Politics in Finance

Posted by: Maximus

Politics in Finance - 05/22/15 03:14 PM

Wealthy investor diversify with Hedge Fund Manager's human capital and do not diversify with investment securities.

A person briefed on the matter and close to the firm said the amount of investor money recruited by Mr. Mezvinsky is not large, amounting to less than 10 percent of the firm’s total outside capital. Clinton supporters also say there are more direct ways to cultivate favor with the family, such as giving to the foundation, where Chelsea Clinton is vice chairwoman, than by investing with a hedge fund that her husband co-founded.

For Clintons, a Hedge Fund in the Family
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 05/23/15 01:11 PM

Does anyone think that everyone should have access to investing in a Hedge Fund and not just the upper class?

Why did congress makes laws where only the wealthy can have access to the smartest investor. You can lose all your money in a Bond Company that declared bankruptcy after buying Mortgage Backed Securities that Moody's credit declared AA.

Politician say they want better for America and equality and opportunity but laws prevent that.

I'd like to see multiple young and bright people from Wyandotte with passion for the finance who spent all his time getting good grades and go to college be able to accept money from Wyandotte, or other lower income area and make them rich. Why else would state and federal being paying education money to provide equality?
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 05/26/15 05:09 PM

I made this on Memorial Day. Hope you enjoy it.

Posted by: DCHawk1

Re: Politics in Finance - 05/26/15 10:39 PM

I dunno.

I think I would have a hard time giving a Mezvinsky any money.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/29/15 01:31 PM

Did you mean Harry Markowitz?

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/30/15 07:08 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/30/15 09:24 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/04/15 09:34 AM

Ben Stein blames cell phones for America's economic ills
Posted by: DCHawk1

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/04/15 12:34 PM

Ben Stein is smarter than you look.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/07/15 03:05 PM

Going off my looks, I'd say 99% of the population is smarter than me then.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/15/15 04:50 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/18/15 10:45 AM

Gender equality is an irrelevant topic in today times to me, but some people might argue that it could have a ways to go. Birth of a child, stay at home mothers, and a man who has a better resume because of a non lapse in the workplace would be the argument for those who disagree.

Nicola Horlick states, in paraphrasing, that men often do not get past the beauty of women first, natural biology there, and are slow to see the intangible of a woman's intellects.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/27/15 03:52 PM

Obama Carried Interest
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 09/16/15 04:20 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/01/15 04:58 PM

Posted by: n00sh

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/07/15 02:24 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/08/15 09:14 AM

Clearly photo shopped around the gluteus maximus area. The light make those legging see through but I'm guessing she is wearing a size too small.

Could be a man too!
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/08/15 09:20 AM

Turkey Financial Minister Mehmet Simsek

Banks Bankrupt in 2000 were jailed bankrupt owners. Raccoony laws of the entire family being responsible for debt for erroneous mistakes is interesting. I'm thinking Dick Fuld and Bernie Maddoff family. Bankrupt protecting is great but I like a person's being really responsible for risking their family as well for criminal negligence and not just taking a risk.

Taxes the people and not the business is Turkey for upstart economy but U.S. hasn't changed ours. Fiscal Police might be offsetting Economic growth. IMO. U.S. Tax model needs changing as we are a mature economy with more business and less people.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/19/15 03:15 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/27/17 12:09 PM

Ron Paul: 50% stock market plunge 'conceivable,' but it's not President Trump's fault

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 12/14/17 08:38 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 12/14/17 08:39 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 12/14/17 08:41 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 12/14/17 04:14 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/12/18 11:08 AM

Posted by: jahawker2004

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/15/18 05:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Maximus

Circle jerk.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/22/18 01:53 PM

Posted by: jahawker2004

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/23/18 07:07 AM

I can answer the last question--no.

The bottom line is all that matters. He's wasting his breath trying to encourage these pukes to factor in anything else.

Eat the Piggies.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/31/18 12:31 PM

Trump, your fired

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/31/18 12:32 PM

US Attorney Preet Bharara fired in standoff with Trump

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/31/18 12:32 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/13/18 03:49 PM

Mark E. Kingdon, Chief Executive Officer of Kingdon Capital Management, LLC, receives the Foreign Policy Association Medal at the 2015 FPA Financial Services Dinner.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/15/18 02:44 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/15/18 02:55 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/27/18 08:25 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/01/18 10:38 AM


Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/01/18 10:44 AM

MarketWatch Virtual Stock Exchange- https://www.marketwatch.com/game

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/01/18 11:12 AM




Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/07/18 08:52 AM

Video Link
Zachary Mider on Influence of Hedge Funds on Washington

Tax Bill Loopholes May Benefit Wall Street's Wealthiest
"People don't like the estate tax, even though almost no one pays it. About 0.2%"

If your smart enough to gain the money, you can get around the estate tax, if lucky with the gain of money, probably not.

3rd Web Link

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/07/18 09:02 AM

Progressive Group Takes Aim at Hedge Fund Managers
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/02/18 11:08 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/13/18 03:37 PM

The trappings of wealth and power.

"She sported manicured nails, wore designer clothes and drove an Audi: all the trappings of wealth, an yet in her heart she could not be happy."

"Trappings of wealth" refers to all of the external signs or marks of wealth. For example, if someone is wearing a very expensive tailormade suit, an expensive watch, drives a Lamborghini and lives in Beverly Hills, you could say that they are decked out with or display all of the trappings of wealth. A more modest wealthy person, such as Warren Buffet, can live without the trappings of wealth. "Trappings of office" is another common expression: a private limousine and a personal jet belong to the trappings of office when one is president. Originally, "trappings" meant all of the ornaments that signified the wearer's status: the king's robes and crown, the bishop's crosier, etc. I hope that helps.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/13/18 03:40 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/28/18 08:34 PM

JUST Capital ranks companies on the issues that Americans care about most.


