Yearly Archives: 2014

The Powerful “Black Effect” v. Peltzman’s Hyped Effect

By William K. Black

My title extends the humorous theme of I found in an article by Dr. David S. Pisetsky’s (M.D., Ph. D).  Pisetsky’s riff is that he was eager to become famous by announcing “Pisetsky’s Rules” about rheumatology treatment risks and discovered to his great disappointment that Sam Peltzman had got their first and the risk phenomenon Pisetsky wished to warn about was already known as the “Peltzman effect.”  

Continue reading

What’s the Politically Correct Word for Schiffhead?

Click image to view video

The Economist Treats Milton Friedman as Jesus: Asks His Disciples to Preach His Gospel

By William K. Black

I was peacefully researching a book I am co-authoring with Wesley Marshall on the pathologies of theoclassical and neoclassical economics as exemplified by “Nobel” laureates in economics (the economics prize is actually a creature of the Swedish Central Bank), when I read a column in the Economist about financial regulation and the crisis that provided an exemplar of how much is wrong about modern economics.  The May 1, 2009 column is entitled “WWMFD” (What Would Milton Friedman Do?).

Continue reading

We are all Keynesians Now – Chris Matthews Recants

By William K. Black

On January 28, 2014, Chris Matthews told a guest on “Hardball” that his sources were telling him that the Obama administration was convinced that the U.S. economy needed additional stimulus.  Matthews told his guest:  “I’m a Keynesian; you’re a Keynesian.”  They talked about the difficulties of getting Congress to provide the necessary increase in stimulus.

On November 12, 2012, I wrote a column about Chris Matthews statements on his November 9 program about Matthews’ denouncing Paul Krugman because Krugman was (like us at UMKC) calling on the administration not to adopt an austerity policy in the form of the “Grand Bargain,” which is really the Grand Betrayal of the safety net.  Here is the key passage from my column.

Continue reading

The AEI Takes its Regulatory Advice from Alan Greenspan

By William K. Black
(Cross posted at Benzinga.com)

Mark J. Perry and Robert Dell’s February 24, 2011 article (“More Equity, Less Government: Rethinking Bank Regulation”) claims that the government caused the crisis and that the solution is to increase capital requirements and reduce government regulation.  The authors are at an ultra-conservative “think” tank (AEI) dedicated to protecting elite CEOs from the “regulatory cops on the beat.”

Continue reading

Inequality Revisited: The Rise of the Individual is Always at the Expense of Community

By June Carbone

The debate over inequality has shifted.    It is no longer whether greater inequality exists (it indisputably does) or whether it is a good thing (even David Brooks and Marco Rubio concede that it is not).  Instead, the big issue is whether the rise of the top one tenth of one percent with their extraordinary concentration of wealth has anything to do with the rise of inequality between the middle and the bottom.    The answer is, of course it does, in ways that are both simple and complex.  Let us begin to count the ways . . . .

Continue reading

Warren Mosler’s talk in Chianciano, Italy, January 11, 2014

By Alexandria J E Angus

Warren Mosler gave this talk in Chianciano, Italy, on January 11, 2014 at the Chianciano Conference entitled Oltre L’Euro: La Sinistra. La Crisi. L’Alternativa. In English: Beyond The Euro: The Left. The Crisis. The Alternative [Google translation]. The video is embedded below, but you have to listen to a realtime translation in Italian, which doubles the listening time. I thought this talk important enough to transcribe, if not deliciously subversive on the part of Warren Mosler who offers Italians a way to save their economy. The transcription follows below the video.

Mosler describes how Italy (or any of the 17 EU countries that use the Euro) can leave the European Union safely if the EU persists, as it insists on doing, in impoverishing their country and citizens.

The subheads in blue are mine, not Mosler’s, and are designed to assist reading. Some terms Mosler refers to in the body text relate specifically to the Italian economy, and I can’t identify them because I don’t know their Italian names.

Enjoy.

Continue reading

Who Should Be Invited to the State of the Union?

NEP’s William Black provides his view on this topic in the New York Time’s Room For Debate section. You can view his post here.

 

More Tropes of the New Populism

By Joe Firestone

The New Populism, if it exists, and isn’t just a creation of Washington villagers wanting to give an attractive name to the new feint of the Administration toward the progressive base of the Democratic Party, can be a turning point for America’s domestic economy, but only if it can avoid certain tropes, shibboleths, and myths that people associated with it, such as Bernie Sanders, and various other supposedly “left” members of the Democratic Party in Congress seem to delight in reinforcing. Again, Robert Borosage’s little piece on “The New Populism” provides more examples of such tropes:

Much of this debate has been framed around the faltering recovery, as the Congress perversely punted on the opportunity to rebuild America when we could borrow money for virtually nothing, with construction workers idle and eager to work. But in the end, this is a question of making the public investments we need, and paying for it by ending the tax dodges and tax breaks that enable the rich and the multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget shows what is possible, while still bringing our long-term debt under control.

Continue reading

The New Populism Needs to Get This Straight

By Joe Firestone

Let’s look again at the new populism through the lens provided by Robert Borosage in his recent attempt to tell us what it is about. He says:

The apostles of the new inequality have unrelenting sought to starve the public sector. President Reagan opened the offensive against domestic investments. Perhaps the hinge moment was in the final years of the Clinton administration when the budget went into surplus, and Clinton, the finest public educator of his time, pushed for paying down the national debt rather than making the case for public investment. He left the field open for George W. Bush to give the projected surpluses away in tax cuts skewed to the top end.

The hinge moment wasn’t then. It was when he decided, either early in his first term, or even before he took office, to rely on deficit reduction coupled with low interest rates from Alan Greenspan, on the advice of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, rather than on deficit spending on human capital investments as advocated by Robert Eisner and Robert Reich. Rubin’s victory in the internal debates within the Administration was well-known at the time (1993), and set the deficit reduction course that played along with the Fed’s bubbles to create the private sector debt-fueled “goldilocks” prosperity, and surpluses of his second term. By the time Clinton faced the choice Borosage refers to, the die had already been cast. It was very unlikely that Clinton would turn away from further Government austerity policy, and turn instead toward investments in infrastructure, public facilities and “human capital.”

Continue reading