Introducing…

In an effort to pursue my creative outlet, I’ve developed a new site: stickynote.it!  Please add to your RSS feeds, bookmark, visit regularly, etc.  I have a lot lined up so far  Don’t forget to hover your mouse over the graphic.

Also, follow the site on twitter: @stickynote_it

Please refer to this list if I have not gotten back to you in a timely manner:

This will not be a post on retirement age and the economics of social security or retirement planning.

It’s more posing a question: who coined the term “retirement home?” It’s not those who retire instantly go off into a home.

Please, when/if I retire, put me on a plane with a one-way ticket to Tahiti, or Crete, or the French Mediterranean. I think I’ll be fine rotting away there.

Just a thought, err, question.

I am a bit [read: really] late to the party: I just discovered FRED – the pure economic data in raw form, hosted by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis.  I’m playing around with it right now.  One thing I explored actually is the M1 money stock (M1 = all paper/coin money in circulation (what’s in every one’s wallets & tills) plus money in demand deposits/checking accounts) versus the velocity of money. 

I actually wondered about this at my previous job: the Fed is increasing the supply of money, as seen in the increase in money aggregates.  But the purpose of this quantitative easing is to jump start the velocity of money – to get money exchanged more frequently through different hands (aka: people need not to save it, but to spend it).  These two graphs have confirmed my hunch, that velocity isn’t really moving anywhere.  But what made me curious is what happened in/around 1995?  The same sort of thing happened where the money supply was increased but the velocity didn’t take into effect.

M1 Money Stock

Money Velocity

It also got me wondering is that this is a frequently and widely known tool that the Fed uses to jump start the economy – increasing money aggregates/quantitative easing.  It’s also seen that it doesn’t have much effect on the velocity of money.  So, what can they do to actually increase the velocity of money as intended?  I wonder if it’s how the Fed presents itself when making and enacting these decisions.  Many people dislike the Fed with its ambiguity, perceived lack of hold on the economy, the tools that influence the public regarding the Fed (cough: Ron Paul). 

One thing that Dr. Robert Reich keeps complaining about is the two economies: one booming and the other still suffering.  The booming one, naturally, is the financial markets, investors, CEOs, Wall Streeters, etc.  The still suffering is the folks on Main Street.  It makes me wonder if those on wall street understand what the Fed is doing since the decisions, reactions and thought process is familiar to the folks that have a firm pulse on the market has some effect to its success, while the main street folks are lost in how quantitative easing really helps them.  What is seen for main streeters is the high unemployment rates, the losses in their 401ks, the nose dive of their home’s worth.  How can they even begin to understand the goals of the Federal Reserve when quantitative easing means nothing tangible to them? 

I’m not sure if my thought process or argument is coming across understandable.  I can’t be bothered at the moment, I’m sick.

An interesting post from the Library of Economics and Liberty regarding the hate towards the field of economics.

I’ll conceed to the point Mr. Caplan makes regarding mathematics used in economics.  I still like math, though.

Interesting read over at the Economist (I’ve uncovered that I somehow have an online subscription…maybe everyone with a login and/or a former subscription does.   Always late to the party.).

My favorite part:

“For France, it is very difficult to accept,” says one French minister. “We have a tendency sometimes to treat Germany as if it should just accept our ideas, because that’s what France does. But that is over.” This means that French officials have to work out new ways of retaining their influence in Europe.

It’s been interesting to see how Ms. Merkel et al have been responding to its Eurozone issues.  The dynamic in the recent past has been that while they’re suggestions/intuition/actions may be right, they need to come off as not too right, or as the article puts it, being accused of unilateralism.  But as Germany’s policies break ahead of the pack in navigating through this eurozone & global recession, the country seems to have gained some well-deserved confidence.

In reference to my previous post, Lemma: atrophy of the brain, here is a separate comment/rant regarding reading habits I referred to.
____

It thoroughly bugs me when those who read [or listen/watch] articles and news bits without asking about the source of the information or with no regard to the bias of the publisher.  One’s ideas and beliefs formed from one article, one news broadcast, one source of information is not well-rounded nor well-formed.

As a rebuttal to the ignorant, the arrogant, the just-plain-dumb, the ever-passive-consumer of tid-bit information: I have the hardest time forming opinions regarding politics, finance, economics, international affairs, etc, because I am feel I have no place to have an opinion.  I do not work closely with any national newsworthy matter; I will not give you an opinion on unemployment insurance, on the benefits of soy, on Palestine, on health care costs, etc.  I’d prefer to be educated fully on both/multiple sides of whichever interest, and even with that, I do not always believe it is fair to judge which side is “more right.”  I am fully aware that I would never “make it” as a politician, that this thought process may be too compassionate or “everyone is right and deserves a gold star.”

This does not, however, make me apathetic, uninterested, or close-minded.  But who am I to judge when I, myself do not have perfect, complete information?

Just another half-baked, hair-brained idea.

Nearly the past two years, I’ve masochistically taken some math courses, the first of which was at Harvard.  Leaving with my tail between my legs and a C in my hand, I left that ivory tower disappointed but some sense slapped into me.  I realized that my brain for mathematics has atrophied.  Just like a muscle, it became weak after the rigorous advanced calculus courses I took in high school.  Undergrad didn’t do much – it was all business math.

So I took that first math class over again elsewhere, a little defeated but with a better knowledge of what to expect.  And then a theory occurred to me: train my brain as I do my body.  In swimming, I’ve been trained to gradually build up my yardage until I peaked for about a month before the big meet: championships.  Two weeks before the meet, I would taper and concentrate on maximum sleep and good nutrition.  Then bam, seconds dropped and successes had!

I took a page out of my own history book and did the same with math.  Started small, a couple hours here and there.  Always would start with “warming up” my brain, either by simple exercises from old chapters or rereading notes.  I’d peak to about 3 or 4 hours each sitting of studying and taper off a few days before an exam.  Good night sleep, good nutrition, and I was primed to go!

Again: BAM!  An A- in that course.  Boo-yah.

Lemma: It also occurred to me that this similar atrophying of the brain might be linked to diseases like alzheimer’s.  If one physically eats junk most of the time, all white breads & rice, few veggies & fruits, etc, issues with the body begin to surface, like heart disease, diabetes, complications with obesity.  So how different is it if one consumes junk in terms of reading tabloids, watching TMZ (…and fox news…), passively consuming information that will not progressively elevate their intellectuality?

The pursuance of knowledge should be similar to the goal of good physical health.