opihiman2

BTW, much thanks for the citation, Parsad. I'll have to dig into that later. Also, Munger, I agree with you on the absurdity of using Google's result set size to prove a point. Although, I think it's a healthy exercise to see how faulty it can be. I forgot to mention that Google Trends and result sets can be gamed or misled. 4chan has been doing this all the time. To game Glenn Beck, they had lots of people doing searches for Glenn Beck murdering some girl in the 90's. It was pretty funny; if you looked at the Google trend for Glenn Beck, it would show his top search keywords to include murder. They also recently did this to Oprah Winfrey. Anyways, I agree with Parsad that it's a good time to be a buyer of stocks. Although, my reasoning is based on Graham versus Google.

Well, it depends on which side you're arguing. :-) Actually, no, because there is one thing Google, and actually web 2.0 in general, is notoriously bad at: metadata. Web 3.0, the semantic web, is trying to address that. Right now, there is a metadata tag for date in every HTML version spec that accounts for this, but from what I know, almost no author uses it. For example, if you look at most news articles or opinion pieces, the authored date is clearly expressed along with the article; however, Google has no idea of knowing what that is. Could it be a date referenced by the article that has no relation to the authored date? How would it know? It doesn't understand semantics. Even with the author's best intention of letting people know what date the article was authored (without using the metadata date tag), the Google index of the article would lead to all sorts of inconsistencies in a search query using date filters. For example, let's use this current debate over what period had most value for large cap stocks. Suppose I wrote an article in 2010 on cheap large cap stocks; however, in that article I referenced 2007 as being a expensive year in the equities market. Using that search query we talked about earlier, "cheap large cap stocks" 2007 or 2010, would return that article. So, which query is right? The metadata date tag would resolve this debate, but no one uses it, and from my understanding, Google's spiders don't even parse the tags and input those into the index. I guess they are going to wait till web 3.0 becomes a reality, and a defined and sanctioned .RDF definition is being used. Until then, it just bases the date on the first time the URL was indexed. EDIT: God, my writing is coming out like pure garbage. I have to re-write for some clarity. EDIT: By the way, the indexed date would resolve the 2010 and 2007 query I mentioned. However, you could write an article in 2010 that discussed large cap values in 2007 and have the indexed date be in 2010. This would lead to a similar inconsistency in the result set as we see earlier.

Really, on the crawl date? That would be very helpful. I did not know that. EDIT: Actually, hah, yeah, I did know that. Sorry, I was thinking about the indexed date vs crawl date. Those should be negligible.

Hi Parsad, There is some mis-communication going on here. Entering "Cheap large cap stocks 2007" into Google.com returned zero results for me. Are you entering the quotes? That makes a big difference. Without the quotes, I actually received 200k plus more result set size for Cheap large cap stocks 2010 than 2007. I think this is a domain issue. You must be using Google.ca. EDIT: I've also tried variations, because "Cheap large cap stocks 2007" just seems too constrictive. So, I tried "Cheap large cap stocks" and entered 2007 and 2010 to have the search engine parse those separately, but look for "cheap large cap stocks" in either period. Still, I get about 8x more results in 2010.

Well, in that post I was referring to the WHO's usage of Google for epidemiology. I just find that an organization of WHO's caliber would not use a faulty idea.

To see how pointless this game is, I did a search for "economic recovery" 2010 vs. "economic collapse" 2010. Wow, 10x the result set in favor of recovery! Sweet! I guess that settles it, then. ::) We could go on and on using various semantics for recovery and collapse, but I hope this exercise shows how futile it is to use Google result sets to prove an argument.

I have a hard time believing that. I require citation here.

There is a problem with using the Google methodology for argument rebuttal. That result set you're looking at? It's estimated. If you continue to iterate through the result set, you might be surprised to find only a few thousand URLs. Also, here's another big problem (and this, IMO, is much bigger than the cardinality of the data set problem) with using Google to prove something: key words can skew the result set. For example, does a search on banana bread return a true estimation of the popularity of banana-bread? Or does it just show how popular banana or bread is? Or, maybe there are links that mention banana or bread in passing. One way to resolve this is to use quotes to use the AND operator on the key words. However, with more keywords, there is more subjectivity to the result set. Also, how do you resolve that "Cheap large cap stocks" may be equivalent to "cheap large capitalization stocks", or that a keyword search on cheap large cap stocks may not even be about cheap large cap stocks but something entirely different? The result set is not meaningful in these cases. I would probably only use this kind of analysis if the keyword was a single word or a compound word (for example, "banana bread"). Anything beyond that is suspect.

