Gary Johnson Explains Views on Religious Freedom, Trump Makes French President Feel Pukey, Anti-Prostitution Prosecutor Pleads Guilty to Soliciting Sex: A.M. Links

http://ift.tt/2aumZCM

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.



from Hit & Run : Reason Magazine https://reason.com/blog
via IFTTT

Bill Gross Talks "Sex", Answers "Honestly" What Happens When The Financial System Breaks Down

http://ift.tt/2avk0XK

Bill Gross' latest letter is a curious melange of two distinct parts.

The first one is more of the same traditional stream of consciousness we have grown to expect from the man some call the "former" bond king. Curiously, the topic of discussion is something Gross has never "touched" upon before, namely sex. As Gross says, "Sex is a three-letter word that has rarely appeared in an Investment Outlook until now." The second part may have been ghost-written by the "new" bond king, as it recaps - in a Q&A format - all the recent points made by Jeff Gundlach, who recently said to "sell everything" except gold and gold stocks. Gross' spin: "I don't like bonds, I don't like most stocks; I don't like private equity. Real assets such as land, gold, and tangible plant and equipment at a discount are favored asset categories."

First, here is Gross' take on Sex:

Sex is a three-letter word that has rarely appeared in an Investment Outlook until now. I may be risque and delve into the forbidden territory of politics and religion, but "SEX"? — Never. But here goes! Actually, my own personal history of sexual edification was probably like many of yours. My mother asked me at age 14 if I knew where little kittens came from and when I answered "the pet store", I never got an additional query or piece of information on the subject. I suspect she had written me off as hopeless long before.

 

When it came time for me to be a father, I vowed never to repeat anything as stupid as that kitten trick to my kids, and I wound up not saying anything at all about sex to my older ones, Jeff & Jennifer, who are now in their 40s and safely beyond my parental foibles. The Nineties, however, ushered in a new sensitivity and a requirement to come clean with your child at an early age. And so, when Nick was born in 1988, Sue and I knew that we'd have to explain his "conception" at some point before we turned over the car keys and started four-digit checks for insurance. It's not like Nick was adopted or anything, but he was, in fact, one of California's first "test tube babies" which made him sort of unique and special — at least to us — and we felt he deserved knowing about it. Actually, it was a godsend as far as the sex education goes. At 8 or 9, when he asked about "babies", we both sat down and told him how he had been conceived: a doctor took some of Dad&s sperm and a few of Mom's eggs, mixed em' up in a test tube and "voila" — you've got a baby. He seemed to buy the story pretty well and we got to avoid all of the gushy —male / female — stuff.

 

Our biggest challenge came years later when Nick got his hands on one of those trashy "Victoria's Secret" advertising mailers. As a service to me, Sue always does her best to dispose of them in the garbage can as quickly as possible, but this time Nick had gotten his hands on it and was intrigued not only by the pictures of those plain and unattractive models, but by the name itself. "Dad", he asked, "what is Victoria?s Secret?" Well now, I quickly thought, does he mean what is Victoria's Secret or what is Victoria's Secret? If it was the former, it could be just an innocent question about the mailer itself. If the latter, well, it was a path down which I wasn't willing to travel. "I am not sure", I replied, taking the brochure from his hands and depositing it in the trash, like Sue usually does. As a diversion though, I answered his question with one of my own. "Do you know where kittens come from?" I asked. "The pet store", he said, and with that I breathed a sigh of relief, content in his normalcy and satisfied I was fulfilling my role as a parent in the sensitive Nineties.

Why the odd premable? Because as Gross then points out, as a transition to the more important - second part - of his letter,  "there are equally important questions in today's economy and financial markets, so I thought I'd condense a few of them to hopefully explain our current situation, perhaps a little more honestly than my "kittens in a pet store" ruse or what "Victoria's Secret" really was."

Here, the most notable segment is the rhetorical answer to a question that asks "When does our credit-based financial system sputter/break down?"

Gross' answer:

When investable assets pose too much risk for too little return. Not immediately, but at the margin, low/negative yielding credit is exchanged for figurative and sometimes literal gold or cash in a mattress. When it does, the system delevers as cash at the core, or real assets like gold at the risk exterior, become the more desirable assets. Central banks can create bank reserves, but banks are not necessarily obliged to lend it if there is too much risk for too little return. The secular fertilization of credit creation may cease to work its wonders at the zero bound, if such conditions persist.

