Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Laziness in not filling cabinet level positions with someone who can be confirmed by the senate.

[Kapture1]

O7fuO8QQJ-9HLYd6b7-87FOLq0dMfIGdogEV-3zTnbs.jpg?width=803&auto=webp&s=9bd1162447395eece443241e4474eb2525fb874e.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

You feeling a little down DSL ? You close minded left guys should have a misery party.


Bad day for for the haters and losers, searching for something negative. CNN said he should have stayed home!

The media is pissed off that troops wanted Trump to sign their MAGA hats because it destroys their narrative the troops are angry at him for pulling out of Syria.

Even the usual safe spaces on Fox were criticizing your man-crush, Wings, for using the troops as political props.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-hits-trump-for-turning-troop-visit-into-campaign-rally

[hack]

Thanks for responding to my points. Got it on "Capital Controls" in the context you mentioned it.

You said:

Yet this has happened at the same time as a very difficult-to-measure amount of global wealth has been shifted to offshore tax havens. These numbers rarely tell a specific and simple story.

....... I think you are saying that this "difficult to measure global wealth" if it were measurable, would tend to return Rosling's symmetric bell curve to an asymmetric two hump curve. Right?

I can see your point but it is a difficult point to argue without data to argue from. You are asking me to rely on something that is difficult to measure as proof that there is wage inequality. My point stands. Wage inequality, a clarion call of the left, is less of a problem in a global economy ...... than I believe it is made out to be by anti-globalists.

Well if you want to know about the extent to which wealth is held by a small amount of people, you have to measure all wealth. If you're not measuring what's held offshore, you're not making a proper measurement.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Agreed ...... what is your estimate in numbers of "wealth held by a small amount of people" compared to your estimate of "all wealth." I'm asking a serous question not trying to be snarky. Without data, facts, we should be skeptical of positions people take on this issue.

[hack]

The global balance sheet has liabilities supposedly ~$5 trillion or so higher than assets, but this is a debate raging currently. Could be tens of trillions.

My own opinion is that the data revolution is undermined by the fact that we don't even have an appreciation for what data we ought to have and don't have. There are no stats available on global financial flows since 1945, for example. If you ask around though, you'll find that a lot of people assume that stat exists and know where to find it.

[Kapture1]

you don't fucking say...

x8jur0dwlv621.jpg?width=547&auto=webp&s=12c59e9f3c25bd5e7697b618be030e0a2bce8a8a.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

The global balance sheet has liabilities supposedly ~$5 trillion or so higher than assets, but this is a debate raging currently. Could be tens of trillions.

My own opinion is that the data revolution is undermined by the fact that we don't even have an appreciation for what data we ought to have and don't have. There are no stats available on global financial flows since 1945, for example. If you ask around though, you'll find that a lot of people assume that stat exists and know where to find it.

Fair enough ....... what bothers me is that policy makers at high levels in government are enacting policy or advising leaders they ought to enact policy without facts to back it up. Of course this was Hans Rosling's concern as well. He was also stupified at what policymakers and/or their advisers actually knew about the most important issues that might affect said policy in the areas of supposed expertise they were acting.

So, on the issue we are discussing, wage inequality, I think we can conclude that there is not enough data, enough facts based on that data, from which we can base policy on. For example, it seems to me that to take a position that there is a general wealth gap globally and then expect governments to undertake programs to address that issue is an ill-advised undertaking.

OTH, as I have offered, sectoral bargaining based on disparities in regional wages and the need for a living wage based on regional cost of living is a much better way to go than enterprise unionization. I think this sort of approach can be applied globally and is a decent starting point from which to address wage inequality on a regional basis. I'ts a lot better than making generalized claims of wage inequality due to globalization that may or may not exists and expecting governments to do something about it on the basis of fairness.

[WingsFan]

"This suspect, unlike Ron -- who immigrated to this country lawfully and legally to pursue his lifelong career of public safety, public service and being a police officer -- this suspect is in our country illegally," Christianson said. "He doesn't belong here. He's a criminal."


This is the officer who was brutally murdered with his family Christmas morning, 5 hours later he was killed.




DvYFk9QWsAEsLpP.jpg

[WingsFan]

[CGVT]

144 L/E Officers killed in the line of duty this year Up 12% from last year.

[hack]

Jeff, on a country-by-country level we have better data. Obvious whack-you-in-the-face data Thomas Piketty's r>g work shows inequality globally. Income inequality is knowable and has been measured. It's just that when you come at it slightly different, like the one-hump/two-hump graph, you start to get noise. You can't factor in where exactly the money goes in some places, and you can be fooled into ignoring relative values when the absolute ones look stark.

I do agree about the poor use of data. It's not just government. It's big philanthropy too, and maybe also the private sector -- can't be sure since they don't share what data they have. But I've got examples from my own work that are just stupefying. The most important skills when working with data have nothing to do with computers. They have more to do with understanding what data you have, what data you don't have, and what that means for your ability to draw conclusions. Unfortunately for the numbers people, it seems to me there's no process doesn't require some qualitative expertise at some point.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for that. I know this is your turf. Appreciate increasing my knowledge base.

[Ghengis Jon]

"Likes" must be really important in Korea. Or is it accuracy that's so important? It would be interesting in a 1st Amendment way if such a case played out in the US.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/12/26/South-Korean-prosecutors-seek-prison-term-for-blogger-in-opinion-rigging-scheme/4301545804794/

[Jeff Buchanan]

So Donald Trump is responsible for the value of your 401Ks taking a dive from October highs, right?

No.

It's the combination of algorithm driven Electronically Traded Funds (ETFs) and automated computer trading. There are not millions of Warren Buffets analyzing the value of various companies or the economic environment and picking stocks to sell or buy with a sell-off reflected in market indices as a function of that activity. It's estimated that 70% of exchange trading is machine driven.

The point is that the machine trading exaggerates the dips both positive and negative. This is nothing new as the stock markets have been driven by this factor for more than two decades with the percentage impact rising to today's highs. You are seeing the huge swings of hundreds and recently over a 1000 points (4.5%) in the Dow because of this. Volatility is the trademark of machine driven stock buying and selling. Underlying economic conditions are a factor but not the primary one short term. Long term they are and the US and global economy will continue to expand and the value of your holdings will increase.

Experts believe that some of the sell-off is a normal correction to an oversold market not a signal of impeding global economic doom. You would not know that from the doomsayers prediction of a recession and depressed or worse, a continued slide in the value of your investments. As it has in the past three episodes of high volatility due to machine trading, that volatility will subside and markets will settle along with stock valuations.

It's not likely that you will enjoy the ride of the last bull market where even conservative portfolios experienced double digit gains. Gains in 2019 will be positive but more muted. So, relax. Stay the course. Ignore the hand wringing and assignment of blame to DJT.