1. What is Political Capitalism?
2. Guide to the multiple stimulus debates.
3.Stimulus: the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
4. The Fed is making progress.
5. Football economics and auctions.
Assorted links
Previous post: Political Credit Cycles
Next post: Department of I just don’t believe this
The other signs of Fed progress may be legit, but the rising yield on Treasurys didn’t seem so hot to me, since the article also explained that there was a record issue of them. I.e. if the supply had remained constant and the price fell, then yes that would mean demand dropped. But supply increased, so we shouldn’t attribute the falling price to investors relaxing.
I am very, very confused…how is the commercial paper market falling indicative of IMPROVEMENT?
Apparently it’s because more companies have been able to shift their ST debt into LT debt with lower interest rates, but, apparently, the amount of commercial paper being issued is quite a bit below pre-crisis levels:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FCPOTOTS%3AIND
That last drop there is 80% the Fed saying “okay, we’re not buying anymore!” Do companies REALLY not need as much commercial paper as they did BEFORE the crisis? Is that a result of the Investment Banks dying out and a general shrinking of the market?
I don’t have as much information as Mr. Crescenzi, but I smell something funny about all this…
Political capitalism = socialism
If it walks like a duck..
That David Brooks article is quite good.
Jorod,
I take it you did not look at the post itself. The author uses the term political capitalism to describe what we have now: businesses are able to successfully lobby governments for interventions that are favorable to them. Sometimes that means supporting free markets (e.g. free trade in other countries) and sometimes not (e.g. protectionism here). The post is not just yet another attempt to sugar coat socialism.
“Political capitalism” is yet another far-right think tank spawned pile of crap. Every few years, the right needs new, less boring clubs with which to beat their opponents. We’ve seen a number of them in the past: trickle down, Laffer curve, etc. Austrianism is required to believe in this one, according to the author.
You need only look at the biography of the author to see just how pathetic this is. His PhD was under Murray Rothbard at the now-defunct International College in Los Angeles, and pretty much all of his work has been based on Austrianism.
Mike,
Can you elaborate? Are you for corporate welfare, or you’re just saying you don’t believe Bradley when he claims to be against it? (Disclaimer: Bradley hired me for the Institute for Energy Research.)
Another excellent roundup. I always enjoy reading your roundups as I always find a useful article or two which I really enjoy reading. Thank you for the share!
Comments on this entry are closed.