artdiamondblog.com

Source of book image: online version of the Omaha World-Herald review quoted and cited below.

(p. 9A) Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 211 pages, $26) mostly goes after members of Congress for profiting from inside information and making investments that are legal for them but would be illegal for almost anyone else.

But Chapter 6 is titled, "Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger."

Buffett is neither an actual Baptist nor a bootlegger, of course. Schweizer's reference is to the alliance of churchgoers and illegal marketers of liquor who both favored laws to limit the legal sale of alcohol, although for different reasons.

Schweizer wrote that during the 2008-09 financial crisis, Buffett pushed for government action and called attention to the problems, looking like a noble Baptist, but profited from the bailouts, like a bootlegger, through investments in Goldman Sachs, General Electric, Wells Fargo and other financial companies.

"Buffett needed the bailout," Schweizer wrote. "He began immediately to campaign for the $700 billion TARP rescue plan that was being hammered together in Washington." Several senators, including Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are Berkshire shareholders, Schweizer wrote, "and they had to know that passing the bailout bill would bring big returns for their Berkshire stock."

"There were many legitimate reasons to support the bill, and it can hardly be said that Buffett's support was the deciding factor," Schweizer wrote. "But his Baptist-bootlegger position was noteworthy for its strength in both directions: a lot of people followed his advice, and he and they made (p. 10A) a lot of money by pushing for the bailout. . . .

"Warren Buffett is a financial genius. But even more important for his portfolio, he's a political genius."

For the full story, see:

Steve Jordon. "Warren Watch: Author Says Buffett Is a 'Political Genius'." Omaha World-Herald (Sunday, November 20, 2011): 9A -10A.

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

(Note: the online version of the article has the title "Warren Watch: A 'Political Genius'.")

Steve Jordan is discussing the book:

Schweizer, Peter. Throw Them All Out. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade, 2011.

Bruce Yandle is the former President of APEE and the author of the classic article on how bootleggers and Baptists often become allies in calling for government action:

Yandle, Buce. "Bootleggers and Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist." Regulation 7, no. 3 (1983): 12-16.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the Chicago American Finance Association (AFA) meetings (held in conjunction with the AEA meetings), I attended a panel discussion on Fri., Jan. 6, 2012 on "Sovereign Default." The session was chaired by Simon Johnson, and included Kenneth Singleton and Carmen Reinhart (who has co-authored a much-discussed book on the history of economic crises). (Martin Feldstein was supposed to participate but did not, and I did not catch the name of the scholar who replaced him on the panel).

When asked if they expected multiple countries in Europe to default in the near to medium term, all panel members agreed that such default would happen. (The consensus was that Greece, and at least a couple of other countries, would eventually default---the Euros needed to bail them out were too large, even if the Germans and the ECB changed course and wanted to try.) Before seeing the panel, I was not aware that expert academic opinion was so agreed on this prediction.

There was less certainty about whether this would necessarily lead to the end of the Euro. Reinhart pointed out that even in Greece, where austerity is severe and unpopular, there is currently little popular support for abandoning the Euro.

The panelists seemed to believe that sovereign defaults might lead to slow growth, high taxes and inflation, but might not lead to catastrophe.

Reinhart suggested that Europe, and maybe also the United States and the rest of the world, might just muddle along for an extended period.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The WSJ tells us the credentials of the authors of the following advice: "Mr. Muller is CEO of GenOn Energy. Mr. Zimpleman is president and CEO of the Principal Financial Group."

(p. A15) In our view, there is no hope of giving consumers renewed confidence in America unless governments at all levels mount a vigorous effort to get rid of rules that discourage entrepreneurs from launching and growing new businesses.

The Kauffman Foundation recently proposed a way to do that with a set of ideas aptly called the Startup Act. Those ideas, which would cost the government virtually nothing, include:

• Letting in immigrant entrepreneurs who hire American workers.

• Reducing the cost of capital through capital gains tax relief for early stage investments.

• Reducing barriers to IPOs by allowing shareholders to opt out of Sarbanes-Oxley.

• Charging higher fees for patent applicants who want quick decisions to remove the backlog of applications at the Patent Office.

• Giving licensing freedom to academic entrepreneurs at universities to accelerate the commercialization of their ideas.

• Having the government provide data to permit rankings of startup friendliness of states and localities.

• Regular sunsets for regulations and a consistent policy of putting new ones in place only if their benefits exceed their costs.

For the full commentary, see:

EDWARD R. MULLER and LARRY ZIMPLEMAN. "OPINION; An Entrepreneurial Fix for the U.S. Economy; Several reforms can make it faster and easier for new business startups.." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., AUGUST 29, 2011): A15.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. F2) . . . solar power, which makes extensive use of robots in fabricating the cells, and has no moving parts to service once it is up and running, may be an odd choice for job creation.

"It's just not that labor-intensive," said Howard Axelrod, an engineer and economist. And as for the jobs it creates, there may be a price elsewhere, Dr. Axelrod said.

. . .

Build enough solar plants and some coal plants will shut down; that would amount to firing Peter to hire Paul.

. . .

And, economists point out, some of the work that renewable energy creates goes to people who already have jobs -- roofers who install the panels or truck drivers who move them around, or steel workers who make towers for new wind machines.

Some of the jobs could eventually go elsewhere. Two years ago, Evergreen Solar, which got $58 million in aid from Massachusetts for a factory in Devens, said it would shift production to China instead.

. . .

The debate is part of a larger discussion of what constitutes a "green" job. In October 2009, Congress gave the Bureau of Labor Statistics a special appropriation to count them.

. . .

"Driving a bus is driving a bus, right?" said Connie Mack, Republican of Florida. Hilda Solis, the secretary of labor, said they were "green buses." But aides later clarified that the bureau counted any bus driving job as green because it preserved natural resources.

None of this suggests that green is bad, just that it is not particularly job-heavy. In December 2010, Susan Combs, the comptroller of Texas, reported that school districts in her state were giving tax abatements to lure new jobs, but had to give $1.6 million for every wind energy job. Manufacturing jobs could be created for $166,000 each.

For the full story, see:

MATTHEW L. WALD. "Solar Power Industry Falls Short of Hopes in Job Creation." The New York Times (Weds., October 26, 2011): F2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the article has the date October 25, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) 'Great by Choice" is a sequel to Jim Collins's best-selling "Good to Great" (2001), which identified seven characteristics that enabled companies to become truly great over an extended period of time. Never mind that one of the 11 featured companies is now bankrupt (Circuit City) and another is in government receivership (Fannie Mae). Mr. Collins has a knack for analysis that business readers find compelling.

Mr. Collins's new book tackles the question of how to steer a company to lasting success in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty and even chaos. Like his previous work, this book builds its conclusions on a framework of painstaking research, conducted over nine years and overseen by Mr. Collins and his co-author, Morten T. Hansen, a management professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

. . .

Messrs. Collins and Hansen draw some interesting and counterintuitive conclusions from their research. First, the successful leaders were not the most "visionary" or the biggest risk-takers; instead, they tended to be more empirical and disciplined, relying on evidence over gut instinct and preferring consistent gains to blow-out winners. The successful companies were not more innovative than the control companies; indeed, they were in some cases less innovative. Rather, they managed to "scale innovation"--introducing changes gradually, then moving quickly to capitalize on those that showed promise. The successful companies weren't necessarily the most likely to adopt internal changes as a response to a changing environment. "The 10X companies changed less in reaction to their changing world than the comparison cases," the authors conclude.

. . .

If "Great by Choice" shares the qualities that made "Good to Great" so popular, it also shares some that drew criticism. The authors' conclusions sometimes feel like the claims of a well-written horoscope--so broadly stated that they are hard to disprove. Their 10X leaders are both "disciplined" and "creative," "prudent" and "bold"; they go fast when they must but slow when they can; they are consistent but open to change. This encompassing approach allows the authors to fit pretty much any leader who achieves 10X performance into their analysis. Would it ever be possible, one wonders, to find a leader whose success contradicted their thesis?

For the full review, see:

ALAN MURRAY. "BOOKSHELF; Turbulent Times, Steady Success; How certain companies achieved shareholder returns at least 10 times greater than their industry." The Wall Street Journal (Tues., OCTOBER 11, 2011): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) . . . , consider two theories of economic destruction, which can be labeled the domino theory and the popcorn theory. Everyone knows the domino theory; it is the analogy that is commonly used to denote contagion. If one domino falls, it will topple the others, and conversely, if the first domino remains upright, the others will not fall. It is this logic that underlies most bailout strategies.

The popcorn theory emphasizes a different mechanism. When popcorn is made (the old fashioned way), oil and corn kernels are placed in the bottom of a pan, heat is applied and the kernels pop. Were the first kernel to pop removed from the pan, there would be no noticeable difference. The other kernels would pop anyway because of the heat. The fundamental structural cause is the heat, not the fact that one kernel popped, triggering others to follow.

Many who believe that bailouts will solve Europe's problems cite the Sept. 15, 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers as evidence of what allowing one domino to fall can do to an economy. This is a misreading of the historical record. Our financial crisis was mostly a popcorn phenomenon.

. . .

But our financial crisis was caused by factors that affected the entire system, just as all corn kernels pop when they are warmed by the same flame. This lesson is important because interpreting our crisis as primarily a contagion event leads to the wrong strategies for dealing with potential disasters. After Lehman, Europeans seem to be so taken with worries of contagion that they are failing to emphasize remedies that actually have a chance of making things better. In their case, and in ours, the solution is primarily a reduction in the bloated size of government expenditures that come about by making promises that cannot be kept.

For the full commentary, see:

EDWARD P. LAZEAR. "OPINION; The Euro Crisis: Doubting the 'Domino' Effect; Preventing a Greek default will not reverse the lackluster growth that has plagued the other vulnerable countries for many years now." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., OCTOBER 31, 2011): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A2) A recent study called into question whether size should matter at all when comparing businesses and their contribution to job creation.

The paper--co-authored by University of Maryland economist John Haltiwanger and two Census Bureau economists--confirmed that small businesses create more net new jobs, per employee, than do bigger businesses.

But the effect vanishes once each company's age is taken into account. It is young businesses that outperform old ones, according to the paper. Size isn't the important factor.

If you control for age, "you wipe out that effect" of small businesses creating a disproportionate share of net new jobs, says Prof. Haltiwanger. "There's no systematic relationship. If anything it goes the opposite way of conventional wisdom."

For the full commentary, see:

CARL BIALIK. "THE NUMBERS GUY; Sizing Up the Small-Business Jobs Machine." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., OCTOBER 15, 2011): A2.

The Haltiwanger paper referred to in the passage above is:

Haltiwanger, John C., Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. "Who Creates Jobs? Small Vs. Large Vs. Young." NBER Working Paper #16300, August 2010.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) 'Ten years ago, Steve Jobs was alive, Bob Hope was alive, Johnny Cash was alive. Now we're outta jobs, outta hope and outta cash." I heard that from a TSA agent in New York the other day, as he eyed me for explosives. We laughed, but there was a poignant edge.

