I wish the traditional media would examine Jamie Dimon's conflict of interest with Bear Stearns and his role on the board of directors of FRBNY.
Geithner's actions can be expected considering his past positions. What is extremely disappointing is that President Obama chose him? It tells a lot about who is protecting who.
He developed a special meat grinder: in goes chicken, out comes steak. The rest is sausage making history...or rather mortgage securitzation history.;-)
Ted, I think you are too young to remember the book "Limits To Growth". It was published in 1972 and it really impressed me back in the day. I have often thought about the trends they warned about and even wondered if the Club of Rome was still operating. The other day I ran across this article at theoildrum which updates that early work. It is worth reading, and the commentors as well. The point is that we have wasted precious time already, pursuing a reckless goal of perpetual growth and American dominance. Mankind faces serious challenges and we are stuck with the intellectually corrupt likes of Larry Summers and his ilk. A lot of people in this country wanted to be rid of the Doug Feiths, Dick Cheneys, David Addingtons, Paul Wolfowitzs, etc., etc., ad nauseam that we suffered under for 8 years. And instead we get the return of Robert Rubin, who first did his dirty work with Ronald Reagan. Pick your poison, they are both lethal. We are a country with compromised leaders and a citizenry that is unwilling to understand and express themselves.
I keep going back and forth. Either Wall Street is made up of subhuman monsters who are using this downturn to create the type of human suffering they've craved all along, or Wall Street is populated by a bunch of subhuman mental defectives who thought that fractional reserve banking was a nifty keeno idea.
I'm not sure which I fear more. No, strike that. I fear the subhuman monsters more, because they actually have control over the government. If it's the subhuman mental defectives, then God help us all.
-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.
I'm trying to diet and reading about Larry Summer's New Model made me completely lose my appetite. We are in some seriously deep trouble in this country and there seems to be no good way out. Simon Johnson and Joe Stiglitz are trying but they are voices in the wilderness. We are witnessing what 30 years of anti-communist, free market capitalist propaganda and generations of American exceptionalism have wrought. The vast majority of the public are unable (or too lazy) to reason for themselves. There are only a small minority of citizens who realize what is going down.
I have no idea other than some insider cabal conspiratorial theory that Obama would have so badly needed/wanted Geithner.
There are and will be people that will never understand the Geithner connection but I think (IMHO) there is a great majority that will understand. Once the MSM starts investigating the connection, they may start having questions about political contributions.
Once this starts hitting the front pages, even the news releases of the flu will not help buffer all those involved from the hell they have coming their way.
The actions of the financial oligarchy bring fraud and theft comes to mind.
I only wonder who will be the red meat that is thrown to the lions? Who is going to take the fall and divert attention from those on the higher platform?
"I think the real answer to that debate is we cannot trust our government for real representation. Who wants more of a system one cannot trust?"
I can't trust our current banking industry for real representation, at least not at the power level they've grabbed for themselves without election.
In fact, I can't trust any business over 40 employees at this point- the boss men are too remote and protected beyond that.
Given that, can we trust a free and anonymous market at all?
-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.
One of the reasons that Wall Street Investment Banks were so averse to assuming the status of a BHC in the past was that it entailed significantly more Federal regulation and a corresponding reduction in the amount of risk-taking allowed. But, when the proverbial sh*t hit the fan last fall, the remaining investment banks were quick to line up for Holding Company status, as it gave them access to the Federal Reserve discount window (free money) and a host of "temporary" Fed programs (more free money) and generous guarantees on their debt. So how can GS get away with this? They have 24 months to complete their conversion to BHC status. So when 24 months pass, I'm quite sure that either a)GS will reverse their decision to become a BHC (and the Treasury will have no problem with that) or b)they will be given additional time to comply...as in never. When you control the Federal Reserve, the Office of the President and the US Congress, rules don't apply.
