I don’t know where I should start picking out this nonsense.
Starting points may include:
Will this person please shut up?
The following is the text of an open letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke signed by several economists, along with investors and political strategists, most of them close to Republicans:
We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment.
We subscribe to your statement in the Washington Post on November 4 that “the Federal Reserve cannot solve all the economy’s problems on its own.” In this case, we think improvements in tax, spending and regulatory policies must take precedence in a national growth program, not further monetary stimulus.
We disagree with the view that inflation needs to be pushed higher, and worry that another round of asset purchases, with interest rates still near zero over a year into the recovery, will distort financial markets and greatly complicate future Fed efforts to normalize monetary policy.
The Fed’s purchase program has also met broad opposition from other central banks and we share their concerns that quantitative easing by the Fed is neither warranted nor helpful in addressing either U.S. or global economic problems.
Cliff AsnessAQR Capital
Michael J. BoskinStanford UniversityFormer Chairman, President’s Council of Economic Advisors (George H.W. Bush Administration)
Richard X. BoveRochdale Securities
Charles W. CalomirisColumbia University Graduate School of Business
Jim ChanosKynikos Associates
John F. CoganStanford UniversityFormer Associate Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget (Reagan Administration)
Niall FergusonHarvard UniversityAuthor, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World
Nicole GelinasManhattan Institute & e21Author, After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street—and Washington
James GrantGrant’s Interest Rate Observer
Kevin A. HassettAmerican Enterprise InstituteFormer Senior Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Roger HertogThe Hertog Foundation
Gregory HessClaremont McKenna College
Douglas Holtz-EakinFormer Director, Congressional Budget Office
Seth KlarmanBaupost Group
William KristolEditor, The Weekly Standard
David MalpassGroPacFormer Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary (Reagan Administration)
Ronald I. McKinnonStanford University
Dan SenorCouncil on Foreign RelationsCo-Author, Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle
Amity ShlaesCouncil on Foreign RelationsAuthor, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
Paul E. SingerElliott Associates
John B. TaylorStanford UniversityFormer Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs (George W. Bush Administration)
Peter J. WallisonAmerican Enterprise InstituteFormer Treasury and White House Counsel (Reagan Administration)
Geoffrey WoodCass Business School at City University London
Bolding mine.
Some people (the undersigned) wrote a letter to Ben Bernanke about how they think QE2 is a terrible terrible idea. I mean, whatever. It’s not the best of ideas, but we don’t got many other options.
I wonder what tax and fiscal policy measures these guys are going to prescribe. I assume that it’s going to be “extend tax cuts to all and cut spending” nonsense.
UPDATE: Dick Bove, one of the signers of the document, says that “taxes should go higher.”
I really don’t know if we have the kind of expertise to figure out when inflation is going to start picking up and stop any further money printing before inflation exceeds the fed’s mandate. I also don’t agree with all these people who’re comparing the US to Weimar Germany and Argentina one bit.
Here’s Martin Wolf from the Financial Times:
The sky is falling, scream the hysterics: the Federal Reserve is pouring forth dollars in such quantities that they will soon be worthless. Nothing could be further from the truth. As in Japan, the policy known as “quantitative easing” is far more likely to prove ineffective than lethal. It is a leaky hose, not a monetary Noah’s Flood.
So what is the Fed doing? Why is it doing it? Why are the criticisms ludicrous? What should the Fed be doing, instead?
The answer to the first is clear. As the Fed stated on November 3, “to promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the [federal open market] committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the committee intends to purchase a further $600bn of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75bn per month.”
Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, gave the rationale in a speech last month. He pointed out that US unemployment is far above any reasonable estimate of equilibrium.
[...]
The Fed, added the chairman, has a dual mandate, to foster maximum employment and price stability. Doing nothing would be incompatible with this obligation. The only question is what is to be done. The answer is the proposed purchases of Treasury bonds. This simply extends classic open market operations up the yield curve. It would also only expand the Fed’s balance sheet by about a quarter, or around 4 per cent of gross domestic product. Is the US really on the same road as the Weimar Republic? In a word, no.
It is hardly a surprise that Wolfgang Schäuble, finance minister of Germany, thinks differently. He describes the US growth model as in “deep crisis”, adding that “it’s not right when the Americans accuse China of manipulating exchange rates and then push the dollar exchange rate lower by opening up the flood gates”. Presumably, he believes that, in a proper world, the US would be forced to follow the deflationary route imposed upon Greece and Ireland, instead. This is not going to happen. Nor should it.
