![]()
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy Saturday, August 12, 2006 NOT BEN, BUT BRET Fed chief Ben Bernanke either doesn't grasp or won't admit the role of inflation in today's high eneregy prices. But Bret Swanson gets it right in today's Wall Street Journal:Today, commodity prices across the board, from coffee to carbon fiber, remain near 25-year highs. High oil prices are not a unique phenomenon, but just another commodity whose price is determined primarily by the value of the dollar. Expensive oil isn't exclusively a monetary event, of course: Risk and demand matter, too. But in comparing oil to other commodities, especially gold, we find that elevated risk and demand explains only $10-$15 of the higher oil price; $30 of the price is explained by a weak, inflationary dollar. The entity most responsible for expensive oil is thus the Fed. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:54 AM |
link
Friday, August 11, 2006 JOKE OF THE DAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:51 PM |
link
ECLECTIC TO BE SURE... BUT IMPRESSIVE? Some are, some aren't. The list of impressive and eclectic guest voices continues to grow, with actors like Kiefer Sutherland, Natalie Portman, Michael Imperioli, Joe Pantoliano, Joe Mantegna, The White Stripes and Dr. Phil McGraw making voice appearances next season on THE SIMPSONS airing Sundays (8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT) on FOX. Other upcoming guest voices include famed authors Tom Wolfe, Gore Vidal, Michael Chabon and Jonathan Franzen.Tom Wolfe? Impressive, yes. Hard to believe though. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:57 AM |
link
WHAT IF THE SOCCER MOM IS WEARING A BURKA? The Wall Street Journal this morning, on how yesterday's foiling of a massive terror plot was the result of policies opposed by Democrats: Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite "cooperation" with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated. Does anyone think that when the British interrogate those 20 or so suspects this week that they will recoil at harsh or stressful questioning? Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:00 AM |
link
CAN YOU SPOT IT? Okay, they were in a hurry. But read through Time's pseudo you-are-there coverage of the investigation into yesterday's foiled terror attack in England, and see if you can tell which crucial word is missing from the story. Wednesday night was a long and troubling one for Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. A bubbling plot by British citizens to blow up airplanes had come to a boil in the past three days, and as British authorities arrested dozens of suspects around London, it was Chertoff's job to coordinate the U.S. defenses. Scary intelligence reports pop up all the time, but this particular terror operation got close enough to being carried out that it rattled even the normally sedate Chertoff. "Very seldom do things get to me," he told Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in a phone call late Wednesday night. "This one has really gotten to me."The answer is: Islam. Thanks to reader David Duval for the link. Update... Our "public editor" Irwin Chusid has a view: Just my two cents: When I read your intro, the first word that came to mind was "Muslim." Sure enough, it does not appear in the Times article. I think "Muslim" would be a more appropriate "right answer" since it refers to individuals, whereas "Islam" refers to the religion. Religions don't instigate terror attacks; some of their more extreme adherents do. I wouldn't think it appropriate for the Times to use the "I"-word in the context of reporting the thwarted attack, but it certainly should have used the "M"-word because all the suspects seem to fit that category.For the record, "Muslim" was the missing word suggested by reader Dave Duval in his email to me pointing to the Time article. The change to "Islam" was my personal contribution to political incorrectness, or perhaps incorrectness in general. Update 2... Reader David Duval adds that the media don't hesitate to to use the "I" word or the "M" word when defending the rights of this beleaguered minority. BBC News: ...police "need to do a lot more thinking" before that can happen, argued Fahad Ansari from the Islamic Human Rights Commission, because their intelligence was "flawed". Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:56 AM |
link
Wednesday, August 09, 2006 JOKE OF THE DAYPosted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:18 PM |
link
NOW THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING This looks like must-reading. Via Tyler Cowen: Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers, by Gene Epstein, economics editor at Barron's. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:37 AM |
link
NET NEUTRALITY AND NET REALITY Once again competitive markets trump the statist logic of leftists -- this time, those leftists who have lined up behind so-called "net neutrality" in an attempt to hand over the Internet to government regulation. From this morning's Journal: Out in the real world...things are not proceeding according to script, at least for those who insist that what the Internet really needs is a brand-new layer of government regulation. Yesterday, Sprint announced plans to spend as much as $3 billion building a nationwide WiMax network that would provide high-speed Internet access to 100 million consumers by 2008, according to Sprint's estimate. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:24 AM |