30,000 employees/retirees choose to invest in GM common stock in the GMSSP (401k) to the tune of 75 million shares. They did so of their own free will and could have sold out at any time they wanted. They didn't want to sell. There was no advance notice, no request for authorization, no option to transfer stock held to a rollover IRA. THE BASTARDS JUST SOLD IT BEHIND OUR BACKS!!!Here are a couple of comments from the FREEP article:
jznzfs wrote:
Well, it's Monday morning and GM is up $ .50. I have been on the phone to Fidelity (they're reading from a script), State Steet refuses to take calls, I even tried to call Kathleen Barclay, VP Benefits and she won't take calls. I have...err had about 4500 shares of GM in the plan. At least I have 1250 shares in a partial rollover. DO I SMELL A RAT THAT THEY DIDN"T WANT EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
04/27/2009 12:46:23 p.m. EDTReplying to chuckiechoochoo:
since i controlled over 1300 shares of gm common in the psp 401k and am less than happy about the current situation i will take a wait and see position if after being dumped by the company if gm common ever goes back up there will be a grass roots class action suit filed against state street and gm global operations of mammoth proportions and i will be at the head of it
jznzfs wrote:
Well, it's Monday morning and GM is up $ .50. I have been on the phone to Fidelity (they're reading from a script), State Steet refuses to take calls, I even tried to call Kathleen Barclay, VP Benefits and she won't take calls. I have...err had about 4500 shares of GM in the plan. At least I have 1250 shares in a partial rollover. DO I SMELL A RAT THAT THEY DIDN"T WANT EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP!!! jznzfs
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
since i controlled over 1300 shares of gm common in the psp 401k and am less than happy about the current situation i will take a wait and see position if after being dumped by the company if gm common ever goes back up there will be a grass roots class action suit filed against state street and gm global operations of mammoth proportions and i will be at the head of it
04/26/2009 11:17:44 p.m. EDTsince i controlled over 1300 shares of gm common in the psp 401k and am less than happy about the current situation i will take a wait and see position if after being dumped by the company if gm common ever goes back up there will be a grass roots class action suit filed against state street and gm global operations of mammoth proportions and i will be at the head of it chuckiechoochoo
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
jznzfs wrote:
Replying to NonResTaxpayer:
As a GM employee, I personally find this move outrageous. GM stock is down almost 95% over the past year, so obviously those of us who left a small portion of our investments in the GM Common Stock Fund were willing to accept losing the final 5% for a possible sizeable gain later. If we had no faith in an out-of-court solution to our problems, we would have sold our shares earlier at $3-$6/share......
I am similarly outraged. If I choose to make a speculative move in my financial investments, then so be it. I am capable of losing/gaining from my investment decisions and bearing the consequences of either outcome. I don't need interference from a fund ADMINISTRATOR!!! She had better hope that GM goes belly up and GM common goes to zip. I would be interested in a detail accounting of the sell dates and amounts to see how well they were able to "gauge the market", since they are professional investors and our fiduciary custodians.
04/26/2009 1:04:18 p.m. EDTReplying to NonResTaxpayer:
As a GM employee, I personally find this move outrageous. GM stock is down almost 95% over the past year, so obviously those of us who left a small portion of our investments in the GM Common Stock Fund were willing to accept losing the final 5% for a possible sizeable gain later. If we had no faith in an out-of-court solution to our problems, we would have sold our shares earlier at $3-$6/share......
jznzfs wrote:
I am similarly outraged. If I choose to make a speculative move in my financial investments, then so be it. I am capable of losing/gaining from my investment decisions and bearing the consequences of either outcome. I don't need interference from a fund ADMINISTRATOR!!! She had better hope that GM goes belly up and GM common goes to zip. I would be interested in a detail accounting of the sell dates and amounts to see how well they were able to "gauge the market", since they are professional investors and our fiduciary custodians. jznzfs
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
I think the real answer to that debate is we cannot trust our government for real representation. Who wants more of a system one cannot trust?
I often wonder if the parliamentary systems of Europe simply have more balances of power and that's why they seemingly represent the interests of their people (it appears, I am not there) a little better.
property tax are egregious. I am self employed and in the 14% net tax rate. When I add on the property tax (paid with after tax funds) my State tax, my local tax, I am close to 49%.
I once had a business partner that as a kid and young guy lived thought out Europe. To him, Europe was a place for the (paraphrasing) weak and meek. Also he really hated the King thing. But with the way our elected officials act, we have Kings and Queens.
I say it is time we stop being the warrior for the world. It will probably end up as it always does when we back out but it is worth a chance. Before the little Pearl Harbor incident the USA was NOT going to get involved much in the European war.
I'm just not a big fan of government. Never have been and never will be. If we could (it is impossible I know) I would like to have hardly any government rule. To me so much of government is a kin to the war on drugs. A model that isn't working but they just keep doing the same thing over and over.
Europe can have all their government and spy cameras just keep them away from me!
