[Welcome Dean Baker, and Host David Dayen.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy
Let me tell you my story about reading this book.
I spent some time last month in San Francisco for a little thing called the Prop 8 trial (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), which happened to coincide with the worst week for liberalism in recent memory. In the space of a few days, Martha Coakley failed in Massachusetts; the Supreme Court opened the spigot on money in politics with the Citizens United ruling; Air America signed off; and on and on. What’s more, it rained pretty much every second that week in San Francisco, and I spent most of my non-courtroom time huddled on a street corner waiting for a MUNI bus. I’ve often joked that in the movies, rain always symbolizes rain, but in this case it accurately symbolized the general mood of progressives circa mid-January 2010. The gloom represented the lost year for the progressive agenda; an economy saddled with millions of Americans jobless and seemingly no plan to get them back to work; a moribund legislative branch bound by arcane rules and processes that frustrated action; an executive branch aloof and adrift; and a judiciary branch that might as well have their own personal corporate sponsorships. Most of all, progressives were wondering where the fight had gone from their political leaders, how the steadfast and resolute nature of Truman, Roosevelt and Kennedy, could lead to the tepid mush that passed for boldness today.
My literary accompaniment for this week was the book False Profits by Dean Baker, which dared to name names about the elites most responsible for the biggest economic crisis in generations. In the book, Baker highlights the trillions of dollars they squandered, the suffering they caused, the mistakes they made and continue to make, and asks the obvious question: “Why do these people still have jobs?”
It was oddly comforting.
Because Dean Baker, armed only with facts and common sense, actually presented a simple and coherent argument, actually offered solutions, actually held the responsible parties accountable and actually vowed not to forget about their transgressions.
You know, like a Democrat is supposed to do, in the theoretical model of politics that inhabits our best hopes.
Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pens a fairly simple message, broadly described – our elites have failed, and yet they somehow remain elites. Make sure you understand this phrase before embarking upon this book – “the eight trillion dollar housing bubble.” Baker points to this as entirely responsible for the economic collapse, and provides the economic underpinnings for such a claim, so rarely heard in Washington debates about spending and deficits.
In Baker’s retelling, the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department, specifically Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson (featured on the cover as the “false profits” of the title), allowed the housing bubble to grow unchecked, ignored and even encouraged the reckless mortgages that intensified risk, and were caught completely off-guard by the eventual meltdown. Stripped of their home equity wealth, consumers could not ring up the purchases that fed the national economy. Foreclosures and a glut of vacant housing on the market devastated the construction industry. The write-offs and toxic securities at the banks brought them to their knees. Baker says this was completely predictable:
“None of this is complicated or mysterious. Anticipating this disaster didn’t require brilliant insights or complex models. In fact, a good student in an introductory economics course would have possessed all the knowledge needed to see this train wreck coming.
However, the political elites do not want the official story to be that simple. They don’t want the public to know that the people holding the top economic policy positions are incompetent, corrupt, or both. By burying the story in complexity, these elites are trying to confuse the American public.”
It’s perhaps unsatisfying to chalk up a recession which has caused so much pain and suffering to the fact that a few people in key positions simply didn’t do their job well. But that’s Baker’s thesis statement, and he proves his point over and over using simple math and common sense, making the complexities of financial and housing policies seem perfectly obvious. Baker attacks the usual excuses from the elites – that they needed more regulatory tools (actually, the Federal Reserve had plenty of authority to crack down on the housing bubble) or that they lacked a “systemic risk regulator” (the Federal Reserve is quite well-equipped to serve in this capacity), and comes back to his core point constantly – that any economic “expert” who created this much havoc through sheer negligence doesn’t deserve the title, let alone their job.
Most important, Baker goes beyond identifying the central problem but articulates innovative solutions for both the jobs crisis and the reforming of the financial sector. Baker, an idea factory for stimulus, follows the principles of Keynes while offering new ways to introduce those types of demand-side stimulus measures. Baker endorses ideas you’ll never hear from other liberals, such as: subsidies for local transit agencies to encourage low-cost ridership; public funding for clinical drug trials (which could lower the cost of prescription drugs and allow generics to be sold more immediately); New Deal-type funding and support for writers and artists to post copyright-free work on the Internet; and a work-sharing tax credit that would pay companies to reduce worker hours at the same salary, allowing for more hiring. Some of Baker’s previous ideas, like transitioning homeowners facing foreclosure into renters of their own properties or instituting a financial transactions tax on stock purchases, have begun to gain traction, with Fannie Mae implementing a modified “own to rent” program, and global financial leaders talking about financial transaction fees.
I’m pleased to have Dean Baker with us today to talk about his book. Heck, I’m pleased to have read it when I did, considering the faith it gave me that somewhere out there, liberals still know how to come up with policies that solve problems, and how to call incompetence what it is.



168 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Dean, Welcome back to the Lake.
David, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
David,
thanks for these very nice comments. Maybe if we could get some of the folks in the White House to agree we would be making some progress in reining in the financial sector and turning the economy around. As it is, I am not too optimistic about the prospects, but we have to keep trying.
Thanks for joining us today, Dean, it’s good to have you with us.
My first question concerns the theme of the book, which is really broader than just one about the economy. It’s about the importance of accountability, it seems to me, and how elites basically resist that. And of course that can be applied to foreign policy, to torture, to any number of things. Could you describe how you see that? What is the importance of accountability at this time, and given the stranglehold elites have on the discourse, can we promote it?
Hi David, Hi Dean
Thank you for coming,
I hope we can recover.
It is remarkable how elites are able to avoid accountability for their mistakes. In fact, it is considered rude to even raise the issue.
As an economist, I find it incredibly ironic because there is a large literature on the importance of being able to fire workers who mess up on the job. However, when I raise firing in the context of the economists and regulators who missed the housing bubble and therefore created the basis for the economy’s collapse, people invariably think I am joking. When i convince them that I am serious, they think that I am being vindictive.
We have created a situation in which everyone is expected to responsible for their actions, except those on top. This certainly applies in economics, but as you suggest it also applies in foreign policy. Even if we can’t necessarily get even to agree with propositions like torture is wrong, anyone who claims to be a foreign policy expert and didn’t realize that the war in Iraq was going to be long and bloody should be in a new line of work. But, the elites get this it’s okay to be wrong card.
This is a great populist issue. We have this aura of expertise that is based on credentials, not performance. Progressives should not be shy about ridiculing highly credentialed incompetents. They tend to run the country.
Good afternoon and welcome back to FDL Dean.
I have not had a chance to read your book so forgive me if yo answer this but in general, how did economics (and economists) get the reputation of being a science when so many of the things they proclaim as being so are demonstrably untrue. Thinking specifically of the Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner types. (Asked as a Sociology major who received many insults back when about how it wasn’t a science as compared to economics)
Of course we aren’t really recovering from the bubble(s) are we? Dot.com was followed by housing and commercial real estates, and these have been followed by stocks and commodities.
