jhulla

That is funny.

The wide range of codes is a great setup for coding errors: errors of omission, imprecision, using multiple codes to describe an event when a more accurate single code exists, etc.

In the best case scenario, every doctor/nurse/PA/etc would have a technician follow them around just to manage the coding on EMRs.

Coding errors abound in this space. For example, you can go to the CMS.gov to lookup ICD codes.

This is what you get when you lookup the word "finger"

https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/staticpages/i...

It contains hundreds of entries.

Here are just a few selected at random:

S61.352S Open bite of right middle finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.353A Open bite of left middle finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.353D Open bite of left middle finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.353S Open bite of left middle finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.354A Open bite of right ring finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.354D Open bite of right ring finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.354S Open bite of right ring finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.355A Open bite of left ring finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.355D Open bite of left ring finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.355S Open bite of left ring finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.356A Open bite of right little finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.356D Open bite of right little finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.356S Open bite of right little finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.357A Open bite of left little finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.357D Open bite of left little finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.357S Open bite of left little finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.358A Open bite of other finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.358D Open bite of other finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.358S Open bite of other finger with damage to nail, sequela S61.359A Open bite of unspecified finger with damage to nail, initial encounter S61.359D Open bite of unspecified finger with damage to nail, subsequent encounter S61.359S Open bite of unspecified finger with damage to nail, sequela

There is absolutely an advantage. FDIC insurance limits are $250K. Anymore and you take on a (non-zero) risk of the bank defaulting.

Parking cash with US Treasury is substantially safer.

The problem is that the Fed must corner the market in Fed Funds in order to meet their objective. They must set the price floor. In the past, this market was small and controlled by the Fed.

Now in ZIRP, the Fed claims they will solve this problem by doing reverse repos with a wide array of counterparties. The list of counterparties is here: http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_counterparties.html

Their current limit is $300B - what happens when say, $4 trillion dollars shows up asking to be paid at the Fed's targeted rate. If the rate were 0.5%, that would be $20 billion a year that the Fed would need to pay out. If they limit it to the first $300B, then they cannot hold the rate at 0.5%. Can the Fed pay $20B in interest a year?

IMHO, long way of saying, after taking the economy to ZIRP, the Fed has to find a safe way to drain the system of excess reserves before they regain control of Fed Funds.

This is an excellent paper by the Bank of England about how money is created in modern economies:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

Equities represent shares in real assets: factories, patents, etc. A pedantic discussion of where accountants draw the line on the definition of capital does not change the point: central banks have printed trillions and participate in capital markets.

The SNB experienced a massive capital loss when abandoned their peg from 2011 in early 2015. They entered and exited their positions due to politics and global capital distortions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-31/snb-posts-...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/ec...

It is a tautology to suggest that a market price is by definition fair - after all it was agreed by both buyer and seller. But markets themselves can be unfair - in the most basic sense, by the participation of shills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

And in our current economic environment: the concept of too big to fail. Politically, we've accepted an asymmetric reward structure for some market participants. This results in market distortion and unfairness to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

Central banks [Federal Reserve/European Central Bank/Bank of Japan/People's Bank of China/Swiss National Bank] are responsible for global capital misallocation.

Due to immense and unrelenting political pressure, central banks the world over have mispriced capital at gargantuan scales. This has led to immense distortions in capital markets.

The level of central bank intervention has only grown in the past 30 years. So the resulting economic growth or slowdown is measurably different than before.

Anecdotally, look at the following to see one example of capital distortion in action:

The Swiss National Bank digitally printed an enormous amount of Swiss Francs and bought Euros in order to peg their currency lower (didn't work). They used this excess of digitally printed capital to buy real capital assets such as global equities.

A question to ponder: what is the fair market price of global equities when some buyers can print money? Does it matter?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-06/snb-boosts... "The SNB stands out among major central banks for its equity investments. It had 522 billion francs ($572 billion) of foreign exchange reserves at the end of March, acquired due to interventions to defend the currency cap of 1.20 per euro it had in place from 2011 to early 2015."

Swiss National Bank's Portfolio 6/30/2015: http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/swiss-n...

What is not clear is this:

1. Who is selling the CNY for USD? Specifically is it another arm of the government?

2. More importantly: what is the new holder USD allowed to do with their newly acquired USD cash pile? Are they allowed to transfer it out of the country? Or are they required to keep it in USD, but it in Chinese banks? Are their restrictions on what they can buy?

