alwaysinvert

Would love to see the details of the data behind the mental illness chart at 6:46. Cultural differences seem more relevant (for data quality purposes) than correlation to income inequality. Let's interview some Japanese, Spaniards and Italians on their stance towards mental illness and compare with the rest... Also, the Scandinavian countries are conspicously missing, whilst they are present on every other chart. I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no comparable data from our countries on that. A quick google gave me some numbers on Sweden from our government statistics bureau. Self-reported numbers of 23% of women ages 16-84 feeling mentally unwell and 13% of men. I don't know if those numbers are comparable to the statistic that is reported in the chart, but if they are they would emphatically break the correlation to income equality in the chart and to me seem to suggest there is some cherry-picking of data going on, despite what professor Wilkinson says at the end. I'm not sure I would rely on a quick Google search to determine whether is cherry-picking of data going on. I'm sure there are peer reviews that discuss the methodology of the guy's research and that find that his data has or has not been cherry-picked. I could be convinced that there's something wrong about his presentation if you could cite those critiques. I didn't determine anything from that, although I find it very curious that the Scandinavian countries are left out of that chart and since I'm aware that rising mental health problems are a big part of our domestic debate it got me a bit suspicious. That there wouldn't be comparable statistics for Scandinavia strikes me as pure nonsense (the Nordic countries probably have more extensive data on their populations in all respects than any other country and the suggestion that they wouldn't fit with the other data while numbers from a dozen separate countries can be justly compared seem far-fetched), which was what he seemed to suggest in the last part of the speech. That then begs the question: why are the numbers left out? Of course I'm not critiquing his research - I'm not competent to do that - but his presentation is clearly lacking in that specific area, whatever the reason for that is. As for the numbers I googled: like I said they are from SCB, the government agency that handles official statistics in Sweden, and should therefore have been subject to severe scrutiny. But since I don't know what methodology was used for the data in the chart professor Wilkinson presented, I cannot make a direct comparison (although anything but a self-report questionnaire would be unlikely). What those numbers seem to suggest to me is that there is an untold story, though. I don't know how anyone could disagree with that. The accuracy of his research or even the rest of his presentation was not something that I addressed.

Would love to see the details of the data behind the mental illness chart at 6:46. Cultural differences seem more relevant (for data quality purposes) than correlation to income inequality. Let's interview some Japanese, Spaniards and Italians on their stance towards mental illness and compare with the rest... Also, the Scandinavian countries are conspicously missing, whilst they are present on every other chart. I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no comparable data from our countries on that. A quick google gave me some numbers on Sweden from our government statistics bureau. Self-reported numbers of 23% of women ages 16-84 feeling mentally unwell and 13% of men. I don't know if those numbers are comparable to the statistic that is reported in the chart, but if they are they would emphatically break the correlation to income equality in the chart and to me seem to suggest there is some cherry-picking of data going on, despite what professor Wilkinson says at the end.

The referendum might be the only way of avoiding a coup or an even further deterioration into anarchy. If his reforms cannot garner enough support, they won't get pushed through anyway. Now what will the greeks prefer when they stand by the ballot? An uncontrolled state default or austerity measures? I don't think the answer is as clear-cut as some of you do. And if the austerity measures didn't have support by the majority, given no referendum, what makes you think they would have a positive effect if looting public money is acceptable behaviour?

+6% and my benchmark index (SIX PRX) at -14.1%. Highly concentrated in low p/e small caps which never fell to the same extent. Still made a couple of clearly boneheaded decisions and I have obviously been lucky throughout the year not to see some holdings fall further in an almost indiscriminately falling market, because I haven't had that much cash to buy more.

I have read Riches Among Ruins. It was a nice read, I can recommend it. Nothing earth-shattering but an interesting life story well told.

Yup, and making the system even more fragile in the process.

I didn't say they are a better company, I'm too ignorant on the specifics of SKF to make that judgement. But Scania is one of the market leaders in Brazil and Europe and trades at a p/e of 9 and yield of 4,6% despite being in a capital intensive business. And my belief is that trucking is not going to go away very soon, especially since there are no government money to better infrastructure in Europe. They are also at the forefront of corporate management and remains nimble and flexible in response to demand shocks. Compare the performance of other truck producers in 2008 to Scania's. CEO is a sheer management genius who has steered the company since 1989. Heavy emphasis on internal competence, disdain for consulting bs etc.

