vox

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-releases-anticipated-documents-heart-hillary-clinton-probe/story?id=41822909 "FBI Director James Comey recently said his agency could prove the presence of classified information in the e-mails but found no evidence to indicate that Clinton knew she was sending or receiving classified information — a conclusion reflected in the FBI documents released today. “Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system,” reads a summary of the FBI’s findings from July. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.” As Comey said before, three email chains with Clinton included at least one paragraph marked with a “©,” indicating the paragraph contained confidential material. “Clinton stated she did not know what the ‘©’ meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order,” according to the FBI summary. In addition, the paragraphs were not properly marked, lacking a header or footer indicating they contained classified information. But before their interview with Clinton, FBI agents placed the appropriate header on one of the emails to see how she would respond. When confronted with the altered document, Clinton recognized the header and footer as indicating the presence of classified information, but she didn’t connect them to the “©” marking and said she didn’t think the email’s content was in fact classified. She questioned why it was marked as such, according to the FBI summary."

So you are really buying into this beautiful press release? When I look at stocks, the first thing I go to are proxy forms and related party transactions. When I look at Clinton, the first thing to look at are her email scandals, her Benghazi scandals, and her Clinton Foundation. When I look at company press releases and presentations, every crappy company convinces me it is a great investment. Huge potential and severely undervalued. So I no longer look at those. Non investors may look at the article you sent and buy into it, but I'd be surprised that value investors would do so. "Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches. Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups. We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's. Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control. After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president. Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote."

The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece "There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton. We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense. We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy. Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers."

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/wk1bqw/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive---j-k--rowling-extended-interview-pt--1 http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Christmas-That-Gave-Oprah-Hope-Video

You do know that Donald Trump literally invests without reading financials... http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/donald-trump-activist-investor/ "But while Trump's ability to establish a major position in these companies quietly was clearly strategic, his rationale for doing so appeared less so -- at least according to him. In fact, when it came to Bally, he got the idea of going after the company from a single conversation with a single analyst -- Dan Lee, his trusted confidante from Drexel Burnham, Trump told a Bally lawyer in a deposition reviewed by CNN. In that deposition, taken during a suit filed by Bally after Trump amassed 9.9% of the company's stock, Trump said he hadn't even looked at the company's proxy statements before he shelled out millions. He finally held a meeting with advisers from Bear Stearns after he'd purchased his stake in the company. "I wanted to start to learn a little bit about the company," Trump said of that first meeting. "I figured it was not a bad time to start." Over the course of the depositions and testimony CNN reviewed from the period, it was a regular theme from Trump -- one with familiar echoes to his presidential campaign. While Trump had close advisers, "Trump will do what Trump wants to do. And often he'll do it without telling them at all," one former Trump Organization executive, who was with the businessman during this period, said in an interview. The executive, who requested anonymity so as not to harm his existing relationship with Trump, recounted how most activist investors had teams of lawyers, analysts and advisers poring over the details of a potential target. Trump, on the other hand, wasn't even aware Bally had had health clubs -- a significant line of the company's business -- when he first started buying the company's stock. Trump, in his testimony in front of the casino commission, put it like this: "I just felt instinctively -- when I do research on things, they never work out well.""

