My afternoon train reading:

• Analysis on Tapering QE3: Will Not Happen. (Calculated Risk) see also Parsing the Fed: How the Statement Changed (Real Time Economics)
Farrell: New China billionaires blowing massive bubbles (MarketWatch)
• MoneyBeat two-fer:
…..-It’s Not Just the Fed, It’s China, Too (Moneybeat)
…..-Gold is now only back to where it was in September 2010  (Moneybeat)
Today’s WTF headline: GM Surges to Top of Quality Rating With Ostrich Feathers (Bloomberg)
DeLong: The Second Great Depression (Foreign Affairs)
• Bernanke’s Bond-Buying Paradox for Markets (WSJ) see also Crossed signals over Fed’s stimulus efforts (Washington Post)
• Congress is wildly unpopular. Should anyone actually care? (Wonkblog)
• Why Monopolies Make Spying Easy (New Yorker)
• My attorney’s response to the cease-and-desist letter (Local Forums)
• Financial Sector Thinks It’s About Ready To Ruin World Again (Onion)

What are you reading


Banks Blundered on Mortgage Pact
Source: WSJ

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “10 Thursday PM Reads”

  1. VennData says:

    “…After a rebuke from the Qataris, the Taliban removed a nameplate and a flag, only to hoist the white-and-black banner again on a shorter flagpole..”

    What is it about people in power?

    How do we hook them up to some pain meter from their “flock” so they get to the meaty issues fast?

  2. RW says:

    Dean Baker has written extensively in an area that Paul Krugman is only just beginning to explore.

    Ezra Klein explains in the second half of this article.

    …the fatalist and redistributionist camps also give the government too little credit — and too little blame — for inequality. Both cleanly divide the issue in half: On one side is the way the economy distributes income, on the other the way the government redistributes it. But this misses the space between: the way the government itself changes the economy.

    This drives Dean Baker crazy. …Who the government taxes and how it spends that money, Baker argues, doesn’t begin to describe the myriad ways in which the government shapes the economy. The Federal Reserve’s decision to prioritize low inflation over full employment, for example, is a government intervention of staggering importance …The same goes for the Treasury Department’s management of the dollar. The duration of patents matters enormously, as do the licensing requirements for high-wage jobs, the regulation of corporate boards and even rules on how much cash banks must keep on hand.

    Baker basically agrees with the fatalists who believe the economy has changed in ways that have exacerbated inequality, and he even agrees that changes to the tax code won’t suffice to remedy it. Where he parts with both fatalists and redistributionists is in his belief that government policies have hastened those divisive economic changes, and that a different set of government interventions has the potential to counteract them [emphasis mine], creating a more equal economy.

    Baker’s insight is bracing, though his book doesn’t follow through on it as comprehensively as I’d like. Still, it suggests the right starting point for a smarter debate …Washington argues a great deal over taxes and spending, and far less over the way government sets the rules for the economy and for those who benefit most from it. …

    Shorter me: The current economic policy debate basically seems to be trying to understand ecological adaptation without a model of natural selection or the environment.

  3. Slash says:

    Damn, that Onion link is so close to reality, it kinda isn’t funny.

  4. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    My attorney’s response to the cease-and-desist letter

    What a freekin’ hoot. Especially #5:

    “So that I may properly counsel my client, please also explain what in Sam Hill’s name you meant by “anything else confusingly similar thereto.””

    That is some priceless shit, there, bro.

  5. willid3 says:

    so corrupted rating agencies ‘excuse’ is they never claimed to be producing to produce objective and independent credit ratings. hm, so whats their purpose again?

  6. chartist says:

    Wow, BAC flunked. What a shock….I said when they hired that CEO that he looked more like an Irish darts champion than a CEO…

  7. VennData says:

    Omnipresent “We need to cut spending” CBNC Senator Corker from Tennessee wants to tacks on a $30B fence to the immigration bill!

    You see Corker on CBC again and he blathers on about debts and deficits, laugh.

  8. louiswi says:

    The most popular response to a cease and desist letter:
    LEVITICUS 25:44-46
    As for your male and female slaves whom you may have; you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons and after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over the other, with harshness.

    Kind of pissy I agree but then again who can argue with the bible?

  9. MidlifeNocrisis says:

    RE: GM

    I currently own both a GM vehicle and a Toyota. Have owned several of both over the years. The observations of Consumer Reports holds a lot more weight with me than JD Power and Associates, and with my personal experience.

  10. rd says:

    The House can’t even get a farm bill passed, even though many conservative Republicans come from agricultural districts:

    While I think US farm policy is abysmal with far too much reliance on subsidies, etc., this has normally been a rubber stamp bill that is less controversial than the Pledge of Allegiance.