Part of the outpouring over Steve Jobs last week was that he was a huge symbol of what seems a lost world of American dynamism. The inventor in his garage changes the world. We'll not only make the new machine powerful and fast, we'll make it so beautiful it will make you cry. Like you're looking at the future, like you're looking at a baby in its crib.

For the full commentary, see:

PEGGY NOONAN. "DECLARATIONS; This Is No Time for Moderation; America can't trim and tweak its way back to economic dynamism." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., OCTOBER 15, 2011): A15.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Police officers, firefighters and coast guard officers protested austerity measures in Athens on Monday." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A5) ATHENS -- Stories of eye-popping waste and abuse of power among Greece's bureaucrats are legion, including officials who hire their wives, and managers who submit $38,000 bills for office curtains.

The work force in Greece's Parliament is so bloated, according to a local press investigation, that some employees do not even bother to come to work because there are not enough places for all of them to sit.

. . .

Some experts believe that Greece could reap significant savings by reducing its bureaucracy, which employs one out of five workers in the country and by some estimates could be trimmed by as much as a third without materially affecting services. But though salaries have been cut, the government has yet to lay off anyone.

The main reason is also one of the very reasons that Greece got into trouble in the first place: The government is in many ways an army of patronage appointments built up over decades. When election time rolls around, state workers become campaign workers, and their reach is enormous. There are so many of them that almost every family has one.

. . .

Whether the right workers will be laid off remains an open question. "A lot of people in the government are terrified," Mr. Hlepas said. "They don't think any of those people over in Parliament are going to go. They think the ones that do the work will get cut."

Thomas Tsamatsoulis, 41, who works for the Greek equivalent of the Federal Aviation Administration, said he found himself on an early list headed for the reserve pool, though he had been sent to the United States for electronics training and now has a skill that is rare in his agency. At the same time, Mr. Tsamatsoulis said, the agency, which has just two airplanes, has more than 15 pilots.

"You want to believe the government will do this right," he said. "But it is very difficult. It's not how it has worked in the past. It's all about who you know."

Greece's bureaucracy has been growing steadily since democracy was reinstated in 1974, with each new administration adding its supporters to the payroll -- and wages rising steeply in the past decade, experts say.

"There was really a party going on," said Yannis Stournaras, an economist and the director of the Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research in Athens. "The government kept adding bonuses and benefits and pensions. At election time there was a boom cycle as they handed out jobs."

"Now they need to cut," he added. "But they have already lost precious time."

Stories of excesses abound. Mr. Papandreou told Parliament that one of his ministers found a predecessor's $38,000 bill for curtains when the Socialists returned to power in 2009. Mr. Mossialos said he found that his own ministry, for media and communication, was spending $750,000 a year for office space for just 11 people.

But some experts question whether the culture of bloat and favoritism will ever be conquered.

For the full story, see:

SUZANNE DALEY. "Bureaucracy in Greece Defies Efforts to Cut It." The Wall Street Journal (Tues., October 18, 2011): A2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated October 17, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Street crime, such as a man's killing in Caracas last year, is high." Note the big-brother-sized image of Chávez surveying what his socialism has wrought. Source of quoted part of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

Those who favor socialism should observe Venezuela carefully and ponder whether they like what they see.

(p. A13) Gerardo Urdaneta moved to Houston from Venezuela for a job in 1998, the same year Hugo Chávez was first elected president. Mr. Urdaneta, an energy-shipping specialist, planned for a temporary stop and wouldn't even buy a house.

Thirteen years later, Mr. Chávez is still in power, Mr. Urdaneta is still here. He has been joined by thousands of other Venezuelans, and Houston shops now stock native delicacies like Pampero aged rum and guayanés cheese.

"There are Venezuelans everywhere," Mr. Urdaneta, 50 years old, said. "Before we were passing through. That's not the case anymore."

Waves of white-collar Venezuelans have fled the country's high crime rates, soaring inflation and expanding statist controls, for destinations ranging from Canada to Qatar. The top U.S. destinations are Miami, a traditional shopping mecca for Venezuelans, and Houston, which has long-standing energy ties to Venezuela, a major oil exporter.

There were some 215,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. in 2010, up from about 91,500 in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The number of Venezuelans living in Spain has quintupled in the same period to more than 40,000, and the number of Venezuelan-born Spaniards has more than doubled to 90,000.

For the full story, see:

ÁNGEL GONZÁLEZ and EZEQUIEL MINAYA. "Venezuelan Diaspora Booms Under Chávez." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., October 17, 2011): A13.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the following phrase, at the end of the quoted portion above, is in the online, but not the print, version of the article: "and the number of Venezuelan-born Spaniards has more than doubled to 90,000."

"Venezuelan exile Stefano Zullian owns a Houston chocolate shop." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday (10/31/11) the Kauffman Foundation issued a press release reporting the results of their fourth-quarter survey of "top economics bloggers." The URL for the press release is:

http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/only-half-of-economics-bloggers-expect-employment-growth-in-the-next-three-years.aspx

The last few lines of the press release are summarized below:

In their fourth-quarter survey of "top economics bloggers" the Kauffman Foundation asked the panel of bloggers "to describe the U.S. economy in haiku. Nearly 20 haiku were submitted and subsequently voted on by more than 500 public readers. The most popular was by Professor Art Diamond (http://artdiamondblog.com):"

jobs and Jobs are gone
need more Jobs to get more jobs
innovate to grow

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My Jobs haiku has received some discussion in the blogosphere.

It is reproduced, along with haikus submitted by other economics bloggers, in an entry of the blog of the Economist magazine:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/10/poetry?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/theeconomyinhaiku

I especially like a comment to the Economist blog entry:

CaitP

Oct 26th 2011 7:59 GMT

What a creative way to describe the economy. It is so interesting to see how everyone interprets the economy through poem. I personally like the "jobs and Jobs" one. I think it describes our economy, and gives a snapshot of a major moment in our history.

kbuch5

Nov 2nd 2011 1:41 GMT

It is interesting to see people's opinions about the economy being put into haikus. My favorite out of these is the haiku that refers to the fact that we have lost Steve Jobs and many jobs for US citizens. And in order to regain these jobs we are going to need more people to contribute in ways Steve Jobs has.

(Note: I added kbuch5's comment on 11/7/11.)

CNBC correspondent Jane Wells describes my haiku as "poetic" on her blog:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45078738

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Start-ups fuel job growth disproportionately since by definition they are starting and growing, adding employees, says the Kauffman Foundation, which researches and advocates for entrepreneurship.

Though there was start-up activity during and after the recession, driven partly by unemployed individuals putting out a shingle, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the total number of "births" of new businesses declined sharply from previous years. What's more, the number of people employed by new businesses that are less than a year old--a common definition of a start-up--also declined. That trend started a decade ago.

In a recent report on entrepreneurship, the BLS said the number of new businesses less than a year old that existed in the year ending March 2010 "was lower than any other year" since its research began in 1994. The downdraft started with the recession.

"More people who were self-employed failed and left self-employment than people who entered," says Scott Shane, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University who wrote a study on entrepreneurship and the recession for the Cleveland Fed. "The net effect is negative, not positive, largely because downturns hurt those in business and those thinking of entering business."

For the full story, see:

JOHN BUSSEY. "THE BUSINESS; Shrinking in a Bad Economy: America's Entrepreneur Class." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., AUGUST 12, 2011): B1 & B2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

The BLS report mentioned above can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm

The Scott Shane commentary mentioned above can be found at:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-04.cfm

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

jobs and Jobs are gone
need more Jobs to get more jobs
innovate to grow

Arthur Diamond

In his Q4 survey of influential economics bloggers, Tim Kane of the Kauffman Foundation whimsically requested that we create a haiku that speaks to the state of the economy. I sent him my haiku, above, on Sunday, October 16, 2011.

(Do not worry---I have no plans to retire and devote myself to writing poetry.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"An empty lot in Wuhan, China, where developers intend to build a tower taller than the Empire State Building in New York." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) . . . the Wuhan Metro is only one piece of a $120 billion municipal master plan that includes two new airport terminals, a new financial district, a cultural district and a riverfront promenade with an office tower half again as high as the Empire State Building.

. . .

The plans for Wuhan, a provincial capital about 425 miles west of Shanghai, might seem extravagant. But they are not unusual. Dozens of other Chinese cities are racing to complete infrastructure projects just as expensive and ambitious, or more (p. A8) so, as they play their roles in this nation's celebrated economic miracle.

In the last few years, cities' efforts have helped government infrastructure and real estate spending surpass foreign trade as the biggest contributor to China's growth. Subways and skyscrapers, in other words, are replacing exports of furniture and iPhones as the symbols of this nation's prowess.

But there are growing signs that China's long-running economic boom could be undermined by these building binges, which are financed through heavy borrowing by local governments and clever accounting that masks the true size of the debt.

The danger, experts say, is that China's municipal governments could already be sitting on huge mountains of hidden debt -- a lurking liability that threatens to stunt the nation's economic growth for years or even decades to come. Just last week China's national auditor, who reports to the cabinet, warned of the perils of local government borrowing. And on Tuesday the Beijing office of Moody's Investors Service issued a report saying the national auditor might have understated Chinese banks' actual risks from loans to local governments.

Because Chinese growth has been one of the few steady engines in the global economy in recent years, any significant slowdown in this country would have international repercussions.

For the full story, see:

DAVID BARBOZA. "Building Boom in China Stirs Fears of Debt Overload." The New York Times (Thurs., July 7, 2011): C8.

(Note: online version of the article is dated July 6, 2011 and has the title "Building Boom in China Stirs Fears of Debt Overload.")

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) Only one in 20 workers needed the government's permission to pursue their chosen occupation in the 1950s, notes University of Minnesota Prof. Morris Kleiner. Today that figure is nearly one in three.

. . .

The breadth of jobs is remarkable. Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf are all regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm installer? In 35 states, you will need to earn the government's permission. Are you skilled in handling animals? You will need more than that skill in the 20 states that require a license for animal training.

There's usually more to these licenses than filling out some paperwork and paying a small fee. Most come with government-dictated educational requirements, examinations, minimum age and grade levels, and other hurdles.

. . .

Instead of looking to the federal government to create jobs, state legislatures could have a real and immediate effect on unemployment in their states by showing how less truly is more. They can remove the barriers to job creation that their predecessors erected and enjoy the job-generating drive of their states' aspiring entrepreneurs.

For the full commentary, see:

CHIP MELLOR And DICK CARPENTER. "Want Jobs? Cut Local Regulations." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., July 28, 2011): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A13) Workers do well only when the economy grows at a healthy and consistent pace. The biggest threat to long-term economic growth is government growth of the magnitude that characterized the past two years and that is forecast for our future.