Except that the Clintons have never drawn a salary or direct personal benefits from the Clinton Foundation. The most demonstrable incident of favor trading that the AP reported on was that she helped a Nobel prize winning economist (who has also won the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal) that pioneered microcredits for the poor defend against political persecution. If you want to think of the Presidential candidates as investors, perhaps you should read through this article on Donald Trump's career as an activist investor: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/donald-trump-activist-investor/ "But while Trump's ability to establish a major position in these companies quietly was clearly strategic, his rationale for doing so appeared less so -- at least according to him. In fact, when it came to Bally, he got the idea of going after the company from a single conversation with a single analyst -- Dan Lee, his trusted confidante from Drexel Burnham, Trump told a Bally lawyer in a deposition reviewed by CNN. In that deposition, taken during a suit filed by Bally after Trump amassed 9.9% of the company's stock, Trump said he hadn't even looked at the company's proxy statements before he shelled out millions. He finally held a meeting with advisers from Bear Stearns after he'd purchased his stake in the company. "I wanted to start to learn a little bit about the company," Trump said of that first meeting. "I figured it was not a bad time to start." Over the course of the depositions and testimony CNN reviewed from the period, it was a regular theme from Trump -- one with familiar echoes to his presidential campaign. While Trump had close advisers, "Trump will do what Trump wants to do. And often he'll do it without telling them at all," one former Trump Organization executive, who was with the businessman during this period, said in an interview. The executive, who requested anonymity so as not to harm his existing relationship with Trump, recounted how most activist investors had teams of lawyers, analysts and advisers poring over the details of a potential target. Trump, on the other hand, wasn't even aware Bally had had health clubs -- a significant line of the company's business -- when he first started buying the company's stock. Trump, in his testimony in front of the casino commission, put it like this: "I just felt instinctively -- when I do research on things, they never work out well.""

You're making this question a lot more difficult than it needs to be. If the market projects the cash flows of a business will be $0 for 364 days and $107 on the 365th day, and $0 thereafter, the present value of that business at t=0 is $100 using a 7% discount rate. In 1 year you'll have $107 in cash if the markets projection is correct. Your return will be 7% even though the market accurately predicted the cash flows. I got that, I'm just speculating on another possible reason - a systemic bias towards positive earnings surprises.

I have a hypothesis that's not been mentioned yet. As Jurgis and others have pointed out, positive stock market returns are generated when the return on invested capital exceeds the cost of equity. Management teams get to set public expectations of earnings by giving guidance in advance and internal expectations through a budget/ strategic plan. It's been empirically demonstrated that actual earnings are much more likely to match or exceed management forecast than to fall short. I think that there are three explanations for that phenomenon, 1. earnings manipulation, 2. management being conservative in their estimate, and 3. employees try harder when they are on the cusp of achieving their goal (especially if financially incentivized). I think the latter two reasons can explain why earnings 'surprises' can on aggregate be positive and sustainable.

Does anybody see an end game for Japan that does not involve default of Japanese government bonds or massive inflation?

Most people don't get paid what they "deserve," they get paid what they have the leverage to negotiate. The average worker's salary has been pressured by globalization, automation, and an increasing labor force (through early 2000's). CEO earnings have historically been tied to size of the firm (revenue, market cap), which outside of economic depressions usually rise monotonically in aggregate.

If these 50 were so good at seeing into the future, why did they invade Iraq? So is everything they've done historically and every piece of advice they give about the future wrong because they had various levels of support for the Iraq War? I'd love to know what experienced advisor supports Trump that has had 100% prescience on all foreign policy decisions.

From Greg Mankiw (the guy who probably wrote your Econ 101 textbook): "I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes. But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has not laid out a coherent economic worldview, but one recurrent theme is hostility to a free and open system of international trade. From my perspective as an economics policy wonk, that by itself is disqualifying. And then there are issues of temperament. I am not a psychologist, so I cannot figure out what Mr. Trump's personal demons are. But he does not show the admirable disposition that I saw in previous presidents and presidential candidates I have had the honor to work for." http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-take-on-mr-trump.html

"Billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman said on Wednesday he would work to get Hillary Clinton elected president of the United States because he finds recent comments by Donald Trump "shockingly unacceptable." "His words and actions over the last several days are so shockingly unacceptable in our diverse and democratic society that it is simply unthinkable that Donald Trump could become our president," Klarman said of the Republican presidential nominee. The president and chief executive of The Baupost Group told Reuters in an emailed statement that Trump's suggestion "that the election will be rigged is particularly dangerous." "I will continue to find ways to support Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump,” he said. On Monday, Trump told a town hall event in Columbus, Ohio, that he thought the November election might be "rigged." Trump's attacks on the Muslim parents of a decorated American soldier, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq, have drawn sharp rebukes since Khizr Khan and Ghazala Khan appeared at last week's Democratic convention. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Klarman, whose Boston-based investment firm manages $29 billion, is registered as an independent voter. But a review of filings showed that his political giving has largely benefited Republicans over the years, including donations this election cycle to political action committees that supported primary candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. He has also given to the campaigns of Democrats, including now-U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Mark Warner, according to the filings. He contributed $4,600 to Hillary Clinton's 2007 presidential race, while also giving to the campaigns of Republicans John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. In June, Klarman gave $5,400 to Clinton's campaign. "He is completely unqualified for the highest office in the land," Klarman said in his statement, without specifying how he would further support Clinton." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-klarman-idUSKCN10E2TR

Who was damned because they didn't? That hasn't been tried in generations. The millions of Syrians that object to the Assad dictatorship.

This is the kind of conspiracy bullshit that that drives the Republican party away from appealing to the principles shared by moderates and towards fringe lunacy. No, Barack Obama will not enact martial law. No, Jade Helm did not result in the seizing of people's guns through the network of Walmarts. Insinuating such is destructive to rational thought and American democracy. As Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece chronicled: “I used to spend ninety per cent of my constituent response time on people who call, e-mail, or send a letter, such as, ‘I really like this bill, H.R. 123,’ and they really believe in it because they heard about it through one of the groups that they belong to, but their view was based on actual legislation,” [Representative Devin] Nunes [Republican from California and Chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence] said. “Ten per cent were about ‘Chemtrails from airplanes are poisoning me’ to every other conspiracy theory that’s out there. And that has essentially flipped on its head.” The overwhelming majority of his constituent mail is now about the far-out ideas, and only a small portion is “based on something that is mostly true.” He added, “It’s dramatically changed politics and politicians, and what they’re doing.”

His son died in 2004. How did the Democratic Party send his son to die?

My post was not about the release of the DNC's emails. I don't think those had any impact other than on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's career and those of a few other minor political operatives.

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections. But if a politician does some heinous stuff that wouldn't prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president... I disagree for two reasons. One, there's a distinction between acts/statements that are bad politically and ones that are bad morally. For example, if Hillary or Donald sent an internal e-mail affirming that she/he would be inclined to push TPP through after the election, I think that is a rational economic decision that can be justified based on policy grounds, but it would undoubtedly harm/his her popularity among the electorate. However, it wouldn't show that she/he is somehow morally unqualified to be President. Second, you presume that the foreign government doesn't have equally or more damaging information about the alternate candidates that it will not disclose. The purpose of their release of information isn't to embrace transparency by revealing all wrongs, but to selectively release data that furthers their agenda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-democratic-ticket-scott-pelley/ Scott Pelley: Alright. Do you think you blew it on the emails? Hillary Clinton: Oh, I've said I did. Absolutely. I made a mistake. I should've had two accounts, one for personal and one for office. And I didn't, and I take responsibility for that. Scott Pelley: Why did you do that? Have the private email servers? Hillary Clinton: You know, Scott, other people did have-- other secretaries of state, other high-ranking members of administrations, plural-- and it was recommended that it would be convenient, and I thought it would be. It's turned out to be anything but. Scott Pelley: Would there be a private email server in the White House? Hillary Clinton: I'll tell ya one thing, that is one lesson I have learned the hard way, and there will not be any such thing in the White House. Although, I am quick to add, there's no evidence that it was ever hacked. And unfortunately, you can't say that for a lot of the government.

The Economist's What If series imagines the first 100 days of a Trump presidency http://worldif.economist.com/article/12166/world-v-donald They single out Boeing, Apple, Pfizer, GM, and Ford as vulnerable to trade disputes. Even if Trump has no intention of damaging trade relations, it's not assured that other parties won't overreact to his bluster.