That is what is missing when we look at "comparative" taxes. You are so right Robert, the hidden taxes and fees in this country are much more transparent in Scandanavia, and other parts of Europe as well. These countries are focused on maintaining a high standard of living and economic sustainability, rather than aggressive growth. Additionally, a lot of their taxes for cars and other "luxury" items are imposed as a mechanism for protecting their foreign exchange positions. IMO, we don't get much for what we pay, unless you like wars, warriors and war machines. We have everyone beat in that category.
in my view and it seems you are pulling up statistics as well. Finland, for example, is offshore outsourcing. They also have only a population of 3 million people, which of course does also affect jobs. A huge example is this nightmare "abuse" JV (joint venture) between Seimens and Nokia. They have fired, well, I don't know the totals but it has to be over 50k, sought the cheapest labor, thrashed their workforce, on and on.
So, while you may be attributing some result due to "socialism", I'd claim you really have to look deep into the numbers, statistics, especially in today's great global cheap labor market on what's happening.
They do have unbelievable taxes, but if you add up all of the taxes in the U.S., the hidden taxes, it's really pretty high here too. Finland especially has surreal taxes on things like cars, certain goods and a progressive tax that is beyond steep to the point you can say "comrade".
But that said, you cannot ignore the quality of life in Europe in comparison to the United States for the citizenry. It's frankly so much better with health care, social safety nets, free or almost free university level education, child care, 6 weeks of vacation time and so on...
I mean you seriously need to plain live there to realize the difference and then contemplate these tax rates.
I also think you're incorrect on the recovery from the 1990 major recession. It might be noted the 1990's recession was caused by a massive housing bubble. ;)
was rich and now thanks to The Daily Show I know know it is true.
Ah but there are always the prognosticators of doom and gloom. I am sure those well clothed Urbanites will beg to differ with this http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510.
Interesting pros and cons are in the follow-up readers posts.
I found this post to bring a smile. "There is a huge amout of money in Ireland at the moment. However wealth is much less equally spread in Ireland. If you are able to work then you will do well. But if you are old, sick, retired or lazy :) then Belgium is a better place to live."
Maybe there should be a country for the old, sick and lazy?
However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies and the European media’s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.
While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium’s was able to create 8% new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to create any jobs at all in over two decades. Denmark did a little better because it “activated” its labour market by making it more “flexible.”
Why are the Scandinavian countries doing such a bad job, despite their Protestant work ethic and devotion to duty? The main cause is the essence of the nanny state: its very high tax level. Between 1990 and 2005 the average overall tax burden was 55% in Finland, 58% in Denmark and 61% in Sweden. This is almost one and a half times the OECD average.
this is an area of mathematics involving advanced probability models with a gaussian "distribution" model (copula) which can be "collapsed" to a scalar (constant) under some assumptions.
This is the issue, they based trillions of dollars (estimates vary widely) on these mathematical models...
which, by the mathematics itself, are simply not valid due to the real interdependencies and multi-variate correlations of assets over global markets.
Taleb in his book, The Black Swan, does a good explanation coming from a layperson's view, i.e. to explain it as conceptual terms so one doesn't have to know advanced statistics, probability theory etc. to see what the problems are.
Coincidentally, I was watching the latest Bill Moyers Journal while this was posted. My local PBS broadcasts on Sunday, rather than Friday night. The Pecora commission hearings were the topic of the entire show with Michael Perino and Simon Johnson.
In Part II, they delve into what needs to happen investigating our current situation. They gave many good reasons for NOT using a congressional commission. Also, Simon acknowledged his admiration for Elizabeth Warren and thought she could do a great job as the new Pecora. Personally, I think we need a more prosecutorial type (think Elliot Spitzer) but I won't hold my breath.
You can sense that both guests are trying to remain optimistic, but understand the enormous entrenched power that must be overcome. Certainly, the level of populist anger right now is not anywhere near the level that existed when Pecora's hearings took place.
... market hypothesis. We have a market, we have prices from a market, we can impute the value of risk in the view of market participants ... and then, "because markets are efficient", that is the actual value of the risk.
The historical fact that people systematically under-estimate risks in the midst of a bubble is merely evidence that the efficient market hypothesis does not hold in reality. It does nothing to undermine the convenience of the efficient market hypothesis when engaged in the mathematical modeling of "the economy".
Indeed, the efficient market hypothesis is a good marker for the key difference between an academic field like mainstream Economics and Science ...
... since mainstream Economics is not trying to provide a cause and effect explanation of what is happening, all that is required is a convention among potential referees that "we all have to accept unanchored assumption 'X', because without it, none of use would get anything published".
