Tag: James Kwak

The Versatile Blogger Award

My rather slow response to my Versatile Blogger award!

Last Friday morning, the 16th, I turned on my PC to discover that lovely Kathryn Johnston of 4amWriter had nominated Learning from Dogs for the Versatile Blogger Award.  I was blown away especially as since then the connections I have made with other writers have been wonderful.

However, a more prompt acknowledgement on LfD seems to have escaped me until today.  I quickly learnt that there is a proper protocol associated with the response to the award.

  1. Thank the award-giver and link back to them in your post.
  2. Share 7 things about yourself.
  3. Pass this award along to 15 blogs you enjoy reading.
  4. Contact your chosen bloggers to let them know about the award.

So here goes!

Award logo

So first, a very big thank you to Kathryn of 4amWriter for including me in her list.  As she said on her post, “This title says it all! If you love dogs, this is a must-visit!”  That’s generous of Kathryn.  Dogs are a very powerful reminder of an uncomplicated way to live, as described on the Home Page.  The Vision behind the Blog is:

  • Our children require a world that understands the importance of faith, integrity and honesty
  • Learning from Dogs will  serve as a reminder of the values of life and the power of unconditional love – as so many, many dogs prove each and every day
  • Constantly trying to get to the truth …
  • The power of greater self-awareness and faith …

Seven things about me!

H’mm, what to say.

  1. Born in London 6 months before the end of WWII,
  2. Been a business-to-business salesman most of my life,
  3. Started my own business in 1978 and remained in ‘self-employment’ until quite recently,
  4. Lived on my own boat, based in Larnaca, Cyprus, for 5 years,
  5. A keen glider pilot for many years at Rattlesden Gliding Club in Suffolk, later a private pilot,
  6. Always wanted to write,
  7. And, finally, happier than I have ever been being married to Jean, having met in Mexico in 2007, moving out there with Pharaoh, my GSD, in 2008 and subsequently arriving in Payson, Arizona in 2010 with 11 dogs and 6 cats!

So here are the 16 Blogs (I use that description loosely) that I wish to pass this award to:

  • Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism.  How Yves finds the time to produce the huge volume of articles and website links every day is beyond me.
  • James Kwak and Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario.  James and Simon were, for me, an early source of openness about the key issues affecting the global economy that slammed into our collective faces in 2008.
  • Patrice Ayme of the Blog of his own name.  Patrice’s sub-heading on his Blog reads, “Intelligence at the core of humanism.”  Again, a prolific writer with a huge intellect that he puts to wonderful use.  Just pick anything that he has written to see that proved in spades.
  • Patrick Smith of Patrick Smith Photography. Just breath-taking photographs.  Do visit his website.
  • Bill McKibben of 350.org.  The headline on the website says, “We’re building a global movement to solve the climate crisis.”  Say no more!
  • Michelle of Dog Kisses’s blog.  Wonderful blog – just go there and enjoy it.
  • Sue of Sue Dreamwalker. Again, just a wonderful Blog – do please visit.
  • Vlatko, the owner of Top Documentary Films.  We do not subscribe to any television channels at home so Vlatko’s resource is so valuable for us.  Huge selection of free documentary films to watch.
  • Deanna Raeke and Andrea Rosebrock of the Blog For The Love of a Dog.  Very active in fighting all corners on behalf of man’s oldest companion.
  • Rob Hopkins and his team at Transition Network.  Rob is one of the leading voices for changing to a sustainable relationship with this planet.  He is based in Totnes, Devon, my local town for many years when I lived in the village of Harberton.  His books on Transition are masterpieces.
  • Victoria Brown, Daniel Honan and team at Big Think.  As their headline says, “A forum where top experts explore the big ideas and core skills defining the 21st century.”  Fabulous resource.
  • All the Directors and team at Sustainable Arizona.  As is described on their site, Sustainable Arizona is about, “Our nonprofit organization is made up of volunteers and professionals committed to making sustainable development possible. We accomplish this by encouraging businesses that add true value to our communities while preserving the environment.“
  • Anthony Watts of Watt’s Up With That. With over 9,000 followers and over 98 million viewers this very reasonably can be regarded as the world’s most viewed climate website.  Anthony’s 3 million monthly visitors puts my 40,000 into perspective!
  • The whole team at the US-based National Wildlife Federation.  Their Mission: As America’s largest conservation organization, National Wildlife Federation works with more than 4 million members, partners and supporters in communities across the country to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future!
  • Peter Russell of Spirit of Now.  Peter writes on his Blogsite, “There are many observations I make in daily life—some profound, some mundane—mostly concerning the natural world around, or the nature of the inner world of mind. Some incline us to wonder and awe. Others make us think, and question our assumptions.”  Never before have we needed so much to think about the way we think!
  • Nakibul Hoq, blogging from Bangladesh in the city of Dhaka under the Blog name of Freedom to Survive.