Sell Treasuries --> USD Cash

What is being done with the USD Cash generated after the sale? Are the Chinese immediately selling the USD Cash to local CNY holders in order to defend the peg? What do they do with it next? Is the new USD Cash leaving Chinese borders? Does it stay in local accounts - eventually to be used to buy up other USD denominated assets?

This is a good summary of why people might buy negative interest rate bonds:

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7981461/negative-interest-rates-...

e.g. Cash is not secure in your bank account. A government backed bond, even at negative interest, may be more secure than a cash balance.

ZIRP and negative interest rates are pushing people out on the risk curve and raising asset prices.

As I said in an earlier comment, IMHO, all investment decisions are bets on central banks.

QE is happening globally. As you noted, QE3 ended in the US Oct-14. On the final day of US QE3 ending, the Bank of Japan announced another round of QE in their economy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-japan-economy-b...

The European Central Bank announced QE in Jan-15.

One way to think of QE is global competitive devaluation to capture global demand. QE + ZIRP or even negative interests are the primary tool of central banks now. Capital misallocation continues on a global scale.

> So far it's played out mostly like what he and other mainstream economists predicted.

Oh christ on a cracker.

Mainstream economists should have all taken their PhD diplomas off their walls and collectively shredded them in the fall of 2008.

Under the watchful eyes of mainstream economists at the Federal Reserve, the watchful eyes of academics at institutions worldwide, the global financial system melted down.

Now, we are to believe that these same folks who couldn't see the 2008-2009 crisis know exactly how to lead us out.

Here is Paul Krugman writing in a book review in 2014:

"Almost nobody predicted the immense economic crisis that overtook the United States and Europe in 2008. If someone claims that he did, ask how many other crises he predicted that didn’t end up happening."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/23/why-wer...

Then read hedge fund billionaire Druckenmiller's transcript linked in this article below.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/druckenmil...

Then read about billionaire Ray Dalio here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/07/25/mastering-the-m...

Krugman didn't 2008-2009 coming. Many people did.

I think QE + ZIRP saved us from a catastrophe in 2008-2009. Instead of thinking what got us to a point where such heavy-handed financial tools were necessary and moving away from the cliff, we've just used the QE tool over and over again. QE1,2,twist,3. QE in Japan. QE in Europe. The Chinese have yet to openly go down this path.

I don't in any way believe that Krugman knows what is coming. (I don't either.)

I actually agree that government spending can boost GDP. Where Krugman doesn't get it is that we've already distorted markets so much since 2008-2009 that a burst of government generated demand will not move the needle in a sustainable fashion. A $1 trillion government program will just get drained into rising asset prices - leaving incomes and the majority of individuals in largely the same spot as they started financially.

Krugman is fighting an old war.

Our current economy is not encumbered by too little demand - but by too much supply from past capital misallocation.

Our addiction to QE has made problem far worse. Asset markets are exploding in price higher due to central bank intervention while incomes are not.

First, the market is made up of all of us seeing similar data and coming to our own conclusions based on our interpretations and self-interest.

Second, the market didn't just crash in 2008, it melted down. There were fears of simultaneous runs on global banks with catastrophic consequences. Bernanke/Geithner/Paulson orchestrated government backstops on money market funds, on Fannie/Freddie debt, on shotgun-marriages between banks, on defusing the credit default swap nightmare constructed by AIG and its counter parties. ZIRP and QE were brought in to juice spirits in the hopes of rescuing growth.

2008-2009 was the end of the financial world as we knew it going back to Paul Volcker. It was nightmare. It was a catastrophic end that many and been predicting for some time. Some saw the writing on the wall by 2005 and were positioning their investments accordingly. Read about the thoughts of Ray Dalio, Stan Druckenmiller, or Jeremy Grantham.

Since 2008-2009, we're now in a whole new regime. Perpetual QE + ZIRP is not in ur economic textbooks and I do not believe our models can tell us what is coming.

We had an opportunity when things were stable in 2010 to find a sustainable path forward. Instead, worldwide, we've just taken regular hits of QE.

What Krugman and his ilk fail to address is capital misallocation. Placing capital into its most productive use is the definition of a well functioning market.

We tolerate market distortion for greater social good: safety regulations, environmental regulation, labor laws, etc.

Unfortunately, with QE1,2,twist,3 and ZIRP, we are now well past properly functioning capital markets.

At a gross scale, every single investment in the world now is actually a bet on central bankers keeping interest rates suppressed, liquidity flowing, and money printers running.

The trillions of dollars of distortion that capital markets have experienced since 2008 has fundamentally altered the investment landscape. And not for the better.

