The Story Behind the Story
A fascinating look at who is filling the 24 hour news cycle. There is a lot of schadenfreude at the demise of the mainstream media with all its faults, but we may be cutting off our nose to spite our faces. If no one is getting paid to put out a quality news product, then who will fill the void? Those seeking to manipulate the story. If you think bias in the media was bad, wait until it's run by the unapologetically agenda driven.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Vince Shlomi Slap Chopped a Hooker
The Shaw Wow guy beat up an aggressive hooker. Insert 'allegedly' as often as wherever needed.
Just amazing.
Just amazing.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Jon, you ignorant slut
Well we finally got Cramer v. Stewart and oh how the cypermob loved it. To be fair, I enjoyed it as well. There is something about Stewart when he forgets to tell jokes and loses himself in an issue. If nothing else his heart is in the right place. But sometimes, that isn't enough in the grander scheme of things.
This has become the classic case of soothing very real concerns with a very unreal narrative that just feels good.
CNBC doesn't know jack. Stewart is right to point that out, but pretending that they did know and stayed mum just shows how far out of his depth he is on this topic. If CNBC knew which way the markets went they wouldn't be making small time cable bucks, they'd be running a successful hedge fund.
No one gives away good financial advice for free. No one. Not ever. The people who do “know” which way the markets are going are at best just getting house odds in a game of chance. And even that doesn’t capture it, because there is NO way to tell who‘s lucky and who‘s smart with 100% certainty. You can reasonably say that Buffet, given his track record is better than 50/50 to actually have an edge, but you can never be 100% sure. He could be like the secretary that wins the official pool by looking at the mascots.
Now, no one is going to mistake the talking heads at CNBC for Warren Buffet. The best CNBC can do is report the events that matter to markets. Assessing whether or not a bank has on an overly risky position or that the leverage on it is inappropriate would be like asking why CNN didn't expose 9/11 before it happened. It’s beyond their capabilities, scope and frankly acumen.
This "two markets" wild grasp is the very essence of "I don't understand what's going on, but I sure hope there is a simple scapegoat so I'll feel better." The large sum, derivative loaded, so called "back room" deals are largely responsible for the rapid advancement in quality of life around the globe in the last 30 years or so. Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Southeast Asia, China, Brasil, India, Spain, Ireland, etc. have all been the beneficiaries of finance serving its purpose, to efficiently recycle money earned into opportunities for real growth.
There is a limit to how fast we as humans can advance our quality of life. There are limiting factors such as the speed with which we make new scientific discoveries, and the rate at which we are able to broadly absorb the benefits of those discoveries. But equally as important is the efficiency with which we recycle money in our society, to fund productive growth, to give people an opportunity to better themselves, to refine our division of labour.
Stewart is dangerously wrong to create an artificial divide between greedy, d-bag high financiers/fund managers/investment bankers and the very real connection markets and finance have with lives all around the world. The same pension fund that he sees as being squarely in the people's market was the one that went to banks begging for something AAA with a better return than Treasuries because rates were so low, AND because they are being crushed under the pressure to fund a retired workforce that is growing with contributions of a current workforce that is shrinking. That’s a far cry from the two market nonsense and hardly greed or evil at work.
Malcom Gladwell does a talk on plane crashes tied to his latest book where he mentions that a crash is almost never related to one person making a horrible mistake or a wrench in the engine, etc. It is almost in every case a series of minor mistakes that on their own wouldn't normally be much of a problem. It’s a chilling fact. People want there to be one simple gross error so that they can take comfort in the notion that this can easily be prevented; that they aren't really in the hands of fate.
Well, there isn't one grave, evil error in this mess either. There wasn't one person who could have prevented it. Unless we are truly willing to ditch the horse that got us here, these systemic failures are always a risk. The laundry list of things that can be done to reduce that risk stand a much better chance of getting addressed if we don't let ourselves settle for the comforting narrative.
This has become the classic case of soothing very real concerns with a very unreal narrative that just feels good.
CNBC doesn't know jack. Stewart is right to point that out, but pretending that they did know and stayed mum just shows how far out of his depth he is on this topic. If CNBC knew which way the markets went they wouldn't be making small time cable bucks, they'd be running a successful hedge fund.
No one gives away good financial advice for free. No one. Not ever. The people who do “know” which way the markets are going are at best just getting house odds in a game of chance. And even that doesn’t capture it, because there is NO way to tell who‘s lucky and who‘s smart with 100% certainty. You can reasonably say that Buffet, given his track record is better than 50/50 to actually have an edge, but you can never be 100% sure. He could be like the secretary that wins the official pool by looking at the mascots.
Now, no one is going to mistake the talking heads at CNBC for Warren Buffet. The best CNBC can do is report the events that matter to markets. Assessing whether or not a bank has on an overly risky position or that the leverage on it is inappropriate would be like asking why CNN didn't expose 9/11 before it happened. It’s beyond their capabilities, scope and frankly acumen.
