News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

Global Economics

Started by jedifunk, August 19, 2011, 10:53:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

twatts

Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

runawayjimbo

I don't always rarely agree with Matt Yglesias, but here he shows that he does in fact understand the importance of price signals (it's the incentives, stupid). But don't take his word for it, ask the people in NY/NJ waiting 3 hrs in line for gas.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/10/sandy_price_gouging_anti_gouging_laws_make_natural_disasters_worse.html

Quote
The Case for Price Gouging
Trying to prevent merchants from hiking prices during disasters is futile and counterproductive.

Even in these polarized times, there are some things politicians of both parties can agree. Price gouging, for example, is wrong. New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman, a Democrat, wants you to know it. But this isn't just for soft-hearted liberals. New Jersey's notoriously tough conservative governor, Chris Christie, also put out a weekend press release warning that "price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal" and that complaints would be investigated by the attorney general. Specifically, Garden State merchants are barred from raising prices more than 10 percent over their normal level during emergency conditions (New York's anti-gouging law sets a less precise definition, barring "unconscionably extreme" increases).

The bipartisan indignation is heartening, but there's one problem. These laws are hideously misguided. Stopping price hikes during disasters may sound like a way to help people, but all it does is exacerbate shortages and complicate preparedness.

The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn't vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time:  They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn't a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well.

Consider the case of poor Thakur Gas of Branchville, N.J., which was hit with a $50,000 fine in late September for price gouging charges arising out of Tropical Storm Irene. Christie specifically cited the case over the weekend as a cautionary tale of what awaits New Jersey retailers who try to adjust prices to shifting supply and demand conditions. Thakur's crime, according to court papers, was raising the prices 17 percent when the storm hit, causing the store's gross margins to spike.

This seems like a straightforward violation of New Jersey law, but what Thakur did also make perfect business sense. If there's elevated demand for your product, you try to sell more of it. But if you can't sell more volume because supplies have been disrupted by a storm, you raise prices. Customers aren't going to like it (and the need to maintain good will with your customers should be a factor in any business's decision-making) but they're also not going to like it if you run out of gasoline by 2 p.m. because it has all been bought up by earlier, stockpiling drivers.

What Branchville, N.J., drivers ought to fear isn't a few days of high gasoline prices, it's the risk that station owners might not bother to open the station at all. For customers to suffer from a gasoline shortage even while gasoline sat idle in the storage tanks of local businesses would be absurd. If higher operating margins are what it takes to tempt people to brave difficult driving conditions for the sake of opening the store on a day when customers are likely to be scarce, that's a small price to pay.

Indeed, many of the problems associated with weather emergencies are precisely caused by the fact that we can't count on shops to "gouge" their customers. I live in a neighborhood with buried power lines in a building that contains a supermarket on the ground floor. But I nonetheless found myself stuck in line Sunday evening at the Safeway stockpiling emergency supplies just in case something went badly wrong and knocked power out throughout the city. The issue wasn't that I wouldn't be able to get to the store in a worst-case scenario, as that I was afraid other people would already have bought up all the stuff. And indeed, by the time I made it, the shelves had been largely denuded of essentials such as bottled water, canned soup, batteries, and Diet Coke. Greater flexibility to raise prices would not only tend to curb overconsumption directly by encouraging people to buy less, it would inspire confidence that shortages wouldn't arise, reducing the tendency toward panicky preemptive hoarding.

Last but by no means least, more price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse.

None of which is to say that people should be greedy all the time. Disasters really are times when people pull together and we see large and small acts of kindness that rightly inspire us. But consider that declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity: It doesn't create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first. If you feel bad about the idea of earning windfall profits off the misfortunes of others, then donate the money to charity. If that seems too impersonal, give your employees a bonus for showing up under difficult circumstances. But storm or no storm, the best practice is to try to set prices that balance supply with demand. State governments shouldn't be trying to stop you.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

runawayjimbo

Happy QE4 Day!!!

No go refi your house and go out and stimulate the economy. To do otherwise is downright un-Amurican.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

runawayjimbo

Thank fucking Jeebus. Every time I heard "trillion dollar coin" I died a little.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/platinum-coin-dismissed_n_2464170.html?1358025670

Quote
Platinum Coin Dismissed: White House Ratchets Up Pressure On GOP To Deal With Debt Ceiling

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of news that both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve rejected the minting of a trillion dollar coin as a solution to help raise the debt ceiling, the White House issued the following statement to The Huffington Post.