I have to agree with Munger. I also remember seeing and hearing more about the equities bubble in 2000 preceding up to the crash. Most people simply didn't want to believe it, or just abandoned their beliefs as the market headed higher (Blodget is one notorious example of this). I was somewhat new to investing, but from what I've learned about equities at that point, and listening to Buffett and even CNBC, I was able to avoid the tech crash. I distinctly remember the warnings growing louder up till the bust. Likewise, prior to the recent crash, I was well aware of the housing bubble. The chorus became increasingly loud throughout 2008. The wake up call was Countrywide. At that point, if you didn't believe that housing was about to blow up, you were delusional. It reminded me of the big cracks that were forming in the dot com bubble. Regardless, although those two bubbles were (or should have been) easy to see, I think we're in no man's land here. I believe we're hitting a soft patch, but that was to be expected: stimulus spending is wearing off, stocks have taken a hit, employment is stalling. Real GDP growth is down by 50%, but it's still growing above 2%. And I believe the economy, barring any major shocks like sovereign default or a collapse in commercial credit, could be poised to do well in 2011. Commercial bank lending to consumers and small businesses grew significantly in July. Is this a one time event? Too early to tell. But if that trend continues, it bodes well for 2011. I think it's a good time to find companies with strong balance sheets and nice economic moats.

I've been in a similar situation to yours. I was working and living in an area (geographical) that I loathed. When I finally got canned, it was a huge relief and gave me the impetus to go back to medical school and leave a place I couldn't stand. That was many years ago. Now I'm living in a place I like and doing something meaningful. I believe every bad thing happens for a good reason. Anyways, you probably know all this. St. Petersburg is very nice, IMO. Back in high school, my dad was thinking of moving the family from Hawaii to St. Petersburg. Although, if you're young and into the night life, it's not good for that. I've also been to Vancouver many times and have lots of friends there. Nice city and beautiful women! I liked it better than San Francisco, although the weather in California is nicer than Vancouver. If you need some connections out there, I can help out.

And you seem like a rude ass. :o

I was thinking, I wonder if Gasland made any impact on that decision.

Knew this was gonna happen. El Nino was all time this year for surf in Hawaii and Cali. Coupled with a warm winter and shit snow in the Pac NW and really good snow in California, I had a feeling this was a strong El Nino. And strong El Ninos are followed by strong La Ninas. High probability of serious hurricanes on the East Coast: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml I'm hedging.

RRJ, Opihiman is another guy; I'm opihiman2. Don't confuse us. >:( I've never made a clear stance regarding "death panels". To be frank, I really don't know what it entails. Sarah Palin, bless her idiotic mind, never clearly defined what it is. I think I have a general idea about it, though. I'm not opposed to the idea of rationing health care. Canada and many other countries with universal health care already take this approach. Their median lifespans are no different than the U.S.'s--in fact, they exceed it. I've also made it very clear that I believe in legalizing euthanasia with informed consent. I think it would help lower health care costs to medicare and medicaid. It would also allow people freedom of choice in their health care options. You have to agree that for the terminally ill and chronically debilitated, "health care" is generally a euphemism for torture. Death should be considered an option in these cases. I have to emphasize the point that I'm talking about the terminally ill. In terms of chronically debilitated, they should have their options and access to whatever health care that will sustain them as they see fit. If they're willing to endure the agony and cruelty of their diagnosis(es), so be it. We can throw lots of health care at them to sustain them. Sorry, I can't elaborate any further. I should be getting ready for work. More dying patients to see.

You are correct; the conservative party was clearly upset by possible "death panels". I believe Sarah Pain-in-the-ass was harping incessantly about it in the media. I'm a medical physician in California, and I see this kind of irrational fear of death in society all the time. Health care workers, though, have a ribald sense of humor when it comes to mortality. I'm not sure if this is a self defense mechanism of ours, or if we're truly desensitized to this crap. Regardless, I think fear of death does society great injustice. It's unfortunate that the very young can die tragically, but if you're over 50 years of age, I think you've had enough time on this planet. You just have know this at a very young age, and live every day like it will be your last. Who knows, though. Maybe our society is coming to grips with this idea. In the past few months, I've read many articles similar to the one posted by the OP.

Euthanasia with informed consent. Allowing euthanasia for the terminally ill, or chronically debilitated would cut back our medical costs.

I do not know what comprises the ECRI index; but, I have a feeling it's probably similar to the LEI. The LEI has been sinking alongside the ECRI, albeit not as quickly; however, judging by the components of the LEI that have gone down in the past couple of months, I wouldn't be worried. One of the components of the LEI that have dropped a bit lately is stock prices. Does stock indexes wag the economy, or vice versa? No one really knows. Also, judging by the OP's original post, the ECRI has had severe declines during major stock market crashes. This is telling evidence that the ECRI may be heavily weighted towards stock prices. The LEI's weighting in this regard is not so pronounced. I'm forecasting real US GDP growth to slow tremendously by the second part of this year to 2%. That's a 50% reduction from current real GDP growth rates. The other components of the LEI that have been negative are not worrisome to me. They are pretty negligible. TL;DR = Economy is fine. Growth will slow in second half of 2010, but it's nothing to worry about.

Bill Miller claims that the top 5% of the U.S. population make over $210k a year. Shyeah! According to the US census, less than 2.5% of U.S. households earn that much.

You've struck a very crucial point that the OP missed: the difference between the 80's and now? Interest rates. We went from all time high interest rates to all time low. I don't know how else the Feds will be able to squeak more growth out of the US. Also, with all the talks of austerity here and abroad, growth may be crimped even more.