I shall be passing on the ‘award’ to all bloggers today.

Let me close again by saying such a big thank you to Kathryn of 4amWriter and, from that, how quickly I came across Limebird Writers who, I know, will be a great source of support as I face 2012 and ‘the novel’!

Think you understand money?

This documentary may, probably WILL,  enlighten you.

On the 30th March I wrote about the film Inside Job.  Then a few days ago James Kwak of Baseline Scenario, a blog that I have been reading for some time now, also wrote a piece about the film, opening his Post thus,

I finally saw Inside Job at a friend’s house tonight. I don’t have anything original to say about it. I thought it was a very, very good movie. There were lots of little things that weren’t quite right (many of which were probably conscious decisions to simplify details for the sake of comprehension), but I don’t think any of them were substantively misleading.

As always with Baseline Scenario, the comments are as interesting and educational as the article, and that was just as valid in this case.  One of the comments was from Carla who wrote,

I think Inside Job is no longer available to view for free now that the DVD is for sale at Amazon (well worth the purchase, BTW).

But at the same site I found “The Money Fix,” which you can watch for free: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/money-fix/

Also, there’s another site with some good free docs:http://www.freedocumentaries.org.

Anyway, we watched the film on Tuesday evening and, boy oh boy, was it an eye-opener.

I promise you, the full film is so well worth watching.   (And do read to the end of this Post!)

The film also makes reference to the website The Money Fix which has a great number of resources for those that wish to explore further this fascinating subject.  Thanks Carla.

 

Enough – from Baseline Scenario

A powerful reflection on values.

I am indebted to James Kwak, the author of this article on Baseline Scenario, for giving me permission to reproduce in full what was published on the 12th March, 2011.

By James Kwak

A friend passed on this article in The Motley Fool by Morgan Housel. It begins this way:

“Enough.

“That’s the title of Vanguard founder John Bogle’s fantastic book about measuring what counts in life.

“The title, as Bogle explains, comes from a conversation between Kurt Vonnegut and novelist Joseph Heller, who are enjoying a party hosted by a billionaire hedge fund manager. Vonnegut points out that their wealthy host had made more money in one day than Heller ever made from his novelCatch-22. Heller responds: ‘Yes, but I have something he will never have: enough.’”

The rest of the article discusses the cases of Rajat Gupta and Bernie Madoff, the former accused (but not criminally) and the latter convicted of illegal activity done after they had already been enormously successful, professionally and financially.

Housel asks, why do people push on — legally or illegally — when they have more of everything than anyone could possibly need? He summarizes the happiness research as follows:

“Money isn’t the key to happiness. What really gives people meaning and happiness is a combination of four things: Control over what they’re doing, progress in what they’re pursuing, being connected with others, and being part of something they enjoy that’s bigger than themselves.”

Of course, even if that’s true (and I think it is, except for the first sentence, on which more below), that doesn’t mean that people realize it. And if people don’t understand the relationship between their actions and their personal outcomes, we have no reason to believe that they will behave in a utility-maximizing way.

