Central Perk

luni, 1 februarie 2016

Damn Cool Pics

10 Movies That Had Unbelievably Large Budgets

Posted: 01 Feb 2016 06:57 PM PST

It took an insane amount of money to bring these movies to life on the big screen.

The Cast Of The X-Files Back In The Day And Today

Posted: 01 Feb 2016 10:41 AM PST

"The X-Files" recently returned to television after being off the air for 14 years. The cast still looks great but it's always fun to see what they look like now compared to what they looked like when the show first started.

Seth's Blog : Living with your frustum

Living with your frustum

David Bowie left behind an estate worth about $100 million.

And there were perhaps five hundred musicians of his generation who were at least as successful. From Brown to Dylan to Buffet to Ross, there were thirty years of big hit makers.

That's the top of the pyramid. Lots of people tried to make it in the music business, and there were many thousands at the top, hitting a jackpot.

In geometry, a pyramid without a top is called a frustum. Just a base, no jackpot.

The music industry is now a classic example...

The bottom is wider than ever, because you don't need a recording studio to make a record. And you don't need a record store to sell one. More musicians making more music than ever before.

And the top is narrower than ever. Fewer hitmakers creating fewer long-term careers. Radio is less important, shelf space is less important, and so the demand for the next big hit from the next reliable hitmaker is diminished. Without Scott Borchetta or someone similar leading you to the few sinecures left, it's almost certain that you'll be without a jackpot.

A similar thing happened to the book business, of course. The big bookstores needed a Stephen King, a Jackie Collins and a Joyce Carol Oates, because they benefitted from having something both reliable and new to put on the shelf. Printing a lot of copies and using a lot of shelf space is a gamble, best to bet on the previous winners. The ebook world doesn't care as much.

The long tail, easy entry, wide distribution model does this to many industries. It's easier than ever to be a real estate broker or to run a tiny dog shelter--easier, but harder to get through the Dip.

While the winner-take-all natural monopolies get the headlines and the IPOs, it's not surprising that many industries are frustrating frustums.

The frustration, though, doesn't come from the lack of a top to the pyramid. It comes from acting as if the peak is the point of the entire exercise. For more on this, check out Derek Siver's honest and generous book.

The good news is that it's entirely possibly you don't need the the peak of the pyramid. The leverage that comes from digital tools means that it's entirely possible to do just fine (and have a powerful, positive life) without being David Bowie. Once you know that this is it, perhaps this might be enough.

Enough to make a difference and enough to make a life.

The way music used to be. And is again.

• Email to a friend •

duminică, 31 ianuarie 2016

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

China Manufacturing Prices Decline 18th Month; China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing
Nate Silver's Continual Underestimation of Donald Trump's Chances
Economists in Fantasyland: Economists See 20% Chance of Recession That's at Least 20% Likely Already Here

China Manufacturing Prices Decline 18th Month; China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 09:22 PM PST

China's manufacturing extended its long slump according to the Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI.

Chinese manufacturers signaled a modest deterioration in operating conditions at the start of 2016, with both output and employment declining at slightly faster rates than in December. Total new business meanwhile fell at the weakest rate in seven months, and despite a faster decline in new export work. Nonetheless, lower production requirements led companies to cut back on their purchasing activity and inventories of inputs. On the prices front, both input costs and output charges fell again in January, though at the weakest rates in seven months.

Weaker client demand led manufacturers to discount their prices charged again in January, thereby extending the current sequence of deflation to 18 months (although the rate of reduction was the slowest seen since June 2015). Lower selling prices were supported by a further fall in average input costs at the start of the year. In line with the trend for charges, the rate of decline eased to the weakest in seven months. Lower cost burdens were generally linked to reduced raw material prices.

China PMI

China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing

Commenting on the China General Manufacturing PMI™ data, Dr. He Fan, Chief Economist at Caixin Insight Group said:

"The Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI for January is 48.4, up 0.2 points from December. Sub-indexes show a softer fall in new orders, which contributed the most to the improvement in the overall figure. Recent macroeconomic indicators show the economy is still in the process of bottoming out and efforts to trim excess capacity are just starting to show results. The pressure on economic growth remains intense in light of continued global volatility. The government needs to watch economic trends closely and proactively make fine adjustments to prevent a hard landing. It also needs to push ahead with existing reform measures to strengthen market confidence and to signal its intentions clearly."

Hard Landing Definition

If China is beginning to "show results", those results aren't pretty.

Depending on how one defines "hard landing", China is doomed. A couple years ago a "hard landing" was believed to be 6% growth. By that definition, a hard landing is baked in the cake.

3% or 2% growth, or even lower is highly likely.

Perhaps a couple years from now, 3% won't seem any harder than 6% did two years ago.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Nate Silver's Continual Underestimation of Donald Trump's Chances

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 03:49 PM PST

On January 18, I sent the article below (starting with the title Nate Silver Off the Mark on Donald Trump Nomination Odds) to the New York Times as an Op-Ed.

They did not publish it.

It's hard enough getting something timely to major new organizations, and when you do, you have to sit and wait days for no response. The New York times has the best turnaround of the bunch, three days so I could have used this earlier.

This would have been more timely on the 18th and even more timely when I first started writing, but here it is now. What I have to say the is still relevant.

Nate Silver Off the Mark on Donald Trump Nomination Odds

I am a big fan of Nate Silver. His calling of the last two elections was nothing short of brilliant. However, I just cannot accept Silver's current assessment of Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination.

In footnotes to his January 8 article Three Theories Of Donald Trump's Rise Silver expressed belief that "Trump's chances are about half of what betting markets say they are. I think they're about half that - 12 or 13 percent."

Trump Odds According to Nate Silver

Historical Precedents

Given Trump's commanding lead in the polls, one might instinctively think Silver is crazy. But Silver cites historical precedents:

Polls before the first primary are not that useful
Political outsiders do not win elections
Establishment candidates do win elections

To that Silver adds "Trump could lose New Hampshire either to a surging Cruz or if one of the several establishment candidates — Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich — can consolidate the support of more moderate/establishment Republican voters."

In defense of Silver, I would personally add there are 12 Republican candidates and anything could happen, in theory. One chance in 12 would be just over an 8 percent chance.

Bit of Realism

Chances are not all equal. So let's place some odds on some additional candidates.

What are the realistic odds that Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum will win the nomination?

As long as we are taking history into consideration, Ben Carson has flamed out. Has a flame-out ever recovered? Does Rand Paul (my preference) have more than a 0.1% chance?

Does anyone in the above group of eight have more than a 0.5% chance? If so, who and why?

Even if you gave them all a 1% chance, which seems generous, the total combined odds would be 8%. Nonetheless, let's make that assumption and place it in a new chart.

Interpretation of Nate Silver Odds

Does the combination of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz really have a 79% of winning the nomination?

I think not.

Double the combined odds of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum to an amazing 16% and the Bush, Cruz, Rubio odds would still be 71%.

Triple the odds of the "group of eight" winning the nomination to a preposterous 24% and the "group of three" would still have a 63% chance of winning.

Mathematical Bias

By focusing solely on the odds of Trump winning, while placing no odds on the others, Silver introduces a mathematical bias far beyond what history can reasonably suggest.

Let's put a spotlight on Bush. Jeb Bush is polling 4.8% nationally.

Silver discounts national polls. I sympathize. But how far does one want to take that idea given that primaries start less than two weeks away?

Do candidates polling less than 5% at this stage often win nominations?

If one generously gives a Bush 5-15% chance of winning the momination, the combined Cruz Rubio odds would be something in the 65-75% range, assuming the group of eight has an 8% chance and Trump a 13% chance.

It all has to add up to 100%.

Arguably, the best chance for Bush and the ABT (Anybody But Trump) crowd has is if the Republican convention is deadlocked.

Until we see the results from Super-Tuesday and the polls of the states that follow, a deadlocked convention is a distinct possibility, but not one I have seen Silver depend on.

Other Flaws in Silver's Odds Estimates

We are dealing with humans, in real time, not history.

History suggests fringe candidates don't usually win elections, but they can. Jimmy Carter was unknown, but he won. Obama was not supposed to beat Hillary, but he did.

Yet, flame-outs are more likely. Carson did just that. So have many others.

Trump hasn't yet.

Rather than insisting a historical flame-out is still likely, Silver just might wish to consider reasons Trump will not flame out.

For example, a Gallup Poll headline from January 18 plays straight into Donald Trump's hands: Majority in U.S. Now Dissatisfied With Security From Terrorism.

Does Unpopularity Matter? When?

Silver notes Donald Trump Is Really Unpopular With General Election Voters.

Does unpopularity mean "People won't vote for the guy?"

I don't particularly like Trump. But I would vote for him over Clinton or Sanders.

What did Carson have before he flamed out other than he was "likable"? Amusingly, he's still the most likable Republican.

Carson comes across as sincere, and he is likable. But I would not vote for Carson under any circumstances. I would instead "waste my vote" and write in Rand Paul or vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Trump draws amazing crowds. Silver dismisses that. Yet, the last time someone generated this much crowd energy was Ronald Regan.

This is not a basketball game. Nor is this a one-on-one play with polls all breaking one way at the last minute. Those are areas in which Silver excels.

This is a one-on-many play, where voter attitudes have consistently sided with Trump, no matter who he offends. It's a mistake to discount such sentiment.

Like him or not, Trump is clever. For Republicans, he is on the right side of security, guns, abortion, and China. That's quite a bit.

And he's also a genuine outsider at a time nearly every other Republican is pretending to be one.

Is there any reason to suspect voter attitudes on terrorism, on Trump, or on Washington insiders will change in the next few weeks?

Odds of Winning it All

I suggest Trump's odds of winning the nomination are far more than what odds makers presume. And if Trump wins the nomination, I suspect his odds of him winning it all would be about 50%.

My rationale is that Hillary may not win the nomination. There is some chance of a criminal indictment related to emails. Sanders could pull out an upset. Odds of one of those have to be higher than the alleged 13% chance Silver assigns to Trump.

AWM (Angry White Men) will be a factor, perhaps totally negating any personal dislike of Trump.

Most importantly, I think the US approaching, if not already in a recession. Eight years ago, Obama blew dissatisfied Republican out of the water on the heels of a big recession that had just started.

Why can't that happen again? If anything, history suggests it will.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Economists in Fantasyland: Economists See 20% Chance of Recession That's at Least 20% Likely Already Here

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 10:32 AM PST

Economists have a perfect track record of 100% failure in ability to predict a recession. In a recession that's at least 20% likely to have already started, Economists See 20% Chance of US Recession this Year.

A Financial Times survey of 51 economists, conducted in the days after the Fed's January meeting, underscores the impact of the past month's severe market turbulence and a string of lacklustre economic reports out of the US and China.

The fear that the world's largest economy — considered the lone engine of global growth — is on the verge of recession has intensified. In the FT's December survey economists had put the odds of a US recession at 15 per cent during the next two years. Now, they see a one-in-five chance of recession in the next 12 months.

Economists surveyed by the FT emphasised that while the odds of a recession had climbed, a large majority still expected the US to escape one. Several who have fielded increased investor calls on the subject said that the conversation had been skewed because of the near obsession with the price of oil — a point that they argued had more to do with supply than global demand.

Mr Gapen, who put the odds of a recession between 10 and 15 per cent, said that he still thought strong consumption trends would keep the US economy from contraction.

Rate Hikes Odds

Less than 5% of economists see a greater than 50% chance of recession.

Hikes Foreseen in December Survey

In December not a single economist thought the Fed would hike zero times in 2016.

Hikes Foreseen in January Survey

CME Fedwatch Odds

The Fed Fund futures show a nearly 50% chance of no hikes this year.

Fantasyland Material

In contrast to Fed Fund futures, the latest Financial Times survey shows economists still expect two or three hikes this year. Over 10% of the economists foresee four hikes.

This is truly Fantasyland material.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Seth's Blog : Fit and finish

Fit and finish

It's pretty clear that the design of the egg carton isn't going to change the flavor of the omelette.

Except, of course, it does.

It does because people can't judge the eggs until they eat them, but they can judge the packaging in the store. And if they choose someone else's product, you never get a chance.

Not only that, but the placebo effect creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We like what we liked. The customer would rather be proven right than proven wrong.

That's why it's so important to understand the worldview and biases of the person you seek to influence, to connect with, to delight. And why the semiotics and stories we produce matter so much more than we imagine.

It's not always fair or right or efficient that we need to worry about how we and our work will be judged. Until we come up with a better way to communicate what we've done, though, prepare to be judged in advance.