I wish the traditional media would examine Jamie Dimon's conflict of interest with Bear Stearns and his role on the board of directors of FRBNY.
Geithner's actions can be expected considering his past positions. What is extremely disappointing is that President Obama chose him? It tells a lot about who is protecting who.
He developed a special meat grinder: in goes chicken, out comes steak. The rest is sausage making history...or rather mortgage securitzation history.;-)
Ted, I think you are too young to remember the book "Limits To Growth". It was published in 1972 and it really impressed me back in the day. I have often thought about the trends they warned about and even wondered if the Club of Rome was still operating. The other day I ran across this article at theoildrum which updates that early work. It is worth reading, and the commentors as well. The point is that we have wasted precious time already, pursuing a reckless goal of perpetual growth and American dominance. Mankind faces serious challenges and we are stuck with the intellectually corrupt likes of Larry Summers and his ilk. A lot of people in this country wanted to be rid of the Doug Feiths, Dick Cheneys, David Addingtons, Paul Wolfowitzs, etc., etc., ad nauseam that we suffered under for 8 years. And instead we get the return of Robert Rubin, who first did his dirty work with Ronald Reagan. Pick your poison, they are both lethal. We are a country with compromised leaders and a citizenry that is unwilling to understand and express themselves.
I keep going back and forth. Either Wall Street is made up of subhuman monsters who are using this downturn to create the type of human suffering they've craved all along, or Wall Street is populated by a bunch of subhuman mental defectives who thought that fractional reserve banking was a nifty keeno idea.
I'm not sure which I fear more. No, strike that. I fear the subhuman monsters more, because they actually have control over the government. If it's the subhuman mental defectives, then God help us all.
-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.
I'm trying to diet and reading about Larry Summer's New Model made me completely lose my appetite. We are in some seriously deep trouble in this country and there seems to be no good way out. Simon Johnson and Joe Stiglitz are trying but they are voices in the wilderness. We are witnessing what 30 years of anti-communist, free market capitalist propaganda and generations of American exceptionalism have wrought. The vast majority of the public are unable (or too lazy) to reason for themselves. There are only a small minority of citizens who realize what is going down.
I think of Albert Einstein's quote:
Baseline Scenario has a good article about Larry Summer's New Model. It is quite disturbing.
So our immitation of Japan's failure would be complete.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html?_r=1&hp=&page...
I have no idea other than some insider cabal conspiratorial theory that Obama would have so badly needed/wanted Geithner.
There are and will be people that will never understand the Geithner connection but I think (IMHO) there is a great majority that will understand. Once the MSM starts investigating the connection, they may start having questions about political contributions.
Once this starts hitting the front pages, even the news releases of the flu will not help buffer all those involved from the hell they have coming their way.
The actions of the financial oligarchy bring fraud and theft comes to mind.
I only wonder who will be the red meat that is thrown to the lions? Who is going to take the fall and divert attention from those on the higher platform?
"I think the real answer to that debate is we cannot trust our government for real representation. Who wants more of a system one cannot trust?"
I can't trust our current banking industry for real representation, at least not at the power level they've grabbed for themselves without election.
In fact, I can't trust any business over 40 employees at this point- the boss men are too remote and protected beyond that.
Given that, can we trust a free and anonymous market at all?
-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.
One of the reasons that Wall Street Investment Banks were so averse to assuming the status of a BHC in the past was that it entailed significantly more Federal regulation and a corresponding reduction in the amount of risk-taking allowed. But, when the proverbial sh*t hit the fan last fall, the remaining investment banks were quick to line up for Holding Company status, as it gave them access to the Federal Reserve discount window (free money) and a host of "temporary" Fed programs (more free money) and generous guarantees on their debt. So how can GS get away with this? They have 24 months to complete their conversion to BHC status. So when 24 months pass, I'm quite sure that either a)GS will reverse their decision to become a BHC (and the Treasury will have no problem with that) or b)they will be given additional time to comply...as in never. When you control the Federal Reserve, the Office of the President and the US Congress, rules don't apply.