As soon as they are asked to be accountable for their ratings, they say to stop using them. This only makes sense in the context that they KNOW their ratings are BULLSHIT.

The nation's three dominant credit-ratings providers have made an urgent new request of their clients: Please don't use our credit ratings. The odd plea is emerging as the first consequence of the financial overhaul that is to be signed into law by President Obama on Wednesday. And it already is creating havoc in the bond markets, parts of which are shutting down in response to the request. Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales, each said in statements in recent days. Each says it fears being exposed to new legal liability created by the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law. The new law will make ratings firms liable for the quality of their ratings decisions, effective immediately. The companies say that, until they get a better understanding of their legal exposure, they are refusing to let bond issuers use their ratings. That is important because some bonds, notably those that are made up of consumer loans, are required by law to include ratings in their official documentation. That means new bond sales in the $1.4 trillion market for mortgages, autos, student loans and credit cards could effectively shut down. There have been no new asset-backed bonds put on sale this week, in stark contrast to last week, when $3 billion of issues were sold. Market participants say the new law is partly behind the slowdown. "We are at a standstill right now," said Bingham McCutchen partner Ed Gainor, who specializes in asset-backed securities. Several companies are shelving their bond offerings "indefinitely," according to Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum, which represents the market for bonds backed by assets such as auto loans and credit cards. He said he knew of three offerings scheduled for coming weeks that are now on hold. The change caught the ratings agencies by surprise. The original Senate version of the bill didn't include the provision. It was only on June 30, when the Dodd-Frank bill was passed, that the exemption was removed. The Senate passed the amended version on July 15. The offices of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Rating firms have warned that sections of the legislation concerning ratings' firms legal liability could cause them to pull back from certain parts of the market. In an April 21 conference call, Moody's Chief Executive Raymond McDaniel told investors that "we remain concerned that the bill's liability provisions would lead to unintended consequences that could negatively impact the credit markets." If greater liability provisions were passed, he continued, "we would implement appropriate changes." He added that Moody's, a unit of Moody's Corp., would rethink whether it still made sense in a new regulatory environment to give ratings "for as many small and perhaps marginal issuers as possible." The confusion comes as investors, bankers and ratings companies across Wall Street seek to digest the intricacies of the new law, the most sweeping since the 1930s. The overhaul touches on virtually every part of the financial-services world, part of an effort by lawmakers to head off another financial crisis. Ratings providers became a lightning rod for criticism after the financial crisis. Their overly rosy assessments of many bonds, particularly complex securities and bonds backed by subprime mortgages, were blamed for helping fuel the meltdown of the credit markets. In response, the Dodd-Frank bill revamped how the government treated credit-ratings firms, which receive a special government designation that allows them certain privileges and market access Once the bill is signed into law, advice by the services will be considered "expert" if used in formal documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That definition would make them legally liable for their work, meaning that it will be easier to sue an firm if a bond doesn't perform up to the stated rating. That is a change from the current law, which considers ratings merely an opinion, protected like any other media such as a newspaper. Prior to the Dodd-Frank bill, issuers were allowed to include the description of the ratings in the offering documents without the consent of the rating firms. Now, they will have to get written permission. And the rating providers are concerned that giving such consent exposes them to liability they haven't been exposed to in the past. Unlike many parts of the larger financial-overhaul bill, these changes go into effect as soon as it is signed into law. The speed of the move has spooked the three firms. All issued statements in recent days saying they will continue to issue bond ratings. But they said they won't allow those ratings to be used in formal documents accompanying bond sales, known as prospectuses and registration statements. One solution to the logjam is for sellers of bonds to offer their deals privately. That means they would offer ratings that can be used in private transactions but not in deals registered with the SEC and sold to the general public. The private market is much smaller and more expensive than the public one. On Friday, S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos., issued a release saying it would "explore mechanisms outside of the registration statement to allow ratings to be disseminated to the debt markets."

That's right. Sorry about my misinformation. BART is responsible and settling the score. I keep forgetting that Oakland PD had nothing to do with the case except dealing with the aftermath.

No doubt. Although, that's just one claim. There are, I believe, 4 or 5 more pending claims against the city. I'm sure the city and Oakland PD has insurance policies to pay for the settlements; although, insurance companies are always trying to get out of paying these claims. Well, I'm sure that Oakland PD was not looking to be in this situation. I'm no police apologist, but I think that Merserhle made an honest, but severe, mistake. He's in no way guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter. Also, what people don't realize is this occurred in Oakland where three police officers were killed in the past year. That place is dangerous.

I believe this is in response to Oakland's and BART's ongoing legal claims over the wrongful death of Oscar Grant. Oakland is cash strapped, but that's not news. It has been cash strapped WAY before this financial crisis ever hit. The incoming legal settlements (one of which has already been settled to the tune of 1.5 million dollars) is what Oakland needs to contend with. And what better way than by shutting down the instigators of their legal mess?

Technically, the police do not have to protect you or even respond to 911 calls. Yeah, no shit? Fo reals? No, you don't say! ::) Relevant: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)