Evolution of Creationism

In the 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species', the Theory of Evolution has been refined and strengthened on a daily basis. For 100 years, it has been the best-supported model that we have, and is settled science.

Culturally is a different matter.

Biblical literalists, principally in the US, with some in Canada, Australia, England, Ireland and elsewhere, have fought a public relations rearguard action, retarding US science and education. Even as they lose in the scientific arena, they also have lost in legal battles.

Ironically, this pressure has caused their arguments to evolve:

CREATION SCIENCE (ruled religion and not science by the US Supreme Court in 1987)

A used-car salesman in a cheap suit. Tries to convince you that a rusted-out junker is better than a new car.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Kansas and Ohio School Board hearings)

Salesman has a nicer suit. Paints over the rust, and tells you that the car IS new.

'ONLY A THEORY' and 'STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES' (Cobb County, Georgia and Dover, Pennsylvania court cases)

Salesman caught on video turning back odometer. Hides car and denies everything. Points out 'major defect' in new car next door. Closer inspection shows defect to be dead bug on windshield.

20:20 hindsight and the coming stock collapse

Look at this fascinating interactive graphic from the New York Times, about the shrinking and swelling of the major US financial firms. They may not have seen it coming, but boy can they see clearly in the rear-view mirror. (htp: Barry Ritholtz)

So, is all well again?

Denninger thinks not. To get back to where we were in 2000, either debt has to be slashed (this isn't the path chosen by the powers-that-be over the last couple of years) or GDP and incomes have to soar (how? Who are we suddenly going to sell loads more to?).

Given a choice of the impossible and the merely unpleasant, it looks as though there must be a large-scale default sometime - either of actual debt, or of current and/or future government-provided benefits (or both).

In the meantime, the monetary pumping may erode the dollar's value and cause a highly misleading leap in nominal stock prices. Like I said yesterday, I think we could be looking at a re-run of the mid-70s to 1982. I remember an old financial adviser colleague reminiscing about the stockmarket "boom" of 1974, but he didn't mention the inflationary context, which is what concerns Marc Faber - the fundamentals are still all wrong.

What's good for the [Dow] ISN'T good for the country

Jesse: It is possible that the Fed monetizes sufficiently to reinflate an equity bubble, essentially whoring out the Dollar and the real economy for the sake of the financial or FIRE sector.

This is what I have been thinking - that the stock indices are now fundamentally disconnected from the health of the economy.

Predicting the 2010 General Election Result

A new invention has allowed us to access newsfeed from the near future. One of our early scoops is that the next General Election in 2010 will be the first to allow the electorate to vote on-line from their homes (those without computers will still be allowed to vote by post). Another is the surprising (to some) result, and we have pleasure in copying you in on some of the follow-up.

We must warn you that the technology is still in its infancy, and so there may be glitches in the transcription. For example, the article below appears to have been affected by some kind of crossed line with BBC News from 2009. We'll keep you updated from time to time on the progress of our researches and technical developments.

Brown Poll trick 'confuses' voters

Gordon Brown: 'It was just a trick' from Gordon Brown - How to Win the Election', courtesy of Channel 4.

Many voters and critics have been left confused by Prime Minister Gordon Brown's explanation of how he appeared to predict Thursday's General Election results.

Some 4.6m viewers saw him claim to have asked 24 people to guess the successful candidates for the 646 commons seats and use an average of the total for each to predict the result.
But some mathematicians have dismissed his explanation as "complete nonsense".
And on blogging site Twitter one fan said he was "still confused", while another called it a "massive letdown".

IT trickery

On Brown's own Twitter account, he said: "Well there you go. I trust all is clear now."
He also added that his blog, which has been set up for people to comment on his tricks, has received 5 million hits.
However, it is currently not working.
Thursday's show on Channel 4 attracted 2.7 million people - beating the actual Election 2010 programme on BBC One, which 2.4 million tuned in for.
Brown successfully produced the correct numbers during The Live Event programme, at the same time the actual results were announced on the BBC's coverage.
He then promised viewers they would discover the secret of the trick on Friday's Channel Four News.
During How To Win The Election - which attracted a peak of 4.6 million viewers - he revealed that he had worked out the election numbers by asking a group of 24 people to guess them.
Once he had their answers Brown said he added the numbers up for each candidate and divided them by 24.
However, Alex Newton, a professor of Pure Mathematics at the University of Oxford, has dismissed Brown's explanation.
"Mathematically it is complete rubbish. It is a bluff on his part," he said.
And Roger Penwiper, professor of psephology at the University of Cambridge added: "There is a difference between guessing between the weight of an ox and guessing election candidates, which is un-guessable.
"That is just a clear wind-up and complete nonsense. There is absolutely no way he did that."
Other theories, that have been suggested in the newspapers, claim Brown used IT hacking trickery or a wall of postal votes to help him complete the stunt.
Michael Pundit of The Times newspaper rated the show five out of five, saying Brown has turned from "most irritating man on television to the most intriguing".
However, he added: "It was, of course, still one hell of a trick — far too good for him to give away."
Twitter critics of the explanation show include dCameron1966, who said: "I'm still confused about what way he did it to be honest."
T-Benn called the 59-year-old a "massive letdown" and AnthonyCLB said: "Is it just me or was Gordon Brown's explanation last night very disappointing?"
But some voters enjoyed Brown's stunt.
Peterm&elson posted on his Twitter page that the show had been "very interesting & entertaining".
Kjongil added: "Gordon Brown is pretty cool... I can see why people are so skeptical [sic] about him, but I think he's on to something here."

Fashion and the stockmarket

There has been serious research on the connection between what people wear and the state of the economy. I forget who, but a successful investment manager used to look at all sorts of apparently unconnected phenomena, including fashion, to get a clue as to what was really happening and about to happen.




PS: My wife says 80s-style shoulder pads are coming back in the Autumn catalogues. A bullish sign?

Dow now, and then - "Brief Encounter"

Discussing the Dow, I have previously suggested that instead of looking back to 1929, we might use the period 1966 - 1982 as a comparator. I've adjusted January 1966 and December 1999 to = 100 and oddly enough, the beginning of September 2009 sees the Dow past and present at a fairly similar point.

Is it too fanciful to say that we're now in the equivalent of about 1976?

Signs of a tipping point in the market again?

Jesse alerts us to this piece about current insider selling, a possible sign that the stockmarket is going to tank.