Through our nationwide polling we define seven major sets of issues as being relevant to just corporate behavior. Each is weighted according to its importance, and broken down into specific performance criteria.


Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/28/18 08:44 PM

Georg Kell introduces Arabesque Partners, the world's first ESG-based asset quant fund to use sophisticated quantitative measures to assess the degree to which companies invest in ESG issues.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/06/18 09:37 AM

Wall Street Google free apps

Wall Street - The Bull Market


Urban Wall Street


Wall Street Magnate


Comish - Virtual Stock Trading & Money Making Game


Bank Manager Cash Register – Cashier Games


Mixel – Cocktail Recipes (Mixed Drinks Made Easy)


Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/21/18 03:46 PM

ESG (environmental, social and governance) is a generic term used in capital markets and used by investors to evaluate corporate behaviour and to determine the future financial performance of companies.

Posted by: KUCO_VOC

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/22/18 08:41 AM

I'm thinking this "information" belongs in a different category. Still thinking what that would be. But not politics.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 08/03/18 02:56 PM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/24/18 02:26 PM

Annual Ayn Rand Lecture with Dr. Michael Kauffman
Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem: Bringing Lifesaving Drugs to Humankind
Date: Wednesday 14th November
Time: 6:00pm - 9:00pm (Lecture starts at 6:45pm)
Where: Goldsmiths' Hall, Foster Lane, London EC2V 6BN
Dress code: Smart (lounge suits/business wear)
RSVP: events@adamsmith.org
On Wednesday 14th November, we will be honouring Ayn Rand and her ideas with a special guest lecture at the prestigious Goldsmiths’ Hall.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/13/18 08:18 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/13/18 08:19 AM

Park Plaza Wallstreet Berlin Mitte: Breakfast at the Park Plaza

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/13/18 08:25 AM

Wall Street Diner Breakfast is served all day. Service is fast and friendly.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/13/18 08:27 AM

Wall Street breakfast sandwich

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/16/18 11:12 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 11/20/18 11:27 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/24/19 10:38 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 02/26/19 06:56 PM

Jamie Dimon the next president in the White House?

It was a long way from General Sherman's unambiguous "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve." Dimon also noted that if he did become president he "wouldn't be as interesting as the one you have now."

Potential nomoniee Vice President candidate Lloyd Blankfein classes up politics with a glass of wine.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/05/19 04:24 PM

Politics, Finance, and Health Care bring up the topic of 8 drugs that exist in nature. Illegal to grow, but health care companies are allowed to treat ill patients in America. Why are we in Afghanistan, a drug called Opium poppy for morphine in a hospital in the U.S.


Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/10/19 12:54 PM

The NBA Age of Anxiety
Perhaps we are living in a golden age of unhappiness. Rich Harvard Business School graduates are miserable; millennials are burned out; Trump supporters are unhappy; Trump opponents are in despair. Or perhaps people are no more unhappy than they ever were, and we are simply more likely to hear about it. (As a phrase, the age of anxiety is as old as the N.B.A.) The league has become, in many ways, a more humane place; on many teams, when players are struggling mentally or emotionally, they are encouraged to acknowledge and address it, at least privately. At the Sloan conference, Silver talked about how individual teams and the league are devoting more and more resources to helping players with mental-health issues. Some of the current and former players who have spoken publicly about their struggles with depression—DeMar DeRozan, Kevin Love, and Chris Bosh, among others—have been instrumental in helping to challenge the taboo against seeking help...........

Davis explained his decision to request a trade as evidence that he is “growing up.” “As a player, as the C.E.O. of my own business, I got the power,” he said. “I’m doing what I want to do, and not what somebody tells me to do.” No one blinks these days when a player calls himself the C.E.O. of his own brand; we are all brands now, supposedly. But, for N.B.A. players, that postmodern axiom is much more real than it is for most of us. It is also awkwardly at odds with the collectivity of teamwork. Brands don’t have teammates. They don’t even really have friends. The identity of a brand is, quite literally, defined by how the public sees it. It must make for a peculiar kind of loneliness to feel obliged to see yourself this way, too.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/26/19 09:55 AM


“We have a machine in this country that makes it successful — based on democracy, our freedoms and also I think the economy and the way it operates in a free-market mode.”

"He called out the “increasing anti-capitalist sentiment” and specifically took issue with New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal targeting the wealthy with a 70 percent marginal tax rate on income above $10 million."

Major problems in the U.S. Employment section. Hiring the unemployed in government positions to manipulate the economic employment number for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/30/19 10:09 AM

Are you wealthfare vs welfare?

"Most of us find it far easier and more acceptable to talk of issued of gender, race, and sexuality than about issues of class and money. However, our class or orgin and our current class position are key factors in in lives. Our class standing affects our sense of self, our relationship with others, our expectation and our choices (or lack of choice).

Inequality in lives of friends, family, and community.

1. Increased anxiety about jobs security, health care, ability to afford a house, or safety,
2. Increased stress resulting fro less free time, higher taxes, or holding multiple jobs.
3. Increase scapegoating of economically vulnerable groups such as people on welfare or new immigrants.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/30/19 10:11 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 03/30/19 10:15 AM

Frederick Douglas vs Barack Obama.

In1885 Frederick Douglas died Douglass with a net worth of $300,000 that is equivalent to $25,000,000 million dollars today, in the era of discrimination on the basis of race!

