?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;349850]LOL! ...said the fellow who's been pestering folks to raad his longwinded pet monograph on "alternative steady-state cosmologies", which is facilely shown to begin with a set of wildly illogical axioms and unproven/implausible hypothesis, and which thus cannot possible "get better" with the addition of 30-odd pages of added details.

Thanks, Dave, for saving me the effort of having to come up with my own "Friday Humor" section this week.[/QUOTE]

'Fraid your sarcasm is based on two errors.

The two paragraphs you saw were near the end, not the start.
It is not long-winded, it's rather concise.

And your failure to even read it is telling.

[QUOTE]And your failure to even read it is telling. [/QUOTE]

et tu Bruto.

Ok.

If so, it were a grievous fault.

No more.