Not-So-Select Short Subjects
Now that I know we’re just members of the “Peanut Gallery,”* let this random links post work as a placeholder for longer posts as we prepare for the “holiday”:
Shorter Mark Thoma at Marketwatch: If you can’t build a better model, best to reappoint a man who doesn’t think he has to do half of his job. (UPDATE: Or even less than that. [h/t Linda Beale])
Shorter Mark Thoma at his own blog: All of our current models prefer people to starve and die.
A fun graphic (h/t Abnormal Returns)
Think the Health Insurance “Reform” Bill will “bend the cost curve”? Think again.
*That the “Periodic Table” pretends to be about Finance Bloggers and yet categorizes DeLong, Thoma, and Mankiw, to name three, as “Rocket Scien[tists]” instead of Economists should in no way be seen to impune the quality of the analysis, of course.
If you look at the figure you see that the 2000s were a period that are demanded by the law of the mean. From 1980 to 2000 the cagr was almost 13% about 5% above the 1871-2008 trend. The market had to come down to bring the returns back on trend. Going the 28 years from 1980 to 2008 gives 8.52% which is just a tad above the long term 8%. Going by the law of the mean suggests a couple of slow years to bring the value back to the 8% level. Looking at the graph its clear that there are not two decades of negative growth in a row very often, but the cagr could get down to as low as 5% which it has in some 30 year periods.
Where’s the “partisan shill” category of the periodic table? Some of the partisan shills are in the table but mis-categorized, and some influential ones are not in the table at all. And to identify the muckraking Taibbi as part of “The Establishment” kind of misses his real role, which is to make partisan shills go apoplectic. Shouldn’t he really be in the “Rogues Gallery” in spite of his employer?
Ken – “That the “Periodic Table” pretends to be about Finance Bloggers and yet categorizes DeLong, Thoma, and Mankiw, to name three, as “Rocket Scien[tists]” instead of Economists should in no way be seen to impune the quality of the analysis, of course.”
It’s easy to make that mistake if one is using the Econbrowser post as the source for understanding the The Periodic Table of Finance Bloggers created by Joshua M Brown. Menzie Chinn on Jim Hamilton’s Enonbrowser didn’t bother to explain the categories or cite the information provided by Joshua Brown provided in his original post. That was a significant omission by Chinn.
Did I make the same mistake? Yes, as noted in one sentence in Econbrowser’s comments: “Many of the supposed finance bloggers listed aabove demonstrate very little knowledge of finance.” I also stated: “It’s laughable that this supposed periodic table of finance bloggers doesn’t include any of RGE Monitor’s blogs or noted finance experts who do blog.”
This is the second ranking ordering of “finance” blogs by Brown this year. His first effort was a high school format rendition. Links for the original posts are provided below.
The latest ranking is based on these categories as explained by Brown:
Rocket Science (macroeconomics, monetary policy, real estate, regulation)
Rogues Gallery (misfits, jokers, rebels & knaves)
The Establishment (mainstream media bloggers/ news sites)
Stock Operators (traders, technical analysis)
Peanut Gallery (multiple voices and sources of commentary, aggregators)
Baby Buffetts (value investors, stock picking, fundamental analysis, activism)
MIA (bloggers who have left us this year…come back guys!)
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/02/the-periodic-table-of-finance-bloggers/
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/04/30/whos-who-of-financial-bloggers/
.
Ken – “That the “Periodic Table” pretends to be about Finance Bloggers and yet categorizes DeLong, Thoma, and Mankiw, to name three, as “Rocket Scien[tists]” instead of Economists should in no way be seen to impune the quality of the analysis, of course.”
It’s easy to make that mistake if one is using the Econbrowser post as the source for understanding the The Periodic Table of Finance Bloggers created by Joshua M Brown. Menzie Chinn on Jim Hamilton’s Enonbrowser didn’t bother to explain the categories or cite the information Joshua Brown provided in his original post. That was a significant omission by Chinn. Did I make the same mistake? Yes.