30,000 employees/retirees choose to invest in GM common stock in the GMSSP (401k) to the tune of 75 million shares. They did so of their own free will and could have sold out at any time they wanted. They didn't want to sell. There was no advance notice, no request for authorization, no option to transfer stock held to a rollover IRA. THE BASTARDS JUST SOLD IT BEHIND OUR BACKS!!!Here are a couple of comments from the FREEP article:
jznzfs wrote:
Well, it's Monday morning and GM is up $ .50. I have been on the phone to Fidelity (they're reading from a script), State Steet refuses to take calls, I even tried to call Kathleen Barclay, VP Benefits and she won't take calls. I have...err had about 4500 shares of GM in the plan. At least I have 1250 shares in a partial rollover. DO I SMELL A RAT THAT THEY DIDN"T WANT EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
04/27/2009 12:46:23 p.m. EDTReplying to chuckiechoochoo:
jznzfs wrote:
Well, it's Monday morning and GM is up $ .50. I have been on the phone to Fidelity (they're reading from a script), State Steet refuses to take calls, I even tried to call Kathleen Barclay, VP Benefits and she won't take calls. I have...err had about 4500 shares of GM in the plan. At least I have 1250 shares in a partial rollover. DO I SMELL A RAT THAT THEY DIDN"T WANT EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP!!!
jznzfs
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
chuckiechoochoo wrote:
since i controlled over 1300 shares of gm common in the psp 401k and am less than happy about the current situation i will take a wait and see position if after being dumped by the company if gm common ever goes back up there will be a grass roots class action suit filed against state street and gm global operations of mammoth proportions and i will be at the head of it
04/26/2009 11:17:44 p.m. EDTsince i controlled over 1300 shares of gm common in the psp 401k and am less than happy about the current situation i will take a wait and see position if after being dumped by the company if gm common ever goes back up there will be a grass roots class action suit filed against state street and gm global operations of mammoth proportions and i will be at the head of it chuckiechoochoo
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
jznzfs wrote:
Replying to NonResTaxpayer:
As a GM employee, I personally find this move outrageous. GM stock is down almost 95% over the past year, so obviously those of us who left a small portion of our investments in the GM Common Stock Fund were willing to accept losing the final 5% for a possible sizeable gain later. If we had no faith in an out-of-court solution to our problems, we would have sold our shares earlier at $3-$6/share......
I am similarly outraged. If I choose to make a speculative move in my financial investments, then so be it. I am capable of losing/gaining from my investment decisions and bearing the consequences of either outcome. I don't need interference from a fund ADMINISTRATOR!!! She had better hope that GM goes belly up and GM common goes to zip. I would be interested in a detail accounting of the sell dates and amounts to see how well they were able to "gauge the market", since they are professional investors and our fiduciary custodians.
04/26/2009 1:04:18 p.m. EDTReplying to NonResTaxpayer:
jznzfs wrote:
I am similarly outraged. If I choose to make a speculative move in my financial investments, then so be it. I am capable of losing/gaining from my investment decisions and bearing the consequences of either outcome. I don't need interference from a fund ADMINISTRATOR!!! She had better hope that GM goes belly up and GM common goes to zip. I would be interested in a detail accounting of the sell dates and amounts to see how well they were able to "gauge the market", since they are professional investors and our fiduciary custodians.
jznzfs
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse
Risk Mismanagement goes into great detail on the problems with VaR.
That's just unbelievable. Goldman Sachs clearly is just walking all over America and making out like a bandit on this entire debacle.
So nice to have friends, obviously, such as government economic advisers, Treasury secretaries and well placed connections on the Federal Reserve.
I think the real answer to that debate is we cannot trust our government for real representation. Who wants more of a system one cannot trust?
I often wonder if the parliamentary systems of Europe simply have more balances of power and that's why they seemingly represent the interests of their people (it appears, I am not there) a little better.
property tax are egregious. I am self employed and in the 14% net tax rate. When I add on the property tax (paid with after tax funds) my State tax, my local tax, I am close to 49%.
I once had a business partner that as a kid and young guy lived thought out Europe. To him, Europe was a place for the (paraphrasing) weak and meek. Also he really hated the King thing. But with the way our elected officials act, we have Kings and Queens.
I say it is time we stop being the warrior for the world. It will probably end up as it always does when we back out but it is worth a chance. Before the little Pearl Harbor incident the USA was NOT going to get involved much in the European war.
I'm just not a big fan of government. Never have been and never will be. If we could (it is impossible I know) I would like to have hardly any government rule. To me so much of government is a kin to the war on drugs. A model that isn't working but they just keep doing the same thing over and over.
Europe can have all their government and spy cameras just keep them away from me!
