31 октября, 20:36

Paul Krugman: Trump Won’t Bring Joy to Moolaville

"The party’s willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption with a hint of treason would be horrifying whatever the motivation": Trump Won’t Bring Joy to Moolaville, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: Over the weekend Donald Trump raged against the...

Выбор редакции
31 октября, 00:14

I EAGERLY AWAIT PAUL KRUGMAN’S DENUNCIATION OF THIS VIOLENT ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC. Bette Midler …

I EAGERLY AWAIT PAUL KRUGMAN’S DENUNCIATION OF THIS VIOLENT ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC. Bette Midler on Manafort: ‘Roll Out the’ Guillotine Carts! Reminder: Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.

30 октября, 23:22

Procrastination/Links and Such for October 30, 2017

**Must-Reads**: * [What Is a "Static" Revenue Analysis?](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/what-is-a-static-revenue-analysis.html) * [Basic Econ 1-Level Tax Incidence Primer: Owen Zidar Requests MOAR Tax Incidence Model Blogging](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/basic-econ-1-level-tax-incidence-primer-owen-zidar-requests-moar-tax-incidence-model-blogging.html) * [A Question I Did Have Time to Ask Alice Rivlin](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/another-question-i-do-not-have-time-to-ask-alice-rivlin.html) * [Another Question I Didn't Have Time to Ask Ask Alice Rivlin: Possibilities for Technocracy](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/another-question-i-didnt-have-time-to-ask-ask-alice-rivlin-possibilities-for-technocracy.html) * [A Question I Will Not Have Time to Ask Alice Rivlin This Afternoon...](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/a-question-i-will-not-have-time-to-ask-alice-rivlin-this-afternoon.html) * [Q & A: Should We Focus Our Attention on a Revitalized Public Sector and Social Insurance System?: INET Edinburgh](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/q-a-should-we-focus-our-attention-on-a-revitalized-public-sector-and-social-insurance-system-inet-edinburgh.html) * **Alan Auerbach**: [Five Questions for Congress on Tax Reform](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-27/five-questions-for-congress-on-tax-reform): "Congressional leaders say they’re working on a corporate tax reform... * **Will Wilkinson**: [Public Policy after Utopia](https://niskanencenter.org/blog/public-policy-utopia/): "That all our evidence about how social systems actually work comes from formerly or presently existing systems is a huge problem for anyone committed to a radically revisionary ideal of the morally best society... * **Chandrasekhar Ramakrishnan**: [The DeLong-Shiller Redux](https://medium.com/@cramakrishnan/the-delong-shiller-redux-dc9dd21eefd1): "2014, Robert Shiller and Brad DeLong.... [Shiller] claims if the value of this [CAPE] ratio is above 25, a major market drop is probably brewing... **Should-Reads**: * **Kim Clausing**: [Would Cutting [U.S.] Corporate Taxes Raise Workers' Incomes?](http://econofact.org/would-cutting-corporate-taxes-raise-workers-incomes): "Overall, it is difficult to document a relationship between lower corporate taxes and...

30 октября, 04:30

Doug Casey: How I Learned To Love Bitcoin - Part 1

Via CaseyResearch.com, Bitcoin is up 495% this year. Ethereum, another major cryptocurrency, is up 3,507% since the start of the year. Smaller cryptos have soared more than 10,000%. When you see gains like that, it’s natural to think that you missed out. I even felt this way for the longest time…that is, until I talked to Doug Casey. You see, a few weeks ago, I called Doug to see what he thinks about cryptos. He told me why Bitcoin is money. He told me why the crypto market’s about to get a lot bigger. He even told me why Bitcoin could soon hit $50,000… That’s eight times higher than where it trades today. After that conversation, I became convinced that cryptos are the real deal. I even just bought some Bitcoin myself. Of course, I realize that not everyone’s got a legendary speculator on speed dial. So over the next two days, I’m sharing a brand-new essay from Doug. In it, he explains why the crypto boom has a long way to go. By Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research In this article, I’d like to explain how I learned to love Bitcoin. Why it’s a wonderful thing. Its potential as a speculation. How the government is going to co-opt it. And how this is all likely to end. I was first introduced to Bitcoin several years ago in Cafayate, Argentina. A young Belgian guy came to visit, I bought him lunch, and we discussed Bitcoin. He was a very early enthusiast. He gave me a physical Bitcoin as a souvenir. They’re now collectibles, but the digital codes are inscribed on them. I still have that Bitcoin. It was worth $13 at the time. I wish I had listened to his argument more carefully, because I could have made millions. Over 300-1 over just a few years… that’s rare indeed. I was inclined towards it philosophically, but outsmarted myself on an investment level. Because Bitcoin was pitched to me as an alternative currency, and I failed to see all of its advantages in that role. My original objection was that Bitcoin isn’t backed by anything. It’s really a private fiat currency. It’s very much like the Zambian Kwacha, the Argentine peso, the US dollar, or any of the other 150-plus currencies in today’s world. It’s a floating abstraction. Unlike state currencies, though, its acceptance isn’t enforced by laws. But, on the other hand, its quantity is limited. But would that be enough to get large amounts of people to use it as a currency? I missed something when I said, back then, that it had no value. It’s a fiat currency, yes, but it has much more practical value than any other. A currency has to be a good medium of exchange, and a store of value. Even a few years ago, both of those things were wild speculations when it came to Bitcoin. I tried to analyze the situation rationally, using Aristotle’s five characteristics of a good money. Aristotle defined the five characteristics of good money in the 4th century BC. And his analysis is as accurate now as it was then. It must be durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, and have use value in and of itself. Based on that, Aristotle believed gold and silver were best suited for use as money. Let’s analyze how Bitcoin does by these five criteria. Durable. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are definitely durable—unless we have a major electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or a significant solar flare that wipes out all the computers. Bitcoins are not as durable as the metals, but they’re adequate, barring a collapse of civilization. Divisible. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible. Better than the physical metals, actually—although the metals can be accounted in tiny fractions too. Convenient. Yes—as long as you have a smartphone, Bitcoin is very convenient. But your smartphone, or something like it, may not always be with you. And your counterparty also has to have one. And it’s not very convenient if someone doesn’t know or trust Bitcoin. Right now, that’s still probably 98% of humanity. Consistent. Absolutely. Every Bitcoin is exactly like another one. It’s at least as good as .999 fine gold that way. The problem I had with Bitcoin was the fifth point: Does it have use value in itself, so you can’t get stuck holding the bag? If you have a million US paper dollars, and nobody accepts them, they have no use in and of themselves—except as wall decorations or kindling. They’re just unsecured liabilities of a bankrupt government. In essence like a million Zimbabwe dollars, although there’s obviously a continuum. Fiat currencies can be easily destroyed by their issuers. The things are burning matches. They have half-lives, like radioactive elements. Sure, there were advantages to Bitcoin being a privately issued fiat currency. But I didn’t see its real use value; that’s where I went wrong. Bitcoin is certainly a fiat currency like the dollar or the Kwacha. But it’s also an excellent transfer device. You can move wealth from one country to another, or to another person, quickly and privately. I’d say secretly, but you’re not supposed to say “secret” anymore, you can only say “private.” Part of the politically correct corruption of language, I might add. And you can do so outside of the banking system, which is increasingly important. If you use Bitcoin, you don’t need a bank to store your money. Cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoins, are just the first, and most obvious, application of blockchain technology. Hopefully, among other things, blockchain and Bitcoin are going to destroy the SWIFT system, the vehicle for wiring money from one bank to another. SWIFT is expensive (at least $50-100 per transaction), slow (generally a day or two, sometimes a week or more), and insecure (who trusts either big banks or the US Government?). And SWIFT requires that all dollars clear through New York; non-Americans don’t care for that. SWIFT is used by thousands of banks around the world to send payment instructions worth trillions of dollars each day. Incidentally, it's not that I'm against SWIFT itself. It's just that it's become a creature of the banks—who abuse it and are actually responsible for its problems. So, this is one big use value of Bitcoin. It allows you to transfer something that is accepted as money outside of the banking system, and outside of government fiat currencies. Bitcoin is well on the way to being accepted as money. I think it will succeed. What is money? Money is a medium of exchange and a store of value. Almost anything can be used as money. Some things are just much better than others. Salt, seashells, and cows have all historically been used as money. After all, the word pecuniary comes from the Latin pecus, which means cow. And salary comes from the Latin sal, which is salt. Wampum were seashells. Cigarettes are money in prisons and war zones. Even giant Yap island discs have been used as money. Bitcoin is becoming more and more accepted as a medium of exchange, while most government fiat currencies approach their intrinsic values—essentially zero. Bitcoin is a bit more problematic as a store of value. Once again, let’s get back to the basics. You’ve got two kinds of currencies: commodity currencies and fiat currencies. The commodity currencies are actual physical commodities. You know they have use value. Fiat currencies, on the other hand, are just made up. They’re totally arbitrary and political. It’s like that old joke about sardines. You’ve got eating sardines and trading sardines. Commodity currencies are eating sardines. Fiat currencies are trading sardines. Of course, there’s no guarantee that Bitcoin is going to be accepted a year or two from now. It’s a high tech innovation, and maybe a Version 2.0 will collapse the value of the current version. So in a few years, we may find that Bitcoin fails the store of value test. But it’s accepted at the moment. And it’s been growing in value at a crazy rate—unlike fiat currencies, which have all been falling against real goods and services at about 5-10% a year. Incidentally, I don’t put much faith in the accuracy of government inflation figures. Bitcoin has been a great speculation so far. But as a store of value? Bitcoin is a technological innovation. There likely will be Bitcoin 2.0 and 3.0, not to mention other, even more advanced cryptos. What will the current Bitcoin then be worth? There’s a reason the expression “High tech, big wreck” is true. Just because so far it’s been a great speculation, doesn’t mean it’s a good store of value. Technology, a solar flare, or even government action could wipe it out. The bottom line? Bitcoin passes the medium of exchange test for the moment and store of value test for the moment. So you can definitely say it’s money—for the moment. But so does the Argentine peso, for the moment. I have little confidence, however, Bitcoin will be here, say, five years from now. Buying cryptos is not like socking away gold coins. The $64 question is: Where are we in the market cycle for cryptos? Clearly, we’re no longer early in the game. It’s like getting into the Internet stocks back in 1998—they weren’t cheap, but the bubble got much, much bigger. And the Internet—contrary to what people like Paul Krugman thought—was not itself a bubble. Up till now, the only way to play this has been the coins, the tokens, like Bitcoin. There are perhaps a thousand of them out there now, and most of them are garbage. Because I think the bubble will get much bigger, I’m getting involved in these cryptocurrencies on several levels. Including public mining companies, which is not germane to this article. I’m trying to make the trend my friend. But cautiously, because there’s a lot of speculation going on. I am concerned about the market, which is very bubbly. But I think it’s going much higher, for several reasons. One, as we discussed, is that some of the cryptos have great utility, and only about 25 million out of the 7 billion people in the world currently own them. I promise you that five years from now that number will be more like three billion. They’re going to get much bigger in the developed world, but even bigger in the Third World.

29 октября, 19:49

Links for 10-29-17

  • 0

Tax Cut Fraudulence: The Usual Suspects - Paul Krugman If r < g, bond-finance is like currency-finance - Nick Rowe The Republicans’ SALT Problem - The New York Times Yes, the BBC is biased - Stumbling and Mumbling An interview...

29 октября, 14:56

Ложь и отвлекающие маневры вокруг слабеющего нефтедоллара

Автор Brandon Smith через Alt-Market.com,Есть несколько важных правил, которым вы должны следовать, если вы хотите присоединиться к консорциуму основных экономических консультантов / аналитиков. Особо обратите внимание, если вы планируете стать одним из этих "особых" людей:1) Никогда не обсуждайте реальность того, что государственная фискальная статистика не является истинной картиной здоровья экономики. Просто представляйте статистику по номиналу общественности и быстро двигайтесь дальше.2) Почти всегда фокусируйтесь на ложных срабатываниях. Дайте массам бредовое чувство восстановления, отчаянно указывая на несколько индикаторов, которые рисуют более розовую картинку. Всегда упоминайте более высокий фондовый рынок как символ улучшающейся экономики, хотя фондовый рынок не имеет отношения к основам экономики. Фактически, притворяйтесь, что фондовый рынок - это ТОЛЬКО вещь, которая имеет значение. Период.3) Никогда не говорите о падающем спросе. Избегайте упоминания об этом любой ценой. Вместо этого поднимите "растущее предложение" и притворитесь, будто спрос не является фактором, заслуживающим внимания.4) Позвоните в любую статью, в которой обсуждаются многочисленные и существенные негативы в экономике "doom porn". Спросите: "Где крах?" много, когда крах фундаментальных принципов прямо перед вашим лицом.5) Избегайте дебатов о состоянии экономики, когда можете, но если они загнаны в угол, искажают данные, когда это возможно. Смешайте обсуждение с мелочами и круговой логикой.6) Когда происходит сбой, действуйте так, как будто вы были предупреждением об опасности. Для хорошей меры убедитесь, что альтернативные экономические аналитики не получают должное за правильное изучение финансовой системы.7) Утверждают, что в их предупреждениях и предсказаниях ничего особенного нет и что "все остальные видели, что это тоже случилось"; иначе вы можете быть вне работы.Теперь, если вы будете следовать этим правилам большую часть времени или религиозно, тогда у вас есть хороший шанс стать следующим Полом Кругманом или одним из многих хукеров в Forbes, Bloomberg или Reuters. Вас ждет приятная работа и удобная зарплата. Удачи и Godspeed!Однако скажите, что вы один из тех странных людей, проклятых совестью; становясь призрачным мундштуком для заведения, может показаться не очень привлекательным. Или, может быть, у вас просто есть OCD, и вы не можете устоять перед идеей "творческой математики", когда дело доходит до экономических данных. Как бы то ни было, вы хотите изложить более глубокие факты экономики, потому что экономика - это жизнь - это структура, которая объединяет нашу цивилизацию, и если мы будем лгать об этом в краткосрочной перспективе, тогда мы только ставим себе задачу катастрофа в конечном итоге. Добро пожаловать в другое измерение. Добро пожаловать в мир альтернативной экономики.Каждый аспект экономики США или глобальной экономики может быть представлен двумя очень разными способами в зависимости от того, "вы" интерпретируете данные в соответствии с предвзятым заключением или просто передаете их общественности, как есть на самом деле.Давайте используем масло и нефтедоллар в качестве примера ...Чтобы проиллюстрировать реакцию основного правительства на законные экономические проблемы в отношении нефти, я настоятельно рекомендую вернуться и прочитать статью Внешней политики, официального журнала Совета по международным отношениям под названием " Развенчивание заговора" Демпинг-доллар ", опубликованного в Идиотизм этой статьи был действительно сбивающим с толку в то время, когда он был выпущен, но тем более теперь в ретроспективе.Во-первых, важно отметить, что Внешняя политика отказалась даже признать вопрос о том, что доллар потерял статус нефтедоллара до тех пор, пока Роберт Фиск из Independent, кто-то ближе к основной экспозиции, не осмелился затронуть эту тему, предупредив, что тренд был в игре сбрасывать доллар в качестве нефтедоллара к 2018 году. Альтернативное экономическое сообщество предупреждало о том, что мир отходит от господства нефти в США на некоторое время заранее.Во-вторых, CFR использует типичную круговую ошибку при столкновении с потенциальным окончанием статуса мирового резерва доллара; что доллар является мировой резервной валютой, потому что "США являются выдающейся мировой экономической державой". На самом деле, верно обратное - США являются выдающейся экономической силой в мире только потому, что доллар имеет статус мирового резерва. Это было также когда-то промышленным электростанцией после Второй мировой войны, но это было ТОЛЬКО, потому что США были одним из немногих производственных центров в мире, который не был разрушен годами кинетического уничтожения. Когда вы являетесь единственной игрой в городе, конечно, вы получаете огромные экономические выгоды, включая массовые международные инвестиции, но не навсегда.Сегодня, очевидно, США намного превосходят другие страны в области производства и производства, а также превзойдены как крупнейший мировой импортер и экспортер. Аргументом "преимуществом" является мусор.В-третьих, почти всякая опасность, которую внешняя политика отвергла как "заговор" еще в 2009 году, сейчас сбывается. Подобно тому, как предупреждал Роберт Фиск, и, как предупреждало альтернативное экономическое сообщество задолго до него, многочисленные сдвиги в мире нефти, а также геополитические отношения создали спиральную связь антидолларовых настроений. Возможно ли, что к 2018 году доллар потеряет статус нефти? Абсолютно, и вот почему ...Хотя США остаются крупнейшим потребителем нефти в мире в соответствии с Управлением энергетической информации (EIA), американское потребление нефтепродуктов значительно уменьшилось за последние несколько лет; падение спроса со стороны все более бедных потребителей США оставило производителей нефти в поисках покупателей в других местах. Всемирный экономический форум отметил в 2015 году резкое падение спроса США со времени долгового кризиса 2008 года, но это признание в значительной степени оставалось незамеченным в основных средствах массовой информации. Интересно, что в то время как спрос рушился, цена за баррель продолжала стремительно расти из-за инфляционной политики ФРЭ. Почти сразу после того, как ФРС начала сужать QE, цены на нефть резко снизились в соответствии с отсутствием существующего спроса.В 2017 году, по оценке EIA, во втором квартале наблюдался рост мирового спроса. И "спроецировал" растущий спрос, включая более высокий спрос США на 2018 год, опережая предложение.(http://www.zerohedge.com/...)

28 октября, 22:16

Без заголовка

**Should-Read**: Kim Clausing gets one wrong. Greg Mankiw—I leave Casey Mulligan to one side, for I will not call him an "economist"—does not say that "it is possible for a 1 dollar reduction in corporate taxes to result in a more than 1 dollar increase in wages". He says, instead: in a model in which the U.S. is a small open economy, in which all corporate profits are a return to capital investment (rather than some of them being rents, returns to bearing risk, or market power), in which the revenue lost is made up by other taxes that do not cause economic distortions, then at least the "static" assessment is that a one dollar reduction in corporate taxes generates a 1/(1-t) dollar increase in wages. Now since the U.S. is not a small open economy, since a substantial share of corporate profits are not returns to corporate investment, since steps to rebalance the public fisc will induce other economic distortions, and since misinterprets what a "static" assessment is (or—more likely, I think—made an algebraic error), he in fact does _not_ say that it is conceptually possible that "cutting [U.S.] corporate taxes [would] raise workers' incomes". Nevertheless, he leaves himself...

Выбор редакции
28 октября, 00:00

Trump's $700 Billion Gift to Wealthy Foreigners

Paul Krugman, New York TimesTax cuts: They're not just for American plutocrats

Выбор редакции
27 октября, 23:27

Weekend Reading: Markets Love Central Banks - No Matter What They Do

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, I discussed yesterday, the apparent “myth” of the Fed’s proposed “balance sheet reduction” program as the most recent analysis shows a $13.5 billion “reinvestment” into their balance sheet which has helped fuel the recent market advance. But therein lies the potential “fatal flaw” of the “bullish logic.”  At the September FOMC meeting, the Federal Reserve announced their latest decision which contained two primary components: No rate hike currently, although, further rate hikes are likely in the future, and; The beginning of the process to cease reinvestment of the Fed’s balance sheet.  That announcement was notable for two reasons: The Fed did NOT hike rates because the underlying economic data, and, in particular, the inflation data, suggests the economy is too weak to absorb a further increase currently, and; The unwinding of the balance sheet is generally believed to be bullish for stocks.  So, despite the clear evidence of the support for the markets provided by near zero-interest rate policy and trillions in monetary injection, it is believed that “unwinding” those supports will have “no effect” on the market. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Fed does, it’s “bullish.” The same is also believed to be the case for the European Central Bank and Mario Draghi who just announced yesterday that the ECB’s QE program will begin to be reduced by €30 Billion per month (down from €60 Billion). While this will continue the expansion of their balance sheet currently, the end of “QE,” as the markets have come to know it, is coming to an end. Don’t misunderstand me, Central Banks are still very actively engaged in the support of the financial markets for the time being which keeps asset prices positively buoyed. However, with Central Banks now “tightening” monetary policy, the risk of a policy error has risen markedly. This is particularly the case when the financial markets insist on ignoring the knock-off effects of less liquidity. Tax Reform With Complete Disregard Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Senate-approved budget. This budget is an anathema to any fiscally conservative policy. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated: “Republicans in Congress laid out two visions in two budgets for our fiscal future, and today, they choose the path of gimmicks, debt, and absolutely zero fiscal restraint over the one of responsibility and balance.   While the original House budget balanced on paper and offered some real savings, the Senate’s version accepted today by the House fails to reach balance, enacts a pathetic $1 billion in spending cuts out of a possible $47 trillion, and allows for $1.5 trillion to be added to the national debt.   Make no mistake – this is a defining moment for the Republican party. After years of passing balanced budgets and calling for fiscal responsibility, the GOP is now on-the-record as supporting trillions in new debt for the sake of tax cuts over tax reform and failing to act on the pressing need to reform our largest entitlement programs.” Passing fiscally irresponsible budgets just for the sake of passing “tax cuts,” is, well, irresponsible. Once again, elected leaders have not listened to, or learned, what their constituents are asking for which is simply adherence to the Constitution and fiscal restraint. As the CFRB concludes: “Tax cuts do not pay for themselves; they can create growth, but in the amount of tenths of percentage points, not whole percentage points. And they certainly cannot fill in trillions in lost revenue. Relying on growth projections that no independent forecaster says will happen isn’t the way to do tax reform.” That is absolutely correct. Here is your weekend reading list. Trump, Economy & Fed Fed Ignores Most Relevant Evidence by Caroline Baum via MarketWatch Another Reason To Fear Unions by Simon Constable via PJ Media Given Time Tax Cuts Will Work by Stephen Moore via The Washington Times Tax Cuts Won’t Work As Well As Trump Hopes by Don Lee via LA Times Kevin Hassett Is Betting Tax Deliver Growth by George Will via National Review Here’s What’s Important About The Budget by Robert Samuelson via RCM The Risk Of Income Tax Reform “In Name Only” by Brian Domitrovic via Forbes Republicans Are NOT Cutting Taxes by John Tamny via RCM Dem’s Fight To Keep SALT Deduction by Editorial via IBD Trump Should Keep Yellen As Fed Chair by Editorial via USA Today The GOP Has No Budget Plan by James Capretta via Real Clear Policy The New Populism Isn’t About Economics by Tyler Cowen via Bloomberg Hassett’s Flawed Analysis Of Tax Plan by Larry Summers via CNBC Don’t Be Fooled By Corporate Tax/Wage Correlation by Paul Krugman via NYT Markets One Of The MOST Overbought Markets In History by Charlie Bilello via Pension Partners Some Reasons To Worry As Stocks Rise by Jeff Reeves via MarketWatch What Would You Do With $1 Billion by SA Gil Weinreich via Seeking Alpha S&P 500 Matches Uncanny Record For Doing Nothing by Mark DeCambre via MarketWatch Longest Streak Ever W/O A 3% Correction by Ryan Detrick via LPL Financial The $1000 Bagel And Market Tops by Shawn Langlois via MarketWatch First Cracks In The Market Appear by Michael Kahn via Barron’s Intermediate-Term Irrational by David Merkel via The Aleph Blog Japan Is Booming, But Not Really by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Partners Low Rates: Yes, You Still Need Bonds by James Picerno via Capital Spectator BofA: Market Implies No Way A Shock Can Happen by Tyler Durden via ZeroHedge Buy & Hold Fantasy Reaches Fever Pitch by Richard Rosso via RIA Volatility, The World’s Only Undervalued Asset Class by Doug Kass via RIA Research / Interesting Reads Is Fed Getting Gold Feet About QE Unwind by Wolf Richter via Wolf Street The Bull, The Bear & The Tortoise by Simon Maierhofer via MarketWatch Passive Should Never Laugh At Active by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist The Market IS NOT The Economy by Buttonwood via The Economist Shielding Seniors From Financial Fraud by Alex Veiga via USA Today Capping 401k Contributions Worsens Savings Crisis by Robert Powell via The Street Americans Still Terrible At Investing by Lance Roberts via MarketWatch Understanding The Fed’s Shrinking Balance Sheet by Kathy Jones via Schwab An Old-School Manager Builds Wealth Quietly by Landon Thomas via NY Times Even Borderline Data Will Be Recessionary by William Hester via Hussman Funds Bears Head For Early Hibernation by Dana Lyons via The Lyons Share What Were You Thinking by Jesse Felder via The Felder Report “There have been three great inventions since the beginning of time: fire, the wheel, and Central Banking.“ – Will Rogers

27 октября, 22:17

Аналитик предсказал закат эпохи нефтедоллара на фоне улучшения отношений России и Китая

Эру нефтедоллара может ожидать скорый закат. Федеральное агентство новостей представляет перевод статьи «Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Diminishing Petrodollar».

27 октября, 17:10

Dollar, Bond Yields Tumble On Report Trump Leaning Toward Powell As Next Fed Chart

So much for Trump's Senatorial "straw poll" who should be the next Fed chair (which as a reminder, was reportedly won by John Taylor as Janet Yellen's replacement). Moments ago, Bloomberg reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, that of the two finalists, whom we already knew were John Taylor and Jerome "Jay" Powell, Trump is reportedly leaning to Powell as next Fed chair. Perhaps Trumps was trying to find who the Senate wants in, just to decide the opposite. Or more likely Trump was just tapped on the shoulder by Mnuchin who as we know is a big fan of "establishment" Fed chairs, and who made it clear that only Powell can be the next head of the US money printer. While Powell is "Goldman's" candidate, Taylor is favored by Vice President Mike Pence, Bloomberg's sources have said. Of course, this is just another trial balloon, just like the bevy of Politico reports on the matter, because as Bloomberg's sources cautioned, the "decision isn’t yet final" and added the usual disclaimer that Trump could change his mind at any time. The president has promised to make a decision soon and White House officials have said he would reveal his choice before his Nov. 3 trip to Asia. Powell, a Republican who was appointed to the board in 2012 by President Barack Obama, has backed Yellen’s gradual approach to raising interest rates and earned a reputation as a non-ideological pragmatist.   A lawyer by training, Powell managed the Fed’s response to the 2014 flash crash in Treasury debt. The 64-year-old, who goes by Jay, served at the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush, eventually ending up as undersecretary for domestic finance. As Bloomberg adds, the president has said privately at least twice in the last week that he’s ruled out appointing Cohn to the job: "He’s told advisers that Cohn is doing a great job in his current role and that he wants to keep him at the White House through congressional consideration of his proposed tax overhaul, according to another person." Warsh, meanwhile, lacks support from Mnuchin, according to two other people familiar with the process, though they would not say why. His tenure on the Fed board has been criticized by a diverse group of economists ranging from Scott Sumner to Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. And his consideration for the top post has rekindled a feud with Randal Quarles, who was confirmed as a Fed governor and vice chairman for supervision earlier this month, people familiar with the matter said. For now, however, with the threat of the uber-hawkish - at least according to consensus - John Taylor removed, both the dollar... ... and yields are sliding.

27 октября, 06:55

Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Diminishing Petrodollar

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com, There are a few important rules you have to follow if you want to join the consortium of mainstream economic con-men/analysts. Take special note if you plan on becoming one of these very "special" people: 1) Never discuss the reality that government fiscal statistics are not the true picture of the health of the economy. Just present the stats at face value to the public and quickly move on.   2) Almost always focus on false positives. Give the masses a delusional sense of recovery by pointing desperately at the few indicators that paint a rosier picture.  Always mention a higher stock market as a symbol of an improving economy even though the stock market is irrelevant to the fundamentals of the economy. In fact, pretend the stock market is the ONLY thing that matters. Period.   3) Never talk about falling demand. Avoid mention of this at all costs. Instead, bring up "rising supply" and pretend as if demand is not a factor even worth considering.   4) Call any article that discusses the numerous and substantial negatives in the economy "doom porn." Ask "where is the collapse?" a lot, when the collapse in fundamentals is right in front of your face.   5)  Avoid debate on the health of the economy when you can, but if cornered, misrepresent the data whenever possible. Muddle the discussion with minutia and circular logic.   6) When a crash occurs, act like you had been the one warning about the danger all along. For good measure, make sure alternative economic analysts do not get credit for correct examinations of the fiscal system.   7) Argue that there was nothing special about their warnings and predictions and that "everyone else saw it coming too;" otherwise you might be out of a job. Now, if you follow these rules most of the time, or religiously, then you have a good shot at becoming the next Paul Krugman or one of the many hucksters at Forbes, Bloomberg or Reuters. A cushy job and comfortable salary await you. Good luck and Godspeed! However, say you are one of those weird people cursed with a conscience; becoming a vapid mouthpiece for the establishment may not sound very appealing. Or, maybe you just have OCD and you can't stand the idea of "creative math" when it comes to economic data. Whatever the case may be, you want to outline the deeper facts of the economy because the economy is life — it is the structure which holds together our civilization, and if we lie about it in the short term, then we only set ourselves up for catastrophe in the long run. Welcome to another dimension. Welcome to the world of alternative economics. Every aspect of the U.S. economy or the global economy can be presented two very different ways depending on whether you "interpret" the data to fit a preconceived conclusion, or simply relay it to the public as it really is. Let's use oil and the petrodollar as an example... To illustrate the mainstream establishment reaction to legitimate economic concerns on oil, I highly suggest going back and reading an article by Foreign Policy, the official magazine of the Council On Foreign Relations, titled "Debunking The Dumping-The-Dollar Conspiracy," published in 2009. The idiocy of this article was truly bewildering at the time it was released, but even more so now in retrospect. First, it is important to note that Foreign Policy refused to even acknowledge the issue of the dollar losing petro-currency status until Robert Fisk of The Independent, someone closer to mainstream exposure, dared to broach the topic, warning that a trend was in play to dump the dollar as the petro-currency by 2018. The alternative economic community had been warning about the world moving away from U.S. oil dominance for some time beforehand. Second, the CFR uses a typical circular fallacy when confronting the potential end of the dollar's world reserve status; the fallacy that the dollar is the world reserve currency because "the U.S. is the preeminent world economic power." Actually, the reverse is true — the U.S. is the world's preeminent economic power only because the dollar has world reserve status. It was also once an industrial powerhouse after WWII, but this was ONLY because the U.S. was one of the few manufacturing hubs in the world that wasn't demolished by years of kinetic destruction. When you are the only game in town, of course you reap huge economic benefits including massive international investment, but not forever. Today, obviously, the U.S. is far surpassed by other nations in the area of manufacturing and production, and has also been surpassed as the largest global importer and exporter. The "preeminence" argument is unmitigated garbage. Third, almost every danger Foreign Policy dismissed as "conspiracy" back in 2009 is now coming true. Just as Robert Fisk warned, and just as the alternative economic community warned long before him, numerous shifts in the world of oil as well as geopolitical relationships have created a spiraling nexus of anti-dollar sentiment. Is it possible that the dollar will lose petro-status by 2018? Absolutely, and here is why... While the U.S. remains the world's largest oil consumer according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), American consumption of petroleum products has greatly diminished over the past few years; falling demand by increasingly destitute U.S. consumers has left oil producers searching for buyers elsewhere. The World Economic Forum noted in 2015 the drastic fall in U.S. demand since the 2008 debt crisis, but this admission went largely unnoticed in the mainstream media. Interestingly, while demand was crashing, the price per barrel continued to skyrocket because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary QE policies. Almost immediately after the Fed began tapering QE, oil prices drastically declined in line with the lack of existing demand. In 2017, the EIA claims there has been a rise in global demand since the second quarter.  And has "projected" increasing demand including higher U.S. demand going into 2018, outpacing supply. Yet, at the same time the EIA admits a frustrating stagnation in global oil demand, with the U.S. being the primary drag on consumption since 2010. So, which trend are we supposed to believe? The one that is right in front of us, or the one that is optimistically projected? It is clear, even according to "official" statistics on crude oil imports, that the U.S. market began sinking in 2009 to levels not seen since the 1990's and has not recovered since. Everyone knows that each new year is supposed to bring exponential demand, like clockwork. But this has not been the case at all in the U.S. Meanwhile, China has recently surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest oil importer, even though the EIA lists the U.S. as the world's largest oil "consumer." The argument mainstream analysts would probably make here is that imports of oil are diminishing because U.S. shale oil is filling demand domestically. This argument overlooks the overall process of declining demand, though.  The US is the largest consumer of oil NOW, but will that pace continue?  According to the data, the answer is no.   Americans are buying less petroleum products since the 2008 credit crisis, regardless of where they come from, and oil producers are seeking to diversify into other markets, and other currencies. On top of that, even if it were true that imported oil is crumbling because US domestic oil is filling rising demand, this still begs the question - Why would oil producing nations stick with the dollar as the petrocurrency when the US has decided to take its ball and go home?  The US has now become a COMPETITOR in the oil market with shale, so why would OPEC nations and others also continue to give the US the enormous advantage of owning petrocurrency status? In the meantime, the geopolitical situation grows more unstable. I believe the Iranian sanctions issue has gone ignored far too long, and this has direct repercussions on the dollar's petro-status. How? Well, consider this — Europe continues its appetite for Iranian oil, with 40 percent of Iran's oil exports going to the EU. With the very oddly timed U.S.-led effort by the Trump administration to renew sanctions, Europe has been caught in a catch-22; either defy sanctions and upset relations with the U.S. or lose a significant source of petroleum imports. For now it appears that the EU will support sanctions, but this time solidarity on the issue is nowhere near as strong as it was back in 2012. With Iran as a major supplier for Europe as well as China, and overtaking Saudi Arabia as the top oil supplier for India, Trump's latest call to put economic pressure on the nation may add more fuel to the accelerating rationale against the dollar as the primary trade mechanism for oil. The question becomes, who benefits from American influence in oil, and who suffers? The more countries that suffer because of a world reserve dollar, the more likely they will be to look for an alternative. China has deepened ties to Russia for this exact reason. With Russia supplanting Saudi Arabia as China's largest petroleum source, and bilateral trade between Russia and China cutting out the dollar as world reserve, this is just the beginning of the shift.  In the past week it has been hinted that China will be shifting in the next two months into using its OWN currency, the Yuan, to price oil instead of using the dollar. Saudi Arabia, America's longtime partner in the oil dominance chain, is now moving away from the old relationship. Tensions between the Saudis and the U.S. State Department over the rather surreal Qatar embargo are just part of a series of divisions. With China's influence in the region increasing, the mainstream has finally begun to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia may be "compelled" to trade oil in currencies other than the dollar. Why is oil so important? Because energy, along with currency, is the key to understanding the state of the economy. When demand for energy goes stagnant, this usually means the economy is stagnant. When a nation has maintained a monopoly on global energy trade by coupling its currency to oil, an addiction can be formed and its financial structure becomes dependent in that addiction being continuously satiated. Foreign Policy argued in 2009 that oil trade in dollars is "nothing more than a convention." I would actually agree with that in part; it is indeed a convention that can change dramatically at any given moment. But, Foreign Policy asserts that there would be no consequences for the U.S. if and when the change takes place and the dollar loses petrostatus. This is absurd. Trillions in dollars are held overseas and the singular function of those dollars is to fulfill international trade based on the "convention" of the dollar's world reserve status. What purpose do those dollar's serve if world reserve status is abandoned? The answer is none. All of those dollars would come flooding back into the U.S. through various channels. Market psychology would immediately trigger a massive loss in the dollar's international value, not to mention incredible inflation would be spiking here at home. This process has already begun, and it is looking more and more like the next couple of years will bring a vast "reset" (as the IMF likes to call it) in the hegemony of certain currencies. Some people believe this will be a wellspring, a change for the better. They think the death of the dollar will lead to "decentralization" of the global economy and a "multipolar world," but the situation is far more complex than it seems. I will go into greater detail in my next article as to why the dollar and the U.S. economy in general has actually been slated for deliberate demolition and how this will likely come about. As far as oil and petro-status are concerned, the mainstream media is perfectly willing to report on the developments I have mentioned here in a fleeting manner, but at the same time they are completely unwilling to account for the effects that will result or the deeper meaning behind these events.  They will report on the smaller stories, but refuse to acknowledge the bigger story. It is quite a contradiction, but a contradiction with a purpose.

26 октября, 20:11

Links for 10-26-17

  • 0

What I do support in a new tax plan - Larry Summers Trump's $700 Billion Foreign Aid Program - Paul Krugman The Simple and Misleading Analytics of a Corporate Tax Cut - Paul Krugman Where did all the investment go?...

24 октября, 19:43

Paul Krugman: The Doctrine of Trumpal Infallibility

  • 0

"What happens to economists who never admit mistakes, and never change their views in the light of experience?": The Doctrine of Trumpal Infallibility, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: ...we are living in the age of Trumpal infallibility: We are ruled...

24 октября, 19:07

Без заголовка

  • 0

**Should-Read**: Music to my ears... **Paul Krugman**: [On Twitter: "Brad is right here](https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/922795427157733376): "[Brad is right here](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/10/note-to-self-greg-mankiw-providing-backup-for-kevin-hassett-department-larry-summers-one-last-time-on-who-benefits-fro.html)... >...Mankiw et al have clearly made a math error. Take the framework I did here: >>**Paul Krugman**: [Some Misleading Geometry on Corporate Taxes](https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/some-misleading-geometry-on-corporate-taxes-wonkish/): The stock of capital on the horizontal axis and the rate of return on capital on the vertical axis. The curve MPK is the marginal product of capital.... The area under MPK... is... total output.... A given world rate of return r*... the government imposes a profits tax at a rate t, so that to achieve a post-tax return r* domestic capital must earn r*/(1-t). And in the initial equilibrium that requirement determines the size of the domestic capital stock.... Real output is a+b+d. Of this, d is the after-tax return to capital, b is profit taxes, and a – the rest – is wages. Now imagine eliminating the profits tax.... The capital stock rises by ∆K, and so does GDP, to a+b+c+d+e (of which, however, e is returns to foreign capital, so GNP doesn’t rise as much as GDP.) Profit taxes disappear: that’s a revenue loss of b. But wages rise to a+b+c, a gain of b+c... >Assume that...

Выбор редакции
24 октября, 17:45

America is in Worse Financial Shape than Russia or China

Kotlikoff: America in Worse Financial Shape than Russia or China Written by Peter Diekmeyer, Sprott Money News    America’s 2017 fiscal gap will come in near $6 trillion, nine times higher than the $666 billion deficit announced by the US Department of the Treasury last week, says Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University.   “Our country is broke,” says Kotlikoff, who estimates total US government debts at more than $200 trillion, when unfunded liabilities are included. “We are in worse shape than Russia, China or any developed nation.”   Worse, says Kotlikoff, who has testified before Congress, government officials are well-aware that many of America’s debts and accruing liabilities are being written off the books.   However, for the most part, they are keeping their mouths shut.   A two-tier reporting system The upshot is a de facto “two-tier” financial reporting system, in which politicians and insiders have access to key data buried in footnotes about unfunded liabilities, which indicate that there are huge problems in the economy.   The public, on the other hand, in slews of Presidential and Congressional Speeches and publications, is led to believe that while things are tough, overall everything is OK.   According to Kotlikoff, a long-time activist for fiscal rectitude, the problem stems in large part from the fact that the US government has been spending almost all of Americans’ approximately $795 billion in social security payroll taxes to pay current bills, rather than investing them to fund retirees’ benefits.   The upshot is that on a net basis, the US government has no money to pay all the benefits that have been promised. Politicians know that defaults will occur, they just haven’t figured out how to finesse this.   Fiscal gap accounting: telling Americans how much government has borrowed Kotlikoff, unlike most, has a solution. He believes that the US government should adopt what he calls “fiscal gap accounting”, which involves putting all future receipts and expenditures on its books.   The idea is that if Americans knew about all the money that their politicians were borrowing and spending, they would be able to make better decisions as to the usefulness of those policies.   They would also be able to better protect themselves.   If the US government produced a financial statement that listed the $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities that Kotlikoff says it owes, workers might make different decisions about how much they will save for retirement.   Sadly, current de facto US government practice - inspired by Keynesian thinkers such as Paul Krugman - is for governments to spend, tax, borrow and print as much money as possible, in an effort to keep the economy perpetually running at full steam.   The idea is to leave future generations to deal with the problems.   The Clinton coverup Kotlikoff and many others have been trying to change this.   More than 1200 of the country’s top economists have endorsed a bipartisan bill that requires the Congressional Budget Office to do both fiscal gap and generational accounting on an ongoing basis.    David Howden, a professor of economics and academic vice-president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, describes economic theory as crystal clear as to how to measure government liabilities, namely using the infinite-horizon fiscal gap. He says that Kotlikoff’s reasoning is “pretty sound.”   In fact, the methodology has been tried before, by George Bush the Elder, who included fiscal gap accounting in some of his budgeting.   However, the Clinton Administration killed the practice and scored huge political points in the process.   Even today, decades later, few people realized that the only reason that the Clintons were able to balance their budgets was by not recording all of the US government’s debts.   Republicans weren’t stupid, though.   When they saw that there was no political penalty to be paid for cooking the books, they jumped on the bandwagon, a policy that the Trump Administration continues to this day.   Information asymmetry: keeping Americans uninformed There are few pleasant takeaways from all this. True, some alternate fiscal gap accounting calculations suggest that things may not be as bad as Kotlikoff says.   Others says that the problem does exist, but by eliminating the pensions of those who earn above a certain level, or by postponing retirement dates, the system could be set straight again.   However even in the best of cases, Kotlikoff is correct on one crucial point: America is unable to meet its obligations as they become due. That is the definition of bankruptcy.   In a sense, it should hardly come as a surprise that politicians are hiding this fact.   Because if America is indeed in worse economic shape than Russia or China, voters might think twice about who they want to lead them.     Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.           Kotlikoff: America in Worse Financial Shape than Russia or China Written by Peter Diekmeyer, Sprott Money News  

23 октября, 19:30

Procrastination for October 23, 2017

  • 0

**Over at [Equitable Growth](http://EquitableGrowth.org): Must- and Should-Reads:** * **Paul Krugman**: [Some Misleading Geometry on Corporate Taxes (Wonkish)](https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/some-misleading-geometry-on-corporate-taxes-wonkish/): "There’s a fairly simple geometric way to see where the optimistic view that cutting corporate taxes is great for wages comes from... * **Jason Furman**: [Wage Increases Under the Unified Framework](https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/921393732959784960): Some talk lately of Ramsey models and their implications for wage increases under the Unified Framework (warning: irrelevant nerdy thread)... * **Martin Wolf**: [Zombie ideas about Brexit that refuse to die](https://www.ft.com/content/2b7c858a-b400-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399): "As Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, has rightly noted, the initial impact of Brexit will be 'deglobalisation'... * **Sandy Black**: [U.S. pattern looks very different. Suggests institutions matter and potential role for policy](https://twitter.com/Econ_Sandy/status/921029373741891585): "New book including my work with @dwschanz on female labor force participation... * **Tim Duy**: [Incoming Data Supportive of December rate Hike](https://blogs.uoregon.edu/timduyfedwatch/files/2017/10/FedWatch101917-2710zhy.pdf): "If we ignore inflation, then nothing is really standing in the way of a rate hike in December... * **Noah Smith**: [Taylor and His Rule Are Not What the Fed Needsg](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-19/taylor-and-his-rule-are-not-what-the-fed-needs): "How much should the Fed worry about inflation versus unemployment?... * **Ryan Avent**: [How should recessions be fought when interest rates are low?](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21730416-both-monetary-policy-and-fiscal-policy-answers-remain-contentious-how-should): "ONE day... bad news will blow in... a new...

23 октября, 10:04

Links and Such for the Week of October 22, 2017

  • 0

**Must-Reads**: * **Paul Krugman**: [Some Misleading Geometry on Corporate Taxes (Wonkish)](https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/some-misleading-geometry-on-corporate-taxes-wonkish/): "There’s a fairly simple geometric way to see where the optimistic view that cutting corporate taxes is great for wages comes from... * **Jason Furman**: [Wage Increases Under the Unified Framework](https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/921393732959784960): Some talk lately of Ramsey models and their implications for wage increases under the Unified Framework (warning: irrelevant nerdy thread)... * **Noah Smith**: [Taylor and His Rule Are Not What the Fed Needsg](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-19/taylor-and-his-rule-are-not-what-the-fed-needs): "How much should the Fed worry about inflation versus unemployment?... * **Ryan Avent**: [How should recessions be fought when interest rates are low?](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21730416-both-monetary-policy-and-fiscal-policy-answers-remain-contentious-how-should): "ONE day... bad news will blow in... a new recession will begin... * **Zeynep Tufekci**: [On Twitter: "Facebook and Google helped them better target fear-mongering videos](https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/920638086740152320): "Facebook and Google helped them better target fear-mongering videos showing 'France and Germany overrun by sharia law'—to get the ad money... * **Melissa S. Kearney**: [How Should Governments Address Inequality?](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2017-10-16/how-should-governments-address-inequality): "**Putting Piketty Into Practice**... * **Raymond Fisman, Keith Gladston, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu**: [Do Americans want to tax capital? Evidence from online surveys](http://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/americans-tax-capital/): "We provide, to our knowledge, the first investigation of individuals’ preferences over jointly taxing income and wealth... * **Danny Quah**: [When Open...

23 октября, 09:37

Links for 10-22-17

  • 0

Some Misleading Geometry on Corporate Taxes (Wonkish) - Paul Krugman One last time on who benefits from corporate tax cuts - Larry Summers A Challenging Decade and a Question for the Future - Janet Yellen Pockets of Predictability - No...

22 октября, 22:12

Sunday Morning Audio: The German Economic Miracle, by David Henderson

Garrett M. Petersen, aka the "Economics Detective," interviewed me a few weeks ago about the post-World War II German economic miracle. I had written about it in "German Economic Miracle" in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Garrett, a Ph.D. student in economics at Simon Fraser University, is a first-rate interviewer. The interview is titled "The German Economic Miracle with David Henderson." It goes longer than the usual, at about 52 minutes. Some highlights follow. The first 5 minutes: The setting. What horrible shape the German postwar economy was in and how much of was due to extreme price controls. 5:10: Reminiscence about interaction with Bill Meckling and Milton Friedman at the 1979 Hoover/Rochester conference on the draft. The issue: conscription during WWII. 6:30: Good for the Allies that the Germans had price controls during the war. 6:50: The Allies kept the German price controls after WWII. 8:40: Why Konrad Adenauer ("der Alte") stood out and looked good to Allies. 9:45: Adenauer recommends Ludwig Erhard, who had good anti-Nazi bona fides. 11:45: Currency reform. 12:20: How Erhard had a fun summer in 1948. 13:00: Erhard's humorous confrontation with General Clay. 13:25: The DM is a ration coupon. 13:50: The dramatic effect on the German economy. 15:20: Walter Heller, later JFK's chief economist, on the value of currency reform and elimination of price controls. 16:28: My personal story about my phone conversation with Walter Heller. 18:00: Heller sees the value of cutting marginal tax rates to improve incentives. 20:45: I couldn't find support for the claim that Erhard clearly broke the rules on his own. 25:00: My story about my mentor, Clancy Smith, and his "cigar interaction" with Ludwig Erhard in Winnipeg. 26:20: Recovery not due to Marshall Plan. I draw on Tyler Cowen's excellent 1986 article on this. 32:50: Contrast with East Germany. 33:50: Katarina Witt's rewards for good skating. 35:50: Petersen's insight about the incentives in research and how they can distort our understanding of the big picture. 37:25: Natural disasters in a fairly free economy don't have big long-term effects. Jack Hirshleifer's work. "Disaster and Recovery." 39:35: Ludwig Erhard takes the government's foot off the hose. 42:20: The moral of the story. 42:30: How I got the chance to do The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics in 1990. 44:20: The role of Alan Russell of Liberty Fund in getting the Fortune Encyclopedia on line as The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 46:50: My George Stigler story; also Paul Krugman easy to work with. 47:45: Petersen's point about the Encyclopedia being non-partisan. 48:50: My confrontation with my editor at Fortune. The Kip Viscusi story about worker safety. 50:25: My willingness to go to the mat--run my net worth down to zero--over quality. (0 COMMENTS)

02 февраля, 14:18

7 самых успешных управляющих хедж-фондов

Лондонский фонд LCH Investments, подразделение Edmond de Rothschild Capital Holdings Limited, опубликовал свой ежегодный рейтинг 20 самых успешных фондовых управляющих 2016 года.