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/07/19 01:20 PM

Malaysia and Turkey are in the top 10 for Countries economies.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/09/19 10:08 AM

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/09/19 11:04 AM

How did Paul Krugman get it so Wrong?

John H. Cochrane*

September 16 2009

Many friends and colleagues have asked me what I think of Paul Krugman’s New York Times Magazine article, “How did Economists get it so wrong?”

Most of all, it’s sad. Imagine this weren’t economics for a moment. Imagine this were a respected scientist turned popular writer, who says, most basically, that everything everyone has done in his field since the mid 1960s is a complete waste of time. Everything that fills its academic journals, is taught in its PhD programs, presented at its conferences, summarized in its graduate textbooks, and rewarded with the accolades a profession can bestow, including multiple Nobel prizes, is totally wrong. Instead, he calls for a return to the eternal verities of a rather convoluted book written in the 1930s, as taught to our author in his undergraduate introductory courses. If a scientist, he might be an AIDS-HIV disbeliever, a creationist, a stalwart that maybe continents don’t move after all.

It gets worse. Krugman hints at dark conspiracies, claiming “dissenters are marginalized.” Most of the article is just a calumnious personal attack on an ever-growing enemies list, which now includes “new Keynesians” such as Olivier Blanchard and Greg Mankiw. Rather than source professional writing, he plays gotcha with out-of-context second-hand quotes from media interviews. He makes stuff up, boldly putting words in people’s mouths that run contrary to their written opinions. Even this isn’t enough: he adds cartoons to try to make his “enemies” look silly, and puts them in false and embarrassing situations. He accuses us of adopting ideas for pay, selling out for “sabbaticals at the Hoover institution” and fat “Wall street paychecks.” It sounds a bit paranoid.

It’s annoying to the victims, but we’re big boys and girls. It’s a disservice to New York Times readers. They depend on Krugman to read real academic literature and digest it, and they get this attack instead. And it’s ineffective. Any astute reader knows that personal attacks and innuendo mean the author has run out of ideas.

That’s the biggest and saddest news of this piece: Paul Krugman has no interesting ideas whatsoever about what caused our current financial and economic problems, what policies might have prevented it, or what might help us in the future, and he has no contact with people who do. “Irrationality” and advice to spend like a drunken sailor are pretty superficial compared to all the fascinating things economists are writing about it these days.

How sad.

That’s what I think, but I don’t expect you the reader to be convinced by my opinion or my reference to professional consensus. Maybe he is right. Occasionally sciences, especially social sciences, do take a wrong turn for a decade or two. I thought Keynesian economics was such a wrong turn. So let’s take a quick look at the ideas.

Krugman’s attack has two goals. First, he thinks financial markets are “inefficient,” fundamentally due to “irrational” investors, and thus prey to excessive volatility which needs government control. Second, he likes the huge “fiscal stimulus” provided by multi-trillion dollar deficits.


It’s fun to say we didn’t see the crisis coming, but the central empirical prediction of the efficient markets hypothesis is precisely that nobody can tell where markets are going – neither benevolent government bureaucrats, nor crafty hedge-fund managers, nor ivory-tower academics. This is probably the best-tested proposition in all the social sciences. Krugman knows this, so all he can do is huff and puff about his dislike for a theory whose central prediction is that nobody can be a reliable soothsayer. And of course it makes no sense whatsoever to try to discredit efficient-markets finance because its followers didn’t see the crash coming.

Krugman writes as if the volatility of stock prices alone disproves market efficiency, and efficient marketers just ignored it all these years. This is a canard that Paul knows better than to pass on, no matter how rhetorically convenient. (I can overlook his mixing up the CAPM and Black-Scholes model, but not this.) There is nothing about “efficiency” that promises “stability.” “Stable” growth would in fact be a major violation of efficiency. Efficient markets did not need to wait for “the memory of 1929 … gradually receding,” nor did we fail to read the newspapers in 1987. Data from the great depression has been included in practically all the tests. In fact, the great “equity premium puzzle” is that if efficient, stock markets don’t seem risky enough to deter more people from investing! Gene Fama’s PhD thesis was on “fat tails” in stock returns.

It is true and very well documented that asset prices move more than reasonable expectations of future cashflows. This might be because people are prey to bursts of irrational optimism and pessimism. It might also be because people’s willingness to take on risk varies over time, and is lower in bad economic times. As Gene Fama pointed out in 1970, these are observationally equivalent explanations. Unless you are willing to elaborate your theory to the point that it can quantitatively describe how much and when risk premiums, or waves of “optimism” and “pessimism,” can vary, you know nothing. No theory is particularly good at that right now.

Crying “bubble” is empty unless you have an operational procedure for identifying bubbles, distinguishing them from rationally low risk premiums, and not crying wolf too many years in a row. Krugman rightly praises Robert Shiller for his warnings over many years that house prices might fall. But advice that we should listen to Shiller, because he got the last one right, is no more useful than previous advice from many quarters to listen to Greenspan because he got several ones right. Following the last mystic oracle until he gets one wrong, then casting him to the wolves, is not a good long-term strategy for identifying bubbles. Krugman likes Shiller because he advocates behavioral ideas, but that’s no help either. People who call themselves behavioral have just as wide a divergence of opinion as those who don’t. Are markets irrationally exuberant or irrationally depressed today? It’s hard to tell.

This difficulty is no surprise. It’s the central prediction of free-market economics, as crystallized by Hayek, that no academic, bureaucrat or regulator will ever be able to fully explain market price movements. Nobody knows what “fundamental” value is. If anyone could tell what the price of tomatoes should be, let alone the price of Microsoft stock, communism and central planning would have worked.

