- 'Where the World Is Headed'
- Can't Keep Up With Email
- Links for 4-30-14
- Inequality and Mobility in America
- 'America's Debt and the Economy: A Hard Look at Public Spending and Finance'
- 'Narrow Banks Won't Stop Bank Runs'
- Links for 4-29-14
Posted: 30 Apr 2014 12:15 AM PDT
This panel brings together prominent economists to debate a range of issues with global scope: from inequality and emerging markets to austerity policies and the impact of technology on employment. This will be a free-ranging discussion focused on where the world is headed and what can be done to improve economies and people's lives everywhere.
Posted: 30 Apr 2014 12:06 AM PDT
If you've written me, and haven't heard back, apologies. I try, I really do, but I can't keep up:
I feel like a real jerk when I don't reply to people who write to me, but I just can't answer all the email I get no matter how hard I try.
Sincere apologies if I haven't responded to your email.
Posted: 30 Apr 2014 12:03 AM PDT
Posted: 29 Apr 2014 01:59 PM PDT
If you want a tutorial on how the political right responds to inequality and mobility concerns, this video is for you (Chrystia and Jared do their best to respond, and Jared has a nice summary of all of the potential causes of inequality in his opening remarks):
Posted: 29 Apr 2014 08:41 AM PDT
This session, as I thought it would be before it started, was annoying:
I heard things such as:
Need to get spending under control to create a good investment climate.
Large spending programs are crowding out discretionary programs such as defense and infrastructure.
One of the most serious issues we face.
Wait until rates go up.
Nobody in Washington is interested in talking about it.
We have to cut entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).
Our economic growth is lower because of the debt. Our economy is worse off because of it.
Huge benefit right now from cutting deficit.
Anyone who is sensible would agree with us.
Neither Bush nor Obama has been willing to explain to the public what a huge problem the debt is.
We need to do this, it is an important thing for our children.
President needs to make this a national priority, like it did with income inequality.
With all the problems in the world, is now the time to be cutting defense spending?
Simpson Bowles was a very, very, very good plan.
You get the idea. There was very little about tradeoffs, e.g. higher unemployment when we reduce the debt during a not so robust recovery, though Sperling did address this a bit, not enough on revenue enhancement, and -- though it did come up at times -- the relationship between health care costs and our long-term debt problems was not made as clear as it should have been.
When it comes to recovering from the recession, these people are the problem, not the solution.
But maybe I'm just being cranky (and biased from the start) -- watch the video and tell me what you think...
Posted: 29 Apr 2014 08:20 AM PDT
This is from a new blog by Stephen Cecchetti and Kermit Schoenholtz:
Narrow Banks Won't Stop Bank Runs: Every financial crisis leads to a new call to restrict the activities of banks. One frequent response is to call for "narrow banks." That is, change the legal and regulatory framework in a way that severely limits the assets that traditional deposit-taking banks can hold. One approach would require that all liabilities that are demandable at par be held in the form of deposits at the central bank. That is, accounts that can be withdrawn without notice and have fixed net asset value would face a 100% reserve requirement. The Depression-era "Chicago Plan" had this approach in mind.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-09, Lawrence Kotlikoff, Jeremy Bulow and Paul Klemperer, John Kay, and, most recently, John Cochrane, and Martin Wolf have resurrected versions of narrow banking. All of these proposals, both the old and the new, have a common core: banks should be split into two parts, neither of which would supposedly be subject to runs. ...
Naturally, we share the objective of these reformers: preventing bank runs. The key issue is how to do so and at what cost. We suspect that narrow banking would be costly in terms of economic performance, yet unlikely to achieve this goal. ...
We know that a combination of transparency, high capital and liquidity requirements, deposit insurance and a central bank lender of last resort can make a financial system more resilient. We doubt that narrow banking would.
(The original post is much more detailed.)
Posted: 29 Apr 2014 12:03 AM PDT
A bit late with theswe today, so there are more than usual:
|You are subscribed to email updates from Economist's View |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|