Boiled down, the criticisms of the Fed come down to two: its policies are leading to hyperinflation; and they are “beggar my neighbour”, in consequence, if not intention.
The first of these criticisms is not just wrong, but weird. The essence of the contemporary monetary system is creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks’ often foolish lending. Why is such privatisation of a public function right and proper, but action by the central bank, to meet pressing public need, a road to catastrophe? When banks will not lend and the broad money supply is barely growing, that is just what it should be doing (see chart).
The hysterics then add that it is impossible to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet fast enough to prevent excessive monetary expansion. That is also nonsense. If the economy took off, nothing would be easier. Indeed, the Fed explained precisely what it would do in its monetary reportto Congress last July. If the worst came to the worst, it could just raise reserve requirements. Since many of its critics believe in 100 per cent reserve banking, why should they object to a move in that direction?
Now turn to the argument that the Fed is deliberately weakening the dollar. Any moderately aware person knows that the Fed’s mandate does not include the external value of the dollar. Those governments that have piled up an extra $6,800bn in foreign reserves since January 2000, much of it in dollars, are consenting adults. Not only did no one ask China, the foremost example, to add the huge sum of $2,400bn to its reserves, but many strongly asked it not to do so.
It is also simply false to argue that the weakening dollar is due to Fed policies alone. Indeed, anyone with half a brain should realise that the US can no longer combine a large trade deficit with a manageable fiscal position. Those who want their US bonds to stay sound should welcome anything that helps the US expand domestic demand and rebalance its external position. Current US monetary policies are, contrary to Mr Schäuble’s views, simply the yang to the yin of east Asian mercantilism.
More fundamentally, market forces, not monetary policy, are pushing global rebalancing, as the private sector tries to put its money where it sees the opportunities. The Fed’s monetary policies merely add a twist. Instead of all the futile bleating, what was needed was a co-ordinated appreciation of the currencies of the emerging economies. The fault here does not lie with the US. I sympathise strongly with a Brazil or a South Africa, but not with China.
The sky is not falling. But this does not mean the Fed’s policies are the best possible. It is probable that any impact on the yields on medium-term bonds will have a modest economic effect. It would be far better if the Fed could shift inflation expectations upwards, by issuing a commitment to offset a prolonged period of below-target inflation with one of above-target inflation. A decision to monetise additional government spending might be an even more effective tool. Equally necessary is a plan to accelerate the restructuring of the overhang of excessive debt. But, in the absence of co-operation with the newly elected Congress, what the Fed is doing is, alas, about the most we can now expect, though it should have dared to do more. Meanwhile, “sound” people will shriek that the sky is falling only to be surprised that it is not. We have seen this play before – in Japan in the 1990s. Japan fell into chronic deflation, instead.
[...]
Also, here’s Alan Blinder in defense of Ben Bernanke:
In Defense of Ben Bernanke
Ignorance is not bliss, especially when your economy is faltering and sound policies are badly needed.
For months, we have witnessed the spectacle of people arguing that Keynes was wrong. Somehow, additional government spending actually reduces employment—even when the economy has huge amounts of spare capacity and unused labor desperate for work; even when the central bank will prevent interest rates from rising to “crowd out” private spending. Really?
One current catchphrase is “job-killing spending.” Hmmm. How, exactly, does more spending kill jobs when there is idle capacity and no threat of rising interest rates? Stumped? So am I.
The anti-Keynesian revival has been disheartening enough. But now the economic equivalent of the Flat Earth Society is turning its fury on Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve. Critics ranging from German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble to tea party favorite Sarah Palin—which is quite a range—have spoken as if Bernanke & Co. have lost their marbles and are embarking on a wild policy misadventure.
All in all, it looks like the nation and the world need an Economics 101 refresher. So let’s start with the basics.
The Fed’s plan is to purchase about $600 billion of additional U.S. government securities over about eight months, creating more bank reserves (“printing money”) to do so. This policy is one version of quantitative easing, or “QE” for short. And since the Fed has done QE before, this episode has been branded “QE2.”
