In your opinion, what does this blog need more of?

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Marshall Auerback, please stop trying to be a useful idiot


I hate posting any link to Putin propaganda, but here's Marshall Auerback on Russian anti-west propaganda network Russia Today, back in January:



He doesn't actually come out and do a Faber and predict dooooom or anything.

But still, he appears on Putinist propaganda and FUD station Russia Today in January after a market crash. And while he doesn't call for dooooom, he does repeat the same old boring talking points that every other RT guest repeats, and his chat suggests that it's all downhill from here... in January 2016.

Hey Marshall: is China really that bad off? If so, why are China large-caps up 25% since you appeared on RT?

And why has the S&P gone up 300 points since you appeared on RT?

Do you see that all you accomplished is the spread of FUD during a market correction on behalf of a mass-murdering kleptocratic dictator?

How am I supposed to take the Fields Institute seriously when it comes off as nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots?

Wow, someone hates Business Insider more than me?


Actually, the title of my post is debatable, but still....

IPE Zone - Financial sensationalism plus mathlexia equals Business Insider. Quoting a lot just cos my god, it's full of stars:

I try to avoid reading Business Insider as much as possible since its level of intellectual sophistication and journalistic integrity make it the Breitbart of financial reporting--about on par with Zero Hedge for a near-analogue.

Well, that's not exactly true. Zerohedge is a Putin-funded Russian disinformation site and Breitbart is a neo-Nazi circle-jerk in honour of a dead Republican homosexual. I'd say BI is more like a Buzzfeed of financial reporting. But anyway:

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Blodget's creation quite accurately:


What business press readers always lacked but never really needed was a tabloid sensationalist to hype up mundane markets and business news. Who would have ever thought Henry Blodget would be the guy to fill this void?

There are a couple of things to expect when reading Business Insider or Blodget’s tweets: ALL CAPS. Words like “scariest,” “startling,” “doomed.” Headlines that tells you “Here’s why X is happening.” Stock photos. Lots and lots and lots of pithy posts, some of which stretch the truth.

CNBC doesn't fare too poorly on sensationalism, but Business Insider takes it to a new level.

Well, really you can simplify this all down. Does the site feature Marc Faber whenever the market drops 5%? Does the site have regular contributions from commodity blog writers? Then it's probably sensationalist bullshit and you can ignore them from now on.

In sum:

There are apparently lots of people who prefer their news laced with pandering and sensationalism--this is the Internet, after all. Business Insider worsens matters by lacking basic knowledge of what they write about. If you don't understand something as simple as exchange rates, then there is little else you should be writing about concerning "business."

Yeah, and unfortunately not enough people know this already.

Just watch Nightly Business Report on PBS every night. That's all you need to keep an even keel.


Monday, August 15, 2016

And Trump continues to circle the drain like a ball of hair scraped off an orangutan... er...


270towin - Battleground 270. As of this morning, Hilary has a 93.9% chance to become the next president. The most likely outcome is a 100 electoral vote landslide. Trump has literally become a -2SD likelihood.

Seriously. He's fallen behind in the polls in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina.

Hillary is now competitive in Missouri and South Carolina.

The thing you've got to remember about crazy hateful clueless idiot fucks is that they aren't the majority at all - they just scream louder and tend to hang out around goldbugs.



Oh, and about this market versus 1999....


As anyone who doesn't have his head up his ass could tell you, in 1999 the S&P was overvalued on an earnings basis relative to a 10-year yield of around 5%.

Today, the 10-year yield is 1.5%, and yet the S&P is trading at a lower multiple than 1999.

But you'd have to not be an ignorant fucking clown with a newsletter to be able to understand why the distinction matters.