Warren will be on a radio talk show at 1:30pm EST today for an hour which can be heard here:
Call in numbers:
340 773 9951
340 773 0490
Click here for replay. (Wait 45 seconds for regular download)
Comment from reader:
If you hit ‘regular download” on the replay link Warren provided, it goes directly into your iTunes as “WSTXAM970Redfield&Mosler”. At least on my MacBook- and it showed up as a music file not a podcast.
Agreed.
Fundamentally, the 8%+ US federal budget deficit continues to support sufficient aggregate demand for modest GDP growth. Market participants don’t seem to understand this and were discounting a far higher probability of a recession than otherwise.
The strong euro/weak dollar strong stock dynamic continues, with the ECB continuing it’s strong euro policy of forced austerity in exchange for funding. However, this policy also slows growth in the euro zone, which tends to push deficits higher through softer tax revenues and higher transfer payments. At some point this means the ECB has to reconsider a policy designed to bring deficits down that is instead causing them to rise. The problem is they have no such alternative policy, and instead are looking for tight fiscal policy to drive exports. The problem with that is that without a policy of buying $US (the old German model), instead of exports rising, the euro rises to the point where trade stays relatively balanced, as has been the case since the inception of the euro.
Meanwhile, they seem to have responded adequately to the solvency issue with the ECB writing the check as needed. But with a slowing economy the checks the ECB must write get geometrically larger, which, while not an operational constraint, are a daunting political challenge that can quickly throw it all into even more disarray.
Karim writes:
Rewarding those who are culpable
By Bill Mitchell
October 14 — I didn’t comment earlier this week on the recent decision to award the (not)Nobel Prize in Economics to Thomas Sargent. My thoughts were otherwise occupied but it is worth recording that Sargent has been at the centre of the mainstream macroeconomics literature which has been used to justify the claims that government fiscal interventions are ultimately futile and only generate accelerating inflation. His ideas helped my profession to claim authority in its campaign to pressure governments in deregulation, privatisation, inflation targetting and abandoning full employment as a primary policy target. The upshot has been three decades of policy development which really laid the foundations of the current crisis. If Sargent and his cohort had not been so influential the world economy might not have been in the mess that it finds itself in. And … millions might still have their life savings and be gainfully employed. The so-called Nobel Prize in Economics continues to reward those who are culpable.
I covered the event last year – Nobel prize – hardly noble – and noted that the award had nothing to do with Alfred Nobel’s will which wanted prestige to be bestowed on “shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”. Instead, the economic prize was established in 1968 by the ultra-conservative Swedish central bank and the prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
There is a good critique of Sargent’s selection by John Cassidy in his New Yorker article (October 12, 2011) – A Nobel for Freshwater Economics. He said:
This week’s announcement of the Nobel Prize in Economics got me thinking about the state of the subject, and my thoughts weren’t very positive. Three years after the great financial crisis of 2008 discredited the ruling orthodoxy in macroeconomics and finance, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has chosen to honor one of the leading creators of that orthodoxy: Tom Sargent, of New York University. And judging from the reactions to the Nobel announcement, most academic economists heartily approved of it.