• Email to a friend •

sâmbătă, 30 ianuarie 2016

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Lacy Hunt – "Inflation and 10-Year Treasury Yield Headed Lower"

Posted: 30 Jan 2016 06:35 PM PST

No one has called long-duration treasury yields better than Lacy Hunt at Hoisington Management. He says they are going lower. If the US is in or headed for recession then I believe he is correct.

Gordon Long, founder of the Financial Repression website interviewed Lacy Hunt last week and Hunt stated "Inflation and 10-Year Treasury Yield Headed Lower".

Fed Tactics

"Debt only works if it generates an income to repay principle and interest."

Research indicates that when public and private debt rises above 250% of GDP it has very serious effects on economic growth. There is no bit of evidence that indicates an indebtedness problem can be solved by taking on further debt.

One of the objectives of QE was to boost the stock market, on theory that an improved stock market will increase wealth and ultimately consumer spending. The other mechanism was that somehow by buying Government securities the Fed was in a position to cause the stock market to rise. But when the Fed buys government securities the process ends there. They can buy government securities and cause the banks to surrender one type of government asset for another government asset. There was no mechanism to explain why QE should boost the stock market, yet we saw that it did. The Fed gave a signal to decision makers that they were going to protect financial assets, in other words they incentivized decision makers to view financial assets as more valuable than real assets. So effectively these decision makers transferred funds that would have gone into the real economy into the financial economy, as a result the rate of growth was considerably smaller than expected.

"In essence the way in which it worked was by signaling that real assets were inferior to financial assets. The Fed, by going into an untested program of QE effectively ended up making things worse off."

Flattening of the Yield Curve

"Monetary policies currently are asymmetric. If the Fed tried to do another round of QE and/or negative interest rates, the evidence is overwhelming that will not make things better. However if the Fed wishes to constrain economic activity, to tighten monetary conditions as they did in December; those mechanisms are still in place."

They are more effective because the domestic and global economy is more heavily indebted than normal. The fact we are carrying abnormally high debt levels is the reason why small increases in interest rate channels through the economy more quickly.

If the Fed wishes to tighten which they did in December then sticking to the old traditional and tested methods is best. They contracted the monetary base which ultimately puts downward pressure on money and credit growth. As the Fed was telegraphing that they were going to raise the federal funds rate it had the effect of raising the intermediate yield but not the long term yields which caused the yield curve to flatten. It is a signal from the market place that the market believes the outlook is lower growth and lower inflation. When the Fed tightens it has a quick impact and when the Fed eases it has a negative impact.

The critical factor for the long bond is the inflationary environment. Last year was a disappointing year for the economy, moreover the economy ended on a very low note. There are outward manifestations of the weakening in economy activity. One impartial measure is what happened to commodity prices, which are of course influenced by supply and demand factors. But when there are broad declines in all the major indices it is an indication of a lack of demand. The Fed tightened monetary conditions into a weakening domestic global economy, in other words they hit it when it was already receding, which tends to further weaken the almost non-existent inflationary forces and for an investor increases the value.

Failure of Quantitative Easing

"If you do not have pricing power, it is an indication of rough times which is exactly what we have."

The fact that the Fed made an ill-conceived move in December should not be surprising to economists. A detailed study was done of the Fed's 4 yearly forecasts which they have been making since 2007. They have missed every single year.

That was another in a series of excellent interviews by Gordon Long. There's much more in the interview. Give it a play.

Finally, lest anyone scream to high heavens, Lacy is obviously referring to price inflation, not monetary inflation which has been rampent.

From my standpoint, consumer price deflation may be again at hand. Asset deflation in equities, and junk bonds is a near given.

The Fed did not save the world as Ben Bernanke proclaimed. Instead, the Fed fostered a series of asset bubble boom-bust cycles with increasing amplitude over time.

The bottom is a long, long ways down in terms of time, or price, or both.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

luni, 1 februarie 2016

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics

Seth's Blog : Living with your frustum

Living with your frustum

More Recent Articles

duminică, 31 ianuarie 2016

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Seth's Blog : Fit and finish

Fit and finish

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 30 ianuarie 2016

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

luni, 1 februarie 2016

duminică, 31 ianuarie 2016

sâmbătă, 30 ianuarie 2016

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to