Martin Wolf’s hair is on fire in the Financial Times:
Suppose that in June 2007 you had been told that the UK 10-year bond would be yielding 1.54 per cent, the US Treasury 10-year 1.47 per cent and the German 10-year 1.17 per cent on June 1 2012. Suppose, too, you had been told that official short rates varied from zero in the US and Japan to 1 per cent in the eurozone. What would you think? You would think the world economy was in a depression. You would have been wrong if you had meant something like the 1930s. But you would have been right about the forces at work: the west is in a contained depression; worse, forces for another downswing are building, above all in the eurozone. Meanwhile, policy makers are making huge errors…
How much pain can the countries under stress endure? Nobody knows. What would happen if a country left the eurozone? Nobody knows. Might even Germany consider exit? Nobody knows. What is the long-run strategy for exit from the crises? Nobody knows. Given such uncertainty, panic is, alas, rational. A fiat currency backed by heterogeneous sovereigns is irremediably fragile.
Before now, I had never really understood how the 1930s could happen. Now I do. All one needs are fragile economies, a rigid monetary regime, intense debate over what must be done, widespread belief that suffering is good, myopic politicians, an inability to co-operate and failure to stay ahead of events.
— I agree with William D. Cohan that retail investors shouldn’t play the IPO game, but I think the rest of the thrust of his column, which says “Small Fish Burned in Facebook IPO Knew Better,” is problematic.
Burned investors will grasp at anything — except their own role in fueling Wall Street’s Facebook IPO hype machine — in an effort to recoup some of the billions of dollars they have lost as the stock continues to slide. On May 23, the plaintiff’s bar got into the act by filing three separate shareholders lawsuits accusing Facebook’s management, board and underwriters of failing to provide material information about the company’s second-quarter financial performance to small investors during the roadshow, while providing the same information to some institutional investors. This, the suits claim, caused the small investors to lose more than $2.5 billion after Facebook’s IPO.
There will always be another round of suckers for Wall Street to fleece, but that doesn’t excuse the fleecing. It’s just wrong that one group of investors—the well financed and well connected kind—got inside information about Facebook’s deteriorating numbers while everybody else didn’t.
The small fish didn’t know better. That’s the point.
— This Washington Post piece, about the tech millionaire who bought up the 260-year-old Carter’s Grove property in Virginia, is a good if painful read. Halsey Minor let it fall apart, doing irreparable damage to its history.
Here’s a snippet:
At a hearing March 13, it became apparent that the electric power to many of Carter’s Grove’s buildings had been cut off for nonpayment. A $4 million museum building likely had been ruined by rampant mold, Robert Mays, the longtime caretaker of Carter’s Grove, testified.
“We are doing the best we can with what we have to work with,” he told (Judge) St. John, asking for money to buy fuel and blades for the lawn mower.
Mays said he and his wife, Tammy, who also is employed to care for Carter’s Grove, had not been paid since the end of 2011. They are supposed to receive weekly wages totaling about $1,000. “You know, we both depend on the payroll for our family,” Mays said. “We are still working every day, so I mean, I would kind of like to see where I stand on getting paid.”
The judge had had enough.
“I regret that fact that Mr. Minor has apparently again, I think, misled this court into thinking that, you know, he was one invention away or one endeavor away from resolving this. But I promise you, I understand what’s going on now, and it is reprehensible,” St. John said. “I have given him leeway, and he has made me a fool.”

hey you know what else has some good 1930s/40s vibe... government using the citizens as test subjects in what are lethal experiments.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/epas_unethical_air_pollution_experiments_comments.html#disqus_thread
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in September of 2011 that small-particle (2.5 microns or less) air pollution is lethal. "Particulate matter causes premature death. It's directly causal to dying sooner than you should."
At the hearing, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) asked, "How would you compare [the benefits of reducing airborne PM2.5] to the fight against cancer?" Ms. Jackson replied, "Yeah, I was briefed not long ago. If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country." Cancer kills a half-million Americans a year -- 25 percent of all deaths in the U.S. annually.
That same month, September 2011, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a journal sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, reported an experiment that exposed a 58-year-old lady to high levels of small particles in a chamber. After 49 minutes in the chamber, the lady, who was obese with hypertension and a family history of heart disease, who also had premature atrial heartbeats on her pre-experiment electrocardiogram, developed a rapid heart beat irregularity called atrial fibrillation/flutter, which can be life threatening. She was taken out of the chamber, and she recovered, but she was hospitalized for a day. Weeks later, an abnormal electrical heart circuit was fixed by cardiologists, as reported in EHP.
