- When axes get truly evil
- When data viz goes psychotic
- Ain’t no virus gonna stop the crypto graph-ters
- We need to figure out how we will reopen the economy. But not like this.
- A diseased pie disaster
- Future’s flubbed pie chart
- Goldman’s missing Y axis
- Technical analysis, blockchain litigation edition
- Unpicking the UBS lock
- ARK Invest’s enthusiastic EV predictions don’t add up
- This “Event Risk Radar” is a bad idea
- Political commentators and market wizards
- Tesla is worth <checks notes> $10, $250 or $500
- A fall in house prices would not devastate Germany’s economy
- How not to understand money
- 359% pie = 100% trigger
- Bitcoin: beyond da moon
- High treason against pie charts
- The bitcoin price can finally be understood
- Et tu, Lib Dems? [Update]
“Inflation charts look as if they’re about to explode.”
- Angela Nagle on identity politics and puritanical internet purges
- Nouriel Roubini outlines the 2020 recession risk
- Will Davies on populism, data and experts.
- Robert Kaplan on jobs, oil and credit
- Mithril Capital's Ajay Royan on the next growth frontier
- Banking culture since the crisis
- Weak spots and worries in the global financial system
- The most complicated debt restructuring in history
- Yanis Varoufakis on “radical Europeanism”, erratic Marxism and... Pamela Anderson
- Alphachat on immigration: This time is (mostly) like the others
- Our Bond villain technocracy
- Is the eurozone fixable?
- Could climate change spark the next financial crisis?
- Mehrsa Baradaran on “opportunity zones”
- The math wizard who became a customer loyalty scheme guru
- Alphachat is back! Vol 2.
- Alphachat is back! Vol. 1
- Jim Millstein discusses the financialisation of America
- Alphachat is on hiatus this week
- Benn Steil explains the Marshall Plan
A morally odious theory is empirically unsupportable and increasingly questioned by a younger generation of central bankers. Expect politicians to make more noise about the Fed’s controversial choices after Yellen is gone.
Central bankers think steady price increases are a good thing. After all, inflation makes it easier for employers to cut real labour costs and helps monetary policy boost the economy without having to lower (nominal) interest rates below zero. Whether or not you agree, we thought it would be interesting to look at which products explain the rise of American consumer prices since 1990. As it turns out, just as the bulk of the growth in employment can be attributed to a few sectors where productivity is either low or unmeasurable, a whopping 88 per cent of the total rise in the price level boils down to four sectors of the US economy:
This is a guest post from Richard Koo, chief economist of the Nomura Research Institute and, amongst many other things, author of “The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, Lessons from Japan’s Great Recession”, which lays out his balance sheet recession thesis in detail. The post is an updated extract from his most recent note for Nomura and reproduced here, with his permission, for your arguing pleasure… The US, the UK, Japan, and Europe all implemented quantitative easing (QE) policies, but the understanding of how those policies work apparently differs greatly from country to country, leading to very different outcomes. With the US economy doing better than the rest, there has been some debate in Europe as to why that is the case.
This post is from Gerard MacDonell, an economist at Point72 Asset Management, formerly SAC, from 2004 through 2015… _____ With the risk of recession and a return to the zero bound now prominent, there is renewed discussion of the Fed and Treasury coordinating to deliver a helicopter dropof money. This would not work in the US because the inflationary implications of it would be too dire and because the Fed would predictably renege on its side of the bargain. Here’s why, as I see it.