ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


"So I want to emphasize one more time that stabilization policy does not have to change the size of government in the long-run.... " - Thoma
I get Mark's point. But to write that sentence, you have to be completely blind to factors that exist outside the standard macro models.
Is Mark's theoretical argument a sound one? Sure. The math checks out. It completely ignores the political reality on the ground, though - Obama and co. are decidedly NOT trying to implement the most effective stabilization policy. That would be a secondary goal, at best.
No, the Democrat's goal is to use this crisis to usher in a the Return-of-the-Jedi expansion of government to follow up FDR's New Hope and LBJ's Empire Strikes Back. That's what Rogoff is worried about, and Thoma's assertion that it is theoretically, back-of-a-napkin possible for Washington to reduce the size of government and stabilize the economy in one fell swoop is irrelevant.
My pessimism, which goes beyond Rogoff's and enters rifles/canned goods/zombie fencing territory, is only tangentially related to the health of our financial system. If Obama succeeds in turning America into the EU, the consequences of this or that financial crisis will be utterly banal.
Zdeno
Please, somebody give me reason to be optimistic. I'm heading back to college this year and I'm worried about the financial aid/loan situation. The student loan industry seems to be falling apart.
Sorry Jacob. I'm with Zdeno, only I'm way past rifles.
As the crisis gets bigger - it's not just the banks now, all countries are staring bankruptcy in the face - the solution needs to get bigger, too. Nationalising western banks - if it happens - won't help Mexico or the Ukraine. And if they fall, the domino effect could be catastrophic. So how about this suggestion (The Sander Solution):
- x% of all bank and savings deposits in the OECD above, say $1000, are requisitioned as forced loans and placed in a special IMF fund.
- This fund can be used to bail out countries ...
- ... and to buy up insolvent banks. Because it isn't national government doing it but the IMF, this might be politically acceptable.
How easy this would be depends on the value of x%. If only 2% of deposits were to be "borrowed", people would probably leave their money where it is rather than moving it out of the OECD. Much more, and there would have to be a swift and secret agreement and possibly even a 24-hour closedown of the banking system. possible, but unrealistic.
The programme would ideally generate a few trillion dollars - enough to make it absolutely clear that the IMF and national governments have the funds to achieve turnaround.
I'm afraid I can't find numbers for this suggestion I don't have access to the appropriate figures in order to enable to do the maths. Maybe you do?