It is illegal, unethical, and immoral to expose experimental subjects to harmful or lethal toxins. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd Ed. (2011), published by the Federal Judicial Center, on page 555 declares that exposing human subjects to toxic substances is "proscribed" by law and cites case law. The editor of EHP refused a request to withdraw the paper and conduct an investigation.
The EPA's internal policy guidance on experimental protocols prohibits, under what is called the "Common Rule," experiments that expose human subjects to lethal or toxic substances. Milloy referenced the "Common Rule" that governs EPA policy on research conduct in human experimentation in his letter to the inspector general of the EPA requesting an investigation of the matter.
A full report on the research study shows that 41 other people were exposed to what the EPA says are harmful or lethal levels of small particles, with some enduring up to 10 times the EPA's declared safe level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The EPA human experiments described were conducted from January 2010 to June 2011, according to the information obtained by JunkScience.com on a Freedom of Information Act request, and ended three months before Ms. Jackson's congressional testimony, but she still asserted dramatic claims of PM2.5's lethality -- thousands of deaths at stake and hundreds of billions in economic consequences from the deaths and disabilities caused by small particles.
According to the congressional testimony of Lisa Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 42 people. So what could have possessed these EPA researchers to do the experiments? The authors reveal the reason in their case report on the lady:
Although epidemiologic data strongly support a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and cardiovascular disease, this methodology does not permit a description of the clinical presentation in an individual case. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of cardiovascular disease after exposure to elevated concentrations of any
#1 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Tue 5 Jun 2012 at 09:57 PM
The people at the EPA claim that they must control air pollution to prevent the deaths of thousands. Then they expose human subjects to high levels of air pollution. Is it possible that they are lying, or unethical, or both?
In the experimental protocol, seven subjects were exposed to levels 10 times greater than the 24-hour safe limit for small particles, and all of the other 40 subjects were exposed to more than the 35 micrograms per cubic meter that the EPA says is the 24-hour safety limit. The researchers failed to report that none of the other subjects had any adverse effects, which is unscientific, since researchers are obligated to report results both for and against their hypothesis.
The only way out for the EPA in this episode is to acknowledge the reality that ambient levels or even higher levels of PM2.5 are not toxic or lethal, based on their own research, and to admit that their claims of thousands of lives lost from small particles is nonsense. Or they can stay with their assertions about small particle toxicity and face charges of criminal and civil neglect.
The individuals who were the subjects of this experiment certainly might be concerned if the EPA claim of small particle toxicity and lethality is true. There is good reason to believe that the EPA itself doesn't believe the claims. However, based on congressional testimony by EPA officials, any death now or later of the subjects of this experiment from heart and lung disease or cancer would be under the cloud of concern about the EPA claims that small particles kill. What were the EPA officials and researchers thinking?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/epas_unethical_air_pollution_experiments.html#ixzz1wySnEj7T
#2 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Tue 5 Jun 2012 at 09:59 PM
First, wt fiddle are you talking about?
Second, the American Thinker? Really?
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 12:40 AM
hey thimbles try reading... o wait...
Also haven't you quote the NYT and NPR both stalinist mouth pieces?
#4 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 02:04 AM
The central bankers are doing what they do best - destroying currencies and the societies that use them. You can not hold back the forces of markets. The longer and harder you fight natural economic forces (de-leveraging after the debt binge) the worse will be the final outcome. Let markets express themselves and we will all be better off...eventually. Just think what 3% inflation compounded will do to savers receiving 1% on their nest eggs. Then think about what negative compounding will do to our national debt as we borrow 30 cents for every dollar we spend.
#5 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 12:12 PM
Inflation would actually help with the de-leveraging (and counteract the deflation which accompanies demand collapse as everyone pays off debts) were it done right allowing wage inflation.
But being how many economists and elites are committed to following bad ideas and doing the wrong things in spite of the evidence, it's hard to see how to progress beyond this crisis will be achieved without drawn out pain that profits no one.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 03:07 PM
Hey thimnbles wasn't that the same guy you linked too that said investors would never buy bonds are negative real or nominal rates... and yet investors are buying bonds are negative real and nominal rates?
Plus he's citing krugman in his piece... the guy who wishs for global war and the wiping out of most of the world infrastructure so we can spend trillions repairing it.