Our current problems are not a result of acts of nature. They stem from policy choices that dramatically increased the size of the government. In the past two years, the federal budget has grown by a whopping 16%.

. . .

. . . , the price of the stimulus is what appears to be a permanent increase in the size of government that will continue to slow economic growth. Most economists believe that high debt and high taxes each contributes to slow economic growth, which hurts workers both in the short and long run.

For the full commentary, see:

EDWARD P. LAZEAR. "OPINION; How Big Government Hurts the Average Joe; Job growth is very closely linked to GDP growth. If the economy is not growing, then jobs aren't being added." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., August 5, 2011): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A21) . . . we already know what isn't working: the economic policy of the past two years -- and the millions of Americans who should have jobs, but don't.

For the full commentary, see:

PAUL KRUGMAN. "The Wrong Worries." The New York Times (Fri., August 5, 2011): A19.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated August 4, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Online critics have scornfully contrasted the difference between government rhetoric about the promise of high-speed rail and the reality of the troubled network. Local residents mourned victims of the train crash in Wenzhou on July 26." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) China's high-speed rail system is an apt metaphor for the country's hurtling economy over the past decade: a colossal investment project, born of the state, steeped in corruption, built for maximum velocity, and imposed paternalistically on a public that is at once amazed and skeptical. The rail system has married foreign technology with national ambition in a network billed as the biggest and most advanced in the world, in a country whose per capita income ranks below that of Jamaica.

For the full commentary, see:

JASON DEAN And JEREMY PAGE. "Trouble on the China Express; The wreck of a high-speed train has enraged the Chinese public and focused attention on the corruption and corner-cutting behind the country's breakneck economic growth." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., JULY 30, 2011): C1-C2.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A11) BEIJING-A high-speed train from Beijing is scheduled to glide into Shanghai's Hongqiao railway station on Thursday after its inaugural run, an event meant to showcase China's technological prowess but one that lately has become part of a national debate about the pitfalls of megainvestment projects.

. . .

Detractors focus on corruption and safety problems that have lately tarnished the project's image. Pricey tickets, they say, underscore China's already huge rich-poor gap--and doom the trains to run half-empty, straining the national budget for years to come.

. . .

"Physically, they are good assets," says Ding Yuan, an accounting professor at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai. "Financially, they are all black holes."

More broadly, the high-speed rail problems underscore the shortcomings of a growth strategy that depends ever more heavily on investment in projects whose economic payoffs are uncertain.

. . .

Railways Minister Liu Zhijun proselytized for high-speed rail, telling leaders from Hubei province in January that they needed to "seize the rare opportunity to accelerate the development of the railway," according to a Railways Ministry report.

. . .

Government spending on rail projects ballooned from 155 billion yuan in 2006 ($24 billion) to a budgeted 745 billion yuan ($115 billion) in 2011, according to state-run Xinhua news agency. The ministry's debt ballooned to about 5% of GDP in the first quarter of 2011 from about 2% in 2007.

The project's flaws became painfully clear in February, when Mr. Liu was fired amid allegations that he embezzled around $30 million. Although government investigators didn't cite criticisms of the railway project, Mr. Liu's successor, Sheng Guangzu, has scaled back plans to focus on projects already under construction, rather than expansion. Railway consultants say work has been suspended on new lines, including Hubei projects the fired minister was pushing.

For the full story, see:

BRIAN SPEGELE and BOB DAVIS. "High-Speed Train Links Beijing, Shanghai; Cornerstone of China's Rail Expansion Illustrates Megaprojects' Speed Bumps." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., JUNE 29, 2011): A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was watching economists Kenneth Rogoff and Paul Krugman being interviewed by Fareed Xakaria on the CNN show "Fareed Zakaria GPS" in the late morning on Sunday, August 14, 2011. I started laughing when I heard Krugman suggest that a perfectly acceptable Keynesian solution to the economic crisis would be for scientists to pretend that space aliens were invading earth. (We then would pull together and get everyone employed.)

What we actually need is less government deception and less government intervention, so that entrepreneurs can go back to creating new products, new businesses, and new jobs.

Here is a transcript of the relevant part of the interview:

Ken Rogoff: Infrastructure spending, if it were well-spent, that's great. I'm all for that. I'd borrow for that, assuming we're not paying Boston Big Dig kind of prices for the infrastructure.

Fareed Zakaria: But even if you were, wouldn't John Maynard Keynes say that if you could employ people to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, that's fine, they're being productively employed, they'll pay taxes, so maybe Boston's Big Dig was just fine after all.

Paul Krugman: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, "Look, we could use some inflation." Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what basic logic says.

It's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish a great deal.

If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better -

Ken Rogoff: And we need Orson Welles, is what you're saying.

Paul Krugman: No, there was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time...we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

Source of embedded clip and transcipt: "GPS this Sunday: Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U.S. economy?" posted August 12, 2011, 2:09 PM; aired Sunday, August 14, 2011. URL: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/gps-this-sunday-krugman-calls-for-space-aliens-to-fix-u-s-economy/




(Note: bold in original; the ellipsis in the final paragraph is in the original CNN transcript. Here is a transcipt of the final paragraph without the ellipsis: "KRUGMAN: No, there was a "Twilight Zone" episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus." The source of this transcript is the News Busters blog at:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/14/paul-krugman-calls-space-aliens-attack-earth-requiring-massive-defens#ixzz1V1xydNu6 )

(Note: Commenting on the CNN blog entry, "Wild Bill" suggested that the source for Krugman's policy advice was not an episode in the "Twilight Zone" series, as Krugman had said, but the "Architects of Fear" episode that aired in 1963 on the "Outer Limits" series. In spite of this error, "Wild Bill" maintains that the "dude is still a flippin' genius.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. C14) There is no such thing as a free stimulus.

At first sight, China's response to the financial crisis looked cheap. A fiscal deficit totaling 3.1% of gross domestic product in 2009 and 2.6% in 2010 compares with 12.7% and 10.6% in the U.S. The reality is that it was considerably more expensive than that.

China's response to the crisis came primarily from bank loans rather than central government debt. With many of those loans now threatening to turn bad, the cost may still end up on the government's balance sheet.

The heart of the problem is debt taken on by local government financing vehicles in the course of two years of huge infrastructure investment. These are entities created and backed by local governments to get around legal constraints on their borrowing. No one knows how much debt they have.

For the full story, see:

TOM ORLIK. "Post-Stimulus: Who Pays for China's Bad Loans?" The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., June 23, 2011): C14.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: online version of the NYT review quoted and cited below.

(p. C6) Although the financial crisis of 2008 has left a long trail of casualties, one group has benefited from the cataclysm: financial journalists. Several have already published books shedding light on the unprecedented events that caused investment banks to fail, global stock markets to plummet and borrowers to lose their homes. "Reckless Endangerment," by Gretchen Morgenson, assistant business and financial editor and a columnist at The New York Times, and the financial analyst Joshua Rosner, is a worthy addition to the genre.

. . .

The book begins in 1994 with President Bill Clinton's kicking off a public-private partnership to extend homeownership to more Americans. . . .

. . .

. . . the institution to which the authors devote the most ink is Fannie Mae, the government-supported enterprise created in 1938 to make home loans more accessible. And the person they hold most accountable is someone whose role in the "mortgage maelstrom" has until now "escaped scrutiny": James A. Johnson, Fannie Mae's chief executive from 1991 to 1998. Mr. Johnson was the "anonymous architect of the public-private homeownership drive that almost destroyed the economy in 2008," the authors assert. "He was especially adept at manipulating lawmakers, eviscerating regulators and leaving taxpayers with the bill."

The description of Mr. Johnson's role is damning -- and although the account lacks his perspective, it is thoroughly supported through scores of interviews with academics, government officials and industry executives, some of whom are granted anonymity. While Mr. Johnson didn't respond to interview requests over five months, according to the authors, they overcome this obstacle with impressive use of public records and secondary sources, carefully attributed in the text or described in a two-page "Notes on Sources."

. . .

A particular strength of this book is the number of doubters the authors unearthed: the unsung government analysts, public lawyers and private researchers who dared to question policy decisions and stand up to the formidable "housers," as the true believers in government subsidies for home ownership are called.

The reader has a sickening sense of missed opportunity as these prophets are ignored or, worse, vilified, by those in a position to halt the mania. When a Congressional Budget Office researcher in 1995 reveals the multibillion-dollar extent of the government's subsidy to Fannie Mae and its brother institution, Freddie Mac (and that one-third of these benefits never reached borrowers), he suggests that "Congress may want to revisit the special relationship." Unable to assail the merits of his analysis, outraged Fannie Mae executives resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling budget office officials "digit-heads" and "economic pencil brains."

For the full review, see:

PAM LUECKE. "BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Nation Goes on Its Merry Way to Ruin." The New York Times (Tues., June 28, 2011): C6.

(Note: the online version of the review was dated June 27, 2011.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

Book being reviewed:

Morgenson, Gretchen, and Joshua Rosner. Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. New York: Times Books, 2011.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 1A) While the nation's job growth has limped along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion.

From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs, or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.

For the full story, see:

Paul Davidson. "Need a Job? Move to Texas." USA Today (Tues., JULY 20, 2011): 1A.

(Note: the online version of the article has the title "Texas bucks national unemployment trend.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) Robert Lucas, the 1995 Nobel laureate in economics, has spent his career thinking about why economies grow, and in particular about the effect of policy making on growth. From his office at the University of Chicago, Prof. Lucas has been wondering, like the rest of us, why, if the recession officially ended in the first half of 2009, there hasn't been more growth in the U.S. economy. He's also been wondering why this delayed recovery resembles the long non-recovery years of the 1930s. And he has been thinking about the U.S. and Europe.

In May, Bob Lucas pulled his thoughts together and delivered them as the Milliman Lecture at the University of Washington, an exercise he described to me this week as "intelligent speculation."

Here is the lecture's provocative final thought: "Is it possible that by imitating European policies on labor markets, welfare and taxes, the U.S. has chosen a new, lower GDP trend? If so, it may be that the weak recovery we have had so far is all the recovery we will get."

. . .

"If we're going to move to a European welfare state," says Prof. Lucas, "we're going to have to pay a European price." And that price could be a permanently lower level of GDP per person. The U.S.'s amazing 100-year ride would slow.

Among the many things any such drop in GDP will siphon away is America's relentless productive vitality. "So much new happens in the United States," Prof. Lucas says. But will it still?

For the full commentary, see:

DANIEL HENNINGER. "The Disappearing Recovery; What if the weak recovery is all the recovery we are going to get?" The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., JULY 14, 2011): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: online version of article had the date JULY 13, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Robert Shiller is often a shrewd diagnostician, but less often a wise therapist. For instance he is right in thinking that uncertainty is part of our problem, but wrong in his usual view that more government spending is the solution.