Here’s the first Economics 101 question: When central banks seek to stimulate their economies, how do they normally do it? If you answered, “by lowering short-term interest rates,” you get half credit. For full credit, you must explain how: They create new bank reserves to purchase short-term government securities (in the U.S., that’s mostly Treasury bills). Yes, they print money.
But short-term rates are practically zero in the U.S. now, so the Fed wants to push down medium- and long-term interest rates instead. How? You guessed it: by creating new bank reserves to purchase medium- and long-term government securities.
That sounds pretty similar to garden-variety monetary policy. Yet critics are branding QE2 a radical departure from past practices and a dangerous experiment.
The next charge is that QE2 will be inflationary. Partly true. The Fed actually wants a bit more inflation because, now and for the foreseeable future, inflation is running below its informal 1.5% to 2% target. In fact, there’s some concern that inflation will dip below zero—into deflation. The Fed, thank goodness, is determined to stop that. We don’t want to be the next Japan now, do we?
But might the Fed err and produce too much inflation? Yes, it might, leaving us with, say, 3% inflation instead of 2%. Or it might err in the opposite direction and produce only 1%. Neither outcome is desirable, but each is quite tolerable. To create the fearsome inflation rates envisioned by the more extreme critics, the Fed would have to be incredibly incompetent, which it is not.
The final major charge, levied especially by a number of foreign officials, is that the Fed’s new policy amounts to currency manipulation: deliberately lowering the international value of the dollar to gain competitive advantage for U.S. exporters. Is there any truth to this? Not if words have any meaning.
Economics 101 teaches us that one standard side effect of a central bank reducing interest rates is a lower exchange rate. Actually, things don’t always work out that way in the real world; sometimes the stronger growth pushes the currency up instead. This contradictory evidence notwithstanding, it is commonly assumed that expansionary monetary policy depreciates the currency. That’s why some foreign governments, especially the more mercantilist ones, are apoplectic. What’s down for us is up for them.
But calling QE2 “currency manipulation” is a grotesque abuse of language. After all, the U.S. dollar is a floating currency. Many factors, including but certainly not limited to monetary policy, influence the exchange rate, which changes every minute. But the Fed will not intervene to push the dollar down. If the dollar should rise instead of falling, c’est la vie.
More important, the U.S. is a sovereign nation with a right to its own monetary policy. So I was stunned when a top aide to the Russian president suggested that the Fed should consult with other countries before making major policy decisions. Come again? An independent central bank doesn’t even consult with its own government.
Finally, there’s that old hobgoblin: consistency. Critics tell us that QE2 won’t give the U.S. economy much of a boost but will lead to rampant inflation. Both? How does that work?
If buying Treasurys is a weak policy tool, a view with which I have some sympathy, then it shouldn’t be very inflationary. There is no magic link between growth of the central bank’s balance sheet and inflation. People, businesses and banks have to take actions—like spending more, investing more, and lending more—to connect the two. If they don’t, we will get neither faster growth nor higher inflation, just more idle bank reserves.
What the Fed proposes to do is neither foolproof nor perfect. Frankly, it’s not the policy I would choose. As I’ve written on this page, I’d like the Fed to purchase private securities and to reduce the interest rate it pays on reserves, even turning it negative. The latter would blast reserves out of banks into some productive uses.
But I don’t run the Fed. Maybe Chairman Bernanke’s ideas are better than mine and, in any case, the planned QE2 is far better than doing nothing. It is not a shot in the dark, not a radical departure from conventional monetary policy, and certainly not a form of currency manipulation.
I know Ben Bernanke. Ben Bernanke is a friend of mine. And critics ranging from Mr. Schauble to Ms. Palin are no Ben Bernankes.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Blinder suggest that they would rather see the fed pursue alternative options (the latter puts forth some options, too) and I’m inclined to say that Mr. Blinder’s suggestions might be pretty useful.
Video taken down, scroll below.
In a new video condemning anti-gay bullying, Cindy McCain, wife of former presidential candidate John McCain, spoke out against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – despite the fact that her husband is currently leading the charge to filibuster its repeal in the Senate.[...]
“They can’t serve our country openly,” McCain says, adding, “our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens, why shouldn’t [bullies]?”
This isn’t the first time McCain has publicly sparred with her husband over gay rights: In January 2010, McCain and her daughter, Meghan, appeared in an ad campaign for the same organization, which was formed in protest to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Article from CBS News.