He follows up with 4 more mini Q&As, as follows:

Can capitalism function efficiently at the zero bound?

 

No. Low interest rates may raise asset prices, but they destroy savings and liability based business models in the process. Banks, insurance companies, pension funds and Mom and Pop on Main Street are stripped of their ability to pay for future debts and retirement benefits. Central banks seem oblivious to this dark side of low interest rates. If maintained for too long, the real economy itself is affected as expected income fails to materialize and investment spending stagnates. 

 

Can $180 billion of monthly quantitative easing by the ECB, BOJ, and the BOE keep on going? How might it end?

 

Yes, it can, although the supply of high quality assets eventually shrinks and causes significant technical problems involving repo, and of course negative interest rates. Remarkably, central banks rebate almost all interest payments to their respective treasuries, creating a situation of money for nothing — issuing debt for free. Central bank "promises" of eventually selling the debt back into the private market are just that — promises/promises that can never be kept. The ultimate end for QE is a maturity extension or perpetual rolling of debt. The Fed is doing that now but the BOJ will be the petri dish example for others to follow, if/ when they extend maturities to perhaps 50 years.

 

When will investors know if current global monetary policies will succeed?

 

Almost all assets are a bet on growth and inflation (hopefully real growth) but in its absence at least nominal growth with some inflation. The reason nominal growth is critical is that it allows a country, company or individual to service their debts with increasing income, allocating a portion to interest expense and another portion to theoretical or practical principal repayment via a sinking fund. Without the latter, a credit-based economy ultimately devolves into Ponzi finance, and at some point implodes. Watch nominal GDP growth. In the U.S. 4-% is necessary, in Euroland 3-4%, in Japan 2-3%.

Finally, the most practically relevant section, and the one that almost verbatim ghosts Gundlach's own sentiment on what one should do at this time, is Gross' answer to "What should an investor do?"

In this high risk/low return world, the obvious answer is to reduce risk and accept lower than historical returns. But don't you have to put your money somewhere? Yes, of course, except markets offer little in the way of double digit returns. Negative returns and principal losses in many asset categories are increasingly possible unless nominal growth rates reach acceptable levels. I don't like bonds; I don't like most stocks; I don't like private equity. Real assets such as land, gold, and tangible plant and equipment at a discount are favored asset categories. But those are hard for an individual to buy because wealth has been "financialized". How about Janus Global Unconstrained strategies? Much of my money is there.

We are confident that the "new" bond king agrees.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

When Buying "Experiences" Isn't Actually Better than Buying Stuff

http://ift.tt/2aB8dVZ


One of the best ways to make your money count, if you listen to people who write about money for a living, is to spend it on experiences. This is a great guideline, but it’s not always a hard rule.

As personal finance site Keep Thrifty explains, we tend to remember our experiences and retain the feelings from those memories better than when we spend money on random junk. However, sometimes buying stuff is worthwhile. If your choice is between a gadget that makes your life better over the long run, or an experience you aren’t likely to enjoy, the former is clearly better:

But what about a different example? Would I take a new laptop over a week by myself in New York City? For me, experiences are infinitely more meaningful when shared with my family. I’m also more of a nature guy than a big city guy, so being in a crowded city by myself would just stress me out. A new laptop on the other hand would run faster and would stop telling me that the hard drive is almost full.

There’s also the fact that sometimes “stuff” can lead to experiences. Road trips are a great way to bond with your friends or family while taking in new sights. However, that car is stuff. You probably didn’t buy your car just for a road trip. You bought it for your normal commute and took it on a trip. In that case, spending money on “stuff” helped enable your experiences.

Only you can decide which stuff or experiences are worth investing time and money in. Focusing on experiences is a great guideline to help keep your money away from frivolous infomercial garbage, but it’s also okay to put some money into some stuff if it helps enhance your life.

Experience is Better Than Stuff - Except When It’s Not | Keep Thrifty via Rockstar Finance

Photo by abhisawa.



from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George W. Bush

http://ift.tt/2axqJ3W

It wasn't me.You may have heard that you're either a "ridiculous" Bernie Bro or some other form of privileged white dude unless you accept the prevailing theory that a vote for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump, just the way a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for George W. Bush in 2000.

