SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13462
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 20th, 2012, 2:20 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: hayesif being "technically" better was all that mattered, we'd all have been watching betamax videos and listening to personal music on Zunes.I have a Droid 3 around here somewhere, for if I ever use CDMA (Sprint, Verizon, Virgin Mobile, Boost, Metro). It really is just about the perfect phone. The screen is a little cramped, but I believe it is still slightly larger than the iphone, though with lower resolution. It is light, durable, has huge battery life, slide out keyboard with arrow keys. They must have been puzzled that it did not take over the market. The phones I have seen people fall in love with seem to be the ones with bigger screens, first the HTC Evo, and now the Samsung Galaxy.
 
User avatar
hayes
Posts: 1181
Joined: July 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 20th, 2012, 3:21 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: hayesif being "technically" better was all that mattered, we'd all have been watching betamax videos and listening to personal music on Zunes.I have a Droid 3 around here somewhere, for if I ever use CDMA (Sprint, Verizon, Virgin Mobile, Boost, Metro). It really is just about the perfect phone. The screen is a little cramped, but I believe it is still slightly larger than the iphone, though with lower resolution. It is light, durable, has huge battery life, slide out keyboard with arrow keys. They must have been puzzled that it did not take over the market. The phones I have seen people fall in love with seem to be the ones with bigger screens, first the HTC Evo, and now the Samsung Galaxy.And yet (in the UK) the HTC Desire 1 & 2 have been massively popular, but the HTC Desire HD was not. It has a bigger/ better screen, but there's only so far you can go before you're essentially holding a tablet to your head.
Last edited by hayes on June 19th, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 11:12 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: hayes[/iPersonally, I feel that cable TV is more disappointing than it is useless. Technically, it should be a better user experience than satelite but rarely wasthese people aren't trading in cable for satellite, they're trading in cable for rabbit ears,so no more CNN, foxnews, MTV, HBO, turner classic movies, ... If all you ever watch is NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, PBS, you don't need cable or satellite.satellite is a johnny come lately in north america, with wiki telling us that cable tv has been around since 1948.
 
User avatar
hayes
Posts: 1181
Joined: July 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 11:29 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperthese people aren't trading in cable for satellite, they're trading in cable for rabbit ears,....................because they have no moneyYou keep pointing this out and perhaps you feel your point has been missed or ignored - It hasn't, I just don't care that much about it.Losing cable TV doesn't strike me as being a key indicator of poverty. If I was out of work or my income had reduced, I would cut down on all luxury purchases too.I do see your point, every sign of reduced wealth is relevant to get the bigger picture. But there are far more powerful stats out there about families that can't afford to eat or heat their homes, those are the sorts of things people care more about. Relative poverty measurements are always a bit of a joke, (Earlier this week it was announced that in the UK, 140,000 less children now live in poverty - Nothing has changed except the median average national wage has declined!). I think more importance should be placed on absolute measures of poverty instead. I don't care if some lower-middle class U.S. family can only afford to take one vacation this year or can't watch HBO.For the record, I don't have cable, satelite or even a TV at all. That's not because I'm too poor to own one, it's a personal choice to spend the money on better things.
Last edited by hayes on June 20th, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 11:52 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: hayesQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperthese people aren't trading in cable for satellite, they're trading in cable for rabbit ears,....................because they have no moneyYou keep pointing this out and perhaps you feel your point has been missed or ignored - It hasn't, I just don't care that much about it.you said (perhaps as a joke, albeit not a very funny one) that the reason 6.9 million homes have ditched cable TV was that "it's *the* most useless thing in the world."While I acknowledge your schadenfreude, not only was your joke not funny, it was not based in truth
 
User avatar
hayes
Posts: 1181
Joined: July 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 1:03 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperyou said (perhaps as a joke, albeit not a very funny one) that the reason 6.9 million homes have ditched cable TV was that "it's *the* most useless thing in the world."While I acknowledge your schadenfreude, not only was your joke not funny, it was not based in truthOuch. It was indeed in a light-hearted way but I guess that famous British dry wit doesn't translate well over the Wilmott forum. Or maybe I'm just not very good at it. I actually extended on that statement to say it's more disappointing than it is useless - From a UK perspective that's definitely true. Sounds like US cable TV is fantastic.No schadenfreude is involved. It's difficult times for everyone and I take no pleasure in people falling on hard times, but I really don't care if someone loses their cable TV.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 1:22 pm

I haven't had cable in my home for four or five years now, i think. I don't believe it correlated particularly with the drop of my personal wealth. As far as the overall drop of wealth in the US, you don't need cable or stats on how many people switched off cable to know it fairly precisely. There are things like Survey of Consumer Finances that recently showed a drop of 40% of median wealth since 2007. This is using government inflation numbers to access real income, which are obviously manipulated down. So, the actual drop is larger. It's a pretty staggering number, more so than a loss of even a 100% of cable customers.
Last edited by zerdna on June 20th, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
hayes
Posts: 1181
Joined: July 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 2:34 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaI haven't had cable in my home for four or five years now, i think. I don't believe it correlated particularly with the drop of my personal wealth. As far as the overall drop of wealth in the US, you don't need cable or stats on how many people switched off cable to know it fairly precisely. There are things like Survey of Consumer Finances that recently showed a drop of 40% of median wealth since 2007. This is using government inflation numbers to access real income, which are obviously manipulated down. So, the actual drop is larger. It's a pretty staggering number, more so than a loss of even a 100% of cable customers.Agree strongly with your point about those numbers being manipulated downward.Although "wealth" is not a good indicator of poverty either. Those stats are including house prices which unless the family wants to move to a smaller property, aren't going to be realised. A family could be living in a worthless house, on the same income, paying the same (fixed) mortgage payments and not have their lifestyle effected at all....... unless they need to move house!I feel that after critising 2 different measurements of poverty I should now suggest a great one, but I honestly can't. I agree with the concept of the U.N "Dollar a day" (which I think is now a less catchy "$1.25 a day"). The dollar a day tagline was only ever aimed at the west anyway, I don't know if it truly is that helpful.Maybe we should use a modified version of the Big Mac index? In wealthy countries it is now seen as an "inferior good", providing a good economic measure for "1st world poverty", and then in poorer countries it is still seen as a luxury item.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 3:33 pm

QuoteAlthough "wealth" is not a good indicator of poverty either. Those stats are including house prices which unless the family wants to move to a smaller property, aren't going to be realised. A family could be living in a worthless house, on the same income, paying the same (fixed) mortgage payments and not have their lifestyle effected at all....... unless they need to move house!Measures of poverty should measure left tail, i spoke of overall wealth, which is measured by the median fairly well. It is correct that mainly the number is related to the drop in house prices. I, however, disagree with your characterization that it's irrelevant. There are various situations when you 'lose' wealth in not nominal terms. You or your spouse lost a job and dropped paying the mortgage you -- are foreclosed and you lose whatever you paid for equity in the house. Or you didn't drop the payments and your have negative equity-- you are not only paying too much for the principal, you rate is too high, it affects your cash flows. You need to move for another job -- not only you'll have a capital loss on the sale, you'll need to keep paying rent or new house mortgage and carrying cost for a very long time before this sale of the old house happens. Having a depreciated house on your balance sheet you cannot borrow more as when you had appreciating house, it affects your flow, spending, etc. This borrowing was non trivial, it was most of nominal GDP growth in the times of the house bubble. There are also hidden costs, that are delayed but inevitable. For example, government took trillions of Fannie and Freddie debt on their balance sheet and is losing hundreds of billions annually paying for the loans on these depreciated houses. For now US is just borrowing, but sooner or later taxpayers will have to pay for Fannie and Freddie debt which kind US government ram down the taxpayers throats. The loss is in PV of your future taxes, if you plan to pay taxes in US for another couple of decades.
Last edited by zerdna on June 20th, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13462
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 4:24 pm

It is not just cable tv. Most of the things US population spends its money on sucks, and the wives are ugly. So if they don't like Obama, fuck 'em, let 'em eat cake. As long as they have his face on the TV, they should be thankful.
 
User avatar
traderjoe1976
Posts: 1544
Joined: May 19th, 2006, 9:50 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 5:09 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerMost of the things US population spends its money on sucks ........Very true indeed. Now, think about this statement a bit more deeply.
 
User avatar
hayes
Posts: 1181
Joined: July 18th, 2008, 11:24 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

June 21st, 2012, 5:33 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAlthough "wealth" is not a good indicator of poverty either. Those stats are including house prices which unless the family wants to move to a smaller property, aren't going to be realised. A family could be living in a worthless house, on the same income, paying the same (fixed) mortgage payments and not have their lifestyle effected at all....... unless they need to move house!Measures of poverty should measure left tail, i spoke of overall wealth, which is measured by the median fairly well. It is correct that mainly the number is related to the drop in house prices. I, however, disagree with your characterization that it's irrelevant. There are various situations when you 'lose' wealth in not nominal terms. You or your spouse lost a job and dropped paying the mortgage you -- are foreclosed and you lose whatever you paid for equity in the house. Or you didn't drop the payments and your have negative equity-- you are not only paying too much for the principal, you rate is too high, it affects your cash flows. You need to move for another job -- not only you'll have a capital loss on the sale, you'll need to keep paying rent or new house mortgage and carrying cost for a very long time before this sale of the old house happens. Having a depreciated house on your balance sheet you cannot borrow more as when you had appreciating house, it affects your flow, spending, etc. This borrowing was non trivial, it was most of nominal GDP growth in the times of the house bubble. There are also hidden costs, that are delayed but inevitable. For example, government took trillions of Fannie and Freddie debt on their balance sheet and is losing hundreds of billions annually paying for the loans on these depreciated houses. For now US is just borrowing, but sooner or later taxpayers will have to pay for Fannie and Freddie debt which kind US government ram down the taxpayers throats. The loss is in PV of your future taxes, if you plan to pay taxes in US for another couple of decades.I neither stated or intended to imply that falling house prices was irrelevant. And I did explicitly say that it's not really a problem...... until you need to move.Your expansion into the consideration of long term effects is correct, and that the US will be paying for this for decades to come.My point was only that it was not a very good measure of poverty, which is true.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

September 7th, 2012, 5:25 pm

Workforce participation rate for men 69.9% - lowest since 1948...
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

September 10th, 2012, 5:04 pm

World Economists Confirm America's Decline Under Obama (Major Update: U.S. Downgraded Two More Positions Today)
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

September 13th, 2012, 7:32 am

US median income lowest since 1995
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On