Update: HERE IS A COMPLETE U-TURN
Cindy McCain, the Arizona Republican Senator’s wife, made huge headlines across the country Thursday when she joined once again with the gay activist NoH8 Campaign, bucking her husband’s fervent stance against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” andcame out in support of repeal. But late Friday night, in a dramatic about-face, Cindy McCain issued a statement via Twitter, “I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband’s stance on DADT.”
[...]
This was not a nuanced clarification, but a total repudiation of what was being characterized as a brave stance. Now, she will have to endure the scorn of the seventy-eight percent of Americans who want “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, and those who see a woman chose her husband’s dwindling career over honor and protection of vulnerable children.
Yesterday’s headlines:
ABC: Cindy McCain Stands Against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and Her Husband
FOX: Cindy McCain Knocks “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
New York Times: Cindy McCain Calls for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask’
CBS: Cindy McCain Slams “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in Anti-Gay Bulling Ad Campaign
Tomorrow’s headlines will not be kind.
“Did she lie today or lie yesterday? Either way, she’s a liar, and she should be removed from the NOH8 video because, as of right now, Cindy McCain is a hater. Not to mention, great message she just sent to gay youth. If someone pressures you, cave and support hate.
[...]
“Her lying homophobic face needs to be yanked from that video immediately.”
Worse, what message is she and her bigoted, controlling husband, sending to children around the world, about equality, and about the bounds of marriage?
Nassim Taleb, in an interview with Bloomber’s Eric Schatzker, roundly criticized Ben Bernanke, comparing him to a pilot who crashed a plane and many other things. He goes on to criticize the Quantitative Easing program that the Fed has announced and is implement.
This guy seems pretty cool, but I’m not sure if his work is anything more than pop-intellectual stuff. I’ll have to read Black Swan, I guess.
Also, Bloomberg really needs to have a “no idiots” policy. Why are they giving people like Eugene Fama and other people of his ilk so much airtime?
–Gautam
Diwali underpins gold’s surge
Buyers in India, the world’s largest consumers of bullion with one-eighth of global demand, are typically very sensitive to price moves and have scaled back their purchases as gold has spiralled ever higher. But jewellers in Mumbai and bankers in London said that gold consumption in the country had rebounded.
…
“The high prices are not stopping people from buying,” Mr Zaveri said. “On birthdays a cake is compulsory. On Diwali gold is compulsory. No cake, no birthday and no gold, no Diwali. Simple.”
This is pretty great. I remember reading a few months ago that the Chinese had overtaken the Desis on gold spending, but it looks like we’re back.
Also, yeah, no plagiarism intended, or whatever.
–Gautam
Since I talked about QE2 and it being “priced in” to the markets since the Jackson Hole speech… or whatever, I thought I should also refer to this post by Prof. John Taylor, developer of the famous Taylor rule.
He shows some data on the yields of bonds like the 10 year T-bond and corporate bonds haven’t really changed from the Aug 27 speech to the Nov 2 QE2 announcement.
Economics One: Empirical Questions About the Anticipation Effects of QE2.
No doubt there will be many empirical studies evaluating the impact of the Fed’s November 3 decision to begin another dose of quantitative easing (QE2). Ben Bernanke gave his first assessment of the impact of QE2 in an op-ed yesterday in the Washington Post. He argued that QE2 started working even before the decision on November 3. In particular he wrote that:
“Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action.”
How can one determine whether stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell in anticipation of QE2? Obviously it is very difficult because many other things affect stock and bond markets, and one can never know for sure, but the data presented in the following charts raise serious doubts that such anticipation effects were either substantial or sustainable.
First consider long-term Treasury interest rates. The first chart shows the interest rate on benchmark 10-year Treasury bonds. Note that these long-term interest rates had been coming down since May—long before markets could
reasonably have anticipated another large dose of quantitative easing. They have been relatively flat since August. But to assess more formally whether long-term interest rates fell “when investors began to anticipate” QE2, one must consider a date or dates on when such anticipations are likely to have begun.