A better way to reduce uncertainty is for the government to act more predictably, following some reasonable rules. I heard such a view articulately defended in a lunch speech at the American Economic Association meetings in January by Stanford economist John Taylor. His speech has been polished and published in National Affairs (see citation way below).

Here are some interesting observations by Shiller (via Bewley):

(p, 7) Factors of production like wheat or trucks or pumps don't have morale issues. Human beings do.

How these issues affect the labor market is a major focus of the research of Professor Bewley, who is a colleague of mine at Yale. He has developed an idiosyncratic approach, interviewing hundreds of corporate managers at length about the driving forces for their actions. The managers consistently told him that they are concerned about the emotional state of their core employees. They said that their companies' continued success depends on the positive feelings and loyalty of these workers -- and lamented the hard choices that would need to be made in a severe downturn.

. . .

Lower-level managers won't ask for scarce resources . . . , because those items look like luxuries to fellow employees, who worry that there won't be enough in the company budget for them to keep their jobs.

One top manager told Professor Bewley that he had to compensate for the reticence of lower-level managers, who won't ask for anything. "I tell them to put in a few dreams for equipment they would like, because if they don't try, they'll never get what they want," this manager said.

Of course, while that reticence may preserve jobs in one's own company, it works against job growth elsewhere. A result is a loss of vigor in the aggregate economy, and the sapping of the very kind of creativity that might spur a recovery.

Professor Bewley shared with me a passage from an interview in July with a manager of a large manufacturing company. "There is more uncertainty, and everybody is afraid," this manager told him. "Do your job. Keep employed. Don't come up with a new idea." In his own company, the manager said, "Everybody is doing the same thing."

For the full commentary, see:

ROBERT J. SHILLER. "ECONOMIC VIEW; The Survival of the Safest." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., October 3, 2010): 7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated October 2, 2010.)

Here is the Taylor reference:

Taylor, John B. "The Cycle of Rules and Discretion in Economic Policy." National Affairs, no. 7 (Spring 2011): 55-65.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A1) BEIJING -- Liu Yang, a coal miner's daughter, arrived in the capital this past summer with a freshly printed diploma from Datong University, $140 in her wallet and an air of invincibility.

Her first taste of reality came later the same day, as she lugged her bags through a ramshackle neighborhood, not far from the Olympic Village, where tens of thousands of other young strivers cram four to a room.

Unable to find a bed and unimpressed by the rabbit warren of slapdash buildings, Ms. Liu scowled as the smell of trash wafted up around her. "Beijing isn't like this in the movies," she said.

Often the first from their families to finish even high school, ambitious graduates like Ms. Liu are part of an unprecedented wave of young people all around China who were supposed to move the country's labor-dependent economy toward a white-collar future. In 1998, when Jiang Zemin, then the president, announced plans to bolster higher education, Chinese universities and colleges produced (p. A12) 830,000 graduates a year. Last May, that number was more than six million and rising.

It is a remarkable achievement, yet for a government fixated on stability such figures are also a cause for concern. The economy, despite its robust growth, does not generate enough good professional jobs to absorb the influx of highly educated young adults. And many of them bear the inflated expectations of their parents, who emptied their bank accounts to buy them the good life that a higher education is presumed to guarantee.

"College essentially provided them with nothing," said Zhang Ming, a political scientist and vocal critic of China's education system. "For many young graduates, it's all about survival. If there was ever an economic crisis, they could be a source of instability."

. . .

Chinese sociologists have come up with a new term for educated young people who move in search of work like Ms. Liu: the ant tribe. It is a reference to their immense numbers -- at least 100,000 in Beijing alone -- and to the fact that they often settle into crowded neighborhoods, toiling for wages that would give even low-paid factory workers pause.

"Like ants, they gather in colonies, sometimes underground in basements, and work long and hard," said Zhou Xiaozheng, a sociology professor at Renmin University in Beijing.

. . .

A fellow Datong University graduate, Yuan Lei, threw the first wet blanket over the exuberance of Ms. Liu, Mr. Li and three friends not long after their July arrival in Beijing. Mr. Yuan had arrived several months earlier for an internship but was still jobless.

"If you're not the son of an official or you don't come from money, life is going to be bitter," he told them over bowls of 90-cent noodles, their first meal in the capital.

. . .

In the end, Mr. Li and his friends settled for sales jobs with an instant noodle company. The starting salary, a low $180 a month, turned out to be partly contingent on meeting ambitious sales figures. Wearing purple golf shirts with the words "Lao Yun Pickled Vegetable Beef Noodles," they worked 12-hour days, returning home after dark to a meal of instant noodles.

. . .

Mr. Li worried aloud whether he would be able to marry his high school sweetheart, who had accompanied him here, if he could not earn enough money to buy a home. Such concerns are rampant among young Chinese men, who have been squeezed by skyrocketing real estate prices and a culture that demands that a groom provide an apartment for his bride. "I'm giving myself two years," he said, his voice trailing off.

By November, the pressure had taken its toll on two of the others, including the irrepressible Liu Yang. After quitting the noodle company and finding no other job, she gave up and returned home.

For the full story, see:

ANDREW JACOBS. "China's Army of Graduates Is Struggling." The New York Times, First Section (Sun., December 12, 2010): A1 & A12.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story is dated December 11, 2010 and has the title "China's Army of Graduates Struggles for Jobs.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"As China's roaring economy fuels a wild construction boom around the country, critics cite places like Kangbashi as proof of a speculative real estate bubble they warn will eventually burst." Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below. Source of caption: online version of the NYT slideshow that accompanied the online article quoted and cited below.

The October 19, 2010 New York Times front page story (quoted below) on the Ordos ghost town in China, was finally picked up by the TV media on May 30 in a nice NBC Today Show report.

It should be clear that the Chinese real estate bubble will burst, just as real estate bubbles eventually burst in places like Japan and the United States. What is not clear is what the effects will be on the Chinese and world economies.

(p. A1) Ordos proper has 1.5 million residents. But the tomorrowland version of Ordos -- built from scratch on a huge plot of empty land 15 miles south of the old city -- is all but deserted.

Broad boulevards are unimpeded by traffic in the new district, called Kangbashi New Area. Office buildings stand vacant. Pedestrians are in short supply. And weeds are beginning to sprout up in luxury villa developments that are devoid of residents.

. . .

(p. A4) As China's roaring economy fuels a wild construction boom around the country, critics cite places like Kangbashi as proof of a speculative real estate bubble they warn will eventually pop -- sending shock waves through the banking system of a country that for the last two years has been the prime engine of global growth.

. . .

Analysts estimate there could be as many as a dozen other Chinese cities just like Ordos, with sprawling ghost town annexes. In the southern city of Kunming, for example, a nearly 40-square-mile area called Chenggong has raised alarms because of similarly deserted roads, high-rises and government offices. And in Tianjin, in the northeast, the city spent lavishly on a huge district festooned with golf courses, hot springs and thousands of villas that are still empty five years after completion.

. . .

In 2004, with Ordos tax coffers bulging with coal money, city officials drew up a bold expansion plan to create Kangbashi, a 30-minute drive south of the old city center on land adjacent to one of the region's few reservoirs. . . .

In the ensuing building spree, home buyers could not get enough of Kangbashi and its residential developments with names like Exquisite Silk Village, Kanghe Elysees and Imperial Academic Gardens.

Some buyers were like Zhang Ting, a 26-year-old entrepreneur who is a rare actual resident of Kangbashi, having moved to Ordos this year on an entrepreneurial impulse.

"I bought two places in Kangbashi, one for my own use and one as an investment," said Mr. Zhang, who paid about $125,000 for his 2,000-square-foot investment apartment. "I bought it because housing prices will definitely go up in such a new town. There is no reason to doubt it. The government has already moved in."

Asked whether he worried about the lack of other residents, Mr. Zhang shrugged off the question.

"I know people say it's an empty city, but I don't find any inconveniences living by myself," said Mr. Zhang, who borrowed to finance his purchases. . . .

For the full story, see:

DAVID BARBOZA. "A City Born of China's Boom, Still Unpeopled." The New York Times (Weds., October 19, 2010): A1 & A4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated October 19, 2010 and has the title "Chinese City Has Many Buildings, but Few People.")

Source of graph: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In a front page article on October 20, 2010, the New York Times reported on how the Chinese government encouraged a real estate investment binge that has resulted in a growing number of empty, speculatively built ghost cities. Now the video media has picked up the story in the well-done story linked to above and cited below.

Williams, Ian, reporter. "The Roads Not Taken: Visiting China's Ghost Cities." Broadcast on the Today Show, Sunday morning, May 30, 2011.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) To the extent that government spending crowds out job-creating private investment, it can actually worsen unemployment. Indeed, extensive government efforts to stimulate the economy and reduce joblessness by spending more have failed to reduce joblessness.

Above all, the federal government needs a credible and transparent budget strategy. It's time for a game-changer--a budget action that will stop the recent discretionary spending binge before it gets entrenched in government agencies.

. . .

We can see such a sensible budget strategy starting to emerge. The first step of the strategy is largely being addressed by the House budget plan for 2011, or HR1. Though voted down in its entirety by the Senate, it is now being split up into "continuing" resolutions that add up to the same spending levels.

For the full commentary, see:

GARY S. BECKER, GEORGE P. SHULTZ AND JOHN B. TAYLOR. "OPINION; Time for a Budget Game-Changer; Assurance that current tax levels will remain in place would provide an immediate stimulus. House Republican budget planners are on the right track." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., APRIL 4, 2011): A17.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Demetri Politopoulos at his microbrewery in northern Greece. He says Greek leaders need to do more to make the country an easier place to do business." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) DEMETRI POLITOPOULOS says he has suffered countless indignities in his 12-year battle to build a microbrewery and wrest a sliver of the Greek beer market from the Dutch colossus, Heineken.

His tires have been slashed and his products vandalized by unknown parties, he says, and his brewery has received threatening phone calls. And he says he has had to endure regular taunts -- you left Manhattan to start up a beer factory in northern Greece? -- not to mention the pain of losing 5.3 million euros.

Bad as all that has been, nothing prepared him for this reality: He would be breaking the law if he tried to fulfill his latest -- and, he thinks, greatest -- entrepreneurial dream. It is to have his brewery produce and export bottles of a Snapple-like beverage made from herbal tea, which he is cultivating in the mountains that surround this lush pocket of the country.

An obscure edict requires that brewers in Greece produce beer -- and nothing else. Mr. Politopoulos has spent the better part of the last year trying fruitlessly to persuade the Greek government to strike it. "It's probably a law that goes back to King Otto," said Mr. Politopoulos with a grim chuckle, referring to the Bavarian-born king of Greece who introduced beer to the country around 1850.