There's no shortage of lamentations to be found on the interwebs from once-idealistic young liberals who have never forgiven themselves for voting their consciences at the turn of the millennium, and who won't forgive you if you choose to make the same mistake. There are a number of problems with that line of thought (the most obvious being that it assumes the votes of left-leaning voters are owed to the Democratic Party because every presidential election is the most important ever), but more importantly, it's simply not based in fact.

It is true that approximately 95,000 Florida ballots were cast for Nader in 2000, and assuming every single one of those votes went instead to then-Vice President Al Gore (which is an incorrect assumption, but we'll get to that later), Gore would have been easily able to supplant the 537 vote differential in the Sunshine State that gave Bush the presidency.

What that oft-cited factoid leaves out are the inconvenient truths laid out by Tim Hightower in Salon way back when, including the fact that only about 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida, whereas about 308,000 Democrats voted for (wait for it...) Bush! Further, approximately 191,000 self-identified "liberals" voted for Bush, as opposed to the fewer than 34,000 who went with Nader.

The conventional thinking goes like this: Nader voters lean left and Gore is to the left of Bush, therefore votes for Nader would have gone to Gore. But leftist academic Tim Wise pushed back on this summation in 2000, writing that "Exit polls in Florida, conducted by MSNBC show that Nader drew almost equally between Gore, Bush, and 'None of the above,' meaning his presence there may have been a total wash."

In 2006, Michael C. Herron and Jeffrey B. Lewis authored a UCLA study on the effect of third party voting on the 2000 election. Among their findings:

Only approximately 60% of Nader voters would have supported Al Gore in a Nader-less election. This percentage is much closer to 50% than it is to 100%. One might have conjectured, that is, that Nader voters were solid Democrats who in 2000 supported a candidate politically left of the actual Democratic candidate. This conjecture, we have shown, is wrong: Nader voters, what participating in non-presidential contests that were part of the 2000 general election, often voted for Republican candidates. Correspondingly, [Reform Party candidate Pat] Buchanan voters voted for down-ballot Democratic candidates. Thus, the notion that a left-leaning (right-leaning) third party presidential candidate by necessity steals votes from Democratic (Republican) candidates does not hold.

So why hasn't there been 16 years of hand-wringing over the thirteen percent of voting Florida Democrats going turncoat for the Republican nominee? What about the traditionally Democratic-voting bases of white women and seniors who both went for Bush, or lower-income voters, who mostly tilted for Gore but nearly forty percent of whom voted for Bush?

Why is Ralph Nader the boogeyman of the left and not Al Gore himself who (despite being a VP in a popular administration which had the dumb-luck of presiding over a booming economy) was unable to win his home state of Tennessee, a state with enough electoral votes to send him to the White House even without Florida?

Simple. Nader must be vilified because of the popular notion that the two major parties are entitled to your votes, and if you have any agency at all it's to prevent the more terrible of the two from taking the reins of power. That's how Gore, despite running an uninspiring campaign where he benched uber-campaigner Bill Clinton and chose the hawkish and moralistic Joe Lieberman as his running mate (thus turning off a great many off the liberals whose votes many feel were Gore's birthright as the Democratic nominee), gets let off the hook, as do the hundreds of thousands of Republican-voting Democrats (in Florida alone), while "Ralph Nader" becomes shorthand for the folly of idealism.

If Hillary Clinton loses the 2016 election to the odious Donald Trump, you can bet the blame will not fall on Clinton for failing to win over a portion of the left repelled by her record of censorship, failed military interventionism, drug prohibition, and crony capitalism, but rather it will fall on what Salon's Amanda Marcotte is already describing as the "attention-seeking dead-enders" or "Bernouts" who will vote for Jill Stein.

There's nothing wrong with holding your nose and voting for the candidate you believe has the best chance to defeat another candidate who you consider an existential threat to the country. There's also nothing wrong with refusing to confer legitimacy on a major party candidate you don't feel deserves it, even if you begrudgingly could live with that candidate over his/her opponent.

But it's also perfectly fine to reject the binary system which produced the two most disliked and distrusted presidential candidates in history, in the hopes that next time (and yes, there will be a next time) the concerns of voters who want no part of the Democratic and Republican standard-bearers will have a greater voice. Remember, no party has a right to your vote.



from Hit & Run : Reason Magazine https://reason.com/blog
via IFTTT

An unexpected journey, a Postgres DBA's tale

http://ift.tt/2aqGPZu


One of our favorite databases for maintaining data at scale is Postgres. Being a data-centric business, we have come to rely heavily on the gentle giant and use it extensively across our entire platform.

