naked capitalism

dearieme says:

My friend the particle physicist gave it up 25 years ago and converted himself into an engineering mathematician. In that time, he says, engineering research has developed and changed a good deal; particle physics is still stuck at about where it was 25 years ago.

Andrew Foland says:

I was in particle physics for 15 years (including a teaching stint at your alma mater, YS)–and even on CDF.

The 4140 is a curiosity. I mean, the people who found it are happy, it’s interesting, and one of my friends from grad school who had a hint of this thing 10 years ago is sort of sad that he didn’t find it then.

But it’s just not that big a deal. A few theorists will be trying to work out exactly what it is. But the phenomenon, whatever exactly it turns out to be, will be a long-predicted one and will lack long-range impact. It’s no monkey wrench.

And I also left the field, and also found that things have progressed little. A couple of years ago, my advisor said of a similar discovered particle, “We’ve been reduced to being excited about this?”

Alex says:

Thanks Yves!

Although I think if I show Ricky he is on the internet, he might have a similar reaction such as this:

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2009/02/17/funny-pictures-from-mai-lawyers/

MyLessThanPrimeBeef says:

Physics, and science in general, is like a bully. A bully beats up on those weaker than him and as soon as a bigger guy comes along and pulls one hair out of our bully’s eyebrow, he whines, wails and scampers away.

So, in the play yard of the universe, science seizes those weaker areas of nature who aren’t able to defend thier own mysteries. When those victories occur, science can not resist gloating about them, pads herself on the back and deifies her high priests and priestesses in solemn ceremonies.

But there are lots of areas where science is useless and nature is impregnable. For example, you might ask ‘Where is the world’s shortest mountain?’ Or ‘Who is the world’s tallest midget?’ Every few months of so, they blabber about the world’s richest human, usually a man. But where is the world’s poorest human? I mean, we could ask, ‘why are we here,’ but we don’t want to pile on. There is no need for the ‘nucular’ option, as some might say.

So, a typical aspiring scientist is usually reduced to wondering where he can make the greatest gain, the greatest personal reward or name for him or herself. ‘Hey, is that field moving fast these day,’ they whisper to each other. He’s looking for a victory he can score. He’s looking for his little guy victim. You hardly ever run into one who goes about proclaiming he’s determined to work on a seemingly unsolvable problem, even if he doesn’t go anywhere in that pursuit during his lifetime. He’s not working on why, for example, gravity is not repulsive or why there are constants in the world? If one did, he is laughed at as having ‘wasted’ his life. And so, he knows well enough to just beat up on the little guys and stay away from the big guys of nature…just like a typical bully, and hides beyhod such things like ‘to the best of our scientific knowledge.’ And everyone nods his or her head and excuses the incompetence. In that way, we all participate in the bullying of nautre.

Yves Smith says:

Anon of 2:49 PM,

Did I say anywhere above or in the blog that I favored the 90% tax?

However, your reasoning is flawed. Just because it is expensive to live in New York, it does not follow that ANYONE is entitled to a certain standard of living. That isn’t how it works. If you can’t afford to live in Manhattan, take the kids out of private schools and move to Jersey.

People who own private businesses or live in normal real companies that fall on hard times have to take big hits and make significant lifestyle adjustments. You are effectively arguing that investment bankers are exempt, even though they are now are loss making and on taxpayer life support.

I also have trouble with this “oh we really didn’t need TARP money”. That is probably true for some mid sized and smaller commercial banks. I have a great deal of trouble believing that is true for any capital markets firm (Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan).

Unless you see the extent of exposures at your firm and are in a position to have an independent view as to the quality and accuracy of the marks (including how the risk models are put together and what their assumptions are) you cannot say with ANY degree of certainty that your firm would be OK ex TARP money.

Management has an incentive to tell the troops are fine irrespective of the true state of affairs. Look at how Lehman keep reassuring its staff that the critics were wrong, when its collapse showed a massive hole its balance sheet.

Anonymous says:

Remember, many of the better capitalized institutions were encouraged by the Fed and the Treasury to both take TARP funds and acquire less stable firms in order to shore up confidence.

Oh yeah, now I remember, “they made us take it”, “We were doing fine”, “If we’d have known we couldn’t just blow it on spa treatments and private jets, we’d have never taken it”, “we thought it was free money”,

Who do you think you’re kidding?

Anonymous says:

Anonymous @ 5:15
quoted FT: “And it expresses the tyrannical principle that Congress can use the tax code to void contracts that the executive branch has consented to…”

I think they are referring to the “tyrannical principle” of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. consititution:

“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. “

And Article I, Section 9:

“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. “

carping demon says:

Just down the page at FT, though, it looks like Aline van Duyn gets it, but then, I think she’s stationed in the US.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8693e754-1582-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html

Anon @ 5:15…you have strange suspicions, judging from the last 8 years.

Anonymous says:

Swampyankee says,”Obama is the Hugo Chavez of American politics. This is only the beginning.”

Or George Bush and Paulson were the Bautistas of American politics? This sort of comparison is asinine and I shouldn’t even dignify it with comment. Give bonuses if they are money-making firms not dependent on taxpayer money. If not, shrink them down and give the TARP/TALF money to community banks, who might actually know how to lend the money without bringing down the entire economy. Bust AIG, Citi and the huge sows down to size, and tax the hell out of their bonuses, if they’re going to act like the swine they are with federal loot.

If they don’t like it, I encourage them to get a new job at another bank not taking TARP that is willing to pay them a “competitive salary” for their talents. I’m not sure what exactly that salary now is, now that there are about 10000 job-less investment bankers roaming the streets in their wingtips, looking for a trick. This is no different–exactly the same–as Republicans insisting that the automobile unions come down on salaries and benefits for the auto. Only when it hits the top 3%, idiots start crying socialism. I didn’t hear that from the country clubbers when government was insisting the auto unions bite the bullet on government “interference” with their “sacred” contracts, did we?