Sitting in his office, Mr. Politopoulos took a long pull from a glass of his premium Vergina wheat beer and said it was absurd that he had to lobby Greek politicians to repeal a 19th-century law so that he could deliver the exports that Greece urgently needed. And, he said, his predicament was even worse than that: it was emblematic of the web of restrictions, monopolies and other distortions that have made many Greek companies uncompetitive, and pushed the country close to bankruptcy.

For the full story, see:

LANDON THOMAS Jr. "What's Broken in Greece? Ask an Entrepreneur." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., January 30, 2011): 1 & 5.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated January 29, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A5) MOSCOW -- Early results in Estonia's parliamentary election on Sunday showed the ruling coalition headed for a victory, in a remarkable show of support for a government that has imposed harsh austerity measures to lift the country out of recession.

. . .

The vote reflects approval for a government that continued to embrace laissez-faire capitalism during the painful months after the global downturn. After Estonia's economy shrank nearly 15 percent, the state reduced its budget by the equivalent of 9 percent of gross domestic product. Demand fell steeply, and unemployment crept up, early in 2010, to 19.8 percent.

But in contrast to their neighbors in Latvia, where economic troubles led to riots and the government's collapse, Estonians stoically absorbed the suffering. These sacrifices allowed Estonia to join the euro zone in January, a move its leaders hailed as a sign that the country was on its way to achieving Western European standards of living. Meanwhile, the economy has been projected to grow by 4 percent this year, and unemployment has dropped to around 10 percent, according to the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund.

For the full story, see:

ELLEN BARRY. "After Cuts, Voters Back Ruling Bloc in Estonia." The New York Times (Mon., March 7, 2011): A5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated March 6, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 16) Mr. Buffett said Berkshire last year spent more than $5 billion on property and equipment in the United States - more than 90 percent of the company's total expenditure - and that the overwhelming part of the company's future investment will be at home.

"The prophets of doom have overlooked the all-important factor that is certain: Human potential is far from exhausted, and the American system for unleashing that potential - a system that has worked wonders for over two centuries despite frequent interruptions for recessions and even a Civil War - remains alive and effective," he wrote.

"Now, as in 1776, 1861, 1932 and 1941, America's best days lie ahead."

For the full story, see:

PETER LATTMAN. "Buffett Plans to Buy Local, Investing Mostly in the U.S." The New York Times, First Section (Sun., February 27, 2011): 16.

(Note: the online version of the article was dated February 26, 2011 and has the title "As Berkshire Improves, Buffett Sings Praises of U.S.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the past, I have found some of MIT economist Ricardo Caballero's research useful because he takes Schumpeter's process of creative destruction seriously.

In a recent paper, he joins a growing number of mainstream economists who worry that the recent and continuing economic crisis has implications for the methodology of economics:

In this paper I argue that the current core of macroeconomics--by which I mainly mean the so-called dynamic stochastic general equilibrium approach--has become so mesmerized with its own internal logic that it has begun to confuse the precision it has achieved about its own world with the precision that it has about the real one. This is dangerous for both methodological and policy reasons. On the methodology front, macroeconomic research has been in "fine-tuning" mode within the local-maximum of the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium world, when we should be in "broad-exploration" mode. We are too far from absolute truth to be so specialized and to make the kind of confident quantitative claims that often emerge from the core. On the policy front, this confused precision creates the illusion that a minor adjustment in the standard policy framework will prevent future crises, and by doing so it leaves us overly exposed to the new and unexpected.

Source:

Caballero, Ricardo J. "Macroeconomics after the Crisis: Time to Deal with the Pretense-of-Knowledge Syndrome." NBER Working Paper # w16429, October 2010.

The paper has been published as:

Caballero, Ricardo J. "Macroeconomics after the Crisis: Time to Deal with the Pretense-of-Knowledge Syndrome." Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 85-102.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) . . . economists--and workers shut out of fields by educational requirements or difficult exams--say licensing mostly serves as a form of protectionism, allowing veterans of the trade to box out competitors who might undercut them on price or offer new services.

"Occupations prefer to be li-(p. A16)censed because they can restrict competition and obtain higher wages," said Morris Kleiner, a labor professor at the University of Minnesota. "If you go to any statehouse, you'll see a line of occupations out the door wanting to be licensed."

While some states have long required licensing for workers who handle food or touch others--caterers and hair stylists, for example--economists say such regulation is spreading to more states for more industries. The most recent study, from 2008, found 23% of U.S. workers were required to obtain state licenses, up from just 5% in 1950, according to data from Mr. Kleiner. In the mid-1980s, about 800 professions were licensed in at least one state. Today, at least 1,100 are, according to the Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation, a trade group for regulatory bodies. Among the professions licensed by one or more states: florists, interior designers, private detectives, hearing-aid fitters, conveyor-belt operators and retailers of frozen desserts.

. . .

Mr. Kleiner, of the University of Minnesota, looked at census data covering several occupations that are regulated in some states but not others, including librarians, nutritionists and respiratory therapists. He found that employment growth in those professions was about 20% greater, on average, in the unregulated states between 1990 and 2000.

Licensing can also drive up costs to consumers. Licensed workers earn, on average, 15% more than their unlicensed counterparts in other states--a premium that may be reflected in their prices, according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and conducted by Mr. Kleiner and Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University.

Mr. Kleiner estimates that across the U.S. economy, occupational licensing adds at least $116 billion a year to the cost of services, which amounts to about 1% of total consumer spending. In a look at dentistry, Mr. Kleiner found that the average price of dental services rose 11% when a state made it more difficult to get a dental license.

For the full story, see:

STEPHANIE SIMON. "A License to Shampoo: Jobs Needing State Approval Rise." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., February 7, 2011): A1 & A16.

(Note: ellipses added.)

"Some of the jobs that require licensing in one or more states." Source of caption and table: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"David Kappos of the Patent Office, with an Edison bulb." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) "There is no company I know of that would have permitted its information technology to get into the state we're in," David J. Kappos, who 18 months ago became director of the Patent and Trademark Office and undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property, said in a recent interview. "If it had, the C.E.O. would have been fired, the board would have been thrown out, and you would have had shareholder lawsuits."

Once patent applications are in the system, they sit -- for years. The patent office's pipeline is so clogged it takes two years for an inventor to get an initial ruling, and an additional year or more before a patent is finally issued.

The delays and inefficiencies are more than a nuisance for inventors. Patentable ideas are the basis for many start-up companies and small businesses. Venture capitalists often require start-ups to have a patent before offering financing. That means that patent delays cost jobs, slow the economy and threaten the ability of American companies to compete with foreign businesses.

For the full story, see:

EDWARD WYATT. "U.S. Sets 21st-Century Goal: Building a Better Patent Office." The New York Times (Mon., February 21, 2011): A1 & A3.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 20, 2011.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The chart above and the one below are from the recently-released results of the First Quarter 2011 influential blogger survey conducted by the Kauffman Foundation. (Tim Kane gave permission to put the charts on my blog.) artdiamondblog.com is one of the blogs included in the survey.

The results above show a perception that conditions are currently tough for entrepreneurs. The chart below displays one of the main reasons: the current economy is perceived as uncertain and fragile. There are many reasons for the uncertainty, but one of them is surely that the bloggers have doubts about the depth of support in government for the institutions and policies upon which entrepreneurship depends (like private property, restrained regulations, and low taxes).

For a full PDF report on the 2011 Q1 survey results, see:

http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/econ_blogger_outlook_q1_2011.pdf

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: screen capture from p. 43 of NBER paper referenced below.

At the American Economic Association meetings in Denver from January 6-9, I attended several sessions dealing the causes and cures of the economic crisis of the last few years.

One issue that came up more than once was whether, and to what extent, various decision makers were blameworthy in what happened. Was this a crisis that well-trained, hard-working and prudent managers, regulators and legislators should have seen coming? Or was it a once in 100 year storm that nobody should be expected to have foreseen?

One compelling bit of evidence was presented in a talk on January 8th by Charles Calomiris in which he presented a graph from a 2010 NBER paper by Ellul and Yerramilli. The graph, shown above, indicates that firms that took risk seriously, as proxied by their giving an important pre-crisis role to a Chief Risk Officer (CRO), tended to suffer less downside volatility during the crisis.

Source:

Ellul, Andrew, and Vijay Yerramilli. "Stronger Risk Controls, Lower Risk: Evidence from U.S. Bank Holding Companies." NBER Working Paper # 16178, July 2010.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Influences from Egypt and Mediterranean Asia appear to merge in this container, from around 1390 to 1352 B.C." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

The cultural flowering (see above and below) brought about by Late Bronze Age Mediterranean trade, is highly compatible with arguments made in Tyler Cowen's Creative Destruction, which argues that capitalism promotes the important kind of diversity that within cultures increases creativity and options for individual choice.

It would be interesting and useful to know more about the causes and effects of the dark age mentioned below--the one that started around 1200 BC. An earlier entry mentioned archeological evidence of a small family group near Katilimata on Crete who attempted to hunker down to defend themselves and their property from the invaders from the sea mentioned below.

Sometimes the Phoenicians are given credit for the trade, and Paul Johnson in his recent Heroes book (p. 4), identifies the evil invaders who killed the trade as being the Philistines.

(p. C28) For a truly cornucopian example of multiculturalism, though, nothing matches the contents of the Late Bronze Age merchant ship recovered from the sea off the southern coast of Turkey. Discovered by a sponge diver in 1984 and considered the oldest surviving example of a seagoing ship, it probably sank around 1300 B.C., packed with cargo representing a dozen cultures, from Nubia to the Balkans.

Although the ship's home port is unknown, it appears to have traveled a circular route through the Mediterranean and Aegean, stopping in Greece, Crete, Turkey, Syria and Egypt, picking up and unloading as it went. Bulk materials included copper ingots, Cypriot pottery, African wood and Near Eastern textiles, all for waiting markets.

Divers also found luxury items, possibly personal possessions of the ship's crew and passengers. Examples of ivory containers in the form of ducks have parallels with Egyptian prototypes, but were probably made in Mediterranean Asia. The two sources merge in a figure found in a tomb: a nude female swimmer with a chic, Nile-style pageboy who is hitching a ride behind an ivory-headed bird.

More precious and enigmatic is a standing bronze figure of a woman, probably a goddess, her head and face still covered with the sheet gold that may once have encased her whole body in a radiant epidermis. The exhibition catalog suggests that she might be a talismanic charm intended to protect the ship from harm.

Harm came anyway, as it did to much of the Mediterranean world, around 1200 B.C. with the arrival of mysterious, sea-based invaders, who conquered most of the great maritime cities, interrupting trade and easy cultural exchange, and bringing on a dark age, a depression. The depression -- or was it severe recession? -- didn't last forever. The passion for acquisition, exchange and accumulation survived it, as it always does.