Not overly familiar with the financial specifics but as a Swede I'm aware of the rich 100+ year history of the company. Highly unionized workforce but management has always had extremely good relations with the unions, sort of epitomizing the Swedish model (but predating it). There's a pretty famous story from 1907 of the founder promoting strike leaders after the strike was over "because it would be a shame to see those leadership abilities go to waste". Because of that kind of goodwill the management has always been able to act fiercely in hard times without the unions blocking change, as often is the case. Tom Johnstone is very highly rated as well. Obviously their competitive position is extremely strong but if you are looking at Swedish industrial companies I'd have an extra look at Scania if I were you. I think their valuation seems more compelling. Incidentally, the chairman of SKF is Scania's CEO. I don't have a position in Scania as of now but I am monitoring the stock closely.

Hey menlo, do you still own KINV? I noticed the other day that discount to NAV was higher than probably ever before. Still, neither MICC nor Tele2 are at bottom levels valuation-wise.

Somewhat related to this thread: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y0Rah57WFoQ/TqJowKi4NEI/AAAAAAAAAqo/ZCL198lS2Cg/s1600/gdp+stock.jpg

Tragedy of the commons due to misuse of public resources are externalities of capitalism? :o Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit from investment, usually in competitive markets.

Awesome, never heard of that book before. Thanks!

Sorry, this doesn't conform to the usual form of posts in this section but I thought it fitted best here anyway. I'm looking for a book that takes on companies in different sectors, the obstacles in valuing them vs other companies, accounting peculiarites etc. Some real depth would be preferrable and not only "look at DSO" or "software companies have high R&D". Is there something like that out there? If not, members on this board should get together and write one :)

40% annualized return as a bar for each investment would stop me from ever investing in anything. I have yet to find a stock I would be reasonably sure could give me that kind of return. In the last two years I have spotted three stocks which I was reasonably sure* could get me 20% for a couple of years. *barring deflation/other macro risks and/or company specific black swan events

I think you would disqualify yourself from 99% of 10-baggers by selling out say when something hits 20x earnings (or another arbitrary high multiple which would serve as an indicator of overvaluation). So chasing 10-baggers seems a bit like chasing a mirage. Now, if something stays pretty cheap all the time during a 10 year holding period and at the same time performs extremely well operatively, then our job gets very easy, but how often does that actually happen? It's only with hindsight bias we can say that it was a bad decision not to hold on to stock x if it then continues to perform well. Why beat yourself up if value dictated your selling?

No, I didn't realize the tax cuts were temporary in any sense, but my argument about the years was not legal but philosophical (or to be more precise, logical). My status quo on the other hand is a moral standpoint - what exists before the government messes with markets. Just like your status quo, that of returning to the tax rates that existed before an in your view failed tax break, is a moral sentiment. As for the analysis of the actual tax breaks it seems that we pretty much agree. I said earlier in the thread that there are lots of better taxes to cut than capital gains if you want to have an effect on unemployment and you agreed to that. Our differences lie in where that takes us. Being a libertarian kind of guy that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that you should raise the capital gains tax back up again, necessarily. Now, I don't know enough about your balance sheet problems to be able to tell if you could cut your way out of this without touching social security and that other kind of insurance stuff (medicare and medicaid I guess, if there is something more like that I'm ignorant of it, sorry) of which there are no alternatives for many people due to the current structure of the system. But if you could, I wouldn't favor any tax increases at all. Regarding social security, I think it's kind of ironic that we have a more privatized system than you guys. I recommend everyone to read about that in Nudge by Richard Thaler if you haven't yet.

I don't think I can say it better than this so I'm leaving it at this now. Your last post had absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying in any part. The point of my last post was to demonstrate that you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't conveniently pick what you want from the 19th century without bringing the context along with it. Perhaps you can, but I will cry foul. Look, that is the 19th century is totally inconsequential, that's just something I drew out of my arse to be reasonably sure that it corresponded with reality, but the fact that it does (?) doesn't matter. Reread my posts and maybe you see what I'm trying to say. The only thing I am saying is that the argument from history IS NOT VALID. It's not valid if you say something was this and that in the 19th century, in the Roman empire, in the stone age or 8 years ago and therefore should be so now. I'm NOT defending the policies of the 19th century by pointing that out. Now, if you in some way can show that it worked better (and this can be highly subjective, like that it was fairer), then it's an empirical argument, but merely pointing out that something was different x number of ago is not and will never be an argument.

I don't think I can say it better than this so I'm leaving it at this now. Your last post had absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying in any part.

