The Second Derivative of Green Shoots is Positive!

In response to my post on retail, reader ZachA commented / requested:

I guess this means this means the "second derivative" is non-existent and thus the new data points to a continuation of the "first derivative" accelerating downward. I get my derivatives mixed up, but nonetheless the data is getting worse.

Jake, if there is anyway possible to efficiently generate a graph on how often "green shoots" or "second derivative" is uttered on CNBC when non-apocalyptic data is released please do it.

Here is the best I could do (the 'second derivative' search was too dominated by "actual" second derivative [i.e. mathematical] searches)



Though this doesn't answer the question as to which term is more annoying?

Source: Google Trends

Update: for those interested in the origins of green shoots, a reader was kind enough to send over this link

Swine Perspective

Fox News reports:

President Barack Obama pledged "great vigilance" in dealing with the situation as the total confirmed cases in the U.S. rose to nearly 100, with many more suspected.

The Geneva-based World Health Organization sounded its own ominous alarm, raising its alert level to one notch below a full-fledged global pandemic. Said WHO Director General Margaret Chan: "It really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic."

Dr. Richard Besser, acting chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there were confirmed cases in 10 states, including 51 in New York, 16 in Texas and 14 in California. The CDC also counted scattered cases in Kansas, Massachusetts , Michigan, Arizona, Indiana, Nevada and Ohio.

Should Swine Flu be a concern for health organizations around the world? YES. Should we do our best to inform ourselves of necessary precautions. YES. But should we also ignore the fear mongering media coverage realizing the problem is so far VERY small? YES.

How small? Well, in the five days that the disease 'Swine Flu' became integrated into day to day conversation, about 100 people (in a nation of ~300,000,000) have been diagnosed with having the disease and only 1 has died (a child who contracted the disease in Mexico).

How does this compare to the estimated number of actual deaths caused by murder in the U.S., which hopefully doesn't cross anyone's mind on a daily basis?



Lets just say 12x more people were murdered by hand or foot than by "swine" over that time frame...

Source: FBI

Information Warfare and the Wall Street Journal's Demise

Flying around the Internet and blogosphere is the Wall Street Journal's* ridiculous feature of Dr. Igor Panarin's prediction for the United States (interestingly enough, Bloomberg posted the same story to less fanfare a month ago):

Mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

So why can't I take Dr. Panarin seriously, besides the fact that he also mentions Texas will be taken over by Mexico? The #1 Google result when searching 'Igor Panarin' turns up this russiahouse.org bio (bold mine):

Prof. PANARIN is the author of nine books, "Infowar and power”, “Infowar and world”, “Infowar and election”, and others, and of many political essays published in various journals.

And...

His main interests are history, philosophy, psychology, computer science, communication, election technology, conceptual problems of globalization, the theory and practice of infowar.

A quick search for 'information warfare' (i.e. infowar) on Wikipedia reveals infowar includes:

Collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces.

Not that the United States isn't an expert at infowar (and at times has focused that expertise directly on Russia), but it isn't typically this obvious.

Two initial questions; why is the Wall Street Journal focusing on an individual with an obvious agenda (i.e. selling books / gaining global attention)? Why is the author, Andrew Osborne (also known for his insightful piece on Putin branded Vodka), doing his best to make Dr. Infowar seem credible?

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

And why did Mr. Osborne only once mention information warfare, but in that case make it nothing to do with one of his books or "hobby"?

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

Let me see if I can't wrap this whole thing up and come up with a conclusion...

• Dr. Panarin is an individual from a country (Russia) that is becoming more and more hostile towards the United States
• That same individual lists that his MAIN interests include THEORIZING AND PRACTICING INFORMATION WARFARE and is the author of nine books, of which at least three are written on the topic of INFORMATION WARFARE
• Yet he is listed as being a credible professor with inside ties to the Kremlin by the Wall Street Journal

The only conclusion is Rupert Murdoch has done it yet again and will only stop when he completely ruins the credibility of the Journal (though I am optimistic he can't top what he and his son have done with the NY Post... not that there's anything wrong with it). It is truly frightening when a financial newspaper still thought by many as credible, is more focused on entertaining than informing.