Overarching these, securitization, derivatives, the paper economy, and the shadow banking system are still very much with us. We have high debt levels, high unemployment, high foreclosure rates, and completely bought corporatist parties. At discussions like these, I like to raise my own prediction of severe depression in 2011 and ask the guest where he or she thinks the economy is heading.
Dean,
What do you think of the FRB’s raising the discount rate?
“our elites have failed,” long fail our elites!
Thank you for visiting us here today!
Welcome Dean, and thanks for the great book. Excellent read for both economists and non-economists.
A question — there’s an argument going around that whatever Congress tries to do wrt to further stimulus, the Fed will try to undo via some reversal in monetary policy — so the moment to turn unemployment around was lost with Bernanke’s confirmation. Do you share that view, and if so, what recourse do we have? Are you with those urging the Feds to raise the inflation target as an indirect way to create more space?
Also, let me add another question. I didn’t get into the section of the book about the passage of TARP, and how short-term fluctuations in the stock market were wielded by elites to force a crisis atmosphere, particularly when the bill initially faltered. We see this over and over again – the threat of crisis used to push solutions amenable to elites – and we’re still seeing it with respect to the so-called deficit crisis. I don’t really know how progressives combat this, do you? We have a large media criticism wing and yet still the dominant biases proliferate.
Professor Baker, an honor to have you here at FDL. Thank you for your service to our nation.
IIRC, Hank Paulson pulled some really transparent fraud (in addition to all the other stuff that was not so obvious) with the TARP. He blatantly overpaid for the stock he bought (with taxpayer money) from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. I believe Elizabeth Warren testified before the Senate about this in February 2009.
IANAL, but would Paulson’s actions fall under the Federal False Claims Act? Is there any way we could prosecute him or the other GS employees who worked under him at Treasury?
Every regular person I know was well aware of the housing bubble. It’s one of the important reason why pols hate voters-voters aren’t falling for the pols’ kabuki. And, the feeling is rapidly getting to be mutual.
I think that economics got the reputation of being a science in order to exclude a lot of economic policy decisions from public debate. If the issue is a matter of science, then you have to leave it to the scientists and you get the public out of the picture.
This is very explicitly the case with the Fed’s monetary policy where we are supposed to believe that just letting our elected representatives in Congress get in on the debate would spoil the outcomes. Given that the people setting policy wrecked the economy, you would think that they would be laughed out of town with this argument, but not in washington.
I see a very weak economy and continued high unemployment. I don’t see any reason to expect a depression in 2011.
I would also like to say that I think Dean Baker and a few others Jamie Galbraith, Bill Black, and Robert Johnson have been consistently good in their economic analyses. Joseph Stiglitz and Simon Johnson somewhat less so, and Krugman not so much.
Dean — you’ve been waging a courageous battle against the deficit hawks or peacocks — but now it seems the WaPo has been joined by the NYT front page in writing news “editorials” on the horrors of the deficit. Do you see anything turning this meme around? And what can we be doing in the blogs to help out?
well, chalking this up to failures of a few people is to me short sighted
the failure comes from deregulation which allowed the failure of those figures
more;
an economic collapse would have happened even if regulations were kept in place
this is because we have sent living wage jobs abroad and turned jobs in the states poverty jobs whence a person can’t put healthy food on the table, take vacation, out their kids through college or retire
and we need two incomes to survive, even that is turning into two and a half where at least one person works more then a 40 hour week
a collapse was not only coming before the housing balloon, it was already here
the housing bubble simply made the crisis unbearable
the top few percent have and continue to have double their income with half their tax burden
the reverse for middle and lower income
so it’s not only the housing bubble, it’s been the economic policies that were determined to redistribute middle class assets into the pockets of people so wealthy they cannot possibly spend what they already had
Dean,
In False Profits you briefly sketch your proposal for a work-sharing tax credit for employers to create an incentive for them to give employees more time off, without a cut pay. If I may just quote an excerpt:
As you know, Bruce Bartlett wrote a column the other day at Forbes.com dismissing work-sharing as based on a lump-of-labor fallacy and again, I’d like to quote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, it doesn’t seem to me that you assume there is “a fixed amount of work to do.” Could you elaborate on why your proposal doesn’t assume any such thing?
I suppose Dean should mention at some point that he was talking publicly about the housing bubble in 2002. And that he sold his apartment unit in 2004 because of the bubble. Walking the walk, etc.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/17/business/fi-bubble-timers17
I don’t the relevant laws here, but the prosecution would have to come from the Obama administration. As a practical matter, to my mind the most egregious offense in pushing the TARP was Bernanke telling Congress that the commercial paper markets were shutting down. If this was true, it would have enormous consequences for the economy.
What Bernanke did not tell Congress was that the fed by itself had the ability to keep the CP market operating. He announced a special Fed facility to buy commercial paper the weekend after Congress approved the TARP. To my mind, he should have been impeached for deliberately deceiving Congress on such an important issue. Instead he got reappointed.
Coakley wasn’t liberal or progressive. The Democrats ran a bad candidate, another corporatist and lost. Democratic losses are not progressive losses. As for Citizens United, the spigots of corporate money were well open before that decision. It mostly verified that the horse was long gone and the barndoor might as well stay wide open.
Dean, your policy suggestions don’t have a snowball’s chance in D.C.
Yes, we’ll stop the bastards. The magic words are “financial speculation tax.” This is to be used in sentences like: “do you want to cut Social Security or would you prefer a tax on Wall Street’s financial speculation?” or “Do you want to cut Medicare or would you prefer to tax Goldman Sachs’ financial speculation?” or “do you want to see a national sales tax (a.k.a. value-added tax) on things like food and medicine, or would you rather tax wall Street speculation?”
If we talk about a wall Street speculation tax, nearly everyone — even the Tea Partiers — are with us. This is like holding the cross in front of the vampire. It can stop them.
Yeah, all the experts told me that we didn’t have a prayer in hell of stopping Clinton’s plans to privatize Social Security in 1998. Experts on politics are best known for their trail of error.
Missed the timing pretty badly. Sold waaay too early. Left a lot of money on the table. That’s the problem with bubbles. They last a lot longer and get a lot bigger after reasonable people identify them. And then reasonable people lose their jobs and get a cry-wolf reputation.
Thanks.
A couple questions on housing. I’m noticing a boomlet of articles trying to declare the foreclosure crisis over. Here’s one from AP. Any reason to believe this is true, especially when the CRE crash is still in its formative stages?
The Obama Administration this week offered funding of $1.5bn to five states with major foreclosure problems to create innovative programs at the state level to mitigate foreclosures. Is this going to make a dent, and what could those programs consist of?
Finally, I know Fannie Mae started employing a variant of your “own to rent” concept. Do we know how this is going? Is there any data?