More deeply, the economist’s job is not to “explain” market fluctuations after the fact, to give a pleasant story on the evening news about why markets went up or down. Markets up? “A wave of positive sentiment.” Markets went down? “Irrational pessimism.” ( “The risk premium must have increased” is just as empty.) Our ancestors could do that. Really, is that an improvement on “Zeus had a fight with Apollo?” Good serious behavioral economists know this, and they are circumspect in their explanatory claims.

But this argument takes us away from the main point. The case for free markets never was that markets are perfect. The case for free markets is that government control of markets, especially asset markets, has always been much worse.

Krugman at bottom is arguing that the government should massively intervene in financial markets, and take charge of the allocation of capital. He can’t quite come out and say this, but he does say “Keynes considered it a very bad idea to let such markets…dictate important business decisions,” and “finance economists believed that we should put the capital development of the nation in the hands of what Keynes had called a `casino.’” Well, if markets can’t be trusted to allocate capital, we don’t have to connect too many dots to imagine who Paul has in mind.

To reach this conclusion, you need evidence, experience, or any realistic hope that the alternative will be better. Remember, the SEC couldn’t even find Bernie Madoff when he was handed to them on a silver platter. Think of the great job Fannie, Freddie, and Congress did in the mortgage market. Is this system going to regulate Citigroup, guide financial markets to the right price, replace the stock market, and tell our society which new products are worth investment? As David Wessel’s excellent In Fed We Trust makes perfectly clear, government regulators failed just as abysmally as private investors and economists to see the storm coming. And not from any lack of smarts.

In fact, the behavioral view gives us a new and stronger argument against regulation and control. Regulators are just as human and irrational as market participants. If bankers are, in Krugman’s words, “idiots,” then so must be the typical treasury secretary, fed chairman, and regulatory staff. They act alone or in committees, where behavioral biases are much better documented than in market settings. They are still easily captured by industries, and face politically distorted incentives.

Careful behavioralists know this, and do not quickly run from “the market got it wrong” to “the government can put it all right.” Even my most behavioral colleagues Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their book “Nudge” go only so far as a light libertarian paternalism, suggesting good default options on our 401(k) accounts. (And even here they’re not very clear on how the Federal Nudging Agency is going to steer clear of industry capture.) They don’t even think of jumping from irrational markets, which they believe in deeply, to Federal control of stock and house prices and allocation of capital.


Most of all, Krugman likes fiscal stimulus. In this quest, he accuses us and the rest of the economics profession of “mistaking beauty for truth.” He’s not clear on what the “beauty” is that we all fell in love with, and why one should shun it, for good reason. The first siren of beauty is simple logical consistency. Paul’s Keynesian economics requires that people make logically inconsistent plans to consume more, invest more, and pay more taxes with the same income. The second siren is plausible assumptions about how people behave. Keynesian economics requires that the government is able to systematically fool people again and again. It presumes that people don’t think about the future in making decisions today. Logical consistency and plausible foundations are indeed “beautiful” but to me they are also basic preconditions for “truth.”

In economics, stimulus spending ran aground on Robert Barro’s Ricardian equivalence theorem. This theorem says that debt-financed spending can’t have any more effect than spending financed by raising taxes. People, seeing the higher future taxes that must pay off the debt, will simply save more. They will buy the new government debt and leave all spending decisions unaltered. Is this theorem true? It’s a logical connection from a set of “if” to a set of “therefores.” Not even Paul can object to the connection.

Therefore, we have to examine the “ifs.” And those ifs are, as usual, obviously not true. For example, the theorem presumes lump-sum taxes, not proportional income taxes. Alas, when you take this into account we are all made poorer by deficit spending, so the multiplier is most likely negative. The theorem (like most Keynesian economics) ignores the composition of output; but surely spending money on roads rather than cars can affect the overall level.

Economists have spent a generation tossing and turning the Ricardian equivalence theorem, and assessing the likely effects of fiscal stimulus in its light, generalizing the “ifs” and figuring out the likely “therefores.” This is exactly the right way to do things. The impact of Ricardian equivalence is not that this simple abstract benchmark is literally true. The impact is that in its wake, if you want to understand the effects of government spending, you have to specify why it is false. Doing so does not lead you anywhere near old-fashioned Keynesian economics. It leads you to consider distorting taxes, how much people care about their children, how many people would like to borrow more to finance today’s consumption and so on. And when you find “market failures” that might justify a multiplier, optimal-policy analysis suggests fixing the market failures, not their exploitation by fiscal multiplier. Most “New Keynesian” analyses that add frictions don’t produce big multipliers.

This is how real thinking about stimulus actually proceeds. Nobody ever “asserted that an increase in government spending cannot, under any circumstances, increase employment.” This is unsupportable by any serious review of professional writings, and Krugman knows it. (My own are perfectly clear on lots of possibilities for an answer that is not zero.) But thinking through this sort of thing and explaining it is much harder than just tarring your enemies with out-of-context quotes, ethical innuendo, or silly cartoons.

In fact, I propose that Krugman himself doesn’t really believe the Keynesian logic for that stimulus. I doubt he would follow that logic to its inevitable conclusions. Stimulus must have some other attraction to him.

If you believe the Keynesian argument for stimulus, you should think Bernie Madoff is a hero. He took money from people who were saving it, and gave it to people who most assuredly were going to spend it. Each dollar so transferred, in Krugman’s world, generates an additional dollar and a half of national income. The analogy is even closer. Madoff didn’t just take money from his savers, he essentially borrowed it from them, giving them phony accounts with promises of great profits to come. This looks a lot like government debt.

