Huge blob of Arctic goo floats past Slope communities Anhcorage Daily News
In Push for Cancer Screening, Limited Benefits New York Times. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. For instance, the US is the only advanced economy in which it is considered good medical practice to have everyone at age 50 get a colonoscopy. In other countries, they do test, but only individuals at risk. Their mortality rates are not higher than ours.
How Markit turned from a camera into an engine Gillian Tett, Financial Times
Plunging Revenue Squeezes State Budgets Further: Wall Street Journal (hat tip DoctoRx)
Paulson reveals US concerns of breakdown in law and order Independent. So the message is if the banks werem’t rescued, the US would fall into anarchy.
Banks ‘must publish pay of all their top earners’ Telegraph
Only So Much Boilerplate to Go Round EconoSpeak
More evidence that the amount of juice used by hedge funds was never as great as many assumed AlAboutAlpha. True but misleading, since it only allows for borrowing, and does not consider other ways of achieving leverage (derivatives, purchase of instruments with embedded leverage).
With Credit Markets Still Frozen, CIT Shops for Investors New York Times. The perils of letting a Wall Street type run a business.
FOMC Forecasts – Reality or Fantasy? Tim Duy
Shattering the Right vs. Left Prism Once Again: The Wall Street Journal Goes After Goldman and the Bank Bailout Ariana Huffington (hat tip reader Marshall). Today’s must read.
Antidote du jour:







"An upshot of the decades-long war on cancer is the popular belief that healthy people should regularly examine their bodies or undergo screening because early detection saves lives. But in fact, except for a few types of cancer, routine screening has not been proven to reduce the death toll from cancer for people without specific symptoms or risk factors." NYT
The point is raised all the time about how our 2x spending doesn't get us any better health in statistical comparisons to other countries (which is accurate). One could also accurately say that we could reduce current health care spending by 90% and it would have no statistical affect on health care outcomes. What happens when health (i.e. insurance) reform runs into the reality that most health care is, in fact, ineffective.