I LOVE IT!
Is there anyone in the power structure who listens to you and might begin/promote this line of discussion?
Bill Black recently pointed out (again) that during the S&L scandals 1000 people were convicted. This time around, no one, nor any indictments.
I missed the Forbes article, but from your description, it sounds like Bartlett is not accounting for the additional demand created by the tax credit. He’s just saying if you split one job into two, you still have the same total income, but that’s not Dean’s proposal by itself, right?
Actually, I don’t assume a fixed amount of labor, but in the context of an economic downturn, we definitely are in a situation where there is deficiency of labor demand. In this context and reasonable person would ask whether it is better to have more workers employed at fewer hours per workers or fewer workers (more unemployed people) employed 40 hours a week.
In a more general context, I think we should definitely be trying to have the u.S. follow the rest of the world in promoting shorter workweeks, longer vacation,s paid time off for family leave, sick days etc. There is nothing natural about the current workweek. in fact, one of the main reasons that we have not followed the rest of the world in moving toward shorter workweeks is because of the high overhead costs (most importantly health care) associated with hiring workers. Firms would often rather pay a worker time and a half for overtime hours, or even double-time, rather than incur these overhead costs by hiring another worker.
By his own admission, he didn’t try to time the market, just became unnerved by the run-up in prices and took off. But your basic sense of the problem of bubbles seems right. And the problem comes not in the collapsing of the bubble, but the bubble itself, since the “blow-up/pop” dynamic is fated.
If you’ll endorse me, I’ll run for Congress on specifically that platform.
Actually, I pretty much got the peak on my place (I didn’t expect to). i know that because the buyer tried to resell a year and a half later at a somewhat higher price and struck out. This was pure luck though.
This looks like Japanification but we do not have Japan’s large trade surplus and we have abysmal political leadership. Government spending programs are winding down. State budgets are a disaster. Where do you see any compensating economic growth to counterbalance these negative factors?
This is a great idea, it even has some international support, but Geithner says no:
Republican heads would explode, and so would Senator Schumer’s. And Rahm Emmanuel would burst into flames if someone interfered with his efforts to suck money out of Wall Street.
That’s right. the tax credit allows workers to put in fewer hours and still take home as much pay. So it both divides the existing work among more workers and puts additional money into the economy.
And if I recall correctly, Jane Hamsher said she would personally donate $500 to your campaign fund. I’m in for $100 if you do.
that’s a great method, one of the big problems democrats and progressives have is they have lost the war of words, that war needs to be won, we need to win that war with proper phrasing of issues and your post does just that
Dr. Baker,
Thanks for naming names. BTW, on your blog, “Beat The Press,” some troglodyte wrote that you were just a “blog celebrity” and that SF Federal Reserve Bank President Janet Yellen would be a better Federal Reserve chairperson than you. When is the last time Janet Yellen wrote a book like “Plunder and Blunder” or “False Profits?”
I know, I’m preaching to the converted. I still believe there are far, far more Indians than Chiefs and Wannabe-chiefs. The problem is getting the message [of waste, fraud and abuse by the neo-con controlled Federal Reserve] out to the Indians. The corporate media has everything to sell and nothing to tell. Clearly the only way the message will ever penetrate the corporate media’s fog is by keeping the message simple [Keep it Simple Stupid - KISS Principle]. The progressive analog to the Tea Bag Parties would do the trick like, “Wall Street Lynching Party” or “Anti-Wall Street Bank Party.” Get Howard Dean’s Democracy For America behind this along with Meet-Up and block neo-con infiltration. The wannabes would leave the Tea Bag Parties because they don’t stand for anything, anyway. Americans are unified and very upset with the Wall Street bankers. This would unify us all.
Mr. Baker,
Thanks for coming here today. I have two points to make. The first is that Ned Gramlich fingered the housing bubble in 2002, but no one else on the Board of Gov’s wanted to hear him. To many Chicago types and not enough of the old Jim Tobin crew.
The second is something I read in the local newspaper a couple of weeks ago when I was in Kitsap County WA visiting my mother. There was a local job fare for 400 places at the Bangor and Bremerton naval bases. 12,500 persons showed up, one per 32 jobs! There is a world of hurt out there: you just don’t see it from inside the gated communities where our elites live.
I’d be interested in an opinion on this as well.
When it became immediately obvious that the quantitative-easing wasn’t doing anything to move money into the broader economy, and was just being sopped up by the financial sector to shore up balance-sheets, and chase new speculative markets in attempt to find a new bubble, I completely failed to understand the insistence of people like Paul Krugman on the necessity of keeping those rates so low; lest we behead what little is left of the U.S. economy.
The money wasn’t moving where it needed to, it wasn’t incentivizing lending, so what’s the point?
ya, the bubble burst far sooner then the market stats tell us, it became very hard to sell a property at “market value” most of those homes selling at the inflated value were homes that were had quite a few investments
my friend couldn’t sell his house at market price for two years, then the market collapsed and he took far less then he was offered during the end of the supposed bubble
I’m pretty sure she was being snarky, but I’ll put you on the donor list. ;-)
Yes, we will see many Wall Street financed politicians go nuts over a financial speculation tax. we will need a mass movement to get it. But, these assholes may give us one. If they come out for cutting SS and Medicare (many already have), then we will get the tea partiers and everyone else really furious.
We have to ignore party distinctions and be prepared to make allies wherever they are. the only reason that Bernanke had to crack a sweat with his reappointment was due to some great work between progressives and the right.
I had people ridiculing me for being on the same side as Grover Norquist. That’s politics. Hell, they are on the same side as Robert Rubin. You aren’t going to get anywhere is the only people you ever work with are your friends.
I think this is an excellent point.
I sold my tech stocks in October 1999, after which the NASDAQ went up another 50% in the following 6 months. Anyone responsible for running money for someone else who did for them what I did for me would have been fired. Which is why the bubble gets so big. Participants can’t leave money on the table.
As you mention, the problem is the bubble. The reason for the bubble is that there is not enough personal income to support the economy at normal interest rates. Rates have to be kept abnormally low so consumers borrow to spend. Until some one pays attention to getting workers some jobs, and then some decent income from those jobs, the economy will continue to bubble away. Those low interest rates spur asset prices more than real growth.
Yes, keep it simple — break up the big banks tax Wall Street speculation. These are messages that people can understand and they will know whether they happened or not. We should more effectively regulate derivatives, but how is the average person ever going to know if we actually have when he hears our political leaders saying it? they will know if we are raising $100 billion a year from taxing Wall Street speculation and we have broken up JP Morgan and Goldman sachs.
since that time, however, more countries have agreed on a bank tax, with Canada assenting to use one just this week, and Gordon Brown telling everyone that the G-20 nations are going to collectively agree on a bank tax. Whether it works like a financial speculation tax remains to be seen.
Agree 100%
Reagan was pro choice, but he got Roman Catholics to vote for him.
I’ve never understood the idea that economics is a science. Scientific theories can be falsified, just as Einstein falsified Newton. How do you falsify the Efficient Market Hypothesis? Eugene Fama says it worked just fine through the Great Crash.
And shouldn’t that be by restoring Glass-Steagall and repealing Graham-Leach-Bliley?
And I think the framing for that should be “Don’t let the banks bet with YOUR money.”
Mr.Baker,
Do you see localized attempts for States to establish public Banks a la the Bank of North Dakota as one way to mitigate some of the Wall Street abuses?
Isn’t this the problem with financial reform right now? Dodd’s trying to broker some grand bargain, and it has 52 moving parts and they’re all about systemic risk regulators and derivatives clearinghouses, etc. The House passed a financial reform bill and absolutely nobody can tell you what’s in it.
Are you aware of the Robin Hood Tax campaign in the UK? Why isn’t every progressive think tank in Washington putting their energies together into creating something like that here?
Starting at the end here, Fannie and Freddie are now allowing some people to stay in their homes as renters paying the market rent following foreclosure. Fannie is doing much better by actually giving a 1-year lease (as opposed to month to month), but it is still a ways to go before they have the 5 to 10 year commitment I envision in the right to rent proposal.
The commercial real estate market is tanking, so we will see many bankruptcies and lender takeovers. In the residential market, prices are virtually certain to resume their decline very soon, if they haven’t already. Foreclosures will continue at an extremely high rate through at least 2011, although we may have hit the peak (small consolation).
It would be great if we could ever get progressive housing types to think seriously about this issue. We have millions of homeowners who are paying far more in ownership costs than they would to rent a comparable unit. It is inconceivable in many cases that they will ever accumulate equity (yeah, I know in loon tune land, prices go back up, just like with Internet stocks).
How are we helping these families by keeping them in their homes as owners? They are just throwing money into the toilet. So, we have progressive housing activists who are encouraging low and moderate income families to give their hard-earned money to banks for nothing. That is not progressive where i come from.
Yes, I like Glass-Stegall for precisely that reason, let the banks gamble with their own money, not taxpayer insured deposits.
I’d also like to prompt you to rant about the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission whenever you want to. You told a story about Alan Simpson and Social Security that people here may be interested in hearing.
Dean — any suggestions on (1) who should be appointed to fill the two open spots at the Fed and (2) what we should be seeking that affects the Fed in the financial “reforms” bills?
One of the points you stress is that we’ve always had “systemic risk” regulators; it’s just that the people with that implicit or explicit responsibility were incompetent and/or ideologically predisposed not to see the risks in front of their noses. If that’s true (and I agree), then moving that responsibility to the committee led by the Treasury Secretary with the Fed Chair as co-chair won’t prevent this from happening again. That suggests that what’s needed is not a new agency and/or a shuffling of chairs but rather a market skeptic litmus test. Brooksley Born qualifies, but Geithner doesn’t, and it has nothing to do with their official positions. How do you see us handling this issue?
Yes, at some point we have to be prepared to say f**k the financial markets. This is in fact the honest economist position. No serious economist would ever suggest making policy based on short-term fluctuations in financial markets. That is why it was such crap when so many economists jumped on the plunge in the stock market when the TARP was initially voted down.
You make good policy, that is the key. The financial markets will respond. Furthermore, just to be clear, there is no reason for anyone except the tiny minority who own lots of stock, to want to see an over-valued stock market like we had in the bubble years of the late 90s. It was irresponsible of Greenspan to allow it to get so out of line with fundamentals.
The question on the Fed is who could conceivably pass the litmus tests who would be good. I would like to see Janet Yellen (perhaps the Gorbachev of the Fed insiders) and as a long shot, Brooksley Born.
To get accountability in the future in terms of bursting bubbles and preventing systemic risk we have to hold people accountable for their failures. We have not done this.
Again, we should think like economists here. telling the financial industry that it can’t make money in reckless activities will always be very difficult for a regulator. If you pay no price for not cracking down even when you should, then what do we think regulators will do in the future? Obviously, any honest economist would say that the regulators will just take a walk and let the financial industry get away with anything.
Economics has falsifiable hypotheses. The problem is that all the algorithmic, statistical, and logical analysis shows that markets don’t do what they’re supposed to do; left to their own devices. They’re rife with perversions, innately, which explicitly deny the capacity for efficiency. The only way people like Fama get away with their tripe is by making a circular argument to the effect of, “Well that had to be the most efficient outcome, because it’s what the market produced.” It’s tantamount to saying, “The world is perfect, because God created it.” It’s only true if you concede that the antecedent is true, without evidence.
It would be like having a software engineer tell you that he refuses to write fault-tolerant programs that can fail gracefully, and provide information about the failure, because the fact that the program failed is evidence that the program’s purported task is simply impossible to perform, and we can do no better than that.
It’s absurd on its face, but that appears to be the condition of economics. As soon as the discipline got ahold of faux-calculus to display their models, it declared itself scientific; or at least demanded the credibility as such.
is the market still overvalued by speculating and exhuberant financial activity?
There has been some improvement on the trade balance. Investment is up some. Hours have increased even if jobs haven’t. I don’t see a lot of bright light, I just don’t see us heading downward.
Dean,
From my experience, the Bush-43 years, all the problems started after his first $2T tax cut back in early 2001. After that passed, I noticed work slowed down drastically (in my case, I managed a bench of 25 people with 3.5 months backlog of work which dried up in 3 months and most people came back onto the bench) and the real estate market stalled (homes for sale started taking twice as long to sell (33 days v 72 days)).
To me that’s when the Bush recession started and then turned into a depression his last couple of years (what economists call the Great Recession).
Thoughts?
I don’t think the stock market is relative to fundamentals, although the run-up last year may have been driven by a bit excessive exuberance. The housing market is definitely over-valued. There continues to be an enormous over-supply of housing with record vacancy rates. Once the fed pulls back from its MBS purchase program and the first-time buyrs credit ends (April) we will see prices resume their decline.
I was no fan of the Bush tax cuts, but the recession was baked in the cards. It was due to the collapse of the stock bubble. In fact, the tax cut helped to counter the recession. It would have been better if more had gone to low and moderate income people, but the economy absolutely did need a boost following the collapse of the bubble.
Thank you.
Re: KISS Principle
Dr. Baker,
I was thinking more in terms of Jane Hamsher using her activist skills to build momentum for an Anti-Wall Street Movement. The Astro Turf “Tea Baggers” are a media creation that fills the airwaves with their mindless drivel. A Democracy For America Anti-Wall Street Movement would draw far more people and would be pervasive since there are branches all over the country.
I understand derivatives and I have heard you, Dr. Stiglitz and Dr. Krugman, et al discuss the inherent deficiencies of derivatives in their current forms. Trust me, the Indians won’t understand them unless you call derivatives what they really are – GAMBLING – and that you have finally regulated Derivative Gambling.
Likewise, breaking up the banks sounds nice, but forcing the banks to be responsive to consumer protection laws – that would be an accomplishment. When Bank of America cuts off a line of credit to my business and no one at BofA can explain why – that should result in an automatic $10,000 fine against Bank of America for disruption of my business. What ever happened to the common law principle of “promissory estoppel?” Do you mean that the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks are above the Uniform Commercial Code regulations codified in every state’s regulations regarding banking activities?
Progressive need to learn how to fight and use the inherent strengths we have. We have you, Dr. Baker as well as your fellow progressive [enlightened] economists. We have the power of numbers – far more Indians than Chiefs and Wannabe-Chiefs. And we have organizers like Jane Hamsher who know how to communicate to the masses. We need to have a Progressive Wednesday morning kaffee klatch like “drown the government in a bathtub” Grover Norquist’s Business Roundtable kaffee klatch that can be used to have a common voice across blogs and other outlets of progressive news. We can do it. All we need to do is try.
Yours truly,
J Snow
Going back to my first question at #10, is there a viable path to getting Congress and/or the Fed to do enough to dramatically reduce unemployment?
Seems like we’re being conditioned to believe that, gosh, re-employment always lags, and this takes a long time, and gosh we don’t have the money, and there’s no housing market to pull us out this time, and there isn’t much the Fed can do anyway, etc. I don’t think this total assessment has to be true, and it wouldn’t have stopped an FDR from putting people back to work.
Is it (1) analytically wrong or just (2) not politically feasible to wish/advocate for stronger, more direct employment efforts?
We should call the reporters out on this wherever possible. Keep in mind, most of them are not evil, they are just ignorant. The Peterson crew presents themselves as unbiased experts. They have many people with top notch credentials. What is a reporter going to think?
So, we have to point out carefully where they are wrong on the facts and where they have expressed an opinion by David Walker or some other Pete Peterson type as fact. Many of these reporters are open to reason. That has been my experience.
Dennis Kucinich today introduced a bill to lower the retirement age to 60 temporarily, to get a certain number of people out of the workforce and create jobs (he claims 1 million jobs created with a $15 billion investment). This seems like a creative solution out of the Dean Baker school, and could put the deficit maniacs on the defensive. Thoughts?
Jane is a great organizer. It helps to be right (not too much in Washington, but it still helps some even here).
Great chat, thanks for David for his great introduction and Dean Baker for a terrific book.
Does anyone in Washington listen to you, Mr Baker? Who are people we can help reach with your message?
I think it is interesting. I still prefer work-sharing. My main concern on the early retirement deal is that we may encourage many people to leave the labor force early who really don’t have enough money to retire. as it stands many current and near retirees have seen much of their wealth destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble. This is one reason that it is especially outrageous that the Peter Peterson Wall Street crew want to cut their benefits.
Thanks Dean. I’ll pick up your book.
Who would be your pick as Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary?
David, is there a place on FDL that lets people know who’s coming up? I seem to catch these after they’re over or somewhere in the middle.
This basically is what saved Social Security from privatization in 2005, the “There is no Crisis” movement that made it toxic for any newspaper or magazine to uncritically promote the wonders of the Bush proposal. We need more of this. It’s unbelievable to me that progressive economics has lagged so much on organizing since the Great Recession, when there were demonstrable successes before then.
I’m gonna argue that point, the bush tax “cuts” didn’t make their way back into the economy so they didn’t avert the depression
those cuts went to people who had more money then they could possibly spend, giving them even more did nothing for us
the depression (it was far worse then a recession) was baked into the cards by reagan, bush, reagan tax cuts, the housing bubble only made it worse it didn’t make it happen
in addition, some of those cuts went to companies for exporting jobs to where they could pay slave wages
worse;
those cuts came at the expense of state programs and funding
On the main page, there’s always a list in the right-hand column of upcoming Book Salons.
I have people listening to me. Interestingly they are not all progressives. I have been trying to push work-sharing with Kevin Hassett of AEI as an ally. As I wrote earlier, a group of progressives worked with Grover Norquist and many Ron Paul types to try to stop Bernanke’s reappointment.
There are many good progressives in Congress with whom I work. Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin, Peter DeFazio, Raul Grijalva, Dennis Kucinich, Marcie Kaptur would top my list.
Actually, the vast majority of the population got money out of the Bush tax cuts. There were few if any offsetting spending cuts (remember, it wasn’t paid for). so, we absolutely could have had better stimulus, but if the choice was the Bush tax cuts or nothing in 2001, we were better off with the tax cuts.
Dean,
Work question: I estimated that IBM has received about $750B in tax breaks & subsidies from Federal, State, and Local, over the past 15-20 years.
Is there a way I can verify that?
The problem in organizing is getting anyone to do anything other than what they are already doing. Inertia is an incredibly powerful force and all the people running progressive organizations say “we’ve been losing for 30 years, why change course now?”
FDL Book Salon – tab at the top of the page
Prof. Baker, the economy has hit the big city dailies hard. They have seen subscription and advertising revenue fall. Do you see any signs that they might be more open to progressive/liberal ideas?
And if you click on the book salon link the schedule is available for several months in advance.
Yes, this could lead to a false sense of security from those without the means to retire.
What should we do about the rating agencies? I’m seeing thousands of public-sector jobs cut here in Los Angeles almost entirely because of the threat of a credit downgrade. But the rating agencies aren’t independent actors, and in this case it just seems like an IMF-style austerity squeeze. How can we best rewrite the rules that currently rely so much on the “objective” analysis of organizations essentially run by banks?
you mean the 600 dollars I got versus the thousands the wealthy recieved?
in addition, wasn’t that 600 dollars a loan against future “tax cuts”
that did nothing for me and the majority of the middle class, it possibly did something for those in dire straights but not alot
it’s my opinion tax cuts have to be target marketed toward a struggling industry or one that needs to develope for it to have a positive return, you can’t cut taxes across the board without repercussions in service or debt service
Dean — Thanks for being here today, and for your focus on real estate and finance.
I watched California real estate values in my area double from 1997 to 2000, then as things were easing off the way they always have in the past, the dot.com bust hit in 2000 and by 9/11. everything was slowing down dramatically.
After 9/11, the NINJA loans took off with a vengance to satisfy Wall Street’s demand for “real assets” that could be obscenely leveraged into the opaque CDS casino gambling pits. Without any underwriting constraints to protect borrowers or investors, “values” doubled again by early 2006. This crash was no accident of irrational exuberance.
When you assert that a depression is unlikely, what do you see in the works today that gives you hope?
How can hundreds of trillions in deleveraging derivative positions be resolved when the real economy doesn’t operate on that scale at all?