If you believe the Keynesian argument for stimulus, you don’t care how the money is spent. All this puffery about “infrastructure,” monitoring, wise investment, jobs “created” and so on is pointless. Keynes thought the government should pay people to dig ditches and fill them up.

If you believe in Keynesian stimulus, you don’t even care if the government spending money is stolen. Actually, that would be better. Thieves have notoriously high propensities to consume.

The crash.

Krugman’s article is supposedly about how the crash and recession changed our thinking, and what economics has to say about it. The most amazing news in the whole article is that Paul Krugman has absolutely no idea about what caused the crash, what policies might have prevented it, and what policies we should adopt going forward. He seems completely unaware of the large body of work by economists who actually do know something about the banking and financial system, and have been thinking about it productively for a generation.

Here’s all he has to say: “Irrationality” caused markets to go up and then down. “Spending” then declined, for unclear reasons, possibly “irrational” as well. The sum total of his policy recommendations is for the Federal Government to spend like a drunken sailor after the fact.

Paul, there was a financial crisis, a classic near-run on banks. The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks. A generation of economists has thought really hard about these kinds of events. Look up Diamond, Rajan, Gorton, Kashyap, Stein, and so on. They’ve thought about why there is so much short term debt, why banks run, how deposit insurance and credit guarantees help, and how they give incentives for excessive risk taking.

If we want to think about events and policies, this seems like more than a minor detail. The hard and central policy debate over the last year was how to manage this financial crisis. Now it is how to set up the incentives of banks and other financial institutions so this mess doesn’t happen again. There’s lots of good and subtle economics here that New York Times readers might like to know about. What does Krugman have to say? Zero.

Krugman doesn’t even have anything to say about the Fed. Ben Bernanke did a lot more last year than set the funds rate to zero and then go off on vacation and wait for fiscal policy to do its magic. Leaving aside the string of bailouts, the Fed started term lending to securities dealers. Then, rather than buy treasuries in exchange for reserves, it essentially sold treasuries in exchange for private debt. Though the funds rate was near zero, the Fed noticed huge commercial paper and securitized debt spreads, and intervened in those markets. There is no “the” interest rate anymore, the Fed is attempting to manage them all. Recently the Fed has started buying massive quantities of mortgage-backed securities and long-term treasury debt.

Monetary policy now has little to do with “money” vs. “bonds” with all the latter lumped together. Monetary policy has become wide-ranging financial policy. Does any of this work? What are the dangers? Can the Fed stay independent in this new role? These are the questions of our time. What does Krugman have to say? Nothing.

Krugman is trying to say that a cabal of obvious crackpots bedazzled all of macroeconomics with the beauty of their mathematics, to the point of inducing policy paralysis. Alas, that won’t stick. The sad fact is that few in Washington pay the slightest attention to modern macroeconomic research, in particular anything with a serious intertemporal dimension. Paul’s simple Keynesianism has dominated policy analysis for decades and continues to do so. From the CEA to the Fed to the OMB and CBO, everyone just adds up consumer, investment and government “demand” to forecast output and uses simple Phillips curves to think about inflation. If a failure of ideas caused bad policy, it’s a simpleminded Keynesianism that failed.

The future of economics.

How should economics change? Krugman argues for three incompatible changes.

First, he argues for a future of economics that “recognizes flaws and frictions,” and incorporates alternative assumptions about behavior, especially towards risk-taking. To which I say, “Hello, Paul, where have you been for the last 30 years?” Macroeconomists have not spent 30 years admiring the eternal verities of Kydland and Prescott’s 1982 paper. Pretty much all we have been doing for 30 years is introducing flaws, frictions and new behaviors, especially new models of attitudes to risk, and comparing the resulting models, quantitatively, to data. The long literature on financial crises and banking which Krugman does not mention has also been doing exactly the same.

Second, Krugman argues that “a more or less Keynesian view is the only plausible game in town,” and “Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions.” One thing is pretty clear by now, that when economics incorporates flaws and frictions, the result will not be to rehabilitate an 80-year-old book. As Paul bemoans, the “new Keynesians” who did just what he asks, putting Keynes inspired price-stickiness into logically coherent models, ended up with something that looked a lot more like monetarism. (Actually, though this is the consensus, my own work finds that new-Keynesian economics ended up with something much different and more radical than monetarism.) A science that moves forward almost never ends up back where it started. Einstein revises Newton, but does not send you back to Aristotle. At best you can play the fun game of hunting for inspirational quotes, but that doesn’t mean that you could have known the same thing by just reading Keynes once more.

Third, and most surprising, is Krugman’s Luddite attack on mathematics; “economists as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth.” Models are “gussied up with fancy equations.” I’m old enough to remember when Krugman was young, working out the interactions of game theory and increasing returns in international trade for which he won the Nobel Prize, and the old guard tut-tutted “nice recreational mathematics, but not real-world at all.” He once wrote eloquently about how only math keeps your ideas straight in economics. How quickly time passes.

Again, what is the alternative? Does Krugman really think we can make progress on his – and my – agenda for economic and financial research -- understanding frictions, imperfect markets, complex human behavior, institutional rigidities – by reverting to a literary style of exposition, and abandoning the attempt to compare theories quantitatively against data? Against the worldwide tide of quantification in all fields of human endeavor (read “Moneyball”) is there any real hope that this will work in economics?

No, the problem is that we don’t have enough math. Math in economics serves to keep the logic straight, to make sure that the “then” really does follow the “if,” which it so frequently does not if you just write prose. The challenge is how hard it is to write down explicit artificial economies with these ingredients, actually solve them, in order to see what makes them tick. Frictions are just bloody hard with the mathematical tools we have now.