This is the second ranking ordering of “finance” blogs by Brown this year. His first effort was a high school format rendition. Links for the original posts are provided below.
The latest ranking is based on these categories as explained by Brown:
Rocket Science (macroeconomics, monetary policy, real estate, regulation)
Rogues Gallery (misfits, jokers, rebels & knaves)
The Establishment (mainstream media bloggers/ news sites)
Stock Operators (traders, technical analysis)
Peanut Gallery (multiple voices and sources of commentary, aggregators)
Baby Buffetts (value investors, stock picking, fundamental analysis, activism)
MIA (bloggers who have left us this year…come back guys!)
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/02/the-periodic-table-of-finance-bloggers/
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/04/30/whos-who-of-financial-bloggers/
Ken – “That the “Periodic Table” pretends to be about Finance Bloggers and yet categorizes DeLong, Thoma, and Mankiw, to name three, as “Rocket Scien[tists]” instead of Economists should in no way be seen to impune the quality of the analysis, of course.”
It’s easy to make that mistake if one is using the Econbrowser post as the source for understanding the The Periodic Table of Finance Bloggers created by Joshua M Brown. Menzie Chinn on Jim Hamilton’s Enonbrowser didn’t bother to explain the categories or cite the information Joshua Brown provided in his original post. That was a significant omission by Chinn. Did I make the same mistake? Yes.
This is the second ranking ordering of “finance” blogs by Brown this year. His first effort was a high school format rendition. Links for the original posts are provided below.
The latest ranking is based on these categories as explained by Brown:
Rocket Science (macroeconomics, monetary policy, real estate, regulation)
Rogues Gallery (misfits, jokers, rebels & knaves)
The Establishment (mainstream media bloggers/ news sites)
Stock Operators (traders, technical analysis)
Peanut Gallery (multiple voices and sources of commentary, aggregators)
Baby Buffetts (value investors, stock picking, fundamental analysis, activism)
MIA (bloggers who have left us this year…come back guys!)
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/02/the-periodic-table-of-finance-bloggers/
http://thereformedbroker.com/2009/04/30/whos-who-of-financial-bloggers/
Citing the Alain Enthoven piece as evidence that the health package won’t “bend the cost curve” is logically flawed. What Enthoven’s piece does is argue that a single analysis by a single individual contains errors. That’s all it does. It is not an examination of the legislation just passed, so cannot rightly be argued to show that the cost curve won’t bend in response to the legislation.
There was a strong and largely successful effort to strip out the meat of cost containment measures from the bill. The trimmings were left in, probably to allow efforts to claim that the bill provides cost containment. We need to re-legislate. A couple more Democrats are needed in the Senate to make that practical to do. Meanwhile, we do have the biggest expansion of the social safety net in decades. That’s something.
What will happen to Medicaid funding after 2016? Only Nebraska is supposedly fully covered for the Medicaid/CHIP expansion beyond that year as a result of the deal that Senator Nelson cut for his vote. How are the States supposed to pay for the increased enrollment after 2016?
The Medicaid expansion will involve 20 million new recipients according to CMMS; CBO says 15 million. That’s excluding any consideration of further expansion likely to occur once a new immigration bill is passed. It’s possible that Medicaid/CHIP growth may involve 25-35 million new enrolles this decade, particularly if the economy doesn’t improve substantially.
Medicaid enrollment stood at 43.54 million in June 2008 according to Kaiser. CHIP enrollment stood at 7.368 million in FY2008. Combined Medicaid/CHIP enrollment was almost 51 million in 2008. The enrollment may increase by another 20 million with passage of the healthcare bill bringing the total enrollment to 71 million without consideration of a new immigration bill.
What is the plan for Medicaid funding to cover the enrollment growth and related expenses after 2016? What is the Medicaid plan after a new immigration bill is passed?