Welcome to Bookmarker!

This is a personal project by @dellsystem. I built this to help me retain information from the books I'm reading.

Source code on GitHub (MIT license).

View all notes

Showing results by Keith Gessen only

Financial variables are a way of accounting for what’s going on in the real world. But the real world itself starts to react to financial variables if they’re extreme enough. And it’s funny—the financial system, all the big guns that have been wheeled out by the government and the monetary authorities, have in the last couple weeks kind of stabilized what gets called the “guts” of the financial market. There is short-term credit, there is a certain degree of lending between banks, corporates are able to get their commercial paper rolled over, for the most part. So it’s functioning—in a much reduced fashion, there are surprises and shocks every day, but it hasn’t ground to a complete halt. But now you are seeing the effect on the real economy. So what’s happening? We have the largest one-month drop in payrolls in twenty-five years. You’re starting to see real job loss. You’re starting to see actual companies going out of business, or high-profile default. [...]

Some of that impact is not a direct impact of the financial markets, but it’s the hangover from the misallocation of resources, which is the same thing that’s causing problems in the financial markets. Whereas a pure impact of the financial markets is where people look at their 401(k)s and say, “Gosh, I don’t want to spend.” That’s a pure impact of financial variables causing people’s attitudes to change, changing their risk tolerance, their propensity to consume.

—p.82 How Bad Is it? (67) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

I was in China, mostly Beijing, a couple of weeks ago, checking on a property investment. The property sector is important: A lot of the pressure on raw materials prices supposedly coming out of China was related to the property sector, to construction. The amount of building that had been going on was enormous and visible, all over Beijing. I saw one luxury housing development after another, most of them just in the process of construction, or recently completed, and…sales had last year just come to a halt. It was amazing, the physical reconstruction of that city. A lot of it had to do with the Olympics, but a lot of it also had to do with property speculation.

And Beijing really is not the city that had the most residential property speculation. The optimism that pumped up that sector was pretty incredible. Here you have a provincial city where there was maybe one 4-star hotel—suddenly there are four 5-star hotel projects under construction, and you just wonder who the heck is going to stay in them. A city that really didn’t have much in the way of luxury housing suddenly has tons of luxury projects sprouting up, a lot of those getting sold to speculators, with nobody at the end of the chain. Toward the end of last year people realized just how far supply had outrun real demand, and how far prices had run up.

this makes me think of the Fordist compromise, where workers were paid decent wages so they could afford to consume the products they helped create. that compromise, of course, is long over; the successor model in tech (the gig economy) may come undone for similar reasons. eventually, there may be no one at the end of the supply-side chain, or maybe even the demand-side chain. or there'll be an imbalance that will threaten the whole system. (think about this more)

—p.125 Populist Rage (125) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

[...] some of the banks have come out and said that their business in January and February and March was profitable—Citi was the first to do it, Bank of America said so, Goldman actually reported this week. Personally, I think it’s a load of bollocks. I mean, as a bank, you have a lot of freedom to mark your assets where you please, particularly the loan book. You can show a profit, you can show whatever profit you want. You have a lot of scope to manage your P&L [profit-and-loss statement]. In the emerging markets I’ve often seen banks showing quarterly profits until the day they go belly-up.

worth remembering. the valuations are arbitrary!! and unlike stock market valuations, they're decided internally, by fiat essentially

(think about tech billionaires' net worth)

—p.134 Populist Rage (125) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

[...] the way they think doesn’t admit of a world where Citibank gets nationalized. It’s just so inconceivable to them that they say, “You just can’t do that! It’ll cause all of these horrible problems.” Well, that was true when the economy was in an extremely unstable state and risk aversion was extreme and panic was abroad in the land. But now I don’t think that’s the case, and your lack of imagination is not a good grounds for a policy judgment.

i love this. (on the govt's lacklustre response after the crisis)

—p.142 Populist Rage (125) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

[...] to deal with the fact that we have an eccentric corporate taxation system, we’ve allowed these loopholes to be created so that U.S. companies are not uncompetitive relative to companies from other countries. So he wants to get rid of these loopholes—that’s fine if we’re also going to redo the corporate taxation system so that it’s simpler and more efficient and more in line with what’s going on in the rest of the world. But I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s going to happen. So if you suddenly make it a lot less attractive to be headquartered in the U.S., or, if you’re a start-up company, to be domiciled in the U.S., then that’s problematic.

why he's against Obama's fiscal stimulus program

this makes me really angry, and im trying to unpack his assumptions in order to understand why it bugs me so much. but there's this (fairly common) implication that because Obama is American, he should be optimising for policies that encourage corporations to be domiciled in the US. for what? as a means to increase the US' power in the global economy?

but the US is already the most powerful. it's already at the top of the hierarchy. what the hell else does it want? acting mindlessly acc to incentives around amassing power is at least somewhat excusable when you're the underdog, but when you get to the top, surely isn't that the point when you think about where you are now, and what you should be doing with that power? and whether acting as if you're still the underdog is actually globally destructive?

