Home
Todd Suomela's Library tagged → View Popular
Firedoglake » It Takes The Village To Raze the Economy: Some Notes On Krugman and the Return of Keynes
-
So far, so good. Except, there's a hole. That hole is that the Fed hasn't followed the simple "Taylor rule." In fact, there's been a significant gap between Taylor rule and interest rates. Or more exactly, two of them.
The first was between 1994 and 1998 -- the Fed was consistently above the Taylor rule. This lead several more left-leaning economists to call for lower interest rates to get more growth. The second was between 2001 and 2008 - the Fed was consistently below the Taylor rule. What a coincidence. So the argument that the Fed was a transparent carrier of the economic demand for funds breaks down. The other point is that there is a simple explanation for all three - short term rates, inflation, and budget deficits moving in tandem over the last 10 years, namely that they represent the same thing, not a market that is clearing, but three different forms of the same thing, namely, risk aversion.
-
The reality is that Federal Reserve interest rates, government bond auctions, and federal budget deficits all have one thing in common: they aren't markets in the sense of "many independent actors making independent decisions." The Fed's decision is in the hands of a few people, most of the buyers of government treasuries is a small number of large players, and of course, the Federal budget deficit is written by a few hundred people and their staff members. These are not large markets, but small ones. Hillary was pilloried for saying that it takes a village to raise a child; but the evidence here -given that the results of the last 10 years have been a market crash, a terrible recovery, and a massive global downturn- is that it took "The Village" to raze the economy.
Filling the Financial Regulatory Void « The Baseline Scenario
I would argue that the fundamental flaw in financial regulation is that it is based on the assumption that regulators are not self-interested individuals like the rest of us. We think about regulation only in terms of how to engineer the incentives of the regulated and ignore the fact that regulators themselves rarely have a stake in doing their job well, which in any other occupation would limit the motivation and types of individuals a position attracts.
-
It is unlikely that consumers will ever hold much influence over the realities of the financial regulatory process because they are not organized in comparison to the financial industry, which concentrates significant resources in the creation of inefficient regulators. By and large, consumers are not well-informed about what they have at stake in the regulatory process and, even if they were, that would not be the sole determinant of how they define themselves politically.
Adding another layer of guards to guard the existing guards ultimately results in an infinite regress. I do not think it is cynical to suggest that, absent an actual paradigm shift with respect to accountability in the financial industry, we are just going to have more of the rent-seeking that has gone on to date and the economic calamities that ensue. For my part, I would propose opening up financial regulation to a small group of social entrepreneurs. Let people establish for-profit companies that can compete for government contracts to stress test the holdings of financial institutions independently and audit their records.
Don't Dismiss Taibbi : CJR
Mainstream financial journalism is doing its level, eye-rolling, heavy-sighing best to stuff Matt Taibbi back into the alt-press hole he came from, but he’s not going along with it, and the mainstreamers in any case are making a big mistake.
The Rolling Stone writer cemented his status as the enfant terrible of the business press with “The Great American Bubble Machine,” a 10,000-word excoriation of Goldman Sachs, a muckraker’s-eye view of Goldman history, exploring the bank’s and Wall Street’s contributions to various financial disasters
-
The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, who doesn’t lay a glove on Taibbi in this attack, is unintentionally revealing of a certain strain of financial journalism thinking:
Taibbi is a gifted narrative journalist, whose verbal talents I greatly admire. But financial meltdowns don’t offer villains, for the simple reason that no one person or even one group is powerful enough to take down a whole system.
“Financial meltdowns don’t offer villains?” Does anyone believe that?
And wait a minute: Are we really so sure that “one group,” Wall Street, was not central to this crisis and that its increasing influence over government at all levels—what gives, for instance, with ex-Goldmanite Neil Levin deciding as New York State banking commissioner in 2000 not to regulate credit default swaps as insurance?—was not decisive? And isn’t Goldman Wall Street’s leading firm?
Goldman Sachs, the lords of time By Julian Delasantellis Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs
Good explanation of Wall Street trading and impact of high frequency trading.
Op-Ed Columnist - Rewarding Bad Actors - NYTimes.com
It’s hard to imagine a better illustration than high-frequency trading. The stock market is supposed to allocate capital to its most productive uses, for example by helping companies with good ideas raise money. But it’s hard to see how traders who place their orders one-thirtieth of a second faster than anyone else do anything to improve that social function.
Ah, Wall Street. Seeing the real you at last. » New Deal 2.0
Financial innovation was presented to us in a way that suggested that great things were happening for mankind. The presentations were usually vague. To understand them, we had only the power of our own imaginations, or perhaps, failing that, our awe in the face of this powerful expertise, confidently propelling us to a greater future....
Malarky. This is all code for defer to the wishes of those who make money from these techniques.
Dismantling the Temple
The remote technocrats at the Fed who decide money and credit policy for the nation are deliberately opaque and little understood by most Americans. For the first time in generations, they are now threatened with popular rebellion.
Matt Taibbi - Taibblog - The real price of Goldman’s giganto-profits - True/Slant
Taibbi gives a good rant on the subsidies that boosted Goldman Sachs profits to record levels.
Stumbling and Mumbling: Regulation vs nationalization
4 arguments for strong regulation of banks. "But we regulate banks not because they'll make too much money, but for fear that, left to themselves, they'll lose too much."
Michael Lewis on A.I.G. | vanityfair.com
profile of AIG FP and speculations on why it failed, especially the personality of Joe Cassano.
SILOs --more action needed? ~ Angry Bear
Tax advantaged "sale-leasebacks" with strapped-for-cash municipalities (SILOs, in the ever-present tax acronym set) came back to light when the Washington Metro train crashed a week ago. The cars were ones that were involved in the metro authority's SILO deals with various banks, and the authority didn't have any spare cash left to fund replacements
FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - The cautious approach to fixing banks will not work
If institutions are too big and interconnected to fail, and no neat structural solution can be identified, alternatives must be found: much higher capital requirements and greater attention to liquidity are the obvious ones.
-
“Never again” might be too much to ask. But “not for a generation” is essential. Governments cannot afford an early repeat, financially, politically, perhaps morally: the lives of so many cannot soon be sacrificed to the whims of a foolish few.
-
If institutions are too big and interconnected to fail, and no neat structural solution can be identified, alternatives must be found: much higher capital requirements and greater attention to liquidity are the obvious ones. At present, big financial institutions operate with next to no capital: in the US, the median leverage ratio of commercial banks was 35 to 1 in 2007; in Europe, it was 45 to 1 (see chart). As I noted last week, this makes it rational for shareholders to “go for broke”, with the results we have seen. Allowing institutions to be operated in the interests of shareholders, who supply just 3 per cent of their loanable funds, is insane. Trying to align the interests of management with those of shareholders is then even crazier. With their current capital structure, big financial institutions are a licence to gamble taxpayers’ money.
- 1 more annotations...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in banking
-
Socialism and the End of the American Dream
A collection of commentary ...
Items: 44 | Visits: 78
Created by: Gary Edwards
-
Documentaries: Tyranny and Terrorism
Items: 20 | Visits: 92
Created by: M Diametric
-
Banking
Items: 10 | Visits: 50
Created by: Todd Kranz
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo