Comments on: Counterparties: A minimal vision at Barclays A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducator romana daneza Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:06:38 +0000 we no more than produce eso gold for special events a result of the hue, therefore doesnt a lot of stuff go together with the item.

By: Kaleberg Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:33:11 +0000 That Business Insider piece is amazingly bad. They are arguing that Apple iPad profits will be coming under financial pressure as the iPad loses market share. That’s like arguing that there is no point in owning a Van Gogh because they have almost no market share in the painted wall hangings market. There isn’t an absolute number in the piece. if the market is growing, Apple can still increase profitability even if it does lose market share. Either someone failed 3rd grade math or is being deliberately ingenuous. I suspect the former.

By: Christofurio Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:24:15 +0000 Please disregard previous message. I don’t know what the prob was this morning, but I’m clicking through to the relevant Boston Fed page now.  /pr021213-letter.pdf


By: Christofurio Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:32:10 +0000 To Felix and all web-savvy commenters,

I have a problem.

I understand that all the regional Fed presidents have signed a letter to the FSOC pressing for money market fund reform. Unfortunately, I’m getting an error message this morning whenever I try to get to the actual letter.

The letter is referenced here for example: 3A+All+Fed+Presidents+Support+MMF+Reform %2C+Send+Letter+to+FSOC/8085512.html

But when I try to follow the link Street Insider has provided to the “full letter” I get:

“Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage.”

Can anyone get me to a URL for that letter that IS working?

By: SteveHamlin Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:53:08 +0000 Greycap – so focus, tone, implicit arguments, subtle shading, and misleading conclusions served by the above decisions don’t exist in an agenda-driven piece of reporting?

They are both right, they are both wrong, but McCloskey isn’t out of line to say “you clearly meant THIS, and THIS isn’t true, even if you buried some qualifications in paragraph 27.” And Esquire isn’t right to defend “well, yeah the entire article is about SEALS not getting post-retirement healthcare, but although technically they can, your argument is really that I didn’t write about ineffective bureaucracy at the VA, and since that isn’t valid criticism to an article, shut up about my misleading paragraphs.”

With a little integrity, Esquire could have not intentionally mislead the reader.

By: Greycap Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:55:26 +0000 While it goes against the grain to defend something like Esquire, in this case it is the lesser of evils. It is true that Bronstein emitted the hyperbolic “Nothing. No pension, no health care, and no protection for himself or his family” quotation, he goes on to contradict this, saying that the Shooter himself is still eligible for care (though his family is not) and that he has disability claims working their way through the system. It is also Bronstein who notes that you have to serve 20 to get a pension. All of McCloskey’s substantive points are already made in the piece she criticizes – she is zero value added. With a little integrity alloyed to some 3rd-grade reading skills, she could easily have proved herself wrong. As Felix could have, had he troubled to read the original piece. One concludes, then that McCloskey is sleazy and unprincipled defender of the administration, and that Felix by his indolence is her unwitting ally.