As for inflation= good... never. Inflation is a hidden tax that destroys savers money, encourages debt slavery and a host or other not so fun things. Go look of europe in the 1920s-1940s. You can see how money printing or the lack of money printing effected each country. Countries that tried to print their way out had hyper-inflation, countries that tried to "socialize" their way out had depressions. Money printing and/or socialism failed... as they have always done throughout history.
As to the second piece... all it is an attack piece with nothing of value expect to attack a guy for pointing out krugman is retarded... no facts, logic or really much of anything.
#7 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 04:27 PM
"Hey thimnbles wasn't that the same guy you linked too that said investors would never buy bonds are negative real or nominal rates... and yet investors are buying bonds are negative real and nominal rates?"
I don't know. Why don't you cite your claim and then we can all evaluate it. If your source is "American Thinker" level in strength, then yeah I'll have to take a few kegs of salt before I swallow your claims.
PS. Please explain to us what your sentence means.
"Plus he's citing krugman in his piece... the guy who wishs for global war and the wiping out of most of the world infrastructure so we can spend trillions repairing it."
Oh, I forgot. You're a nutjob. Nevermind.
"As for inflation= good... never."
US Debt as a percentage of GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1920_2012USp_13s1li011mcn_H0t
Because of the war, US debt jumped to 120% of GDP and then fell to 45% in the 1970's.
US Debt period
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1920_1975USb_13s1li011mcn_H0t
But US debt never once fell. Not once from 1950 onto 1970.
Why? Because until 1970 as productivity went up, wages went up with them. As wages go up, debt gets paid off and the economy becomes more free to purchase new goods with the money it was using for debt service.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 07:11 PM
Wages grow the economy. When a high percentage of the economy is indebted, inflation erodes the value of that debt, but only if the inflation is allowed to put cost pressure on wages. Since the 1970's, something has gotten increasingly broken in the relationship between productivity and wages. This has caused a host of problems within the US economy because in order to sustain the momentum that were once generated by wages, forces within the economy had to reduce the cost of debt and increase the load of debt (and the reduction of savings) on the balance sheets of consumers. This has to be reversed.
Inflation, like those caused by oil shocks and credit bubbles, do not put cost pressure on employers to raise wages. Energy, tech, and other booms do apply pressure (within the local area of the boomtowns) by constricting the labor pool. Unemployment drives wages down.
The government should be constricting the labor pool right now to push up wages. Instead, it's been telling everyone who will listen about how much spending has dropped under their leadership. We live in Bizarro-world now, where everybody is trying to convince you "Car runs best with square tires." and "Man bite dog? Not story. Dog bite man? Big story!"
The real big story is that austerity in a recession reduces economic growth, reducing government revenue, forcing the idiots who recommended austerity recession to recommend even more austerity because "OMG! Look at the Debt! We've got to cut spending even more!!"
And these guys are listened to because.. well.. it's Bizarro-world, remember?
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 07:48 PM
"I don't know. Why don't you cite your claim and then we can all evaluate it. If your source is "American Thinker" level in strength, then yeah I'll have to take a few kegs of salt before I swallow your claims."
The AT piece has links to the direct source material... what do you need besides whats listed?
As for the negative real rates your the one that made the claim... remember? Or are you going to claim you posted the wrong link?
"Oh, I forgot. You're a nutjob. Nevermind."
Yeah quoting krugman is kind of nutty I admit that.
"US Debt as a percentage of GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1920_2012USp_13s1li011mcn_H0t
Because of the war, US debt jumped to 120% of GDP and then fell to 45% in the 1970's.
US Debt period
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1920_1975USb_13s1li011mcn_H0t
But US debt never once fell. Not once from 1950 onto 1970.
Why? Because until 1970 as productivity went up, wages went up with them. As wages go up, debt gets paid off and the economy becomes more free to purchase new goods with the money it was using for debt service. "
lol yeah "productivity went up". That must have been why they had gas lines and massive inflation and such... the debt went down because the government printed money.
You see inflation is great for the whole GDP % to debt argument... of course thats because inflation make money worth less...
You see those of us that can balance a check book see that the debt never went down in real terms though... and since the debt is not being payed off they must print more and more money and at some point that system will crash as history has shown many many times.
Its a matter of when not if.
#10 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 07:57 PM
Hey thimbles this is a great review of the system that you want.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/is-global-finance-a-ponzi-scheme-ask-a-russian-expert.html
I'm surprised you didn't invest in it when you had the chance.
#11 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Wed 6 Jun 2012 at 09:09 PM