Currently, we run a majority of our Postgres instances on Amazon RDS. After offloading worries about the maintenance, availability and backup to RDS, I inevitably assumed the role of the accidental DBA for one of our larger Postgres clusters.

In this post, I would like to describe one of our adventures in managing this large cluster and catalog the story as it happened.

I have to disclose upfront that I would not consider myself an expert on large Postgres clusters, and that some of the issues described here might have been anticipated far earlier by more experienced DBAs. Given this, it is also noteworthy that Postgres stood up fairly well against all the use (abuse) that we threw against it.

So let's begin our journey there and back again.

Prelude

In order to support concurrent operations, Postgres implements Multi Version Concurrency Control (MVCC), which elegantly maintains data consistency while allowing for parallel read/writes. In minimal words, MVCC maintains a transaction ID (XID) counter and whenever a transaction is started, this counter is incremented to track the data visible to that transaction. For this post, it is sufficient to think of each XID as representing a particular state of data in a relation. Of-course, it is more complicated than that and a better can be explanation is available over at Heroku.

Now as with many tales, enter Sauron - transaction ID wraparound.

A problem arises because these XIDs are represented with only 32 bits in Postgres. It is just easier to quote the excellent Postgres documentation here

PostgreSQL's MVCC ... depend on being able to compare transaction ID (XID) numbers: a row version with an insertion XID greater than the current transaction's XID is "in the future" and should not be visible to the current transaction. But since transaction IDs have limited size (32 bits) a cluster that runs for a long time (more than 4 billion transactions) would suffer transaction ID wraparound: the XID counter wraps around to zero, and all of a sudden transactions that were in the past appear to be in the future — which means their output become invisible. In short, catastrophic data loss.

To avoid this, it is necessary to make sure that VACUUM operations are run periodically to advance the oldest XID forward. Usually the autovacuum army takes care of the fight and prevents transaction XID wraparound from wreaking havoc.

Waking up to a warning

One of our instances on RDS (an m4.xlarge with about 750 GB) had been showing signs of slowing down over the last few weeks. It used to frequently hit the maximum disk IOPS rate and stayed there, suffering large costs to read and write latencies. While, we were working on diagnosing this issue, I received an unexpected email from AWS support, pointing out that the age of the oldest table in our database was very large (> 1 billion).

If left untended, it would cause transaction ID wraparound to happen - which would be a pain to fix and possibly mandate a lot of downtime.

Estimating time left before Mount Doom erupts

The first step was to estimate the time left till wraparound might actually happen. By using txid_current(), it is possible to find the burn rate for XIDs. By running this query multiple times, separated by a few hours, the differences were used to estimate a burn rate of about 600,000 per hour. Given that the age of our oldest XID was nearly 1.3 billion, and wanting to be conservative, we estimated that we had about 40 safe days before hitting 2 billion (if other factors remained constant).

To increase our time-to-live, the first step was reducing our burn rate. There were a few low-hanging fruit with some of our indexing scripts - by grouping them into manageable transactions, we were able to shave off quite a bit. Together with some other clumping of heavy writes, we were quickly able to reduce the burn to about 400,000 per hour. This gave us another 20 days, moving grace time back to about 60 days.

Having detected the slow march towards database shutdown, but with a notice of 60 days, we counted our lucky stars and started searching for ways to prevent disaster.

The search for the One Ring

The first stage in the battle was making the autovacuum daemon run more aggressively. However, due to the large number of tables (> 200,000) in our database, even the newly fortified autovacuum army turned out to be losing. I'll describe these settings in the next post, but to summarize it shortly, even with more autovacuum_max_workers, higher maintenance_work_mem and reduced autovacuum_naptime, it seemed like a losing battle.

So the decision was made to search for the relations containing the oldest XIDs and then force a freeze on them. The two primary aides in this quest were the pg_class and pg_database system tables.

Whenever a VACUUM is run on a relation, the cutoff XID (no longer visible to any transaction) is updated in the relfrozenxid column of the pg_class table. The smallest value of relfrozenxid across all relations is saved as datfrozenxid in pg_database

By running the query below, the oldest entry was identified as a TOAST table called pg_toast_165938048, relfrozenxid for this relation agreed with the value of datfrozenxid across the entire database.