This passion is, of course, our own. It is one reason that we can, if we try, identify with the diverse people who, thousands of years ago, made the objects in this show. The globalist, all-in-it-together world model they invented is another reason. Their dark age could be one too.

For the full review, see:

HOLLAND COTTER. "Art Review; 'Beyond Babylon'; Global Exchange, Early Version." The New York Times (Fri., November 21, 2008): C23 & C28.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date November 20, 2008.)

The Cowen book mentioned in my initial comments, is:

Cowen, Tyler. Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

The Paul Johnson book mentioned in my initial comments, is:

Johnson, Paul M. Heroes. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Peter J. Boettke of George Mason University is the emerging standardbearer for a revived Austrian school of economics." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Peter J. Boettke, shuffling around in a maroon velour track suit or faux-leather rubber shoes he calls "dress Crocs," hardly seems like the type to lead a revolution.

But the 50-year-old professor of economics at George Mason University in Virginia is emerging as the intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics that opposes government intervention in markets and decries federal spending to prop up demand during times of crisis. Mr. Boettke, whose latest research explores people's ability to self-regulate, also is minting a new generation of disciples who are spreading the Austrian approach throughout academia, where it had long been left for dead.

To these free-market economists, government intrusion ultimately sows the seeds of the next crisis. It hampers what one famous Austrian, Joseph Schumpeter, called the process of "creative destruction."

. . .

(p. B3) It wasn't a lack of government oversight that led to the crisis, as some economists argue, but too much of it, Mr. Boettke says. Specifically, low interest rates and policies that subsidized homeownership "gave people the crazy juice," he says.

For the full story, see:

KELLY EVANS. "Spreading Hayek, Spurning Keynes; Professor Leads an Austrian Revival." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., AUGUST 28, 2010): B1 & B3.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A19) Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.

My colleague Silvia Ardagna and I recently co-authored a paper examining this pattern, as have many studies over the past 20 years. Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments--defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year--that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007.

. . .

Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. And these results would have been even stronger had our definition of an expansionary period been more lenient (extending, for example, to the top 50% of the OECD). In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.

. . .

The evidence from the last 40 years suggests that spending increases meant to stimulate the economy and tax increases meant to reduce deficits are unlikely to achieve their goals. The opposite combination might.

For the full commentary, see:

ALBERTO ALESINA. "Tax Cuts vs. 'Stimulus': The Evidence Is In; A review of over 200 fiscal adjustments in 21 countries shows that spending discipline and tax cuts are the best ways to spur economic growth." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., November 23, 2010): A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

A version of the Alesina and Ardagna paper that is downloadable online is:

Alesina, Alberto, and Silvia Ardagna. "Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending." 2009.

The published version of the Alesina and Ardagna papar is:

Alesina, Alberto, and Silvia Ardagna. "Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending." In Tax Policy and the Economy, edited by Jeffrey R. Brown. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 35-68.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my seminar on the Economics of Technology on Tuesday night (11/30/10), Gauri presented some interesting information on intellectual property. At one point she summarized that the lag in processing patents is about three years, but it takes, on average, only about 18 hours to process a patent once the processing has begun.

Later in the seminar, we talked about a brief article by Amar Bhidé on whether large economic stimulus programs have worked in the past, and will work in the present. Bhidé was skeptical, and I am too.

But it occurred to me that one modest economic stimulus expenditure might help. Why not make the highest stimulus spending priority to hire and train enough patent examiners to reduce the patent lag from three years to, say, three weeks?

The Bhidé article mentioned above is:

Bhidé, Amar. "Don't Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers." Wall Street Journal, (Tues., February 17, 2009): A15.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"David Wetzel tried for two years to sell his New Jersey hardware store." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Small-business owners banking on a big payoff when they sell their establishments may have to settle for a lot less than planned.

A combination of tight credit, skittish buyers and business owners unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices--factors similarly affecting home sellers--has left the small-business marketplace at a standstill.

. . .

(p. B4) "Owners still think their businesses are worth what they used to be," says Thomas Coffey, a partner in Malvern, Pa., with B2BCFO, a provider of outsourced chief financial officers to small businesses. In reality, many "small companies just aren't earning what they used to earn," he says.

For the full story, see:

SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN. "Businesses Put Up for Sale Smack Into Harsh Reality." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., OCTOBER 14, 2010): B1 & B4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Below I quote from the comments that Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone addressed to President Obama:

(p. A21) A little more than 30 years ago, Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Pat Farrah and I got together and founded The Home Depot. Our dream was to create (memo to DNC activists: that's build, not take or coerce) a new kind of home-improvement center catering to do-it-yourselfers. The concept was to have a wide assortment, a high level of service, and the lowest pricing possible.

We opened the front door in 1979, also a time of severe economic slowdown. Yet today, Home Depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated people offering outstanding service and knowledge to millions of consumers.

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase--never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

Meantime, you seem obsessed with repealing tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." Contrary to what you might assume, I didn't start with any advantages and neither did most of the successful people I know. I am the grandson of immigrants who came to this country seeking basic economic and personal liberty. My parents worked tirelessly to build on that opportunity. My first job was as a day laborer on the construction of the Long Island Expressway more than 50 years ago. The wealth that was created by my investments wasn't put into a giant swimming pool as so many elected demagogues seem to imagine. Instead it benefitted our employees, their families and our community at large.

For the full commentary, see:

KEN LANGONE. "Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President; If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it's a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 15, 2010): A21.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A8) The Social Security Administration sent about 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to dead and incarcerated people--but almost half of them were returned, a new inspector-general's report found.

. . .

. . . 17,000 payments went to recipients who were in prison at the time the payment was made in May 2009. However, not all of those payments were necessarily against the letter of the law. While lawmakers intended to prevent payments to people in prison, the law included only a provision prohibiting payments to people incarcerated in the three months before the plan was passed--from November 2008 through January 2009.

. . .

. . . : The SSA says that the stimulus package didn't include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds that were mistakenly sent out, so it can't try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.

The combined total of the mistaken payments is $22.3 million. About $12 million hasn't been returned.

For the full story, see:

LOUISE RADNOFSKY. "Stimulus Checks Sent to Dead, Incarcerated." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 8, 2010): A8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the article was dated OCTOBER 7, 2010.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Myron Scholes. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 22) The writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb contends that instead of giving advice on managing risk, you "should be in a retirement home doing sudoku."
If someone says to you, "Go to an old-folks' home," that's kind of ridiculous, because a lot of old people are doing terrific things for society. I never tried sudoku. Maybe he spends his time doing sudoku.

Some economists believe that mathematical models like yours lulled banks into a false sense of security, and I am wondering if you have revised your ideas as a consequence.
I haven't changed my ideas. A bank needs models to measure risk. The problem, however, is that any one bank can measure its risk, but it also has to know what the risk taken by other banks in the system happens to be at any particular moment.

. . .

After leaving academia, you helped found Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that lost $4 billion in four months and became a symbol of '90s-style financial failure. .
Obviously, you prefer not to have lost money for investors.

For the full interview, see:

DEBORAH SOLOMON. "Questions for Myron Scholes; Crash Course." The New York Times, Magazine Section (Sun., May 17, 2009): 22.

(Note: ellipsis added; bold in original versions, to indicate questions by Deborah Solomon.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated May 14, 2009.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Professor Ohanian is a UCLA economist well-known for his research on the Great Depression. Below I quote a few of his recent observations (with co-author Cooley):

(p. A17) In 1937, after several years of partial recovery from the Great Depression, the U.S. economy fell into a sharp recession. The episode has become a lightning rod in the ongoing debate about whether the economy needs further increases in government spending to keep employment from declining even more.

. . .

The economy did not tank in 1937 because government spending declined. Increases in tax rates, particularly capital income tax rates, and the expansion of unions, were most likely responsible. Unfortunately, these same factors pose a similar threat today.

. . .

. . . in 1936, the Roosevelt administration pushed through a tax on corporate profits that were not distributed to shareholders. The sliding scale tax began at 7% if a company retained 1% of its net income, and went to 27% if a company retained 70% of net income. This tax significantly raised the cost of investment, as most investment is financed with a corporation's own retained earnings.

The tax rate on dividends also rose to 15.98% in 1932 from 10.14% in 1929, and then doubled again by 1936. Research conducted last year by Ellen McGratten of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis suggests that these increases in capital income taxation can account for much of the 26% decline in business fixed investment that occurred in 1937-1938.

For the full commentary, see:

THOMAS F. COOLEY AND LEE E. OHANIAN. "Gates and Buffett Take the Pledge; Wealthy businessmen often feel obligated to 'give back.' Who says they've taken anything?" The Wall Street Journal (Fri., AUGUST 20, 2010): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

That McGratten paper is:

McGrattan, Ellen R. "Capital Taxation During the U.S. Great Depression." Working Paper 670, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, April 2009.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A17) When Congress returns from its summer recess, members will face a pivotal decision about the expiring Bush tax cuts. President Barack Obama has called for their permanent extension for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.

. . .

The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.

. . .

Economic research supports a large impact. A pair of papers by economists Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Harvey Rosen and Mark Rider that were published in 1998 and 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed tax return data and uncovered high responsiveness of sole proprietors' business activity to tax rates. Their estimates imply that increasing the top rate to 40.8% from 35% (an official rate of 39.6% plus another 1.2 percentage points from the restoration of a stealth provision that phases out deductions), as in Mr. Obama's plan, would reduce gross receipts by more than 7% for sole proprietors subject to the higher rate.

These results imply a similar effect on proprietors' investment expenditures. A paper published by R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and William M. Gentry of Williams College in the American Economic Review in 2000 also found that increasing progressivity of the tax code discourages entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.

For the full commentary, see:

KEVIN A. HASSETT and ALAN D. VIARD. "The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy; The president's plan to raise top marginal rates is holding back the very people who should be leading the economic recovery." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., SEPTEMBER 3, 2010): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

One of the papers by Carroll et al, is:

Carroll, Robert, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey S. Rosen. "Income Taxes and Entrepreneurs' Use of Labor." Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 2 (April 2000): 324-51.

The Hubbard paper is:

Gentry, William M., and R. Glenn Hubbard. "Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry." The American Economic Review 90, no. 2 (May 2000): 283-87.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A17) Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress--both chambers with Democratic majorities--responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

. . .

Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.

The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR's programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

For the full commentary, see:

BURTON FOLSOM JR. AND ANITA FOLSOM. "Did FDR End the Depression?
The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., APRIL 12, 2010): A17.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A March fair to raise private funding for community centers, held at Westside Community Center, was sparsely attended." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--Like many American cities, this one is strapped for cash. Tax collections here have fallen so far that the city has turned off one-third of its 24,512 street lights.

But unlike many cities, this one is full of people who are eager for more government cutbacks.

