Lunchtime Links 1-28

January 28, 2010

Bernanke didn’t have staff support on AIG bailout (Ed Harrison) Ed has a copy of a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa, in which he claims Fed staffers weren’t keen on bailing out AIG. He wants another subpoena.

Fed as chump or Fed as crony (Yves Smith) Long form thoughts about why Tim Geithner’s defense yesterday was troubling.

Bernanke seen winning second term (Felsenthal, Reuters)

FOMC statement, redacted (David Merkel) Picking apart the Fed’s FOMC Statement yesterday. The headline is that they still see rates staying low for an “extended period,” which is problematic language/policy in my opinion because it will lead to bank/investor complacency. Quantitative easing, i.e. printing electronic money to buy MBS and other paper, will end on schedule at the end of March. Look for it to pick up again in the future. To fight off deflation, the Fed will be forced into multiple rounds of quantitative easing….just like the Bank of Japan.

Bono invests in Yelp (Bits) Elevation Partners, the VC firm funded by U2’s lead singer (among others), is committing $100 million to the local search site. No word on the % stake the money will buy, but $75 million will be paid to existing shareholders to cash them out. Good deal for Yelp? We know that they turned down a $500m offer from Google recently. If Elevation is getting anything less than 20% of the company for this investment, it would value the company at greater than $500 million.

Prime Minister: Greece victim of “rumors” (Bloomberg) Yeah, uh huh. And Wall Street was unfairly maligned by short sellers worried about capital shortages in fall ’08.

Freddie delinquencies increase sharply (CR)

Divided SEC makes climate another “risk” (Scannell/Hughes, WSJ) Investors aren’t clamoring for this information in 10-Qs. The Republican commissioners have this one nailed: “a breathtaking waste” of the SEC’s time/resources and a foolish, misguided gesture to put the SEC’s imprimatur on an agenda about which it has zero expertise.

How to report the news (YouTube) Brilliant.

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities (Guardian) I had no idea this was a problem outside of the American bible belt.

VIDEO: Dump truck destroys pedestrian bridge in Turkey (Break) A guy on the bridge sees trouble coming but freezes…..doesn’t think to run back….

Jon Stewart on Obama’s war against bankers…

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Obama Takes On Bankers
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

“There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin’s Origin of Species]. It’s only a theory.”

as a general rule, do creationists confuse philosophical theory with scientific theory?

Posted by million | Report as abusive

Perhaps they do. But when scientists, liberals, and politicians confuse their science for religion then I guess anything goes.

Think of it this way… scientists use Darwin to infer that God doesn’t exist. Politicians use “science” to do their climate change magic, and liberals use their science to impose their political will on everyone because they feel they are the only ones that know what’s best for “those poor people”.

Since it is only a theory what is the trouble with demonstrating that there are other “theories” out there? You say that Darwin’s work is only a theory, but if you try to suggest an alternative “theory” you can see how much of a religion evolution and Darwinism has become.

Posted by Goatmug | Report as abusive

Science to a scientist (caution: blanket statement) IS religion.

“Since it is only a theory…”

A scientific theory carries greater weight than you appreciate.

Posted by million | Report as abusive

Scientists use the word “theory” in a different manner from its general usage. In general usage it often means a guess about how something works. But in science it is used to describe an explanation that is strongly supported by evidence – no guessing allowed. An explanation without sufficient rigorously tested evidence is called a hypothesis or conjecture. It takes a lot of proof for a hypothesis to be called a theory by the scientific community. For example, the notion that if you drop something it falls to the earth is called the Theory of Gravitation. Do you doubt that anything will drop if you let it go? Evolution is called a theory because scientists have the same level of confidence in it based on an abundance of evidence of many kinds. Biology simply cannot be explained without evolution.

As Judge Jones, the Republican and devoutly Christian judge who presided over the Dover School Board case asserted, creationism simply does not merit being considered side by side with the Theory of Evolution. It has no scientific basis at all. Creationists start from a need to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and they desperately seek evidence to support their ideas. The mainstream Christian faiths – Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc – long ago dispensed with a literal interpreation of Genesis and have no trouble embracing evolution.

Posted by Kate | Report as abusive