That is what is missing when we look at "comparative" taxes. You are so right Robert, the hidden taxes and fees in this country are much more transparent in Scandanavia, and other parts of Europe as well. These countries are focused on maintaining a high standard of living and economic sustainability, rather than aggressive growth. Additionally, a lot of their taxes for cars and other "luxury" items are imposed as a mechanism for protecting their foreign exchange positions. IMO, we don't get much for what we pay, unless you like wars, warriors and war machines. We have everyone beat in that category.
in my view and it seems you are pulling up statistics as well. Finland, for example, is offshore outsourcing. They also have only a population of 3 million people, which of course does also affect jobs. A huge example is this nightmare "abuse" JV (joint venture) between Seimens and Nokia. They have fired, well, I don't know the totals but it has to be over 50k, sought the cheapest labor, thrashed their workforce, on and on.
So, while you may be attributing some result due to "socialism", I'd claim you really have to look deep into the numbers, statistics, especially in today's great global cheap labor market on what's happening.
They do have unbelievable taxes, but if you add up all of the taxes in the U.S., the hidden taxes, it's really pretty high here too. Finland especially has surreal taxes on things like cars, certain goods and a progressive tax that is beyond steep to the point you can say "comrade".
But that said, you cannot ignore the quality of life in Europe in comparison to the United States for the citizenry. It's frankly so much better with health care, social safety nets, free or almost free university level education, child care, 6 weeks of vacation time and so on...
I mean you seriously need to plain live there to realize the difference and then contemplate these tax rates.
I also think you're incorrect on the recovery from the 1990 major recession. It might be noted the 1990's recession was caused by a massive housing bubble. ;)
was rich and now thanks to The Daily Show I know know it is true.
Ah but there are always the prognosticators of doom and gloom. I am sure those well clothed Urbanites will beg to differ with this http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510.
Interesting pros and cons are in the follow-up readers posts.
I found this post to bring a smile. "There is a huge amout of money in Ireland at the moment. However wealth is much less equally spread in Ireland. If you are able to work then you will do well. But if you are old, sick, retired or lazy :) then Belgium is a better place to live."
Maybe there should be a country for the old, sick and lazy?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510
However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies and the European media’s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.
While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium’s was able to create 8% new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to create any jobs at all in over two decades. Denmark did a little better because it “activated” its labour market by making it more “flexible.”
Why are the Scandinavian countries doing such a bad job, despite their Protestant work ethic and devotion to duty? The main cause is the essence of the nanny state: its very high tax level. Between 1990 and 2005 the average overall tax burden was 55% in Finland, 58% in Denmark and 61% in Sweden. This is almost one and a half times the OECD average.
this is an area of mathematics involving advanced probability models with a gaussian "distribution" model (copula) which can be "collapsed" to a scalar (constant) under some assumptions.
This is the issue, they based trillions of dollars (estimates vary widely) on these mathematical models...
which, by the mathematics itself, are simply not valid due to the real interdependencies and multi-variate correlations of assets over global markets.
Taleb in his book, The Black Swan, does a good explanation coming from a layperson's view, i.e. to explain it as conceptual terms so one doesn't have to know advanced statistics, probability theory etc. to see what the problems are.
Coincidentally, I was watching the latest Bill Moyers Journal while this was posted. My local PBS broadcasts on Sunday, rather than Friday night. The Pecora commission hearings were the topic of the entire show with Michael Perino and Simon Johnson.
In Part II, they delve into what needs to happen investigating our current situation. They gave many good reasons for NOT using a congressional commission. Also, Simon acknowledged his admiration for Elizabeth Warren and thought she could do a great job as the new Pecora. Personally, I think we need a more prosecutorial type (think Elliot Spitzer) but I won't hold my breath.
You can sense that both guests are trying to remain optimistic, but understand the enormous entrenched power that must be overcome. Certainly, the level of populist anger right now is not anywhere near the level that existed when Pecora's hearings took place.
... market hypothesis. We have a market, we have prices from a market, we can impute the value of risk in the view of market participants ... and then, "because markets are efficient", that is the actual value of the risk.
The historical fact that people systematically under-estimate risks in the midst of a bubble is merely evidence that the efficient market hypothesis does not hold in reality. It does nothing to undermine the convenience of the efficient market hypothesis when engaged in the mathematical modeling of "the economy".
Indeed, the efficient market hypothesis is a good marker for the key difference between an academic field like mainstream Economics and Science ...
... since mainstream Economics is not trying to provide a cause and effect explanation of what is happening, all that is required is a convention among potential referees that "we all have to accept unanchored assumption 'X', because without it, none of use would get anything published".
Pages