An examination by the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas/panama-canal.html?_r=0

If you were an investor in a company that received notice that the Justice Department had requested an injunction because the company had refused to negotiate rentals "because of race and color," would your reaction be 'anybody can sue...'? You challenged that Donald Trump's racist rhetoric was not reflected in his business record, now your claim is that we only know that he paid a fine for racist actions in one of several instances. Do you think that people can create more jobs & enrich themselves in socially undesirable ways? For example if I made a lot of money running a payday lending company by rolling over loans and engaging in aggressive collection processes would that make me qualified to run for President? Why do you think Donald Trump has refused to release his tax returns if he has been so successful at creating wealth and jobs? Personally, I would much prefer the status quo versus having someone as President who's depth of knowledge consists of repeating empty platitudes and who doesn't have an iota of self restraint. Frankly, I would vote for any historical Democratic or Republican Presidential nominee over Donald Trump since at least Richard Nixon, and probably as far back as Barry Goldwater.

If you discount Trump's rhetoric and policy positions because you're giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is approaching the issue from a negotiating position, and given that he has no previous political record, what is left for someone to judge him by? The success of his business ventures? He has steadfastly refused to release his tax returns or disclose his financial information. The team of advisers he's assembled? His energy adviser believes that the earth is cooling, not warming (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-energy-idUSKCN0Y41ZP). His foreign policy advisers includes a guy who prominently cites his attendance at a model United Nations conference as a credential on his Linkedin page (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-foreign-policy-advisers-221058). Also, Donald Trump's real estate company has been sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in 1973 and 1978 (http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_trump_discrimination_suit/), his Trump Plaza Casino was fined by the New Jersey Casino Control Commissions in 1992 for removing African American card dealers (http://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/10/19/Trump-Plaza-loses-appeal-of-discrimination-penalty/1911719467200/), and he was sued in 1996 for reneging on a promise to hire mostly minority workers for a riverboat casino on Lake Michigan (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/money/trump-hit-race-suit-blacks-don-dealt-casino-jobs-article-1.726389).

1. Anecdotal examples doesn't encompass the plurality of suicide attempts. My thesis was not that all firearm suicides would be prevented, nor even a majority of firearm suicides, but rather one third (a conservative estimate that is supported by the research). 2. Naive cross country comparisons of suicide rates fail to distinguish between a litany of variables that impact peoples intent and means of committing suicide. If you look at ecologic studies that compare US states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels, and that control for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide, there is an extremely strong correlation between household gun ownership rates and firearm suicide rates.

I agree that the link is not immediately obvious if you assume that everyone acts in a rational manner. But the consensus in the literature is that it would help. Quoting Catherine Barber and Matthew Miller (http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/sites/actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/files/Reducing%20a%20Suicidal%20Persons%20Access%20to%20Lethal.pdf): "Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%–50% in other countries." To paraphrase their argument, many suicidal crises are short-lived. Their survey of people who had seriously considered suicide in the past year found that for about 30%, the suicidal period lasted under an hour. Surveyers of attempters have found that the interval between deciding on suicide and actually attempting was 10 minutes or less for 24% - 75% of attempters (with the lower end of the range reported by a study of those nearly dying in their attempt). Second, the method people use depends, to a non-trivial extent on its ready availability. Third, the proportion of attempts that results in deaths vary dramatically across methods, the lethality of the method readily available during a suicidal crisis plays an important role in whether the person survives; intent matters, but means also matter. Fourth, approximately 90% of attempters who survive a nonfatal attempt will not go on to die by suicide thereafter, a finding that holds true even in studies focusing only on medically serious attempts, such as jumping in front of a train. There are empirical studies that demonstrate this as well. I think the most compelling example is that among the Israeli Defense Force, soldier suicides disproportionately occurred on weekends and 90% involved firearms. A 2006 policy aimed at preventing suicides required soldiers to leave their weapons on base during weekend leave. The suicide rate decreased by 40%; weekend firearm suicides dropped significantly, with no change in weekday suicides, and no change in non-firearm suicides. Sure, but before you step out the door, if you own a gun and have children or family members with depression, you should probably be more concerned with suicide than homicide.