One logical date is August 27, the day of Ben Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech where he discussed the framework of quantitative easing in detail. Indeed, this Jackson Hole speech is frequently mentioned in the financial press. The date of the speech is shown in the chart. The long-term rate was 2.66 percent on that date. If anticipations of quantitative easing lowered long-term interest rates, then one would expect this rate to have been lower on November 2, the day before the FOMC’s recent action. But this is not what happened. The interest rate was the same 2.66 percent on November 2 as it was on August 27.
What about other long-term interest rates? The second chart shows the interest rates on Moody’s Aaa and Baa corporate bonds. On November 2 the Moody’s Baa corporate rate was 5.71 percent compared with 5.62 percent on August 27. And on November 2 the Aaa rate was 4.66 percent compared with 4.41 percent on August 27. In both cases rates were higher, rather than lower, compared with what rates were on the day investors could plausibly have begun to anticipate the recent action. 
Next consider stock prices. The third chart shows the S&P 500 index over the same period. Observe that the current rally began in early July as shown in the chart. Evidently concerns about a double dip recession had diminished by early July and earnings reports began improving. From July 2 to August 10 the S&P 500 rallied by 10 percent. That rally was temporarily interrupted starting on August 10, but then continued. From August 10 to November 2 the S&P 500 rose another 7 percent.
Any assessment of the impact of anticipations of QE2 on stock prices depends crucially on how one interprets this rally and the interruption around August 10. It is important to note that August 10 was the day of the FOMC meeting where the Fed first indicated it would reinvest the maturing mortgage backed securities into the Treasury market, so this first hint of quantitative easing had a negative impact on stock prices. This was also the meeting where the Fed appeared to be very downbeat about the economy and revealed considerable dissention among FOMC members about how policy decisions would be made going forward. Jon Hilsenrath later wrote about this meeting in detail in the Wall Street Journal calling it “among the most contentious in Ben Bernanke’s four and a half year tenure as central bank chairman.” Hence, the large negative impact on stock prices is understandable.
Ben Bernanke’s August 27 Jackson Hole speech was helpful in this regard because it undid the damage of the August 10 meeting, as I argued at the time, by presenting a transparent framework for making decisions and conveying the image of a more functional FOMC than portrayed, for example, in Hilsenrath’s article. So in my view, the consistent story is that the August stock market dip was Fed-induced and its reversal was also Fed-induced. In contrast an explanation based on anticipations of quantitative easing is inconsistent because stock prices went one way on August 10 and another way on August 27.
In any case these interest rate and stock price data raise doubts about the narrative that long-term interest rates fell and stock prices rose in anticipation of QE2. As with all the other stimulus programs tried in recent years, it is important to get the narrative right, and more empirical work is welcome.
I spent about 90 minutes at my house, 87 of which involved some level of the idiot box being on. 100% of those 87 minutes were dedicated to election coverage. Sure, elections are an important thing (if you did vote, you are officially cool) but the amount of energy that is spent speculating on how the senate will change if Republicans have 49 seats instead of 48 is truly mindboggling. Of course, all of this arises due to a desire to pack the airwaves with as much news as possible. I think we know better and can differentiate between news and speculation. Fully 33% of the aforementioned 87 minutes seemed to be dedicated to what the senate outcome would be depending on who won the races. DUH. Even we could make those calculations.
In other news, I will write about my fantasy stock picks on updown.com. I’ve been playing this market for a couple of years now, and I don’t think I’ve written about it at all, so here goes. Last night, I gave sell orders for PCLN, TECH, and SIRI. I put in roughly $300,000 toward emerging market ETFs, like EPI (230K), IDX (9K), FNI (26K), EIDO (15K), BRF (12K), and EWZ (8K.) In retrospect, I should have made this move much earlier, probably immediately after the September speech on QE2. Look at this chart for a comparison of the various ETFs since 9/21.The intuition is that the massive amounts of quantitative easing (read: money printed by the fed to buy up long term treasury securities, thereby lowering the yield on those assets) would lead investors to seek more risky assets such as stocks. Furthermore, since the emerging markets like Brazil, Chindia, and Indonesia promise higher growth (ergo higher returns; note, there are a few steps in this mechanism which have been glossed,) investors have been pouring in a lot more money (hot money) into these equity markets. As noted in one of the links above, some countries are even resorting to capital controls in order to limit the inflow of hot money.