SELECT ns.nspname, relname,
       relfrozenxid, age(relfrozenxid)
FROM pg_class c
INNER JOIN pg_namespace ns ON c.relnamespace = ns.oid
WHERE ns.nspname NOT IN ('pg_catalog','information_schema')
ORDER BY age(relfrozenxid) DESC LIMIT 10;

 nspname  |         relname          | relfrozenxid |    age
----------+--------------------------+--------------+------------
 pg_toast | pg_toast_165938048       |   3842253562 | 1232089527
 pg_toast | pg_toast_189701233       |   4442253562 |  632089527
...

SELECT datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid)
FROM pg_database
ORDER BY age(datfrozenxid) DESC LIMIT 5;

   datname     |   datfrozenxid   |    age
---------------+------------------+--------------
 mydb          |   3842253562     |   1232089527
...

Confident that we found the oldest relation, we proceeded with a manual freeze

VACUUM (verbose, freeze) pg_toast.pg_toast_165938048;
ERROR:  permission denied for schema pg_toast

Ok, so why didn't that work?

Turns out, the rds_superuser role from Amazon RDS does not have the required permissions on pg_toast (and there is no way to grant it either).

Hmm, so lets look at the underlying relation for this pg_toast table. Using reltoastrelid from pg_class, it was traced to a large materialized view that we no longer needed. So the decision was made to simply drop this view and move on.

DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW unused_matview;

A surprise from the ashes

Fairly confident that the oldest XIDs should now be removed from the database, I began checking the old friends at pg_class and pg_database to make sure that the ages were now reduced.

-- from pg_class
 nspname  |         relname          | relfrozenxid |    age
----------+--------------------------+--------------+------------
 pg_toast | pg_toast_189701233       |   4442253562 |  637089527
...

-- from pg_database
   datname     |   datfrozenxid   |    age
---------------+------------------+--------------
 mydb          |   3842253562     |   1237089527

Wait, what?

The oldest relfrozenxid in pg_class seems to have been fixed with its age much lower than what was seen earlier, but datfrozenxid in pg_database was still the wrong value. What gives?

Going back to the Postgres documentation, I found something that I had missed earlier.

A manual VACUUM should fix the problem ... but note that the VACUUM must be performed by a superuser, else it will fail to process system catalogs and thus not be able to advance the database's datfrozenxid

Turns out, it was due to our not-a-real-superuser rds_superuser again. None of the roles provided by RDS have the required privileges for pg_database and so it still keeps the old XID.

All this code spelunking took a while and going back to my doomsday clock, I painfully re-calculated the time to shutdown: 50 days

It seemed like we might now be worse off, as I was stuck with this unchanged datfrozenxid referring to a relation which does not exist any more. And this XID value being inconsistent with the very definition of datfrozenxid being the oldest value from relfrozenxid.

Intermission

I had not expected this post to get so long. So I'll take a break here and continue the tale of how we finally won the battle against transaction ID wraparound in a future post (edit: published here).

If you are interested in more stories about transaction ID wraparound and the importance of vacuuming (more, not less!), I'll leave a few links here.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

500 Years Of Stock Panics, Bubbles, Manias, & Meltdowns (In 1 Simple Chart)

http://ift.tt/2arjw30

From the "over-expansion of credit" leading to banking failures in 1255-62 in Italy to 2015's "'end' of The Fed's zero interest rate policy," stock markets have risen and fallen and risen some more on the back of wars, manias, crises, and panics since The Middle Ages....

(clickimage foir massive legible version)

Notice anything different about the green shaded area?

Source: Trader535



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

Why The IRS Is Probing The Clinton Foundation

http://ift.tt/2aCLw6Y

"Clinton Cash" author, Peter Schweizer, recently took to the airwaves to explain why the IRS investigation of the Clinton Foundation should be a "big deal" (also see Clinton Cash: "Devastating" Documentary Reveals How Clintons Went From "Dead Broke" To Mega Wealthy") even though he expressed some "skepticism" over the ability of Obama's IRS to run an impartial investigation.  As we we've reported (see "IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation"), the IRS recently launched an investigation of the Clinton Foundation after receiving a letter signed by 64 Republicans of the House of Representative which described the Clinton Foundation as a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years.” 

