Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Last 6 Books
- Catcher in the Rye
- Great Gatsby
- House of Cards
- American Psycho
- The Great Contraction, 1929-1933: Chapter Seven of Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960
- The Brothers Karamazov
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Perishable History
Last week’s post talked about early-20th-century “egg gamblers” who bought eggs cheap in spring in order to sell dear in winter. Their kind of speculation proved not just controversial but also pretty risky, and ultimately doomed. Why?
Egg gamblers won only if they sold off their cold-storage stocks before fresh ones arrived in spring. They faced two major unknowns: housewives who sometimes protested egg “hoarding” with organized boycotts, and hens who might start laying earlier than expected. Because hens are acutely sensitive to shifts in daylight and temperature, all it took was a February thaw to set them off, sending egg prices plummeting.
Poultry farmers, meanwhile, just wanted to know how to get their own flocks to lay more eggs when fresh ones were scarcest and priciest. They knew that some chicken breeds laid a few more winter eggs than others, and that warm housing and a rich diet generally helped. But the most dramatic results came with the flick of a switch — literally. Read more…
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Troubles for the Class of '09
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Most Neurotic States
There is much more here on the geographic distribution of other major personality traits. The high conscientious people seem to cluster in the Plains. Openness is strong in the Pacific West, New England, Texas, and Florida. The upper Midwest dominates for extroversion.Monday, April 6, 2009
Internet Perusing
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sham Pow
Read more here.
Jay Leno
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Liberals and Taxes
Complete analysis here.
Game Theory in Geithner's Plan
Let's say that I am a bank ("financial institution") with $100 billion in "toxic assets". I have them on my balance sheet at 80 cents on the dollar. The market has them marked at 30 cents. We do not know what the held-to-maturity performance will be, since that requires knowing the future, although for the moment let's assume that they are cash-flowing at the present time.
What I (the bank) do know, however, is that if I sell them at 30 cents I take a monstrous loss - perhaps enough to force me under Tier Capital limits and thus render me subject to an FDIC enforcement action. I therefore will not sell for 30 cents so long as I have any belief whatsoever that the cash flow - or any government subsidy - will exceed that value.
If I, as a "financial institution" can participate as a bidder in these auctions I can foist off my loss onto the taxpayer. Here is how I can rig the game so as to avoid an otherwise-inevitable loss:
- I become a "bidder" and "bid" on my own assets at 75 cents.
- I am providing 5 or 10% of the money. The rest is covered by Treasury, The Fed and the FDIC via guaranteed bond issuance.
- The loan, ex my contribution, is non-recourse. That is, I can lose 5 or 10% of the total portfolio purchased, but nothing more.
Now the "assets" (a passel of CDOs?) turn out to be worthless. I lose 5% of $75 billion, or $3.75 billion that I put up, plus the other nickel on the original mark, but that's all.
The taxpayer gets hosed for the remaining $71.25 billion dollars.
This can and will be done if the "sellers" of these assets are allowed to bid either directly or indirectly as it provides a means for banks to intentionally dump bad assets at a certain loss that is much smaller than their expected realized loss over time, shifting the rest of the loss to the taxpayer.
This program has the potential to shift literally $500 billion or more in losses onto the taxpayer, not through the operation of "bad luck" but rather through what amounts to a bid rigging operation.
Do Men and Women Read Books Differently?
A study of reading habits showed almost half of women are 'page turners' who finish a book soon after starting it compared to only 26 per cent of men.
The survey 2,000 adults also found those who take a long time to read books and only managed one or two a year were twice as likely to be male than female.
Men are also more likely to have shelves full of books that have never been opened.
The only similarities between the sexes came among those who have two books on the bedside table at once and who start one book on the middle of reading another, switching easily. Twelve per cent of women were in this category – exactly the same number as men.