The insults.

The level of personal attack in this article, and fudging of the facts to achieve it, is simply amazing.

As one little example (ok, I’m a bit sensitive), take my quotation about carpenters in Nevada. I didn’t write this. It’s a quote, taken out of context, from a bloomberg.com article, written by a reporter who I spent about 10 hours with patiently trying to explain some basics, and who also turned out only to be on a hunt for embarrassing quotes. (It’s the last time I’ll do that!) I was trying to explain how sectoral shifts contribute to unemployment. Krugman follows it by a lie -- I never asserted that “it take mass unemployment across the whole nation to get carpenters to move out of Nevada.” You can’t even dredge up a quote for that monstrosity.

What’s the point? I don’t think Paul disagrees that sectoral shifts result in some unemployment, so the quote actually makes sense as economics. The only point is to make me, personally, seem heartless -- a pure, personal, calumnious attack, having nothing to do with economics.

Bob Lucas has written extensively on Keynesian and monetarist economics, sensibly and even-handedly. Krugman chooses to quote a joke, made back in 1980 at a lunch talk to some business school alumni. Really, this is on the level of the picture of Barack Obama with Bill Ayers that Sean Hannity likes to show on Fox News.

It goes on. Krugman asserts that I and others “believe” “that an increase in government spending cannot, under any circumstances, increase employment,” or that we “argued that price fluctuations and shocks to demand actually had nothing to do with the business cycle.” These are just gross distortions, unsupported by any documentation, let alone professional writing. And Krugman knows better. All economic models are simplified to exhibit one point; we all understand the real world is more complicated; and his job is supposed to be to explain that to lay readers. It would be no different than if someone were to look up Paul’s early work which assumed away transport costs and claim “Paul Krugman believes ocean shipping is free, how stupid” in the Wall Street Journal.

The idea that any of us do what we do because we’re paid off by fancy Wall Street salaries or cushy sabbaticals at Hoover is just ridiculous. (If Krugman knew anything about hedge funds he’d know that believing in efficient markets disqualifies you for employment. Nobody wants a guy who thinks you can’t make any money trading!) Given Krugman’s speaking fees, it’s a surprising first stone for him to cast.

Apparently, salacious prose, innuendo, calumny, and selective quotation from media aren’t enough: Krugman added cartoons to try to make opponents look silly. The Lucas-Blanchard-Bernanke conspiratorial cocktail party celebrating the end of recessions is a silly fiction. So is their despondent gloom on reading “recession” in the paper. Nobody at a conference looks like Dr. Pangloss with wild hair and a suit from the 1800s. (OK, Randy Wright has the hair, but not the suit.) Keynes did not reappear at the NBER to be booed as an “outsider.” Why are you allowed to make things up in pictures that wouldn’t pass even the Times’ weak fact-checking in words?

Most of all, Krugman isn’t doing his job. He’s supposed to read, explain, and criticize things economists write, and real professional writing, not interviews, opeds and blog posts. At a minimum, this style leads to the unavoidable conclusion that Krugman isn’t reading real economics anymore.

How did Krugman get it so wrong?

So what is Krugman up to? Why become a denier, a skeptic, an apologist for 70 year old ideas, replete with well-known logical fallacies, a pariah? Why publish an essentially personal attack on an ever-growing enemies list that now includes practically every professional economist? Why publish an incoherent vision for the future of economics?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Krugman isn’t trying to be an economist, he is trying to be a partisan, political opinion writer. This is not an insult. I read George Will, Charles Krauthnammer and Frank Rich with equal pleasure even when I disagree with them. Krugman wants to be Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

Alas, to Krugman, as to far too many ex-economists in partisan debates, economics is not a quest for understanding. It is a set of debating points to argue for policies that one has adopted for partisan political purposes. “Stimulus” is just marketing to sell Congressmen and voters on a package of government spending priorities that you want for political reasons. It’s not a proposition to be explained, understood, taken seriously to its logical limits, or reflective of market failures that should be addressed directly.

Why argue for a nonsensical future for economics? Well, again, if you don’t regard economics as a science, a discipline that ought to result in quantitative matches to data, a discipline that requires crystal-clear logical connections between the “if” and the “then,” if the point of economics is merely to provide marketing and propaganda for politically-motivated policy, then his writing does make sense. It makes sense to appeal to some future economics – not yet worked out, even verbally – to disdain quantification and comparison to data, and to appeal to the authority of ancient books as interpreted by you, their lone remaining apostle.

Most of all, this is the only reason I can come up with to understand why Krugman wants to write personal attacks on those who disagree with him. I like it when people disagree with me, and take time to read my work and criticize it. At worst I learn how to position it better. At best, I discover I was wrong and learn something. I send a polite thank you note.

Krugman wants people to swallow his arguments whole from his authority, without demanding logic, or evidence. Those who disagree with him, alas, are pretty smart and have pretty good arguments if you bother to read them. So, he tries to discredit them with personal attacks.

This is the political sphere, not the intellectual one. Don’t argue with them, swift-boat them. Find some embarrassing quote from an old interview. Well, good luck, Paul. Let’s just not pretend this has anything to do with economics, or actual truth about how the world works or could be made a better place.

*University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Many colleagues and friends helped, but I don’t want to name them for obvious reasons. Krugman fans: Please don’t bother emailing me to tell me what a jerk I am. I will update this occasionally, so please pass on the link rather than the document,

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/15/19 08:17 PM

War profiteering

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/15/19 08:17 PM

War profiteering for America's interest after the Great Wars
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/15/19 08:27 PM

Good Will Hunting (NSA Monologue) - Genius

WILL: Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" cause they don't give a [censored]. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass.