That said, renowned economist Justin Wolfers was recently on Planet Money saying that money does, indeed, buy happiness. He was discussing a paper he did with Betsey Stevenson looking at datasets covering many countries over many years. They find a positive relationship between income and subjective well-being, whether in the form of life satisfaction or happiness (although the relationship appears somewhat weaker for happiness).* In particular, they find that there is no satiation point, at least when making cross-country comparison (that is, the positive relationship persists even when you look only at countries that are at least moderately wealth).

At one point in the Planet Money interview, I believe Wolfers did say that when it comes to happiness, someone (Kahneman, I think) had estimated that there is a satiation point at around $75,000 per year. But, he went on, the issue is that we may want subjective states other than simple happiness. So, for example, we may want the subjective feeling of power, whether or not it actually makes us happy in the moment. And those other subjective states may not have satiation points, or they may have little to do with income.

But ultimately I agree with Heller. It is a great thing to have “enough,” and to know you have enough. And that is a feeling that for some people, apparently, no amount of money can buy.

* The difference, put simply, is between whether you feel happy at this moment and whether you feel satisfied with your life as a whole. For more, see this fantastic TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman (which I have recommended before).

James Kwak blows a loud whistle!

So much for integrity with some economists.

While I follow a number of Blogs, there are few that I read avidly.  One of them in that latter category is Baseline Scenario.  I wish I understood more of the technical issues presented by the Blog authors and the dozens of brilliant commentors.  But the essence of what is being discussed is clear.  I thoroughly recommend subscribing.

Here’s a recent Post from James Kwak (see end of Post for bio details). It was called Free Books and Board Seats. James very kindly has given Learning from Dogs written permission to reproduce the article in full.

Here in the blogging world, some of us are very sensitive to the potential appearance of impropriety. A year ago, the FTC published new rules requiring bloggers to disclose cash and in-kind payments they receive for reviewing products. The upshot, for most of us, is simply that now, when we discuss a book, we say if we got a free copy of the book from the publisher. (Although it’s not clear that that disclosure is required, since getting a free copy is something that readers should expect; I don’t think the New York Times Book Review bothers pointing out that, for every book they review, they got a free copy, although they almost certainly did.)

All the more relevant, then, is Gerald Epstein’s post about conflicts of interest in the economics profession.

“Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth and I did a study of 19 prominent academic financial economists who were members of two influential groups that have played a key role in the financial reform and regulation debate in the U.S. Of the 19 academic economists in these groups, 70% advised, owned significant stock in or were on the board of private financial institutions. But you wouldn’t know by looking at their self-identification in media appearances, policy work or academic papers.”

There are certainly economists who were talking up the housing market in the summer of 2008 without disclosing their financial ties to banks–who were desperately hoping that housing prices would not collapse.

C’mon, guys. I don’t even get very many free books (maybe one per month on average–I decline most of them), and I always disclose that. I know it’s not feasible to list every company that ever paid you to give a speech. But really, if you’re a paid director of a bank and you write about the banking industry, can’t you at least point that out?

Well put James.

——————————
James Kwak is a former McKinsey consultant, a co-founder of a successful software company, and currently a student at the Yale Law School.  He is not, never has been, and never will be a member of the Yale Law Journal.  He is a co-founder of The Baseline Scenario.

House prices!

A spotlight on some tough truths

I have long subscribed to Baseline Scenario and the latest article from James Kwak is a great example of why.

On August 23rd James published a Post with the compelling title of, “Housing in Ten Words”.  Here’s a flavour:

By James Kwak

“Housing Fades as a Means to Build Wealth, Analysts Say.” That’s the title of a New York Times article by David Streitfeld. Here’s most of the lead:

“Many real estate experts now believe that home ownership will never again yield rewards like those enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century, when houses not only provided shelter but also a plump nest egg.

“The wealth generated by housing in those decades, particularly on the coasts, did more than assure the owners a comfortable retirement. It powered the economy, paying for the education of children and grandchildren, keeping the cruise ships and golf courses full and the restaurants humming.

