Nate Silver publishes a daily number that represents Barack Obama’s chances of being re-elected. As I write this on October 27, Silver’s magic number is 74%.
Nate Silver explains his scientific approach to picking winners in elections.
Read more →Sometimes the folks at Business Insider get fairly simple ideas ass backwards. Take their Winners and Losers story on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision. It’s dead wrong about Millennials (born after 1982):
Young people can also count themselves winners in the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, which allows children to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until their 26th birthday. Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/winners-losers-affordable-care-act-supreme-court-obamacare-ruling-2012-6?op=1#ixzz1zP2AiaCO
[continued after image]
Read more →In a column intended to attract readers, not to promote hard economics, Rotman University economist Richard Florida declares that home ownership is terrible for the US Economy.
The problem is, like many economists,** Florida’s understanding of home ownership is 180 degrees ass-backwards**. Florida thinks that home ownership is supposed to cause economic growth.
Instead of leading to economic development, higher rates of homeownership today are associated with lower levels of it.
Read more →Looks like about $1.2 billion of JP Morgan’s $2 billion loss involved Henry Blodget’s 401k.
How else to explain his emotional outburst on Business Insider? Why else would he jump to the conclusion that our bankrupt federal government understands finances better than billionaires?
Wall Street can’t be trusted to manage—or even correctly assess—its own risks.
This is in part because, time and again, Wall Street has demonstrated that it doesn’t even KNOW what risks it is taking.
Read more →