tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post4789437080804315167..comments2023-07-08T05:49:38.333-04:00Comments on Larry Davidson's Thoughts on Macro and Other Stuff: Employment, US Profits, Jack Rabbits, and the ElephantUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-54378333410247527862012-04-21T11:05:24.411-04:002012-04-21T11:05:24.411-04:00When I was in Thailand, I bought some loafers made...When I was in Thailand, I bought some loafers made from elephant foreskins. I had to be careful when I polished them because they'd turn into jodhpurs.<br /><br />Obviously, I have nothing worthy to contribute. News as we once knew it was really news....John Cameron Swayze, Walter Cronkite, et al. With the plethora of alternative media outlets today, the MSM has to make up stories to try to scoop the competition which is why the "Lady Lego" flap is getting so much coverage. There's little hard news to be had anymore that any outlet can scoop. Most of what we do get can be scooped with one of things we use to clean the dog squeeze out of the yard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-16588072448193380022012-04-18T18:00:28.542-04:002012-04-18T18:00:28.542-04:00Couldn't agree more!Thanks Charles.Couldn't agree more!Thanks Charles.Larry Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10028971586654033347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-60773214544382247202012-04-18T10:53:26.177-04:002012-04-18T10:53:26.177-04:00Dear LSD. More germane to the point of your blog. ...Dear LSD. More germane to the point of your blog. Newz providers today are different from the ones we saw on network newz shows years ago. Then they presented newz as factual – and we took it as factual and at face value – and I don’t recall their reporting as having a particular point of view. We didn’t feel we had to filter the newz. Now, additionally, we have cable newz and comedians presenting newz almost 24/7. In the past the newz providers typically had been reporters who made it to the national stage. Today, we have “broadcast journalists” who might have some reporting experience, but it seems more like they have to be eye candy and speak well. The number of talking heads has increased exponentially while the number of events that could actually be characterized as “newz” has not. Too much supply of heads for the relatively smaller amount of stuff that can output from their mouths. Hence, what is now characterized as newz is seen/heard numerous times daily and across multiple networks/cable outlets – why? job security for the talking heads/eye candy, I suppose. Also, the repetition has created its own subset . . . . talking heads/eye candy can take issue with each other’s POV/spin on various talk shows. There is very little “newz” value added.<br /><br />Curiously, if the distribution channel for “newz” has increased so much relative to the amount of individual newz items/events that can be absorbed, you’d think the size of the distribution channel would decrease to reach equilibrium, as in supply and demand. I guess advertisers see value in having mucho distribution channels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-66187001854759563652012-04-18T00:07:13.810-04:002012-04-18T00:07:13.810-04:00That's why you are such an adorable Tuna...thi...That's why you are such an adorable Tuna...this blog has few rules and taking things in your own preferred direction is fine with me.Larry Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10028971586654033347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-50639500543386769032012-04-17T23:12:05.895-04:002012-04-17T23:12:05.895-04:00Dear LSD. Oh, contrar. Off the cuff, the levers a...Dear LSD. Oh, contrar. Off the cuff, the levers are two. One is red (the most important) though that will do nothing to reduce/mitigate the media info-overload-non-value-added static; the other is the off-switch or channel selector on the TV or other passive communications device one uses to receive data/information – that might do the job, however. Of course, there are other sources of info, such as printed. Again, one chooses which to entertain.<br /><br />Yes, rather than follow your indigestion play inside I called an audible wide-right to change the dynamics of the play. Sorry; maybe next time I’ll try to follow the coach’s game plan. But, hey, ya gotta make and play for the breaks and when one comes your way ya gotta score – or make a point – one way or another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-86467777155402604052012-04-17T22:32:13.648-04:002012-04-17T22:32:13.648-04:00Charles, I never shy away from the central issue o...Charles, I never shy away from the central issue of too much spending and too little saving. But in this case I was not so much writing about policy but more registering my general indigestion over people who make too much out of a single data announcement. We live in a time with so many producers of so-called news that they never shut up. They are always yapping and making much ado over what if often worth zip. There is no lever you can pull to make that go away! :-)Larry Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10028971586654033347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-21278151573651536902012-04-17T21:10:13.786-04:002012-04-17T21:10:13.786-04:00Yes, LSD. There are what some would like to charac...Yes, LSD. There are what some would like to characterize as mitigating circumstances . . . for which Obummer is so adept, ala it’s Bush’s fault, or as you say geological factors that he can summon . . . but bottom line, ya gotta stop pick’n my pocket. I’m not talking ‘bout exigencies over which the Senate/House have no control, but rather the reasoned decisions – or not – to reduce spending commensurate with revenue without increased taxes, except due to increased overall economic activity. It’s