Some like GS and MS still have access to government credit lines but a longer term problem is shadow banking. This is as large as traditional banking. How would you rein it in?
What should be happening wrt/organizing today? What could we do?
Thanks David & Bev.
There are three ways to create employment by expanding the economy:
1) spend a lot more money — maybe another $600 billion in annual stimulus;
2) get the Fed to be much more serious in pushing expansionary monetary policy. My favorite would be to target a 4.0 percent inflation rate (buy enough bonds to push the inflation rate to 4.0 percent). This would both lower the real interest rate and reduce households’ debt burdens.
3) lower the value of the dollar — this is the only way to ever get the trade deficit down, everything else you hear is just mush.
Finally, we can use work-sharing to divide what work we do have among more workers. The idea is that we would then experience the downturn as shorter workweeks and longer vacations rather than double-digit unemployment.
And no, we should never accept anyone telling us that there is nothing we can do about high unemployment and that we just have to live with it. Odds are the people saying this have a job.
remember, the only reason that we have mass unemployment is because the people designing economic policy messed up about as bad as you possibly can. When they tell us that we can’t do anything about unemployment, just ask them when they stopped being wrong about the economy.
The question is would you have spent more money without the $600? The question is the Bush tax cuts or nothing, not whether the Bush tax cuts were the best policy.
Where is demand going to come from?
Out of curiosity, do most economists realize how discredited their profession has become or are they still in denial? I haven’t seen any indications that traditional economists have admitted fault, apologized, or otherwise corrected their ideas.
I would have spent the same, I didn’t spend more, I didn’t go out and buy something I wouldn’t have bought, and the same was true for most people
in addition it came right when services were being cut, medicare in particular, whence my dad coudln’t go through the prescribed therapy since the bush cuts took place
these funds DID come at a price
it was those in dire straights that used those funds, otherwise it wound up in the bank
in addition that 600 dollars came from future returns, it wasn’t a cut, howeve there were actual cuts given to the wealthy at an exponentially differant rate
this is a redistribution of assets but not for the purpose of aquiring wealth but for the purpose of creating a greater devide
The vast majority of derivative positions will just expire at zero net transfer. For example, if I have a credit default swap that insures $10 million in bonds and the swap expires in Jnauary of 2011, if the bond has not defaulted by then, the CDS obligation disappears. This is what will happen with the overwhelming majority of derivative positions.
In terms of a depression fear — we know how to prevent a depression, you must spend money. We didn’t know this in the 30s, which is why the depression dragged on for a decade, but we do know it today, so it would only be the result of ungodly stupidity that we would get another depression.
This is an important point because the elites keep telling us that we should be thankful we didn’t have another Great Depression. Well, we can grant that they were really stupid and that their economic policies have been disastrous, but there was no plausible story in which the initial collapse would have led us to 10 years of double-digit unemployment. That outcome would require 10 years of sustained stupidity.
That’s helpful. Can you expand on (3) lower the value of the dollar? Since China seems to peg it’s currency artificially low relative to the dollar, can the US act unilaterally and not have the effect offset by them? What are the mechanisms?
Good for you, but there is a lot of evidence that other people did spend more. And, there is no evidence that the tax cuts came at a price in 2001-2002. Interest rates were very low.
Discredited is the most ironic word to describe Summers, Geithner, Rubin, etal.’s allegiance to the financial and government capture economies at the expense of the real economy.
It paid my vet bill and this year my taxes went up.
Timing markets is like trying to time lemmings. Unless you have a clear idea of when the business press will spook the herd.
Demand will come from trade and investment and increased hours worked means increased wage income.
No, there is zero recognition among most economists that they have anything to be sorry for. It’s a great profession: you mess up as bad as is humanly possible and no one loses their job, in fact I doubt anyone even missed a promotion. Needless to say that economists would say that people would be crazy to trust a profession with these sorts of standards.
I thought taxes went down for 95 percent of the populace, not true?
So you think absent absolute bungling by Treasury & the Fed, things will slowly improve in the real economy?
I don’t know about the populace but my withholding went up $2/week. Not a lot of money but over a year that’s 4 or 5 books or a vet visit.
excuse me?
services were cut back or not funded in plenty of areas, for instance medicare.
the fact that funds were not there is a price
for instance, I paid in the tens of thousands for care my dad would have had covered if he had the operation only a year sooner
that’s a price and that cost the economy with no doubt
I don’t want to highjack the book salon so I’ll let you have the last word and let the conversation go forward
have any taxes gone down to compensate for witholding going up?
Yes, the U.S. has the same right to peg its currency against the Chinese yuan as China has to peg its currency against the dollar. (As much as out political leaders might try to tell us otherwise, the U.S. is not completely helpless in international affairs.) So, we could announce a policy where, beginning January 1, 2011, the Treasury will buy yuan at 5 to the dollar (the Chinese rate is 7 to the dollar). This would set up a system of competing exchange rates where China can only lose because they would be overpaying for trillions of dollars.
Presumably we would never get to this actual exchange rate war since there would be negotiations and China would agree to gradually increase the value of its currency. But the idea that the U.S. is just helpless in this picture is nonsense.
To effectively address the levels of unemployment we are seeing, I think we need stimulative spending on the order of a trillion a year. Part of this could also be redeployed by ending the wars and reducing the size and the goldplating on the military. I don’t see either of these as likely. You criticize Peterson but Obama and Orszag are singing the same tune on entitlements. We have real upside down economics going on here where stimulative sectors are being put on the block to foster non-productive ones. This for me is the very essence of looting.
Yes, taxes did fall for almost everyone.
In case this was lost in the shuffle:
What should we do about the rating agencies? I’m seeing thousands of public-sector jobs cut here in Los Angeles almost entirely because of the threat of a credit downgrade. But the rating agencies aren’t independent actors, and in this case it just seems like an IMF-style austerity squeeze. How can we best rewrite the rules that currently rely so much on the “objective” analysis of organizations essentially run by banks?
Not out of my paycheck, meager as it is. The only thing that changed was withholding.
It has not been good news to hear Obama push this deficit commission. It certainly was not encouraging to see Alan Simpson made co-chairman. The guy just hates SS and Medicare. I blogged at TMPCafe about this last week.
You might be talking about benefit increases that you would have wanted to see. Bush did not have any significant cuts to Medicare.
Fits right in with the neoliberal philsophy, though.
Except of course, CDS are still being sold. Also if there is another sharp downturn, netting will be meaningless because a lot of the counterparties will go bankrupt, and that will then propagate throughout the system unless the government intervenes again (it is too much to hope that such an intervention would be better structured than the last one).
Yes but it isn’t just the amount but the velocity, i.e. where it is spent that counts.
Government 2.0 (Tim O’Reilly)
Our current government is like a vending machine. We put in taxes, and out come roads, schools, police protection, schools and armies, health care and retirement. And when we don’t get the services we want, or the prices are too high, all we can do is shake the vending machine.