Somehow we, too, are doubtful that the IRS will lead this investigation with the same kind of vigor they displayed when looking into local Tea Party organizations and religious charities during the last election cycle. 

When asked why the IRS should be concerned about the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Schweizer explained:

"The big deal is that...there are international anti-bribery standards that say bribing a public official can mean giving them money, giving their family money, or giving their charity money.  Just because it's a charity doesn't mean that it's not important or not interesting...it constitutes bribery every bit as much as if somebody's putting money in somebody's pocket for a benefit."

Mr. Schweizer continued by calling into question why foreign governments and wealthy foreign individuals, many from the middle east, would contribute money to the Clinton Foundation given the limited scope of their actual charitable outreach:

"When you look at the people who are giving large sums of money overseas they are people who have histories of corruption or being involved in bribery scandals."

We're certain Mr. Schweizer is "overreacting".  After all we're pretty sure the State of Kuwait, Friends of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, The Government of Brunei Darussalam and The Sultanate of Oman, all Clinton Foundation contributors (see full list below), are eagerly involved in the Clinton Foundation's project entitled "No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project" whose stated goal is building an "evidence-based case to chart the path forward for the full participation of girls and women in the 21st century."

A full list of entities/individuals that have made bribes contributions in excess of $1mm to the Clinton Foundation over the years can be found below (click for a larger image):

Clinton Foundation Contributors

Finally, when asked why the Obama administration would allow the Clinton Foundation to continue to solicit cash from foreign governments even as she served as Secretary of State, Mr. Schweizer noted that, in fact, Obama conditioned his appointment of Clinton to Secretary of State on her agreement to "disclose all donors"...a condition which Clinton promptly ignored. 

"We know now that there at least 1,100  contributions from foreign sources they still haven't disclosed."

The full interview with Mr. Schweizer can be viewed below:

 

Watch the latest video at <ahref="http://ift.tt/1eBnDqu;>video.foxnews.com

In light of the IRS investigation, we also decided to take a quick look at the Clinton Foundation financials (full reports can be found here). To our "surprise," we discovered that, in fact, only 13.6% of the $248 million of expenditures made by the Foundation in 2014 were for "direct program expenditures" while the remainder went to salaries and amorphous expense buckets like "Professional and Consulting" and "Meetings and Training."  We're very hopeful that this is the type of "efficiency" that Hillary can bring to the various federal organizations.  After all, spending 13.6 cents of every dollar on actual stated objectives would be a huge improvement for many federal entities.

Clinton Foundation 2014 Expenses

The full 2014 audited financials of the Clinton Foundation can be viewed below:



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

Hedge Fund Links ~ 7/29/16

http://ift.tt/2awECi9


At world's largest hedge fund, sex, fear and video surveillance [NYTimes]

Investors say stop paying fund of hedge funds [NYPost]

How solo fund managers stack up against the team players [FT]

The strategy of hedge fund selection [Global Investor Magazine]

Profile of Bronte Capital's John Hempton [Bloomberg]

The optimal size of hedge funds [Harvard Law]

Inside McKinsey's private hedge fund [FT]

The hedge fund industry needs a makeover [FT]

ValueAct to pay record $11 million to settle antitrust lawsuit [WSJ]

After Brexit, Steve Cohen doubles down [NYTimes]

10 tips for new Wall Street interns from Citadel [Business Insider]

A hedge fund or a fraud? [Bloomberg]



from Market Folly http://ift.tt/NLWANl
via IFTTT

Is fasting good for you? What we know so far

http://ift.tt/2aoMRz2


It all began in March last year when I read an article by Steve Hendricks in Harper’s magazine titled ‘Starving Your Way to Vigour’. Hendricks examined the health benefits of fasting, including long-term reduced seizure activity in epileptics, lowered blood pressure in hypertensives, better toleration of chemotherapy in cancer patients, and, of course, weight loss. He also mentioned significantly increased longevity in rats that are made to fast. Most interesting was his tale of undertaking a 20-day fast himself, during which he shed more than 20 pounds and kept it off for the two years since. I was fascinated, and I started reading more about fasting afterwards, although at the time I had no intention of doing it myself.