—p.175 Life After the Crisis (155) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

That the level of profits for the financial sector was too high. If you look sectorially, the financial sector was generating an unusually large share of corporate profits and of GDP. And a lot of that was not sustainable. It was a frenzy of trading that didn’t lead to an ultimately productive result. So those are paper profits. And what happened is it turns out that those loans that were extended went bad, or bets went bad, and the huge losses that were recognized were the reversal of those financial sector profits, right? So again, then are you supposed to believe that once that’s out the financial sector profits go back to that unsustainably high level? No, they don’t.

Another way of saying that is that a lot of that GDP is an illusion.

finally we agree on something

—p.184 Vacation Plans (181) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

[...] You see people who’ve blown up in spectacular fashion go on to get another high-profile job. And the things you hear are, “I want to hire him; he’s learned a very expensive lesson.” Or “He’s proved he’s a risk-taker.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that! Yeah, he’s proved he’s an irrational, crazy risk-taker!

this is like identical for tech people who've "landed the ship". think danielle morill ... makes me want to barf every time i think about it

—p.195 Vacation Plans (181) by Keith Gessen 5 years, 3 months ago

WHY WERE PEOPLE HELPING US? It couldn’t only have been because we were lying to them. In truth, they must have been doing it for the same reason we were doing it — because they wanted to. They were lonely people who wanted to get out of their apartments; they were skilled people whose skills were being channeled into corporate or otherwise uninteresting work. We were all in our mid- to late twenties — we had seen a bit of the world and knew we didn’t like it. We had seen others make things and knew we could make them just as well if not better. We had seen some of the people we most admired come out in favor of the invasion of Iraq, or get hoodwinked by various transparently phony cultural projects, or start writing down to some imagined audience, rather than up to the audience that actually existed (or so we believed). We did not have a clear political project (we were “leftists,” but there were many things we didn’t agree on), but we did have a clear cultural project, to try to connect our politics with our literary tastes. It’s not clear, though, that the specifics of this project were what interested other people, or us. Often it felt like simply the idea of a project — any project — was enough. It was fun and interesting and sometimes incredibly frustrating to work with these particular people. And it was interesting to try to build an independent cultural institution where one had not been before.

—p.55 Brief History of a Small Office (54) by Keith Gessen 2 years, 3 months ago

We moved to my next profound question: What do you know that no one else knows? My premise was that good writing depends on a kind of specialized knowledge—whether of some process, or some relationship, or some situation or event. If people would just tell us what actually happened! We would know so much; we would learn so much. Of Kafka’s commitment to telling the whole truth about himself and his life, Elias Canetti wrote: “A human being who offers himself to knowledge so completely is, under any circumstances, an incomparable stroke of luck.” We do not have to be Kafka—but we can at least tell one truth, or two, about our lives. As the editor of a literary magazine, I had read so many “stories”—fiction or nonfiction, it didn’t matter. They were made-up, and the more made-up they were, the more conventional. Where truth was left out or kept general, cliché filled the void. The mistake made over and over was to search for the “universal,” when (this is itself a cliché, maybe, but still) it was the specific stuff that readers wanted to know. But of course it’s not so easy to figure out what the specific stuff is. One’s life contains so many things; how are you to know which of these things is distinctive?

—p.193 Money (2014) (187) by Keith Gessen 2 years, 3 months ago

So they saved! Mark cheated, a little. They had a 4Runner, a present from his father, and Mark would drive it to the big Path-mark on Northern Boulevard. Once there, he achieved the serenity of a Zen master. The people of Queens ran around this way and that, their shopping carts like externalized stomachs. Others had coupons and carefully they held them, like counterfeiting experts, up to the items they hoped to save on, to make sure they were the ones. Mark never did. He had emptied himself of any attachment to specific foods. The only items he saw were the items already on sale. In this way he kept his calm, he tried new foods, and he saved.

They kept a budget. At the beginning of the week they gave themselves seventy dollars for food and transport. Impossible? Basically impossible, yes, but not if you never go for “drinks” at a bar, never walk into a restaurant, and never ever buy an item of clothing not at the Salvation Army on Spring Street and Lafayette. Sasha herself was perpetually amazed. “I see girls in there,” she reported, “they have three-hundred-dollar shoes, but they are looking for a jacket, a blouse, they would like to look like me.”

—p.3 Mark: Prologue (1) by Keith Gessen 1 year ago

Showing results by Keith Gessen only