Meanwhile, our leaders debate whether to raise prices, and put more goods and services into the vending machine, or to slash prices by reducing the number of offerings.
What if there were another choice?
The secret learned by technology providers is to spend less time providing services for citizens, and to spend more time providing services to developers. Every successful technology platform, from the personal computer and the internet to the iPhone, has been profoundly generative: a small investment in open infrastructure that others can build on turns into a vast cornucopia of services.
This is the right way to frame the question of “Government 2.0.”
How does government become an open platform that allows people inside and outside government to provide better services to each other? In this model, government is a convener and an enabler rather than the first mover of civic action.
“When the best leader leads, the people say ‘We did it ourselves.’” – Lao Tzu
Yes, here’s my Simpson post from last week.
Alan Simpson: A Man Who Intensely Wants to Cut Social Security
user-pic
By Dean Baker – February 17, 2010, 4:41AM
It is not good news that President Obama picked former Senator Alan Simpson as one of the co-chairs of his deficit commission. Simpson is not just your run of the mill Republican. He is an extreme foe of Social Security.
One anecdote from his days as a senator should give a flavor of his hatred for the program. Back then, the preferred method for cutting Social Security among the Washington elite was to claim that the consumer price index (CPI) overstated the true rate of inflation. This matters for Social Security because the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) is based on the CPI. If the CPI was overstating the true rate of inflation, the DC elite argued that we were overcompensating Social Security beneficiaries.
The plan was to cut the size of the annual COLA to 1 percentage point less than the CPI. This may sound trivial, but it would add up over time. Someone who was retired 5 years would see their benefits cut by roughly 5 percent, 10 years by 10 percent, and 20 years by 20 percent. This is real money.
There were two basic problems with the story. The first is that there was not much evidence for the claim and much of the evidence that did exist was 30 years old at that point. Usually economists like to base important policy decisions on more substantive and recent evidence.
The other problem was a logical one. If the CPI really overstated inflation then people were getting wealthier much quicker than anyone could imagine. The point here is simple. If nominal wages rise by 4 percent and the CPI shows a rate of inflation that is 3 percent, then real wages are rising 1 percent a year. However, if the CPI overstates the true rate of inflation by 1 percentage point, then the true rate of inflation is just 2 percent. This means that real wages are rising by 2 percent a year. If this is true, then our children will be far richer than anyone could imagine. This also means that our grandparents grew up in poverty, since if real wages have been rising much more rapidly than the official data show, then people were poorer in the recent past than implied by the official data.
This point is about as simple and straightforward as it gets. That is why I was very impressed to be on a radio who with Senator Simpson, who was arguing that we absolutely had to reduce the annual COLA by at least 1 percentage point below the rate of inflation shown by the CPI.
Simpson wasn’t content to argue that the CPI overstated inflation by 1 percentage point. He told listeners that many economists tell him that the overstatement is at least 1.5 percentage points and that some tell him that the overstatement could even be as much as 2 percentage points. He then told listeners that soon our grandchildren will be living in chicken coops.
Of course the logic runs the other way. If Mr. Simpson’s economists were correct and the CPI overstates the annual inflation rate by 2 percentage points then we are getting richer at a fantastic pace. (4 percent nominal wage growth would translate into 3 percent real wage growth in the story above.) This would mean that our grandchildren will be hugely wealthier than we are and that the current generation of Social Security beneficiaries grew up in extreme poverty. Why would anyone want to cut benefits for people who grew up in poverty to make our rich grandchildren even richer.
But, Senator Simpson didn’t care about logic, his agenda was cutting Social Security. And that is who President Obama picked to co-chair his deficit commission.
With the debt loads we are seeing? With fears of job loss and possibly foreclosure? I don’t think so.
We should be worried about issuers making excessive commitments on CDS, which are still unregulated, but the buyers are probably using more caution now. Not everyone is Goldman Sachs who can count on the Fed and Treasury to honor obligations that have gone bad.
Link to that:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/17/alan_simpson_a_man_who_intensely_wants_to_cut_soci
Tim Fernholz disagreed with your take based on the construction of the deficit commission’s mandate, which he says is to basically shave 1% of GDP off the deficit by 2015, which “means that broader social insurance programs probably won’t come seriously under the knife.” I don’t know how he can say that in an age of armchair Cassandras shrieking about entitlements every two seconds.
……But the idea that the U.S. is just helpless in this picture is nonsense.
As I read your comment, I was reminded of the great JP Getty line:
It would be great to see some Wall Street Dems targeted. My friend, Jonathan Tasini, is running in the Democratic senatorial primary in NY state. He has a great progressive platform. He could really use some help. Beating an incumbent is a long shot, but he has a message that would be very popular if people heard it.
arggg
I promised the last word to you so I won’t respond along this line of the conversation but please read krugman today
well, investment and net exports have been increasing, so you have to bet that this will stop. It can, but i don’t see any reason why i should expect to see a revesal.
Picking Alan Simpson and an investment banker like Erskine Bowles, for a commission that will advocate cuts in Social Security and Medicare, in an election year is politically suicidal but shows just how extreme Obama is.
Also it was noteworthy that the only sector specifically referred to for spending cuts was entitlements, not our bloated military or this President’s imperial wars.
it’s a bad sign. They should be going toward more easing — the fed projects that unemployment will be far above normal levels for the next five years. They also predict that inflation will continue to slow, so why would they be looking to tighten?
It would be great to just force a debate on military spending. If these guys think their wars are great, then they should be willing to raise the taxes needed to pay for them.
Krugman is right, the tax cuts were not planned as a response to the downturn, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t help. They did increase consumption, there is good research from the Census and elsewhere on this. Also, Krugman certianly does not say that they made the recession worse.
OK, good concept. What would You do to begin the process of providing some service to people in this way?
They should also be willing to explain how losing is winning.
Yeah, we don’t know what these folks will decide, but making someone like Simpson co-chair, who absolutely does want to cut both Medicare and SS, is very dangerous. Of course the commission by itself can’t do anything, but if you envision an environment in which it is politically possible to cut SS and Medicare, this would be part of it.
I believe you noted yesterday that the Fed is essentially breaking the law by ignoring its mandate to pursue full employment. This is another case of elites – in this case, Fed economists – shirking any sense of accountability.
Alan Simpson? Arsonist as a youth.
From an amicus brief in Roper v. Simmons in front of SCOTUS.
He is no more fit to serve on the “Catfood Commission” than Peterson himself.
I am concerned about the big slow movers like pension funds getting sucked back into these vehicles. And seriously if large investors were concerned about risk, would they still be in an inflated bubble like stocks? It is precisely because we don’t know what is going on with CDS and other derivatives that we can’t gage the scope of the danger. But if you look at some of the large derivatives holders like JPM, their book has decreased some but not a lot. And for those who say that a lot of these instruments are safe, like the currency swaps, remember LTCM.