"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation to be downgraded. The President and the American people won't tolerate Congressional Republicans holding the American economy hostage again simply so they can force disastrous cuts to Medicare and other programs the middle class depend on while protecting the wealthy. Congress needs to do its job."

If there were any lingering doubts about how the Obama administration will handle the debt-ceiling issue, Saturday's pronouncements put them to rest. Moments before Carney offered his statement, Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley offered one of his own, declaring that "neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."

And so, there will be no coin minted to assist Treasury with its efforts to help the country meet its financial obligations. The politics of the debt ceiling standoff are now a bit simpler.
it won't negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. On the other hand congressional Republicans have threatened to default unless they receive a significant amount of spending cuts or entitlement reforms first. There are no outs for either side. And while that makes the showdown far riskier, the administration also thinks it helps its hand in negotiations.

"This now puts all the pressure back where we believe it belongs: on the Republicans," a senior administration official told the Huffington Post. "There are no magic coins. There is no way to get out of this. We feel fine about the politics of it. We think we are in a stronger position if Republicans realize there is no out."
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

twatts

Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 12, 2013, 10:11:54 PM
Thank fucking Jeebus. Every time I heard "trillion dollar coin" I died a little.

I want a Trillion Dollar Coin...  Someone one EBAY will make one out of scrap steel and sell it for $2 per and get rich...  watch...

Terry
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

mbw

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 02, 2012, 07:35:05 PM
I don't always rarely agree with Matt Yglesias, but here he shows that he does in fact understand the importance of price signals (it's the incentives, stupid). But don't take his word for it, ask the people in NY/NJ waiting 3 hrs in line for gas.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/10/sandy_price_gouging_anti_gouging_laws_make_natural_disasters_worse.html

Quote
The Case for Price Gouging
Trying to prevent merchants from hiking prices during disasters is futile and counterproductive.

Even in these polarized times, there are some things politicians of both parties can agree. Price gouging, for example, is wrong. New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman, a Democrat, wants you to know it. But this isn't just for soft-hearted liberals. New Jersey's notoriously tough conservative governor, Chris Christie, also put out a weekend press release warning that "price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal" and that complaints would be investigated by the attorney general. Specifically, Garden State merchants are barred from raising prices more than 10 percent over their normal level during emergency conditions (New York's anti-gouging law sets a less precise definition, barring "unconscionably extreme" increases).

The bipartisan indignation is heartening, but there's one problem. These laws are hideously misguided. Stopping price hikes during disasters may sound like a way to help people, but all it does is exacerbate shortages and complicate preparedness.

The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn't vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time:  They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn't a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well.

Consider the case of poor Thakur Gas of Branchville, N.J., which was hit with a $50,000 fine in late September for price gouging charges arising out of Tropical Storm Irene. Christie specifically cited the case over the weekend as a cautionary tale of what awaits New Jersey retailers who try to adjust prices to shifting supply and demand conditions. Thakur's crime, according to court papers, was raising the prices 17 percent when the storm hit, causing the store's gross margins to spike.

This seems like a straightforward violation of New Jersey law, but what Thakur did also make perfect business sense. If there's elevated demand for your product, you try to sell more of it. But if you can't sell more volume because supplies have been disrupted by a storm, you raise prices. Customers aren't going to like it (and the need to maintain good will with your customers should be a factor in any business's decision-making) but they're also not going to like it if you run out of gasoline by 2 p.m. because it has all been bought up by earlier, stockpiling drivers.

What Branchville, N.J., drivers ought to fear isn't a few days of high gasoline prices, it's the risk that station owners might not bother to open the station at all. For customers to suffer from a gasoline shortage even while gasoline sat idle in the storage tanks of local businesses would be absurd. If higher operating margins are what it takes to tempt people to brave difficult driving conditions for the sake of opening the store on a day when customers are likely to be scarce, that's a small price to pay.

Indeed, many of the problems associated with weather emergencies are precisely caused by the fact that we can't count on shops to "gouge" their customers. I live in a neighborhood with buried power lines in a building that contains a supermarket on the ground floor. But I nonetheless found myself stuck in line Sunday evening at the Safeway stockpiling emergency supplies just in case something went badly wrong and knocked power out throughout the city. The issue wasn't that I wouldn't be able to get to the store in a worst-case scenario, as that I was afraid other people would already have bought up all the stuff. And indeed, by the time I made it, the shelves had been largely denuded of essentials such as bottled water, canned soup, batteries, and Diet Coke. Greater flexibility to raise prices would not only tend to curb overconsumption directly by encouraging people to buy less, it would inspire confidence that shortages wouldn't arise, reducing the tendency toward panicky preemptive hoarding.

Last but by no means least, more price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse.

None of which is to say that people should be greedy all the time. Disasters really are times when people pull together and we see large and small acts of kindness that rightly inspire us. But consider that declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity: It doesn't create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first. If you feel bad about the idea of earning windfall profits off the misfortunes of others, then donate the money to charity. If that seems too impersonal, give your employees a bonus for showing up under difficult circumstances. But storm or no storm, the best practice is to try to set prices that balance supply with demand. State governments shouldn't be trying to stop you.

:shakehead:

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 23, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
no one profits from other people's misery.

runawayjimbo

We agree, MBW: charging people $4/gal after making them wait in line for 4 hrs is definitely profiting off their misery.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

runawayjimbo

A day after being exposed as the fraudulent bankster shill that he is, Assistant AG Lanny Breuer announces he is stepping down at DoJ. He actually admitted, on camera, that he was fearful of prosecuting bank execs because of the potential "ripple" effects on the economy instead of actually, you know, pursuing justice. This has to be up there as one of Frontline's crowning achievements.

Gee, I wonder where he'll end up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/doj-criminal-division-chief-stepping-down/2013/01/23/e4331e32-64e0-11e2-b84d-21c7b65985ee_story.html

Quote
Lanny Breuer, Justice Department criminal division chief, is stepping down

Lanny A. Breuer is leaving the Justice Department after leading the agency's efforts to clamp down on public corruption and financial fraud at the nation's largest banks, according to several people familiar with the matter.

As one of the longest-serving heads of the criminal division, Breuer's tenure has been filled with controversy and high-profile prosecutions. He was admonished for his role in the agency's botched attempt to infiltrate weapon-smuggling rings in the operation dubbed Fast and Furious. And he has been accused of being soft on Wall Street for failing to throw senior bank executives behind bars for their role in the financial crisis.

Yet Breuer is widely credited with aggressively going after white-collar crime in the aftermath of the crisis. He also stepped up the division's involvement in money laundering cases, launching a series of criminal investigations that have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements.

It is not clear when Breuer intends to leave, nor what he plans to do once he departs, but it is certain that the prosecutor's days in office are winding down, according to people who were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Officials at the Justice Department, including Breuer, declined to comment for this article.

When Breuer was confirmed as assistant attorney general for the criminal division in April 2009, the agency was tainted by allegations of political interference in prosecutions and unprofessional conduct during the George W. Bush administration. The department continues to be mired in controversy stemming from the Bush years.

During Senate hearings in 2011, Breuer admitted that he failed to alert other Justice Department officials that federal agents had allowed guns to illegally flow into Mexico and onto U.S. streets between 2006 and 2007. The practice, known as "gun walking," was also a key part of the Obama administration's Phoenix gun trafficking operation, Fast and Furious.

The operation came under fire when many of the weapons later turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and the United States, including two where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed.

Several officials at the Justice Department resigned in connection with the operation, including Jason Weinstein, a deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division. Breuer later apologized for his inaction, when the tactics first came to his attention. Sen. Charles E. Grassely (R-Iowa) called for his resignation, but Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. stood behind Breuer.

A former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office, Breuer came to the Justice Department well versed in white-collar crime. He has been a driving force behind the prosecution of banks involved in rigging the global interest rate known as Libor. His efforts helped produce a $1.5 billion settlement with UBS AG and led to criminal indictments against two of the bank's former traders in December.

But Breuer and his team were blasted for not indicting the parent company and more of its executives given the broad scope of problems at UBS.

Critics have also decried Breuer's routine use of deferred prosecution, which gives the agency the right to go after a company in the future if it fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. They say the use of such tactics amounts to a slap on the wrists of companies that have engaged in egregious behavior. Breuer, however, has argued that the agreements result in greater accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

Breuer made a name for himself as special counsel to President Bill Clinton, whom he represented in the 1998 impeachment hearings and the Whitewater investigation.

Prior to his appointment at the Justice Department, Breuer worked at the Washington office of the Covington & Burling law firm, alongside Holder. While there, Breuer defended former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was being investigated for tampering with presidential documents at the National Archives. He also represented baseball pitcher Roger Clemens in proceedings before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the use of steroids.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

mbw

I was reading this article about the Russian meteorite, and lol'd at the last paragraph.  These former commie bastards really got this capitalism thing down.  Jimbo will be proud.

QuoteOne woman was transferred to Moscow for treatment over the weekend and about 50 people remained in hospital. With night-time temperatures hovering around -20C, glass prices jumped as people rushed to replace broken panes.

runawayjimbo

Quote from: mbw on February 18, 2013, 02:57:43 PM
I was reading this article about the Russian meteorite, and lol'd at the last paragraph.  These former commie bastards really got this capitalism thing down.  Jimbo will be proud.

QuoteOne woman was transferred to Moscow for treatment over the weekend and about 50 people remained in hospital. With night-time temperatures hovering around -20C, glass prices jumped as people rushed to replace broken panes.

Yes, because if anyone should be held up as a model for the efficiency of capitalism and the morality of free markets, surely it's those "former commie bastards".
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Britain charges ex-Citigroup trader in Libor scandal

http://usat.ly/11WcE4K
Is this still Wombat?

runawayjimbo

Fuck fuck FUCK

On the bright side, Summers as Fed Chair would finally end the debate about who Obama works for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/right-now-larry-summers-is-the-front-runner-for-fed-chair/

Quote
Right now, Larry Summers is the front-runner for Fed chair
By Ezra Klein

The word among Federal Reserve watchers right now is that the choice is down to Janet Yellen or Larry Summers as Ben Bernanke's replacement. I can't find anyone who really thinks it'll be Roger Ferguson, Tim Geithner, Alan Blinder, or some other dark horse.

People dismissed Summers's chances a month or two ago, but he's increasingly viewed as the leading candidate today — and opinions on this, for reasons I don't fully understand (though I suspect have to do with a bunch of elite trial balloons going up at the same time), have really hardened in the last 72 hours. So after conversations with plugged-in sources both inside and outside the process, here's what's behind the changing odds:

1) President Obama really likes Summers. And he's surrounded by Summers's longtime colleagues and friends. Conversely, Obama doesn't really know Yellen, and nor do any of the White House's economic principals.

2) The Obama administration's top concern is choosing someone who cares about the Federal Reserve's mandate to maintain full employment as well as its mandate to keep inflation low. Yellen and Summers are both seen as clearing that bar. So the choice is defaulting to other considerations.

3) This White House, more so than any other in modern memory, knows in its bones that the economy can fall apart at any second. China could suffer a hard landing, Europe could fall apart again. Some London Whale-like trader could blow a hole in JP Morgan Chase. If that happens — particularly given Washington's dysfunction — the Fed is really the first responder. This White House is very comfortable with how Summers handles a crisis.

4) There's also a feeling that the chair of the Federal Reserve can do more if he or she is truly trusted by markets. Rightly or wrongly, there's a sense that Summers has the market's trust in a way Yellen doesn't.

5) The big open question is Summers's ability to manage the Federal Reserve's Open Markets Committee. Here, Summers's reputation for being difficult to work with is a big issue. But inside the White House, that reputation is considered overblown, or at least outdated — after all, they worked with him, and enjoyed working with him, and there's some sense that maybe a more aggressive Fed chair wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

That's not to say Summers is anywhere near a sure thing. His confirmation would be far tougher than Yellen's, as Republicans will make him answer for the stimulus and the bailouts, and progressive Democrats have a list of grievances going back to financial deregulation in the Clinton-era. There's also the simple fact that appointing Yellen would break a significant glass ceiling — and do so in an administration that hasn't always been great about appointing women to top economic positions. And Summers continues to be a polarizing figure: Those who like him love him, but those who don't like him really don't like him.

Against all that, the conventional wisdom — which I fully bought into — a month or two ago was that Summers had little real chance. The politics of it just didn't make sense. But if Obama feels strongly about Summers and his qualifications, the Fed job is more than important enough for him to fight through the politics. And so, though I'm a bit surprised to be saying this, at this point my reporting says Summers is the front-runner.

For more on this, here's Paul Krugman's endorsement of Yellen, and Paul Krugman's endorsement of YellenTyler Cowen's endorsement of Summers. I'll just say, for the record, that I really don't know who should run the Federal Reserve, and this post isn't an endorsement of either candidate.

Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

Hicks

Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 23, 2013, 10:26:37 PM
Fuck fuck FUCK

On the bright side, Summers as Fed Chair would finally end the debate about who Obama works for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/right-now-larry-summers-is-the-front-runner-for-fed-chair/

Quote
Right now, Larry Summers is the front-runner for Fed chair
By Ezra Klein

The word among Federal Reserve watchers right now is that the choice is down to Janet Yellen or Larry Summers as Ben Bernanke's replacement. I can't find anyone who really thinks it'll be Roger Ferguson, Tim Geithner, Alan Blinder, or some other dark horse.

People dismissed Summers's chances a month or two ago, but he's increasingly viewed as the leading candidate today — and opinions on this, for reasons I don't fully understand (though I suspect have to do with a bunch of elite trial balloons going up at the same time), have really hardened in the last 72 hours. So after conversations with plugged-in sources both inside and outside the process, here's what's behind the changing odds:

1) President Obama really likes Summers. And he's surrounded by Summers's longtime colleagues and friends. Conversely, Obama doesn't really know Yellen, and nor do any of the White House's economic principals.

2) The Obama administration's top concern is choosing someone who cares about the Federal Reserve's mandate to maintain full employment as well as its mandate to keep inflation low. Yellen and Summers are both seen as clearing that bar. So the choice is defaulting to other considerations.

3) This White House, more so than any other in modern memory, knows in its bones that the economy can fall apart at any second. China could suffer a hard landing, Europe could fall apart again. Some London Whale-like trader could blow a hole in JP Morgan Chase. If that happens — particularly given Washington's dysfunction — the Fed is really the first responder. This White House is very comfortable with how Summers handles a crisis.

4) There's also a feeling that the chair of the Federal Reserve can do more if he or she is truly trusted by markets. Rightly or wrongly, there's a sense that Summers has the market's trust in a way Yellen doesn't.

5) The big open question is Summers's ability to manage the Federal Reserve's Open Markets Committee. Here, Summers's reputation for being difficult to work with is a big issue. But inside the White House, that reputation is considered overblown, or at least outdated — after all, they worked with him, and enjoyed working with him, and there's some sense that maybe a more aggressive Fed chair wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

That's not to say Summers is anywhere near a sure thing. His confirmation would be far tougher than Yellen's, as Republicans will make him answer for the stimulus and the bailouts, and progressive Democrats have a list of grievances going back to financial deregulation in the Clinton-era. There's also the simple fact that appointing Yellen would break a significant glass ceiling — and do so in an administration that hasn't always been great about appointing women to top economic positions. And Summers continues to be a polarizing figure: Those who like him love him, but those who don't like him really don't like him.

Against all that, the conventional wisdom — which I fully bought into — a month or two ago was that Summers had little real chance. The politics of it just didn't make sense. But if Obama feels strongly about Summers and his qualifications, the Fed job is more than important enough for him to fight through the politics. And so, though I'm a bit surprised to be saying this, at this point my reporting says Summers is the front-runner.

For more on this, here's Paul Krugman's endorsement of Yellen, and Paul Krugman's endorsement of YellenTyler Cowen's endorsement of Summers. I'll just say, for the record, that I really don't know who should run the Federal Reserve, and this post isn't an endorsement of either candidate.


Bill Clinton?  Harvard?
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.

runawayjimbo

Quote from: Hicks on July 24, 2013, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 23, 2013, 10:26:37 PM
Fuck fuck FUCK

On the bright side, Summers as Fed Chair would finally end the debate about who Obama works for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/right-now-larry-summers-is-the-front-runner-for-fed-chair/

Quote
Right now, Larry Summers is the front-runner for Fed chair
By Ezra Klein

Bill Clinton?  Harvard?

The financial elite. The status quo. Monied interests. Pretty much everything we agree should be eradicated from a bullshit system that rewards those in power with more power at the expense of everyone else.

I still can't believe it will be Summers. I would image the political consequences would be pretty harsh. He's already being attacked from the left about his sexist comments as president of Harvard and for killing Glass-Steagall (next to Greenspan, Summers was the face of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, aka the Citigroup Legalization Act of 1999) and from the right because Obama is nominating him. So if they try to push him through, it tells me the administration is getting increasingly desperate about the fragility of the current economy.

For the record, I don't think Yellen would be any better. But her confirmation would be way easier. Plus, the historical significance of the first female Fed chair screams Obama to me.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

runawayjimbo

Hilarious clip of Matt Taibbi and Sam Seder of The Majority Report destroying CNBC's love affair with Jamie Dimon. The financial press echo chamber just can't understand why anyone would think poorly of St. Jamie.

Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.