I think I’ll hold onto these ETFs for a little while, because they represent do appear attractive for the long run. I shorted SPY (the S&P 500 etf or whatever) but I’m not sure if this was a good idea. Oh well, one day after people have partied enough about QE2 and the election results, it will fall below 119.32 and then I’ll make a measly profit out of it…
NOTE: I am not a sophisticated trader of any kind. I am just doing this as a hobby and as a learning experience. Some day, when I have a tonne of money, I will invest it into the stock market and dedicate a blog to that. Until then, I am happy as is.
Here are some good links that I came across today.
1. From Capital Gains and Games: “Tim Pawlenty Embarrasses himself on the budget.”
2. From Scientific American: “Im-Propaganda: How Effective Are Misinformation Campaigns to Manipulate Public Opinion?” An interesting interview with a sociologists about how misinformation campaigns are typically run and the outcomes.
3. From Discover Magazine Blogs: “Kinkyness beyond Kinky.” Interesting post about the weirdness of duck genitalia.
4. From Joseph Stiglitz via Project Syndicate: “The Harsh Lessons of 2009.” What happened to the economy in 2009 and what we can do in the future. Key lessons: Markets are not self correcting, market failures are always possible, Keynesian policies can have a strong impact and help economies come out of recession better, inflation targeting shouldn’t be the sole focus of the fed and other central banks, and innovation (especially in the financial sector) won’t always make our lives better.
5. From Not Exactly Rocket Science: “Mathematical support for insect colonies as superorganisms.” Apparently the metabolic rate of an organism can be easily calculated from the size; it’s all a simple linear equation. Even in a large colony, where individuals are often assigned specific tasks, considering the colony as a single “superorganism” gives similar results.
6. From Oscillator: “Quotations That Inspire Synthetic Biologists.” An interesting perspective on what inspires synthetic biologists and their work. Hear what Kant, Feynman, Vico, and Von Neumann had to say that motivates them!
7. From VoxEU: “How Green is China?” An interesting analysis of which Chinese cities are green and which aren’t. Studies like this might be a step in the right direction of identifying where in the chain emissions are coming from and where they can be mitigated, etc.
8. From the Official Google Blog: “Go thataway.” Apparently Google India has implemented features in its Google Maps offering that can tell you take a right at the Pan dabba and then take a left at the Irani Hotel and walk 200 feet from the Banyan tree to get to your Hanuman Mandir; well approximately that.
Gautam
1. From Marketplace Radio: “US Exports its Mental Illnesses” – I have had latent suspicions along the line of what this guy is saying. Let’s hope it doesn’t come out true. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of Asian (as in, from China, India, Indonesia, etc.) on medications for being “depressed.”
2. From MoneyWatch: “What Caused the Fed’s Record$45 Billion in Earnings For 2009?” – I had only heard about the $45 Bn figure yesterday, but was unable to place it in context. Here’s Dr. Thoma with some good background and with some thoughts on what could be done with the money.
3. From Wikipedia: “List of Countries by GDP (nominal)” – Mitch and I were talking about relative numbers in the evening, and I thought it would be good to look up some numbers. I can try to get some graphs going tomorrow, but I can’t quite figure out how to download data from IMF repositories; perhaps World Bank figures will be easier to work with.
4. From the San Fran Fed: “Global Household Leverage, House Prices, and Consumption” – I didn’t know about how much the Scands were in debt! (other than Iceland, duh.)
5. And lastly, From the PNAS: “Quantitative analysis of EGFRvIII cellular signaling networks reveals a combinatorial therapeutic strategy for glioblastoma” – Yeah, I know, it’s a 2007 paper which, in the grand scheme of things, may not have a big impact. We just decided to read this paper for the Mass Spec class I’m taking, and I thought it was a pretty well written paper. Perhaps, if I’m in the mood for it, I’ll try to explain this paper to see whether or not I understand the study.
In other news, I am now following 100+ people on Twitter. Also, about 57 people are following me, which, interestingly enough, is up more than 25% from yesterday. Thankfully I archive all the twitter related mail. Thankfully.
–Gautam
International Herald Tribune
Trade you. Barter is back in Russia
By Ellen Barry
Sunday, February 8, 2009
MOSCOW: Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers?
Here is a sign of the financial times in Russia: Barter is back on the table.
via Trade you. Barter is back in Russia – Print Version – International Herald Tribune.
———————
This is so reminiscent of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22. What a Marwadi badass.
Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.