Krugman crowing about austerity is laughable. Of course, government spending is just another form of capital distortion. Sure, try some more. It'll be another drop in the bucket. It will not move the needle in a sustainable fashion.

Global demand is being vacuumed up by economies through competitive currency devaluation. Deficit spending (Krugman's argument) generates new demand in the hopes of creating jobs and nurturing the economy.

Unfortunately, since 2008, our global financial system is so radically distorted that a burst of demand isn't about to lift anybody out of long-term economic doldrums.

At the root of the problem is massive capital misallocation that has been baked in the cake. Global supply is so large due to QE and ZIRP that economies worldwide cannot support their investments.

Instead of market forces washing out the misallocated capital, we've entered into a global extend-and-pretend scheme. How and when this ends is anyone's guess.

Krugman doesn't get it.

I do well with the Toshiba Chromebook 2.

Intel Celeron N2840 Gorgeous IPS 1920x1080 screen.

It is a lovely machine.

Not really. Estate taxes on large inheritances represent a tiny fraction of the overall federal tax revenue.

There are many techniques for circumventing/minimizing the tax. Law firms and accountants whose sole purpose it is to legally minimize this tax exist in every major American city.

According to Forbes, hotels represent 97% of Priceline's revenue with 23% margins. Car rentals and cruises represented 9% margins and airlines at 3% margins.

Assuming Expedia and Orbitz have similar profiles, then this is really a market share fight to capture the largest pool of hotel transactions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/01/10/bre...

Completely agree.

In 2008-2009, there was an opportunity to take apart big banks after their gross misallocation of capital. Instead those very banks and bankers were fortified and rewarded to continue onwards.

I still haven't figured out how this phase will end.

Misallocation of wealth is only a problem if it isn't "misallocated" to you.

My question is this: how does this edifice collapse?

Krugman did not foresee the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

If anything, bubble economics is his forte.

See here: http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs...

You forgot QE1, QE2, twist, and QE3 where the Fed digitally created $4 trillion and bought up assets.

That $4T didn't exist until the Fed conjured it up. Through a middleman, it was handed to the US Treasury.

Krugman's argument fails to see the massive misallocation of capital worldwide and the resulting instability and wealth distortion.

Just like he didn't see the 2008-2009 crisis, his models cannot see the current distortions and where they mar or may not lead.

By the way, do you have children? I ask because the choice of school is far more nuanced than picking the one with the best test scores.

For example, a school with the highest test scores may not be ideal for a child that struggles with concentration and self-discipline. That child may find him/herself lost among more dedicated peers.

For poorer families time is an incredibly valuable resource. When you earn minimum wage, a school that offers inexpensive or free childcare after school is a net financial gain; the parent can work with out paying extra for child care.

Poor families and their children who cannot foresee outcomes after finishing high school other than joblessness or minimum wage jobs optimize differently; a better football program in the here and now may be a better choice than better academics with an uncertain payoff in the future.

Radio Shack has a warm place in my childhood: the Radio Shack Battery Club.

As a poor nerdlet in the early 80s, all my electronic projects were built with scavenged parts. Even so, I needed batteries. Batteries were not cheap - say compared to buying a gallon of milk for the family.

So, I had my parents and siblings sign up with me for the Radio Shack battery club at the two Radio Shacks nearby. These battery cards entitled you to a free battery once a month. My family supported my habit - and between the two stores and our cards - I had a steady supply of batteries. Those batteries powered my devices and my development as an engineer.

The first time I saw Fry's and WeirdStuff in the Bay Area in the early 90s, I think my heart skipped multiple beats. Seeing a DigiKey catalog for the first time had a similar effect.

I haven't stepped in a RS in more than a decade. I am sorry to see them go.

How much of mobile ad revenue is VC money recycled by startups through facebook seeking installs of their apps? Is there a breakdown of this somewhere?

Your smiley face notwithstanding, suggesting that kids and or families are over scheduling is passing an unnecessary judgement. There are many, many deadlocks in scheduling children that cannot be easily resolved.

If anything, the deadlocks are resolved by "over" scheduling. By placing the child in a supervised activity, the parental units are freeing up time to allocate into other needs. The simplest example is kids in different schools.

It seems there are people who are DIY fecal transplants in the hopes of addressing various maladies and illnesses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=diy+fecal+transplants

I completely agree with you. MPT/PMPT systems are contingent upon accurate modeling of risk and return and this is not a science.

Nassim Taleb is a vocal critic of MPT.