To be absolutely clear: the reason why your argument fails has nothing to do with morals or timescale. It's because your ought doesn't follow from your is. Now you might say for reason y and z policy x from 8 years ago was better than policy x/2 and that might help your argument. But the timescale is not an argument in and of itself.

No, it has nothing at all with the actual contents of the policies discussed to do. "Policy x was made into x/2 8 years ago" "In the 19th century x was prohibited" This is the form of the argument. Now x might be considered anything. For the sake of making the argument clear we might call x torture and x/2 flogging (half as bad as allowing all torture, humour me). Now where do we get? "Torture was repealed, but flogging kept legal 8 years ago" "In the 19th century all torture was prohibited" Do you see? And also we might call the 19th century 10 years ago, it doesn't matter one iota.

No, it's not some kind of rhetorical trick. My argument has the exact same form as yours, only differing in timescale. You obviously acknowledge that my argument says nothing about proper policy, but it's not because the timescale is different, it's because the bigger timescale allows you to see the absurdity of your claim. If that didn't work I also added the +100% marginal tax rate example as an aid, which also has the exact same form as your initial argument and might aid you in understanding that your logic is flawed since a tax rate of more than what you earn is inherently absurd.

This one is a gem. We're done debating using logic now, we'll just call each other "silly" or "naughty poo poo head" now. I didn't call you silly but your argument, just like I called the Ipad argument silly earlier in this thread. You seem to be a very intelligent person judging from your posts on this board although I obviously don't think you measure up to that in this thread. I do think you can agree that we have exhausted the particular topic. I think my reductio ad absurdum clearly showed that your argument didn't work. In Sweden we at one point during the 70s had over 100% marginal tax rate on certain income brackets but I don't see anyone arguing in favor of a reversal to that with the notion that we are now "subsidizing" high income-earners as opposed to what we did historically. As a curiosity it was the world-famous (?) author Astrid Lindgren who brought attention to this, which subsequently ended up putting the social democrats out of office. I mean there could of course be a decent argument for harmonizing capital gains tax rates with other taxes (I have yet to see one that pleased me, mind you), but the argument from history really doesn't work to show that logically. Hence my referral to the 19th century.

Only mildly related to the subject but related to the minimum wages. A famous liberal (in the European sense) politician started a sallad bar and made a point of not signing collective agreements for the employees, but paid higher wages than what would be allowed under the collective agreements stipulated by the labour union in question. Of course, this was not to be allowed by the union and subsequently they started a blockade against the sallad bar, stopping people from entering the place at all hours. Since this is perfectly legal in Sweden (to stop them would be an infringement on the right to demonstrate) the place was doomed from the get-go and naturally ended up in bankruptcy. Moral of this story? You don't want to imitate our system.

To give a real world example of the effect of minimum wages from my country Sweden: we have an official youth unemployment rate (15-24 year olds) of 27%. And since we have free uni (6 years of subsidized post-high school education) that figure doesn't capture all the young people who take absolutely meaningless classes just to get income. To be fair we don't have legislated minimum wage laws but instead ridiculously strong labour unions that have an effect comparable to the Australian minimum wage law. Although the employer fee (31.42% tax plus some labour negotiated fees amounting to about 5% more; this is on top of the tax paid by the employee of 31% in municipality tax and a further 20-25% government tax on those who earn more than approximately $58.000 a year) and other burdens on the employer - such as the last in first out rule - makes the comparison hard, to be fair. Don't forget to discount the fact that Sweden's downturn has been considerably less serious since our financial house before '08 was in better order after the experiences of our 90's bank crisis and the massive currency devaluations that followed. Running big government deficits have not been politically feasible here since then because the memory of that crisis is still in fresh memory. And of course our housing bubble is just now starting to pop. So it's not a stretch to say that those numbers are truly dismal (official total unemployment rate of 7.4%)

So Myth what do you think is going on with Australia? They have a $15 minimum wage and an unemployment rate under 5%. Our Republican friends here in the USA think our much lower minimum wage is driving jobs away. Since I was the one making that argument I might as well answer. First of all there are billions of other variables, as you well know. Second, to say that it's "driving jobs away" is misrepresenting the situation. What it does is making the people who arent productive enough to motivate paying whatever the minimum wage is unemployable. Thus, it is a weapon that the middle-class uses to keep the poor off their back. And no, these effects aren't up for debate. Yes, they make the marginal worker who barely earns his keep at the minimum level enjoy less competition. That's the "positive" effect. And btw, I'm as far from republican as you could come. I don't like being categorized as that anymore than you do.