The benefits of fasting have been much in the news again lately, in part due to a best-selling book from the UK that is also making waves in the US: The Fast Diet: Lose Weight, Stay Healthy, Live Longer (2013) by Dr Michael Mosley and Mimi Spencer. Mosley is a BBC health and science journalist who extols the benefits of ‘intermittent fasting’. There are many versions of this type of fasting that are currently the subject of various research programmes, but Mosley settled on the 5:2 ratio — in every week, two days of fasting, and five days of normal eating. Even on the fasting days, one may eat small amounts: 600 calories maximum for men, 500 for women, so about a quarter of a normal day’s intake. Mosley’s claim is that such a ‘feast or famine’ regime closely matches the food consumption patterns of pre-modern societies, and our bodies are designed to optimise such eating. Drawing on various research projects studying intermittent fasting and weight loss, cholesterol levels and so on, he argues that even after quite short periods of fasting, our bodies turn off fat-storing mechanisms and switch to a fat-burning ‘repair-and-recover’ mode. Mosley says that he himself lost 20lbs in nine weeks on the diet, bringing his percentage of body fat from 28 to 20 per cent. He says his blood glucose went from ‘diabetic to normal’, and that his cholesterol levels also declined from levels that needed medication to normal. He also says that he feels much more energetic since.

Inspired by Mosley and Hendricks, I delved into research on fasting online, but much of what I found was pseudoscientific drivel about getting rid of mysterious and unnamed toxins in the body. Recommendations for fasting were often coupled with such staples of alternative-medicine junk-science as colonic irrigation and worse. But I happen to be a mild hypertensive myself and for various reasons have been off my blood pressure medication for a couple of months. I thought I might try fasting as an experiment, to see if it made any difference to my blood pressure, but also out of sheer curiosity about what the experience would be like. My wife, who had also read Hendricks’s article in Harper’s, said she would try it, too

We decided on a seven-day fast — somewhere between Hendrick’s experience and Mosley’s recommendation. The plan was to go a full week without eating or drinking anything except water. Lest our bodies react to this insult by trying to slow down our metabolisms, and we end up just lying around and not getting anything useful done all week, we also planned to stay energetic by engaging in vigorous physical exercise for at least a couple of hours daily during the fast. Neither one of us had ever done anything of the sort before.

Since my wife had a week’s break in February from her work as a schoolteacher, we decided to try our fast then. Our preparation was pretty minimal. I would keep a journal in which I would record my weight, blood pressure, activities and, several times a day, just note how I was feeling. We bought some emergency supplies in case one or both of us ended up feeling ill or fainting: some energy drinks, a couple of bars of Swiss milk chocolate, some fruit, and some bread and cheese, and put them in the refrigerator. My wife also told me to stop locking the bathroom door from the inside, just in case she needed to rescue me.

If my wife asked me a question, it took about five seconds for it to register and another five before I could formulate and deliver a reply

On our final day before beginning, we measured our weight, blood pressure, pulse rate, and waist size. My wife and I don’t normally eat breakfast (she has a cup of coffee and I drink a Coke Zero — yes, yes, I know it’s bad) but that day we had a light lunch and in the evening we had an early dinner of chicken, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, and brown rice. And some chocolate pudding. And then we stopped eating.

The scientific data on the benefits of fasting are still thin and far from conclusive: you can find a useful summary in a recent article on intermittent fasting by David Stipp in Scientific American (11 January 2013). Mark Mattson, head of the National Institute on Aging’s neuroscience laboratory, thinks it is possible that fasting is a mild form of stress that stimulates the body’s cellular defences against molecular damage. And even intermittent fasting can increase the body’s sensitivity to insulin, thereby decreasing the risks of diabetes and heart disease. A study conducted at the Salk Institute on mice has shown that, even when allowed to gorge on fatty foods for eight hours a day, those mice maintained a normal weight and insulin levels so long as they were fasting the rest of the time. Another study led by Mark Mattson in 2007 showed significant reduction in both asthma symptoms and indications of inflammation in humans through long-term alternate-day fasting. Some nutritionists are sceptical, and especially worry about the dangers of compensatory overeating in the times one is not fasting. In a 2010 study, also at the National Institute for Aging, fasting rats mysteriously developed stiff heart tissue, reducing their hearts’ ability to pump blood. Though, in general, caloric restriction by 30 to 40 per cent has repeatedly been shown to extend lifespan significantly in various animals including fruit flies and rodents, it is not yet clear what long-term effects such dietary regimes have in primates. Even if we don’t yet have enough data for clear conclusions, there was enough material from my research to intrigue me to try it for myself.