that simple. I concur that the Senate/House should pick up Occam’s razor and do the most with the least. It’s not a matter of economics; but of politics since, at least, the C-I-C doesn’t have a clue about econ – either macro, micro, or minus. Macro, micro, minus, pull the red lever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-56498013934330169722012-04-17T19:27:44.006-04:002012-04-17T19:27:44.006-04:00Interesting point Charles. I buy it and I do think...Interesting point Charles. I buy it and I do think that spending and income are critical actors today. Occam's razor says that one should try to explain the most using the least. But I suppose that there are some issues wherein income and spending need help from other factors (tsunamis, oil prices, etc).Larry Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10028971586654033347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-7655956848939844972012-04-17T19:24:40.090-04:002012-04-17T19:24:40.090-04:00Thanks Robert! The challenging thing with respect ...Thanks Robert! The challenging thing with respect to this topic is that sometimes one tiny data point really does indicate a change in the direction and you should have paid more attention to it. But other times, you should largely ignore the latest piece. It is difficult to know which is which and that's why you try to bring in more intelligence. Sadly much of what we read and see doesn't seem to recongize this simple point. But alas the comedy/tragedy does sell and thus they keep at it....Larry Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10028971586654033347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-62682190300176660252012-04-17T13:30:59.238-04:002012-04-17T13:30:59.238-04:00Dear LSD. Elephants, pouncers, bouncers, jack rabb...Dear LSD. Elephants, pouncers, bouncers, jack rabbits . . . you forgot ostriches. Your use of animals likens to Orwell’s allegoric “Animal Farm” where, as you might remember, the animals formed a socialist state, but neither equality nor utopia occurred, as evidenced by the famous quote, “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” I know, I know . . . you are wondering what this has to do with 27/7 data and information overflow and how we use/process it to make informed decisions.<br /><br />You alluded to filters – e.g. ignoring some data – but ignoring is not the same as filtering. You also alluded to connecting what appears as disparate dots (e.g. data/information) over some time period rather than reacting to fresh, new data. Connecting dots requires the use of mental floss to filter out or ignore certain data/information that either is not understood or is inconsistent with a person’s attitudes, perceptions, education, etc. so that a comfortable conclusion is reached that is consistent with a person’s attitudes, perceptions, etc. Ergo, there is considerable bias in the conclusion unless the person possesses a very strong objective reasoning ability. A rare quality.<br /><br />I take the thrust of your blog to suggest that in order to grasp the U.S.’s or world’s overall well-being and condition that one must be able to process all this info (or not or ignore) and be able to reach that comfortable conclusion, objectively.<br /><br />I like to keep it simple and filter out a lot of stuff and consider just two items – income and expenses – because I believe they are the basic building blocks that sustain families, business, economies, and govomits. If expenses exceed income for too long economic activity will falter and eventually stop. That is where we are now – the U.S and the world, with some exceptions. We can process all the data/info coming at us 24/7 and reach comfortable conclusions – and even spin the same facts differently to do so which many do – but in the end only income and expenses really matter, economically.<br /><br />Orwell’s Napoleon (Obama), Squealer (the drive-by-mass mass media), and Snowball (all of Obama’s minions, e.g. Cabinet, Democrats, unions, etc.) do an excellent job of ignoring facts and/or spinning them to justify Napoleon’s ideology. The ostriches – of today since they are not part of “Animal Farm” – comprise the Senate and House – since they see the facts regarding income, (federal) expenses, and overall economic activity, and cannot/will not do anything about it.<br /><br />Deriving the solution is simple without having to process all that data/info: lower spending to be more in line with income – without attempting to create a fair, equal, economic utopia by recognizing that Orwell was right, “ . . . some are more equal than others.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240565408401956331.post-26351081888141990942012-04-17T10:09:24.841-04:002012-04-17T10:09:24.841-04:00Great analogy about the elephant. Given the commen...Great analogy about the elephant. Given the commentary on the economy, it is analogous to the man touching the elephant and declaring "He looks just like me!" In other words, experts interpret it according to their own biases. <br /><br />As you know in macro (and micro) nothing occurs in a vacuum. Due to the variety of variables, there are first order, second order, third order effects, and so on. So, your jack rabbits can announce a third order effect (run to safe haven bills!), but that does not take into account the other effects. <br /><br />Finally, you are right that we should update our expectations based on new data, but one data point should only slightly change our outlook since it is dominated by a mountain of past data. A better question is, given the past data, is this new data point in line with past data with some error? This seems obvious, but as you said, not all think like this.<br /><br />And if you eat squid tomorrow, you will think you are a killer whale.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08057032544752214895noreply@blogger.com