link
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 A TRADESPORTS TRADER'S PERSPECTIVE Reader Nicholas Edmunds copied me on this open letter he's sending out to various academics in the Prediction Markets world. For background on the issues he raises, see my posting here of my latest SmartMoney.com column.Dear Friend of Prediction Markets, Given your interest in Prediction Markets I trust that this market integrity problem at Tradesports.com merits your attention. Tradesports expired its North Korean test missile contract at 0 last week in the face of logic, the facts of the case, and its own contract rules. The case is very dense and I will offer a brief summary to clarify the facts and dispel the fallacy that Tradesports was bound by its contract rules to expire at 0. More information can be found at Chris Masse's web site and in this article by economist Donald Luskin. Tradesports offered a contract concerning the possibility of North Korean missile launches by July 31. The contract was to expire at 100 if at least one missile was launched beyond North Korea's air space, or at 0 if there was no launch, or if all launches were confined to North Korea's air space. You may notice that this dichotomy leaves out the possibility that missiles were launched but could not be confirmed to have landed within or beyond North Korea's airspace; more on that below. The contract rules stipulated that the confirmation source would be the Department of Defense. Tradesports management later stated that confirmation from the White House would also be accepted. There is no reasonable doubt that North Korea launched at least one missile into international waters, and that the US Government has confirmed this fact. On July 4 North Korea launched seven missiles and the DOD published two press releases confirming that the missiles fell in the Sea of Japan. Tradesports was skeptical about these statements and asserted that they were not specific enough to confirm that any missile had yet left North Korea's airspace. (The press releases can be found here and here.) National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Press Secretary Tony Snow held a press briefing from the White House on July 4 as news of the launches broke. Mr. Hadley commented on each launch, saying of some of the missiles ""these went out about 275 miles." Mr. Snow said the missiles fell "short of Japan" and mentioned one or more missiles falling in the "[Economic] Exclusion Zone" (by definition an area outside any country's territorial waters). The DOD, asked about these quotations via its Public Inquiry site responded, "We will let the White House comments speak for us." (The White House briefing can be found here.) UN Ambassador John Bolton, speaking before the Security Council on July 15, said that the NK missiles fell "into the waters surrounding its neighbors, notably Japan." (Bolton's statement can be found here.) North Korea's territorial waters do not surround its neighbors; they surround North Korea. Tradesports management professed uncertainty about these statements too, first claiming that Mr. Hadley's "these went out about 275 miles" statement was somehow too vague and later suggesting, even more incredibly, that what Mr. Hadley might have meant was that the missiles had flown along the coastline for 275 miles before suddenly veering into the sea. This is 2+2=5 logic, and based on information in the official record it is both geographically and mathematically impossible. About Mr. Bolton's comments Tradesports said that they failed to confirm a landing area. The contract rules cite the DOD as the confirmation source, but they do not preclude Tradesports from using other official information sources to understand the DOD and White House comments. For example, Tradesports used the CIA World Factbook to determine that North Korea's airspace includes the 12 nautical miles of its territorial sea. Tradesports might similarly consult a dictionary, or a map, or other reliable sources not as confirmation, but to interpret the DOD and White House's confirmation. The various official statements and reports regarding the missile launches put the DOD and White House statements in an unambiguous context and render the "possibilities" Tradesports imagines ridiculous. One last piece of evidence: working alone, I was able to get clear, simple, and conclusive email confirmation that the missiles left NK air space from the top DOD spokesman, Bryan Whitman. Rather than authenticate the email responses I received from Mr. Whitman, Tradesports acts as if they don't exist and to this day has not told me if they ever asked Mr. Whitman about the evidence he gave me. For Tradesports to have expired the contract at 0 with this evidence before it was professional malpractice. This is not a case of Tradesports being caught in a tough situation but faithfully standing by its contract rules. This is a case of Tradesports dismissing or distorting evidence that should have expired the contract at 100 consistent with its contract rules and ignoring the facet of the rules that should have precluded an expiry at 0 absent confirmation that all seven missiles were confined to NK air space. Apparently Tradesports' evidentiary standard for this aspect of the contract rules was considerably more lax. The confirmation requirements presumably relied on government officials conveying the clear meaning that one or more missiles left North Korean air space, not in uttering some formula of magic words. That meaning was conveyed in multiple forms and is understood by all, yet the management of Tradeports persists in an inexplicable skepticism about what the DOD, NORTHCOMM, the White House, and others REALLY MEANT by what they said in plain English. Indeed, Tradeports wrote that "the specifics of the North Korean Missile Test Contract have created an undesirable scenario in which the Exchange cannot confirm an event which some of our members believe has occurred." Does Tradesports not believe the event occurred? This level of skepticism would make Descartes blush. In his article Mr. Luskin writes: "Tradesports' handling of the North Korea missile contracts has been a public relations debacle... Once a securities exchange has experienced a misstep this bad, it can be very difficult to build trust with investors....It's especially unfortunate because Tradesports and its competitors are potentially offering a very valuable service to investors." Already, the well-regarded SportsBookReview.com has downgraded Tradesports to a dismal C+ rating because of this botched contract. It is not too late for Tradesports to rectify this situation, starting with an acknowledgement of its error. It must do so if it wants to rebuild trust with its customers and restore its reputation in the industry. To not do so in the face of all evidence and logic would be unethical. Tradesports is a working laboratory to test all your theories about Prediction Markets and their potential value, but not if its business practices destroy its credibility and erode its customer base. I urge you to contact CEO John Delaney (john.delaney@tradesports.com) and ask him to fix this mess before it does further damage to Tradesports' reputation and business. The concept of a Prediction Market can work, but not without honesty, common sense, and a dedication to truthful results within clear contract rules. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide further information. Sincerely, Nicholas Edmunds Tradesports member Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:27 PM |
link
DAMN! IT WAS SEPTEMBER 1, AND I MISSED IT! From TheState.com: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will return to his home state of South Carolina this summer for a Leadership South Carolina event.What... no NASCAR race? Thanks to our correspondent "Irrational Exuberance" for the link. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:48 PM |
link
THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC FRONT RUNNER? The Boston Herald: MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:52 PM |
link
THE OLD IN-N-OUT R.I.P. Esther Snyder, innovative cofounder of our favorite (and best-named) fast food hamburger chain. Capitalizing on the emerging twin cultures of cars and fast food...[the Synders] introduced a two-way speaker through which drivers could order food and then have it handed to them without leaving their vehicles. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:02 AM |
link
SENSIBLE Following up on my SmartMoney.com column about how Tradesports screwed up their North Korea missile launch futures contracts, a reader wanted to know: Given the problems Landis is experiencing as winner of the Tour de France, and the likelihood of his title being stripped, what impact would there be from Tradesports contracts? I cannot find anything on the subject on-line.I threw the question to our prediction markets guru Chris Masse, and of course he had the answer. There's a generic contract rule specifically for such instances: 1.4. Official Changes to the Result Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:26 AM |
link
Monday, August 07, 2006 PAUL KRUGMAN DECLARES A RECESSION It's official -- there's no recession. Has to be, 'cause Paul Krugman officially says it's here:"Suddenly — really just in the last few weeks — people have starting talking seriously about a possible recession."So I guess Krugman wasn't "serious" before, those times when he declared a recession over and over during the last three booming years (for instance here and here and here). Update... Phil Klein says "Time to buy U.S. stocks." Update 2... Reader Neil Ferguson says, So Paul Klugman, Economist to the Nomenclatura, will have predicted four of the last zero recessions? Concerned citizens should send him broken clocks made out of construction paper, as aides brainoirs. (Not real broken clocks! That would be an abuse of the mailroom staff.) He can use the clocks to improve his batting average, if he can ever resist fiddling with the hands.Update 3 [8/8/2006]... "Public editor" Irwin Chusid wants to know whether this qualifies as a recession or a depression. Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:17 AM |
link
|