And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon.

And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and [censored]' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the [censored]' job interviews, which sucks cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.

So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure [censored] it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 06/20/19 05:58 PM


“I’m actually babysitting the guy’s kids while he’s in a meeting,” O’Neal says. “So after the meeting, he says, ‘You know what? You’re good with kids, I like you, I’m going to bring you in on this investment.’ And it was called Google. He said, ‘You know, in the future, you’re going to be able to type on your phone, search engine this, do this, boom, boom, boom, you should invest.’

“I invested, and then a couple years later, I got a really big return,” he adds.

“My most famous rule is, in order to touch any of my cheese, you have to present me two degrees,” he explains.

“Cheese means money. So, their father’s very successful. So as a father, I’m not going to give them handouts. They have to get a bachelor’s and a master’s,” O’Neal adds

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/18/19 01:13 PM

I like to say, “Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.” Good times teach only bad lessons: that investing is easy, that you know its secrets, and that you needn’t worry about risk. The most valuable lessons are learned in tough times.

"In that sense, I’ve been 'fortunate' to have lived through some doozies: the Arab oil embargo, stagflation, Nifty Fifty stock collapse and 'death of equities' of the 1970s; Black Monday in 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Index lost 22.6 percent of its value in one day; the 1994 spike in interest rates that put rate-sensitive debt in- struments into freefall; the emerging market crisis, Russian default and meltdown of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998; the bursting of thetech-stock bubble in 2000–2001; the accounting scandals of 2001–2002; and the worldwide financial crisis of 2007–2008,"

He learned some of the most valuable lessons in the seventies, when hiring in the money management industry was particularly sparse. By the time the late nineties had rolled around, there were few people left who had seen protracted bear markets. But Marks had. This knowledge gave him an edge over the rest of the field when it came to risk management, as the first-hand experience of living through a rough period made him a more prudent investor. No one likes to live through tough times. But once they are over, you will find that you are grateful for them.

~Howard Marks

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/21/19 10:57 AM

He [Elon Musk] has described himself as a socialist, but "not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm" - arguing instead, "true socialism seeks greatest good for all."

"Half Democrat, half Republican" and "I'm somewhere in the middle, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 07/29/19 10:24 AM

Fahmi Quadir and Hilllary Clinton opposed predatory pricing of Valeant pharmaceuticals. Fahmi Quadir is a Shorting Seller with a social purpose.

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 10/03/19 12:22 AM

Three Little Mice Savings Fable

Three little mice shared a farmhouse with Farmer Brown and his family. For many years life had been good. The crops had been bountiful and food was plentiful. Each year the three mice ate well. There was plenty left over as well.

Of the three mice, Tom, the oldest, was the most frugal. His brothers, Jerry and Sal, would shake their heads and despair of him.

"You needn't save so much, Tom." They would say. Every year, Tom would hold back some corn grains that he found after harvest. Each spring, he would plant a few grains when Farmer Brown planted. Each fall, he would save nearly all of his harvest.

Jerry, the second oldest, saved some of the food he found too. He never planted to increase his harvest but he saved about half of the corn he had. He couldn't understand Tom's desire to work to grow more, but he liked having some corn in reserve.

Sal, the youngest of the brothers, didn't save anything. At least not from year to year. If he had any leftover by the next harvest, he would throw a party. He and his guests would eat up all the older corn and a good portion of the new.

All the brothers did very well until the year the crops all failed. It had been a weird summer with hailstorms and cold weather. By the time harvest arrived, the crops were all destroyed. Farmer Brown and his family had to ration what they ate. This meant no corn and no crumbs for the mice.

Tom's harvest didn't fare any better. But he had lots of corn left. Jerry did too. Fortunately, Sal did too since he hadn't thrown his party for the year. There were many sad mice who had looked forward to Sal's party to be able to eat. But Sal kept the corn for himself.

That winter was rough but all the mice survived. Some had to move away to find food while others begged Tom and Jerry for corn. Being kind-hearted they gave out some corn, but retained some for the future.

Spring came and everyone had food again. The bad winter was a distant memory to most. But Tom remembered. It bothered him that his corn harvest didn't produce last year. So he decided to plant some wheat as well. This worked well for the wheat did very well that year. Corn again produced poorly. This time Tom stored as much wheat and corn as he could.

Once again, his brothers thought he was insane. "Why go to so much work?" They would say. "The Great Famine was decades ago. It won't happen again."

"What about last winter?" Tom would say. "Remember that?"

"That was a fluke. It won't happen again." Jerry and Sal said. Tom did note that Jerry kept saving like always and Sal didn't save. Like always.

Then the following year's harvest was destroyed. Both corn and wheat. Once again, Tom and Jerry helped out. But then the real famine came. The next few years nothing grew. Tom tried each year, but got no yield. So did Farmer Brown.

By now, Sal had nothing. He had moved in with Jerry a while back. Many, many mice had left the area to find food elsewhere. Farmer Brown and his wife both had went to work at a store to make money to buy food.

Jerry was almost out of money too. Tom had helped out many mice and his brothers too. His stores were reduced, but he still had food. Jerry and Sal came to live with him. Sal wished he had saved when he could have. Jerry wished he'd saved more. Both no longer laughed at Tom. Fortunately for all, the next year's harvests were good. Tom, Jerry, and Sal all worked to plant, harvest, and save their crops. Who knew what the future would bring?