This "two markets" wild grasp is the very essence of "I don't understand what's going on, but I sure hope there is a simple scapegoat so I'll feel better." The large sum, derivative loaded, so called "back room" deals are largely responsible for the rapid advancement in quality of life around the globe in the last 30 years or so. Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Southeast Asia, China, Brasil, India, Spain, Ireland, etc. have all been the beneficiaries of finance serving its purpose, to efficiently recycle money earned into opportunities for real growth.
There is a limit to how fast we as humans can advance our quality of life. There are limiting factors such as the speed with which we make new scientific discoveries, and the rate at which we are able to broadly absorb the benefits of those discoveries. But equally as important is the efficiency with which we recycle money in our society, to fund productive growth, to give people an opportunity to better themselves, to refine our division of labour.
Stewart is dangerously wrong to create an artificial divide between greedy, d-bag high financiers/fund managers/investment bankers and the very real connection markets and finance have with lives all around the world. The same pension fund that he sees as being squarely in the people's market was the one that went to banks begging for something AAA with a better return than Treasuries because rates were so low, AND because they are being crushed under the pressure to fund a retired workforce that is growing with contributions of a current workforce that is shrinking. That’s a far cry from the two market nonsense and hardly greed or evil at work.
Malcom Gladwell does a talk on plane crashes tied to his latest book where he mentions that a crash is almost never related to one person making a horrible mistake or a wrench in the engine, etc. It is almost in every case a series of minor mistakes that on their own wouldn't normally be much of a problem. It’s a chilling fact. People want there to be one simple gross error so that they can take comfort in the notion that this can easily be prevented; that they aren't really in the hands of fate.
Well, there isn't one grave, evil error in this mess either. There wasn't one person who could have prevented it. Unless we are truly willing to ditch the horse that got us here, these systemic failures are always a risk. The laundry list of things that can be done to reduce that risk stand a much better chance of getting addressed if we don't let ourselves settle for the comforting narrative.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Pleasant Noise
"I am Goodbye" by Bonnie "Prince" Billy (who looks a lot like Will Oldham.) New album out March 16th/17th.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
CNBC, douchebags on parade
Normally Jon Stewart doesn't have a clue when it comes to markets. As concise as his satirical wit can be on most matters, he can display an awesome ignorance when attacking anything and everything involved with the credit crunch. But a broken clock is right twice a day, and his time is now.
CNBC doesn't have a clue either. Never has. (In fact, neither does 99% of people giving free advice on how to make money.)
CNBC doesn't have a clue either. Never has. (In fact, neither does 99% of people giving free advice on how to make money.)
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Why people become Republicans
The wonderful Nate Silver penned this little anecdote about why people become Republicans. In short, leaving the CPAC, the Metro system rips him off and suddenly he realized how fertile soil for an anti-government message is made every day.
But there are two things at work at the CPAC, conservatism the concept, and conservatism the brand. The former is a philosophy with its merits and faults that nearly anyone could assess objectively if so inclined. The latter is what explains why thousands of young people wore suits to hear Ann Coultere describe liberals as if they are alien race and not merely people with whom they differ.
So what is the appeal of the conservative brand? In a hyphenated word: self-aggrandizement. It isn't so much about small government as it is big you. Are you righteous? This brand is for you. More American than the average person? Grab a pamphlet. More deserving of that job the immigrant is doing? Come on down. Do you like exclusive organizations such as country clubs and private dinner clubs? Then you deserve a brand like this. High earner? Let everyone know by proselytizing your conservatism. Maybe your equity is with the Lord? No one separates the saints from the sinners like conservatism. Most patriotic person on your block? Grab a lapel pin and show those Commies.
That isn't an observation about conservatism in and of itself, just merely the brand and its appeal. Whether conservatism is the answer to America's problems or not is beside the point. By its very nature, conservatism will always appeal to people searching for a way to put themselves on a pedestal. So why wouldn't you wear a suit to attend CPAC?
But there are two things at work at the CPAC, conservatism the concept, and conservatism the brand. The former is a philosophy with its merits and faults that nearly anyone could assess objectively if so inclined. The latter is what explains why thousands of young people wore suits to hear Ann Coultere describe liberals as if they are alien race and not merely people with whom they differ.
So what is the appeal of the conservative brand? In a hyphenated word: self-aggrandizement. It isn't so much about small government as it is big you. Are you righteous? This brand is for you. More American than the average person? Grab a pamphlet. More deserving of that job the immigrant is doing? Come on down. Do you like exclusive organizations such as country clubs and private dinner clubs? Then you deserve a brand like this. High earner? Let everyone know by proselytizing your conservatism. Maybe your equity is with the Lord? No one separates the saints from the sinners like conservatism. Most patriotic person on your block? Grab a lapel pin and show those Commies.
That isn't an observation about conservatism in and of itself, just merely the brand and its appeal. Whether conservatism is the answer to America's problems or not is beside the point. By its very nature, conservatism will always appeal to people searching for a way to put themselves on a pedestal. So why wouldn't you wear a suit to attend CPAC?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)