Our weeklong fast was a little unusual as we also engaged in strenuous exercise every day. Sometimes a little too strenuous: one day we did a 14km (8.6 mile) trek through Alpine snow at a place called the Rodenecker Alm near Italy’s border with Austria. This was almost four hours of climbing and descending after three days of total fasting, and it left us quite exhausted and sore. But the odd thing was that to both of us it actually felt easier in this fasting state than it would have under normal conditions. So one does indeed seem to have a lot of physical energy while fasting, as Mosley has argued.

Things were not perfect, however. My wife had to break the fast at the end of day six (at my strong urging) because she neither felt nor looked well. I did make it through the whole seven days without any physical problems but I was psychologically exhausted by the end of it and euphoric that it was over. In everything that I had read about fasting, days two to four were supposed to be the most difficult. I had also worried about getting headaches or other physical discomfort (stomach cramps, dizziness, etc), and especially about being unable to get restful sleep: I thought I might be awakened by hunger pangs. As it happens, none of those troubled me. Which isn’t to say it wasn’t an odd experience.

First of all, every single one of the seven days felt exactly the same: mornings were completely fine and I felt pretty much as I normally do until about lunchtime. I tried to pack in any work, especially work that required mental concentration, into this period of each day. After midday, I became a little fidgety and found it hard to concentrate on anything. I had much more than usual amounts of physical energy and did all kinds of household chores happily, such as defrosting and cleaning the refrigerator one afternoon (anyone who knows me will testify that this is highly unusual behaviour). But my mind flitted from one thing to the next, and my reactions were slowed down very noticeably by evening. If my wife asked me a question, it took about five seconds for it to register and another five before I could formulate and deliver a reply. In fact, I became decidedly cognitively impaired: one day after taking a shower and shaving, I applied aftershave lotion to my face and noticed that it didn’t have the mild sting it usually does. That is when I realised I had not actually shaved. I just thought I had.

So the days were hazy at times, but very bearable. Not so the evenings. By far the worse time was between 6pm and 10pm in the evenings. It was in this window every day that my wife and I both felt a physical and mental unease resulting in great difficulty in just passing the time. We tried to watch TV or movies but it was hard, and the evening seemed strangely empty.

If you are trying to solve problems in the theory of quantum gravity, it’s probably best to get some food down

In fact, the biggest surprise was just how much more time we had on our hands. I was struck by how much of the day I normally spend attending to my digestive needs: thinking about what I would have for lunch or dinner; shopping for groceries (which we do almost daily); cooking — in my case, elaborate Pakistani meals most evenings; then actually eating, washing dishes, cleaning up, even moving one’s bowels. Eliminating the simple act of eating frees up much more time than you’d think. In addition to the couple of hours of daily exercise we kept up throughout, we took long walks in the mountains (we live in the Alps), did crosswords (rather slowly), surfed the net and fooled around on Facebook, and we still always had more time to fill. I realised that meals provide needed punctuation to the day, and without them our days seemed strangely lacking in structure.

So what about the medical benefits? In the end, both throughout and after the fast, my blood pressure remained at exactly the same, slightly elevated level it had been before I started. So much for controlling it by fasting, at least for me. I lost 11lbs (5kg) over the week and gained 7lbs (3kg) back within three days. The other significant thing I noticed, as many others have too, was the reduction of libido to absolutely nothing. I had no sexual thoughts all week, which was not an entirely unwelcome (though thankfully temporary) break from the usual. I experienced a phenomenal increase in physical energy but at the expense of a lack of mental concentration. So if you need to lose some weight and also need to dig some ditches this week, fasting might be just the thing. On the other hand, if you are trying to solve problems in the theory of quantum gravity, it’s probably best to get some food down. These effects lasted only while I was actually fasting: one day after breaking the fast, I felt completely normal, with the same appetite and level of physical energy as usual. At this point, I should remind my gentle reader that my weeklong experiment had the grand sample size of one (two, if you count my wife) and so should be taken for what it is: just my personal experience of fasting, not a scientific study.

Did I feel any different from normal in the days immediately after the end of the fast or since? No, not really. Would I do it again? I doubt it. Though it was fun in its own peculiar way. Well … maybe. But I think I’ll at least wait for more controlled clinical evidence to come in.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT