Michael Sandel on the moral limits of markets:
These examples illustrate a broader point: some of the good things in life are degraded if turned into commodities. So to decide where the market belongs, and where it should be kept at a distance, we have to decide how to value the goods in question—health, education, family life, nature, art, civic duties, and so on. These are moral and political questions, not merely economic ones. To resolve them, we have to debate, case by case, the moral meaning of these goods, and the proper way of valuing them.
This is a debate we didn’t have during the era of market triumphalism. As a result, without quite realizing it—without ever deciding to do so—we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society.
The difference is this: A market economy is a tool—a valuable and effective tool—for organizing productive activity. A market society is a way of life in which market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor. It’s a place where social relations are made over in the image of the market.
The great missing debate in contemporary politics is about the role and reach of markets. Do we want a market economy, or a market society? What role should markets play in public life and personal relations? How can we decide which goods should be bought and sold, and which should be governed by nonmarket values? Where should money’s writ not run?
The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.—
Ben Bernanke | 30 Bernanke Quotations That Are So Stupid You Won’t Know Whether to Laugh or Cry
(OP LALiberty) (dead link fixed)
(Source: antigovernmentextremist)
Quantitative Easing Explained (h/t hilker)
This is outrageously funny in delivery, and totally serious in its content. As for the guy who coined the euphemism “quantitative easing,” I can’t decide if I want to kill him or take his job. Maybe both…
[W]hen the Fed lowers interest rates below their natural level on a market, it has the effect of expanding investment beyond a sustainable level. Business begin investing as if consumers had the savings to back up the signals that the interest rates are sending. But real resources are not in fact available. There is no new wealth available to make good on investments. The lower interest rates are creating no new capital; they are merely distorting the signals borrows use to assess risk.— Ron Paul, End the Fed, p 126
Here’s the list:
[The] biggest mistake made in the run-up to the recent financial crisis was that people on Wall Street and Main Street and in Washington all thought that it was perfectly fine for housing prices to go up 100 percent or more while peoples’ incomes only went up a few percent. That was a pretty basic economic mistake to make, but that was their fundamental error. It wasn’t Wall Street gods gone bad, or greed overtaking people. It was just plain bad investment judgment at a very fundamental level, and this very bad investment judgment was made by just about everyone, from the least financially sophisticated people in America to the most financially sophisticated people in America.— David Wiedemer, Phd economist, in Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown (p 194)
While there is a temptation to dash off to engage with some silly thing or other that Jim Wallis said, I will for the most part refrain. The point [in this post] is to engage with [author] Hunter, and not with those he is reporting on here. But allow me just one little indulgence? The Sojourners/Call to Renewal document is cited [in this chapter], which says, “The Hebrew prophets consistently say that the measure of a nation’s righteousness and integrity is how it treats the most vulnerable” (p. 138). Exactly. And even if we leave the unborn out of it (which the Hebrew prophets would not allow us to do), this is precisely why leftism is such a pathetic counterfeit of the Hebrew prophetic tradition. Economic illiteracy is a principal cause of poverty, and watching it parade around as though it were capable of creating wealth by simply wishing for it is a bit thick. Watching Jim Wallis advise the president on economics is like hearing that Typhoid Mary got herself appointed as the head of the Center for Disease Control.— Douglas Wilson
hilker:unsolicitedanalysis:southpol
First, only Congress is supposed to risk taxpayer dollars. The Fed is not part of the legislative branch. Its secret deals, announced almost two years after they were done, violate the democratic process, if not the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a powerful central bank out of fear it would be unaccountable to the public. The Fed has just proven Jefferson’s point.
Second, if the Fed can secretly bail out big banks, the problem of “moral hazard” – bankers taking irresponsible risks because they know they’ll be rescued – is far greater than anyone assumed after Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations bailed out the banks. Big banks will always be too big to fail because they know the Fed will secretly back them up if they get into trouble, even if Congress won’t do it openly.
Social Security Payout to Exceed Revenue This Year - NYTimes.com
Move along. Nothing to see here.
— FT.com / Comment / Opinion - A Greek crisis is coming to America (via bellatoris)The long-run projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the US will never again run a balanced budget. That’s right, never.
The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.
Rap video summarizing Keynesianism vs. Austrian economics on the boom-bust cycle. REALLY good.
The first rap in history in which the listener is smarter at the end.
The gunshots are hilarious, but the content is serious.
(via maxwellgreenberg)
Reblogged because it made me laugh, not because I agree :)