Moral of the story - save your money and invest in things that will grow and pay you back such as dividends.
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/17/20 10:11 AM

Divorce in America- It's about Money

When Chris Hohn set up his hedge fund nine years ago, he came up with a cute little marketing gimmick. He'd give one-third of the fund's management fees—and a whole lot more if it did well—to a charity benefiting children. He dubbed his creation, The Children's Investment Fund.

The Children's Investment Fund Foundation's endowment to in excess of £2 billion. This, evidently, is enough to solve the problems surrounding "child survival, educational achievement, and nutrition and hunger."

Sure, TCI’s Chris Hohn has made all of the $1 billion to $3 billion he and his soon-to-be-ex-wife are fighting over, as he so modestly explained to the judge overseeing their divorce. But she, equally modestly, notes that she made him a not-terrible person. And that, Jamie Cooper-Hohn believes, is priceless. Or at least worth an extra quarter of the pot.

Hohn says his wife is entitled to 25 percent of their marital assets because he made a “special contribution” to the marriage. She is seeking half. “I’ve created all the wealth -- the expertise, the effort, the sweat and blood -- and the law as I read it is ‘special contribution’ applies.”

If they both were really philanthropists, the wife would be fighting for the husband to take the 75% while she kept 25% and the husband would be trying to force the wife to take the 75% while he kept 25%

Mr Hohn claims he is worth just £67 million and that much of his wealth was built up after they had separated.

Speaking in court on Tuesday, he said: "I have no interest in working for anybody. I don't need the money. "Why would I want to work for anybody, I'm a billionaire. "Why would I want to work for anybody. "I don''t really care about money, I gave away all the money I made to charity."

Mr Hohn described himself as being among the top ten investors in the world. "Over the long term I am an unbelievable moneymaker," he said. "I'm not the only one – there's a handful."

Presented with a list of other successful investors, he said: "They are up there with the greats, so is Warren Buffett.
"There are about five to ten investors in the world who have done as well as me out of tens of thousands."They are in the top ten all time great investors, I am not saying there aren't incredible investors but they are in the top one per cent."

He labelled legendry investment bank Goldmann Sachs "idiots" for buying a single manager hedge fund Chris Schumway Capital Partners which later went into liquidation when it's founder and solo portfolio manager Chris Schumway retired and all the investors pulled their money. "Only idiots do that, they completely lost all their money because it was completely reliant on one man," he said. "Goldman Sachs bought Schumway Capital then Mr Schumway retired and the whole company liquidated and they lost all their money."It a cautionary tale."

While discussing his talent for making sound financial decisions Mr Hohn (U.S. Lord of Finance) accepted the future value of an investment, asset or employee could not always be known. "Look at Fernando Torres, Chelsea paid £50 million for him and now he is worth nothing to them. "They overpaid." (Russian Oligarchy)

Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 01/31/20 10:15 AM

Trump Adminstration helping Farmers Hedge Risk

Chairman Tarbert on the CFTC’s Proposed Rule on Position Limits for Derivatives

“Speculative position limits were something that Congress passed 10 years ago as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. And the goal essentially is to not allow people that are coming into our markets purely to speculate—they’re not hedging anything—to get positions above a certain threshold. And the reason we’re putting these in place is to prevent things like corners and squeezes. But they were never meant to focus on anyone who’s actually hedging. Prior proposals … didn’t get that right. And so we have really focused on American agriculture, [and] the energy sector, to make sure if you’re going to these markets and you’re actually hedging risk, you can do so … We have had countless proposals, countless drafts, four actual proposals that were put before the Commission. We had only one that was finalized, and unfortunately that was struck down by the courts. So here we are—that was one issue … but the bigger issue in my opinion, and the one that Congress is most concerned about, is that previous proposals did not include the right hedging exemptions.”

Chairman Tarbert on the Importance of Protecting Bona Fide Hedging for American Agriculture

“I was out in Kansas over the summer and I actually met with a farmer who said she uses the futures markets to hedge … The way it works is the farmer needs to hedge his or her exposure. Now sometimes they do that directly in the futures markets like the farmer I talked to. She does it directly. But more often than not, they’ll enter a forward agreement with their local grain elevator. The local grain elevator will enter into an agreement with a large agricultural company and that agricultural company will use the futures markets to hedge their exposure. So ultimately, that price stability goes all the way back down the chain to farmers and ranchers.”

Chairman Tarbert on the CFTC’s Upcoming Agenda

“We‘ve been working tremendously hard to get things done, to get them done in the right way. We’ve done cross border rule proposals, capital proposals. What’s next on the agenda are a couple of different things. First of all, swap data reporting ... We have hundreds and hundreds of fields that the U.S. requires. The CFTC requires different fields than the SEC. The Europeans require different fields from us. It’s a bit of a mess … The other thing we’re doing is that for 37 years—since 1983—we have not changed our regulations to update them for bankruptcy. So my concern is, look, things are going great now but every now and again we may have a futures commission merchant fail and that person has customer money and we want to make sure those customers are protected. So things like that, that people haven’t thought about for decades, I am putting on the agenda.”

Chairman Tarbert on Digital Assets

“I want the United States of America to lead in this. So I want to encourage innovation … [R]ight now, the two biggest types of digital assets, bitcoin and ether, actually fall within our jurisdiction. So we are doing a lot in the digital asset space. We are seeing exchanges starting to list. Certainly, we’ve seen bitcoin futures, both cash settled as well as physically delivered. My guess is we’ll see ether futures as well. As things start to migrate into the commodities space, we’ll see even more.”
Posted by: Maximus

Re: Politics in Finance - 04/25/20 03:24 PM

The Middle Class squeeze.