What about the real economy?
Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue’s extend and pretend economic recovery PR campaign with privatized profits with socialized losses saves their hides at the expense of the regular economy where people live, work, earn, save, invest, consume & pay taxes.
Larry Summers: We’re traveling in a space ship to the sun because we heard that solar energy is the future for getting America back to work.
U.S. Citizens: You can’t do that … You’ll burn up!
Tim Geithner: No worries …. We’re going at night.
U.S. Citizen: Great, be sure to let us know if you find any jobs there.
Falsification in science works by falsifying what is called a null hypothesis in order to say what is not an adequate explanation; failure to falsify the null hypothesis tells you that your original hypothesis was either incorrect or meaningless. Success implies that your hypothesis is at least one of the possible explanations.
The Efficient Markets Hypothesis is one that seemingly has not been tested. If it worked during the economy of the Depression as well as outside of the economy of the Depression, there are two possibilities: Fama has not tried to match empirical data to the hypothesis (or not the right empirical data) or the hypothesis is meaningless under conditions of the Depression (and possibly under all circumstances).
Economists have tended to think that because there is a valid mathematical formulation for something, it must be true.
Well, I am far away from NY, but we can raise funds on line and help to promote his campaign. Perhaps we can hold a forum here where he can lay out his message.
I think one thing we have learned in recent years is that the internet can be a powerful means to fund raise.
yes, that would be fantastic. A little money could go a very long way with Tasini’s campaign.
In fairness, most economists are not believers in the efficient market hypothesis (at least the strong form). But, it is amazing that many still are.
If some entitlement cuts don’t ensue from that panel David Broder will personally lead a posse to set fire to the Bowles-Simpson report on the White House lawn. They will have enormous political pressure to do so.
The good news is that 14 of the 18 members of the panel have to agree on recommendations, which makes Pelosi and Reid’s choices very important. Also, Andy Stern’s name was floated as one of the additional Obama selections (so was Alice Rivkin, I think… yuck).
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
Dean, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon discussing your new book and economics with us.
David, Thank you very much for Hosting this lively Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought Dean’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
that’s a good point, here’s an assist;
I have learned from a math professor, things that are true in math are not always true in life, and things true in life are not always true in math, thus there is the never ending pi
thus if you have 5 apples and multiply by zero somehow you have lost your five apples
That might have been true before the U.S. Treasury, in the dead of night, granted the biggest investment banks federal bank holding charters so that they could continue to speculate with tax payer funds (actually just more borrowed money) while turning their backs on defaulting borrowers and the imploding communities where they live.
Thanks to Bev and David and everyone who took part. I really enjoyed the exchange.
Dean
Dean, thank you for another lesson.
Namaste
Thanks for your book and today’s FDL salon, Dr. Baker.
I hope you’re right.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
In a purely efficient competitive market, profits would trend toward zero.
The folks pushing efficient markets hypothesis are the same ones out to protect profits. Q.E.D.
Thanks for joining us, I thought it was an excellent discussion.
You can find some of Dean’s work at Beat The Press for The American Prospect, at TPMCafe, and of course, at The Center for Economic and Policy Research. Oh, and buy the book.
Thanks, everyone!
Dean, solution for the social security is quite simple in my opinion. Increase the current income limit on the contributions. Even better still remove the income limit itself and with this step they can probably drop the contribution percentage for the social security rate for everybody. Let’s see if they broach this possibility in their discussions.
CarolynC’s diary is front-paged!
John Yoo: President has so much power he can order civilians “massacred”
Thank you both so much. an excellent Salon
Almost all Wyoming public servants are to be distrusted.
Don’t miss Dean Baker: Incentives for Recovery at GRITtv
There is a lot that the Obama administration could do. Will they? Even Krugman is now pushing them for a Public Opition for national healthcare. That would free up massive amounts of disposable income to consumers for other goods and services as well as create jobs. The alternative energy policy could be funded by part of the $600 billion you suggest to spend anually. And the states/city/county governments need a lot of help to stop the job bleeding.
Nice discussion.
Thanks to all for a wonderful Salon today.
(PS to David: It’s raining again today here, no surprise. We’re in for 2-4 days of it this week. Maybe Vaughn Walker will call us back for closing arguments?)
But they’re not all ARSONISTS.
There is a specific pathology for arsonists.
x2
This makes no sense to me. It must fundamentally assume that there’s no down-side to incentivizing speculative bubbles. It’d be one thing if that Fed money was actually moving through the economy, but the credit landscape seems to show pretty clearly that essentially none of that is making its way to the real economy. The financial sector and fundamentally insolvent institutions are just soaking up all that liquidity, which is precisely why we’re not seeing inflation; the monetary expansion is being essentially destroyed as soon as its created, or kept out of the market excepting for funding a huge pointless Dollar carry trade.
Keeping rates low makes sense with a reformed financial system, which we don’t have. Keeping them low with an unreformed system is just begging to produce price shocks in whatever markets look like a bubble will hold in. How can that possibly be a good thing. Isn’t that just a recipe for riptide inflation given our current situation?
Thanks, Dean, David and Bev!
Speculation isn’t inherently evil. I would prefer Wall St. Crisis Tax or Financial Industry Insurance Fee or something like that.
Gov’t gave them (forced on some) an emergency loan and when the time comes they will have to repay it, perhaps with interest. This forcing of their hand should help them think twice in the future about bashing the economy for profit.
I say ‘perhaps with interest’ because it might not be necessary to specify that. We already have some ‘investments’ in those firms which could repay handsomely for the taxpayers.
Isn’t the traditional ‘tax’ on speculation using leveraging the increase in interest charged on borrowing due to ‘excessive’ requests (meaning beyond normal real economic needs)?
If our Fed priced money properly, then excessive leveraging might become a lot less appealing. If we had fewer opportunities for “heads I win, tails YOU lose” investments, then leveraging would be a lot less appealing. Fix the system and a lot of the craziness will go away.
It has to also apply to trading branches such as AIG’s London branch which claimed the rating of the main reserves (“AAA”) for it’s very risky CDS ventures.
Regulating financial activities is broader than just banking.
He must not have been talking about politicians who have to have something to brag about to get re-elected.
That must be what a Star Trek fazer does…multiplies matter by zero.
Say, if you’re going to make a run to the sun could ya bring back a pint of red-hot sun-drenched ice cream. I hear they make it with tiny little pellets of red-hot spice. Mmmm, yum.
Great insightful comment!
This is what allowed Greenspan to fool everyone, perhaps even himself, into believing the low interest rates were fine. Even in his last Congressional hearing testimony I don’t think he addressed the question of whether the system became broken over time. He just said his concept of how the economic system worked was flawed. Maybe a lot of his ideas were sound…if the system wasn’t broken. Can any rational ideas be sound when the system is broken?