The videos from the panels at the Roosevelt Institute’s Future of the Federal Reserve Event are now online. There’s a video for introductory remarks by Joe Stiglitz and then videos for the full-length panels as well as videos broken down by speakers.
Image giving an economics undergraduate the following question: “Unemployment is high. Inflation is low. Borrowing costs are cheap. What should the government do?” and they responded “cut the short-term deficit immediately to show strength!” You’d have to give them a bad grade, right? But that’s what our government, Democrats and Republicans, are doing.
But there’s a theory that by cutting $39 billion from the government over the weekend and by Obama’s signaling that he is transitioning to tackling the long-term debt he will unleash the confidence of the private market.
Good explanation on why short term cuts are not going to help much.
The budget Paul Ryan released yesterday has huge cuts that are likely to fall on the poorest Americans while offering all kinds of bonuses to the top 1%. Others will be talking about how it eliminates Medicare and Medicaid. I want to talk about how it dismantles one of the few regulations put on Wall Street post-crisis.
A must read article
My other favorite pernicious myth of this recession is the story of the Mancession. This hit the high moment with Hannah Rosin’s article The End of Men in The Atlantic. This is the idea is that male employment has suffered in this recession, and the workforce has been overtaken by women because of the possibility that “postindustrial society is simply better suited to women.”
Rortybomb on Structural Unemployment Myths. Wonky, but an easier read than you might think.
Rortybomb is rarely an easy read. If you make it through you’ll understand more than the TV bobble-heads discussing the problem with the no-paperwork foreclosures.
in a scramble to save the bill in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) objections to the conference report, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to figure out a new way to pay for Wall Street reform. What they came up with was pretty simple: end the TARP legislation (i.e., the much-maligned bank bailout) early. Every Republican negotiator on the conference committee objected, some vociferously.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) called it “fraud on the American people.”
Not to be outdone, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) called it “smoke and mirrors.”
The bank tax actually would have had negligible customer impact. Lost in today?s hurried debate was the absence of any empirical backing for the critics? argument. Indeed, two factors would have likely combined to render the impact on customer pricing trivial.
– First, only large banks would have been subject to the tax, so efforts to raise large-bank customer pricing, in many product markets, would have simply caused a market share shift to the smaller banks not subject to the levy. Ironically, the Massachusetts retail deposit business is a clear example of such a market.
– Second, even in those product markets dominated by large banks, the bank tax was so small that, even if its burden could have been shifted completely to customers, the impact would have been, in practical terms, undetectable .
The GOP is the party of free taxpayer money and no corporate responsibility. This is a vote against Banks paying for future bailouts and for taxpayers continuing to pay for the current bailout. The message here is that personal responsibility is for suckers.