“More than likely, that era is gone for good.”

I’ve been telling my friends for a decade that housing is a bad investment. These are real housing prices over the past century, based on data collected by Robert Shiller:

Robert Schiller is, of course, the well-known Yale University professor who wrote the book, Irrational Exuberance.   From Wikipedia:

Irrational Exuberance is a March 2000 book written by Yale University professor Robert Shiller, named after Alan Greenspan‘s “irrational exuberance” quote. Published at the height of the dot-com boom, it put forth several arguments demonstrating how the stock markets were overvalued at the time. Shiller was soon proven right when the Nasdaq peaked on the very month of the book’s publication, and the stock markets collapsed right after.

The second edition of Irrational Exuberance published in 2005 is updated to cover the housing bubble, especially in the United States. Shiller writes that the real estate bubble may soon burst, and he supports his claim by showing that median home prices are now six to nine times greater than median income in some areas of the country. He also shows that home prices, when adjusted for inflation, have produced very modest returns of less than 1%/year.

Shiller proved right again as witnessed by the fall of the housing bubble which was in part responsible for the Worldwide recession of 2008-2009.

Anyway, do read the full article from James on Baseline Scenario as it has plenty of messages that are still critically important for those trying to work out where it’s all still heading, economically.

For my money, I still think that slowly but steadily we are reverting to the old mean of home prices being about 2 to 2.5 times average annual salaries. With the added proviso that I think that it is more than likely that average salaries will slowly decline on both sides of the Atlantic over the next few years.  Tough times indeed!

By Paul Handover

Free speech!

Hats off to some intrepid commentators

We are going through unprecedented troubled times and the way ahead looks very uncertain.  The whole world could be participating in the ‘lost decade’ that Japan experienced previously.

But this article is not about doom and gloom!  It is about recognising the commitment to open and honest reporting being undertaken by (at least) these three  individuals.  Three commentators that this author follows in admiration and awe.

Learning from Dogs has nothing like the following of James Kwak, Yves Smith and Karl Denninger but the LfD authors do have an inkling of the work involved in writing not one but often several articles each day.  It is a huge commitment.

James Kwak

First James Kwak of Baseline Scenario.  Simon Johnson is, perhaps, the more well-known of this duo that comprise Baseline Scenario but it is James that puts in the leg-work.  Here’s a taste of a recent article from James:

Radio Stories

I spend a lot of time in the car driving to and from school, so I end up listening to a lot of podcasts (mainly This American Life, Radio Lab, Fresh Air, and Planet Money). I was catching up recently and wanted to point out a few highlights.
Last week on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Scott Patterson, author of The Quants, and Ed Thorp, mathematician,  inventor of blackjack card counting (or, at least, the first person to publish his methods), and, according to the book, also the inventor of the market-neutral hedge fund.

Large chunk snipped ……

I finally got around to listening to Planet Money’s interview with Russ Roberts from December. Russ Roberts and I are pretty sure to disagree on almost any actual policy question. But what I liked about his interview was that he basically admitted that policy questions cannot be settled by looking at the empirical studies. On whether the minimum wage increases or decreases employment for example, he says that he can poke holes in the studies whose conclusions he doesn’t agree with, but other people can poke holes in the studies he agrees with. In Roberts’s view, people’s policy positions are determined by their prior normative commitments.

I don’t completely agree. I don’t think that these questions, like the one about the minimum wage, are inherently unanswerable in the sense that the answer does not exist. But I agree that empirical studies are unlikely to get to the truth, particularly on a politically charged question, because there are so many ways to fudge an empirical study. As one of my professors said, there are a million ways you can screw up a study, and only one way to do it right. But I agree with the general sentiment. We are living in an age of numbers, where people think that statistics can answer any question. Statistics can answer any question, but they can answer it in multiple ways depending on who is sitting at the keyboard.

By James Kwak

Read about Yves Smith & Karl Denninger