What’s that? A Greek deal? Don’t bother me with that noise, I have morning train reads to consume:
• No-Respect U.S. Recovery May Wind Up Becoming Longest Ever (Bloomberg)
• Investor Appetite for Mutual Funds Cools: After years spent piling into mutual funds, mom-and-pop investors are putting on the brakes (WSJ) but see Think stocks are expensive? Think again. U.S. stock valuations may not be as high as you think (Fidelity)
• Solar Cost Less than Half of What EIA Projected (Ramez Naam)
• Between Kickstarter’s frauds and phenoms live long-delayed projects (Ars Technica)
• How the Greek Crisis Broke the Troika (Piera)
From the “your tax dollars at work file”
“But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.”
“The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle.”
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
Col John Boyd “sold” the F-16. A light weight maneuvering fighter. The basis was: F-4 against more nimble Migs was a problem over N Vietnam.
Seems like 1968, the F-22 and F-35 lock US to a “nimble” gap; how about another $400B to develop a nimble fighter. Just keep more F-16 and waste less money on F-35’s.
There are “tactics” for a lead sled to be an F-16, but they may be very expensive.
You would think these politicians would have learned by now what can happen on Twitter. Instead, I think they are cocooned in a bubble being stroked by their advisors and don’t realize how they are perceived in the real world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jindals-askbobby-hashtag-was-a-disaster-2015-6
Another Opportunity to Test Who is Right About the Economy
One of the problems with economic politics generally speaking but particularly in America is that it’s based on arguments that are supposedly theoretical and impossible to prove. Keynesians and supply-siders go back and forth about basic economic theory, and no hard data ever seems to be able to settle the argument.
That’s starting to become less and less true, of course …Sam Brownback’s abject failure in Kansas is yet another data point, as is the exposure of red states that have over-relied on the fossil fuel economy while pretending their short-lived growth was the product of royalist economics.
…now more progressive states will have an opportunity to prove out the advantage of demand-side economics once again with upcoming increases to the minimum wage ….
NB: No “of course” about it: When one side of the argument does not accept data contradicting its position(s) and the Very Serious People accept this as valid for ‘balance’ then more tests will not suffice. What may finally suffice is more a matter of critical mass: more tests with reasonably clear outcomes may finally convince enough elites that the public is becoming impatient with the usual goalpost shifting and there will need to be something that looks a bit more like substantive policy change this cycle.
As for theoreticians for whom voodoo economics and associated theories has been a successful career path, well …whether or not economics has demonstrated it is a science (however you wish to define that term) Max Plank’s observation regarding advancing “one funeral at a time” holds true none-the-less.