The town council has been bombarded with emails telling it to close community centers. Letters to the local newspaper call for shrinking the police department and putting the city-owned utility up for sale. A commission is studying whether to sell the municipal hospital. Another, made up of local businessmen, will opine on whether to slash the salaries and benefits of city employees.

"Let's start cutting stupid programs that cost taxpayers a pot of money," says Tim Austin, a 48-year-old former home builder now looking for a new line of work. "It's so bullying and disrespectful to take money from one man's pocket and put it in another's."

For the full story, see:

LESLIE EATON. "Strapped City Cuts and Cuts and Cuts." The Wall Street Journal (Tues., APRIL 13, 2010): A1 & A16.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) The number of nonfarm private jobs has been growing steadily since the 1950s. That number reached a peak at the end of 2007. Between 1958 and 2007, the number of U.S. jobs grew to 115.4 million from 43.5 million--about 2% per year on average. The steady upward trend reflects the long-run growth of the economy and increased participation in the labor force.

The nearby chart compares employment and that trend. It shows the percentage difference between employment and the trend line generated from monthly employment figures over the past 50 years (July 1960 through June 2010).

What we see is astounding. For almost 25 years--between 1984 and late 2008--the level of employment never fell to more than 3% below the trend line. Over that period, total employment grew by more than 36 million.

Employment fell briefly to about 6% below the trend during two previous recessions: in 1975 and again in 1982-1983. During those periods, the unemployment-rate peaks were 9% (in 1974) and 10.8% (in 1982). The unemployment rate in 2009 peaked at 10.1%.

By 2010, however, employment had fallen to about 10% below the trend, far below any previous level in the last half-century.

For the full commentary, see:

PAUL GODEK. "Jobless Numbers Are Worse Than You Think; The situation is much more dire now than it was during the 1980s." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., JULY 23, 2010): A15.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart at Ms. Reinhart's Washington home. They started their book around 2003, years before the economy began to crumble." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) Like a pair of financial sleuths, Ms. Reinhart and her collaborator from Harvard, Kenneth S. Rogoff, have spent years investigating wreckage scattered across documents from nearly a millennium of economic crises and collapses. They have wandered the basements of rare-book libraries, riffled through monks' yellowed journals and begged central banks worldwide for centuries-old debt records. And they have manually entered their findings, digit by digit, into one of the biggest spreadsheets you've ever seen.

Their handiwork is contained in their recent best seller, "This Time Is Different," a quantitative reconstruction of hundreds of historical episodes in which perfectly smart people made perfectly disastrous decisions. It is a panoramic opus, both geographically and temporally, covering crises from 66 countries over the last 800 years.

The book, and Ms. Reinhart's and Mr. Rogoff's own professional journeys as economists, zero in on some of the broader shortcomings of their trade -- thrown into harsh relief by economists' widespread failure to anticipate or address the financial crisis that began in 2007.

"The mainstream of academic research in macroeconomics puts theoretical coherence and elegance first, and investigating the data second," says Mr. Rogoff. For that reason, he says, much of the profession's celebrated work "was not terribly useful in either predicting the financial crisis, or in assessing how it would it play out once it happened."

"People almost pride themselves on not paying attention to current events," he says.

. . .

(p. 6) Although their book is studiously nonideological, and is more focused on patterns than on policy recommendations, it has become fodder for the highly charged debate over the recent growth in government debt.

To bolster their calls for tightened government spending, budget hawks have cited the book's warnings about the perils of escalating public and private debt. Left-leaning analysts have been quick to take issue with that argument, saying that fiscal austerity perpetuates joblessness, and have been attacking economists associated with it.

. . .

The economics profession generally began turning away from empirical work in the early 1970s. Around that time, economists fell in love with theoretical constructs, a shift that has no single explanation. Some analysts say it may reflect economists' desire to be seen as scientists who describe and discover universal laws of nature.

"Economists have physics envy," says Richard Sylla, a financial historian at the Stern School of Business at New York University. He argues that Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate whom many credit with endowing economists with a mathematical tool kit, "showed that a lot of physical theories and concepts had economic analogs."

Since that time, he says, "economists like to think that there is some physical, stable state of the world if they get the model right." But, he adds, "there is really no such thing as a stable state for the economy."

Others suggest that incentives for young economists to publish in journals and gain tenure predispose them to pursue technical wizardry over deep empirical research and to choose narrow slices of topics. Historians, on the other hand, are more likely to focus on more comprehensive subjects -- that is, the material for books -- that reflect a deeply experienced, broadly informed sense of judgment.

"They say historians peak in their 50s, once they've accumulated enough knowledge and wisdom to know what to look for," says Mr. Rogoff. "By contrast, economists seem to peak much earlier. It's hard to find an important paper written by an economist after 40."

For the full story, see:

CATHERINE RAMPELL. "They Did Their Homework (800 Years of It)." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., July 4, 2010): 1 & 6.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated July 2, 2010.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference for the book is:

Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth Rogoff. This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Source of book image: http://www.paschaldonohoe.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/This-time-is-different.jpg

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

George Shultz, former Dean of the University of Chicago Business School, former Secretary of the Treasury, and former Secretary of State. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.


(p. 12) What do you make of the direction the Republican Party has taken since you served in Washington? Isn't the Tea Party a corruption of the values you stood for?
From what I understand of it, it is a reaction, which I share, to the fact that our government seems to have gotten out of control. We're spending at a rate that's just unsustainable.

That's a legacy of the Bush era, I guess.
Everybody is conveniently blaming everything on Bush, but he's not responsible for what's happened in the last year.

You'll be 90 in December. How are you?
I'm terrific. Feeling great. I'm vertical, not horizontal. That's a big thing.

For the full interview, see:

DEBORAH SOLOMON. "Questions for George Shultz; The Statesman." The New York Times Magazine (Sun., July 4, 2010): 12.

(Note: bolding of interviewer questions was in original.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated June 28, 2010.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) Americans are debating whether to substantially expand the size of their government. As Swedish economists who live in the developed world's largest welfare state, we urge our friends in the New World to look carefully before they leap.

Fifty years ago, Sweden and America spent about the same on their government, a bit under 30% of GDP. This is no longer true. In the years leading up to Sweden's financial crisis in the early 1990s, government spending went as high as 60% of GDP. In America it barely budged, increasing only to about 33%.

While America was maintaining its standing as one of the world's wealthiest nations, Sweden's standing fell. In 1970, Sweden was the fourth richest country in the world on a per capita basis. By 1993, it had fallen to 17th.

This led us to ask whether Sweden's dramatic increase in the size of government contributed to its sluggish growth. Our research shows that it did.

We surveyed the existing literature looking at the trade-offs between government size and economic growth throughout the world. While results vary, the most recent research, by Diego Romero-Avila in the European Journal of Political Economy (2008) and by Andreas Bergh and Martin Karlsson in Public Choice (2010) find a negative correlation between government size and economic growth in rich countries.

The weight of the evidence demonstrates that when government spending increases by 10 percentage points of GDP, the annual growth rate drops by 0.5 to 1 percentage point. This may not sound like much, but over 30 years this would result in the loss of trillions of dollars each year in an economy as large as America's.

For the full commentary, see

ANDREAS BERGH AND MAGNUS HENREKSON. "Lessons From the Swedish Welfare State; New research shows bigger government means slower growth. Our country is a prime example." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., JULY 12, 2010): A15.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated JULY 10, 2010.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The $42 million museum has been financed through a series of state, federal and local grants. It is set to open next March." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 4) The idea for the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement was seeded when the city bought the 1933 federal courthouse and post office from the federal government for $1 in 2002, with the strict understanding that the building -- one of the oldest in Southern Nevada -- be used for cultural purposes.

For much of the middle of the last century, organized crime ruled the Strip, developing and managing an array of casinos, skimming their way to success. Federal prosecutors put an end to their reign in the 1980s. The city determined its historical relationship to organized crime -- and the role the courthouse played in it -- made the site a perfect fit.

. . .

The $42 million project has been financed through a series of state, federal and local grants, and the work has progressed a bit glacially as money has trickled in.

The project, once listed as one that could stimulate this city's embattled economy, was attacked by Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, when city officials suggested that it might qualify for federal stimulus money.

For the full story, see:

JENNIFER STEINHAUER. "'2 Mob Museums in Las Vegas, Ready to Go to the Mattresses." The New York Times, First Section (Sun., April 25, 2010): 1 & 4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated April 24, 2010 and has the title "Vegas Mob Museums, Set to Go to the Mattresses.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 1) If you blinked, you might have missed the ugly first-quarter report . . . from Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giant that, along with its sister Fannie Mae, soldiers on as one of the financial world's biggest wards of the state.

Freddie -- already propped up with $52 billion in taxpayer funds used to rescue the company from its own mistakes -- recorded a loss of $6.7 billion and said it would require an additional $10.6 billion from taxpayers to shore up its financial position.

The news caused nary a ripple in the placid Washington scene. Perhaps that's because many lawmakers, especially those who once assured us that Fannie and Freddie would never cost taxpayers a dime, hope that their constituents don't notice the burgeoning money pit these mortgage monsters represent. Some $130 billion in federal money had already been larded on both companies before Freddie's latest request.

But taxpayers should examine Freddie's first-quarter numbers not only because the losses are our responsibility. Since they also include details on Freddie's delinquent mortgages, the company's sales of foreclosed properties and losses on those sales, the results provide a telling snapshot of the current state of the housing market.

That picture isn't pretty. Serious delinquencies in Freddie's single-family conventional loan portfolio -- those more than 90 days late -- came in at 4.13 percent, up from 2.41 percent for the period a year earlier. Delinquencies in the company's Alt-A book, one step up from subprime loans, totaled 12.84 percent, while delinquencies on interest-only mortgages were 18.5 percent. Delinquencies on its small portfolio of op-(p. 2)tion-adjustable rate loans totaled 19.8 percent.

The company's inventory of foreclosed properties rose from 29,145 units at the end of March 2009 to almost 54,000 units this year. Perhaps most troubling, Freddie's nonperforming assets almost doubled, rising to $115 billion from $62 billion.

For the full commentary, see:

Gretchen Morgenson. "Fair Game; Ignoring the Elephant in the Bailout." The New York Times, SundayBusiness (Sun., May 9, 2010): 1-2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article was dated May 7, 2010.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A23) In The Wall Street Journal, Russ Roberts of George Mason University wondered why economics is even considered a science. Real sciences make progress. But in economics, old thinkers cycle in and out of fashion. In real sciences, evidence solves problems. Roberts asked his colleagues if they could think of any econometric study so well done that it had definitively settled a dispute. Nobody could think of one.

"The bottom line is that we should expect less of economists," Roberts wrote.

In a column called "A Crisis of Understanding," Robert J. Shiller of Yale pointed out that the best explanation of the crisis isn't even a work of economic analysis. It's a history book -- "This Time is Different" by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff -- that is almost entirely devoid of theory.

One gets the sense, at least from the outside, that the intellectual energy is no longer with the economists who construct abstract and elaborate models. Instead, the field seems to be moving in a humanist direction. Many economists are now trying to absorb lessons learned by psychologists, neuroscientists and sociologists.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID BROOKS. "The Return of History." The New York Times (Fri., March 26, 2010): A23.

(Note: the online version of the commentary was dated March 25, 2010.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 91) . . . Thomas Gore, . . . was first elected to the Senate in 1907, the year Oklahoma became a state. Gore had a populist streak in him, but he always recognized the protections to individual liberty that came from limited government. In the 1930s, therefore, he strongly opposed the federal government going into the relief business. Interestingly, Gore was made totally blind by two childhood accidents. He still managed to become a lawyer, and as a senator, he had to have family members or staff assistants read bills, books, and newspapers to him. Yet he claimed to see clearly through the political chicanery that would occur if the federal government entered the relief business. No depression, Gore argued, "can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding at every pore." On the issue of relief, especially, Gore argued that state and city officials "have immediate contact" with hardship cases and can best "superintend the dispensation of charity." Soon after the ERA brought federal relief into existence, Gore said, "The day on which we began to make these loans by the Federal Government to States, counties, and cities was a more evil day in the history of the Republic than the day on which the Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter."

In 1935, Gore helped lead the charge in Congress against funding the WPA with $4.8 billion. After he spoke against the bill, thousands of people in southeast Oklahoma held a mass meeting to denounce Gore. They sent him a telegram demanding that he cast his vote for the WPA and, by implication, start bringing more fed-(p. 92)eral dollars into Oklahoma. Gore responded with a telegram of his own. Your action, he wrote, "shows how the dole spoils the soul. Your telegram intimates that your votes are for sale. Much as I value votes I am not in the market. I cannot consent to buy votes with the people's money. I owe a debt to the taxpayer as well as to the unemployed." Shortly after dictating these words, the blind Senator was led to the Senate floor to cast a lonely vote against the WPA.

Source:

Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Why Omaha, Nebraska, is seeing a small business boom and boasts of having one of the lowest unemployment rates." Source of caption and video: http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/05/06/n_omaha_economy.cnnmoney/

Several days ago, CNN Money ran a very nice clip focusing on why Omaha's economy has fared better than the economies of many other U.S. cities. The piece was mainly brief fluff, though pleasant, complementary fluff.

But the one message of substance was that Nebraskans, and usually Nebraska governments, work harder at not spending more than we take in.

(The reporter for the piece is CNN Money's Poppy Harlow. Posted by CNN on May 6, 2010. Run time: 02:09.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The size and structure of the "safety net" is a subject of hot debate. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom suggested that higher benefits would lead to slower labor market adjustments.

There may have been multiple causes for the high unemployment rate in the U.K. in the 1920s and 1930s. But it is highly plausible that higher unemployment benefits would have made the unemployed more selective in which jobs they would accept, and hence would have contributed to higher rates of unemployment and higher average duration of unemployment.

(p. 7B) The ultimate evidence . . . is from the 1920s, when the Labour Party came to power in the U.K. for the first time. As scholars Daniel K. Benjamin and Levis Kochin pointed out in a Journal of Political Economy paper, the moment was one in which "unemployment benefits were on a more generous scale relative to wages than ever before or since."

The result was the mother of all jobless recoveries. For almost two decades, from 1921 to 1938, U.K. unemployment averaged 14 percent and never got below 9.5 percent.

For the full story, see:

Amity Shlaes. "Help can hurt job hunters." Omaha World-Herald (Friday April 16, 2010): 7B.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347

FDR has never been one of my heroes. But in the last few years, I have read two books that have revealed him to have been much worse than I expected. In earlier posts, I have praised Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man.

Here I praise Burt Folsom's New Deal or Raw Deal?

Folsom documents how the economic policies of Roosevelt lengthened and deepened the Great Depression.

But what I think I will remember most about the book, is the example after example of how FDR lied to both friend and foe; and the example after example of how FDR used government spending programs to buy votes.

I found this book very unpleasant. Rather than listen to another chapter in the car, I sometimes found myself playing music.

But we need to read this book. We need to know what really happened, so we can guard against it happening again.

In the next few weeks, I will quote a few of the more memorable and significant passages in Folsom's book.

Book discussed:

Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A LITTLE OFF THE TOP; Michigan residents may have to pay a 5.5 percent tax for haircuts. States across the nation are considering similar taxes on services to solve their budget problems." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) In the scramble to find something, anything, to generate more revenue, states are considering new taxes on virtually everything: garbage pickup, dating services, bowling night, haircuts, even clowns.

"It's hard enough doing what we do," grumbled John Luke, a plumber in the Philadelphia suburbs. His services would, for the first time, come with an added tax if the governor has his way.

Opponents of imposing taxes on services like funerals, legal advice, helicopter rides and dry cleaning argue that this push comes as businesses are barely clinging to life and can ill afford to see customers further put off by new taxes. This is especially true, they say, in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where some of the most sweeping proposals are being considered this spring.

But this is also a period of economic gloom for states. Pension funds are in the red, federal stimulus help will soon vanish, and revenues from traditional sources like income and property taxes are slumping ever lower, with few elected officials willing to risk voter wrath by raising them.

. . .

(p. 20) But from coast to coast, desperate governments are looking to tap into new revenue streams.

In Nebraska, a lawmaker has introduced a bill to tax armored car services, farm equipment repairs, shoe shines, taxidermy, reflexology and scooter repairs. In Kentucky, Jim Wayne, a state representative, and some fellow Democrats are proposing taxing high-end services: golf greens fees, limousine and hot-air-balloon rides, and private landscaping.

In June, voters in Maine will decide whether to accept a state overhaul of its tax system that would newly tax services like tailor alterations, blimp rides, and entertainment provided by clowns, comedians and jugglers.

For the full story, see:

MONICA DAVEY. "States Seeking Cash Hope to Expand Taxes to Services." The New York Times, First Section (Sun., ed: March 28, 2010): 1 & 20.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated March 27, 2010, and has the title "States Seeking Cash Hope to Expand Taxes to Services.")

Source of graph: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A19) Speculators earn a profit by absorbing risk that others don't want. Without speculators, investors would find it difficult to quickly hedge or sell their positions.

Speculators also provide us with information about the fundamental values of investments. When the fundamentals appear favorable, they buy. Otherwise, they sell. If their forecasts are correct, they profit. This causes prices to more accurately forecast an investment's value, spreading useful information.

For the full commentary, see:

DARRELL DUFFIE. "In Defense of Financial Speculation; It is not the same thing as market manipulation." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., FEBRUARY 24, 2010): A19.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: http://seekingalpha.com/article/188632-the-quants-review-when-the-money-grid-went-dark

(p. 7) The virtually exclusive use of mathematical models, Mr. Patterson says, was what separated the younger cohorts of quants from their Wall Street forebears. Unlike Warren Buffett or Peter Lynch, the quants did not focus on so-called market fundamentals like what goods or services a particular company actually produced. Seldom if ever did they act on old-fashioned gut instinct. Instead, they focused on factors like how cheap a stock was relative to the rest of the market or how quickly its price had risen or fallen.

Therein was the quants' flaw, according to Mr. Patterson. Pioneers like Mr. Thorp understood that while the math world and the financial world have much in common, they aren't always in sync. The quant traders' model emphasized the most likely moves a stock or bond price could make. It largely ignored the possibility of big jolts caused by human factors, especially investor panics.

"The model soon became so ubiquitous that, hall-of-mirrors-like, it became difficult to tell the difference between the model and the market itself," Mr. Patterson declares.

Move ahead to August 2007 and beyond, when markets swooned on doubts about subprime mortgages. Stocks that the model predicted were bound to go up went sharply down, and vice versa. Events that were supposed to happen only once in 10,000 years happened three days in a row.

For the full review, see:

HARRY HURT III. "Off the Shelf; In Practice, Stock Formulas Weren't Perfect." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., February 21, 2010): 7.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 20, 2010.)

The reference to Patterson's book, is:

Patterson, Scott. The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It. New York: Crown Business, 2010.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A19) Mr. Obama and his advisers need to grasp this essential fact: Entrepreneurs are not just a cute little subsector of the American economy. They are the whole game. They will give us tomorrow's Apples and the multiplier effect of small businesses and exciting new jobs that go with them. Entrepreneurs are necessary to keep our large multinationals on their toes. It's no coincidence that the entrepreneurial flowering of the 1970s forced a managerial revolution in large companies during the 1980s and 1990s. Without Steve Jobs, there would have been no Lou Gerstner to reinvent IBM in the '90s. Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs make everyone better.

For the full story, see:

RICH KARLGAARD. "Apple to the Rescue?" The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., JANUARY 28, 2010): A19.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A19) . . . , there is one way to create a lot more jobs without spending federal money. Let's import them. More precisely, let's import the people who create them: entrepreneurs.

A bipartisan bill that would begin to do just that was introduced on Feb. 24 by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R., Ind.). Their "Startup Visa Act" would create a new, two-year visa for immigrant entrepreneurs whose firms attract at least $250,000 in financing from American angel investors or venture capital firms.

. . .

Here's a way to improve on the Kerry-Lugar plan. Create a true "job creator's visa," one tied directly and only to job creation by new immigrant entrepreneurs. The visa could be a temporary one for immigrants already here on another visa who establish a business. It could then be extended if the firm hires at least one American non-family resident. The visa should become permanent once the enterprise crosses a certain job threshold (such as five or 10 workers). But it would not be tied to financing.

. . .

Google was founded by Sergey Brin, a Russian immigrant, and American Larry Page by borrowing funds from their own credit cards. Why on earth would we want to create an entrepreneurs' visa that couldn't let in the future Sergey Brin?

For the full commentary, see:

ROBERT E. LITAN. "Visas for the Next Sergey Brin; To create more jobs, let's import more employers." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 8, 2010): A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated MARCH 7, 2010.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A23) Exports of American services have jumped by 84 percent since 2000, while the growth rate among goods was 66 percent. America trails both China and Germany in sales of goods abroad, but ranks No. 1 in global services by a wide margin. And while trade deficits in goods have been enormous -- $840 billion in 2008 -- the country runs a large and growing surplus in services: we exported $144 billion more in services than we imported, dwarfing the surpluses of $75 billion in 2000 and $58 billion in 1992.

Equally important, Commerce Department data show that the United States is a top-notch competitor in many of the high-value-added services that support well-paying jobs.

. . .

. . . , will Washington offer tax breaks or other export incentives? While businesses may clamor for them, these would be a setback for freer trade -- after all, for years it has been America that has been hectoring other countries to end their subsidies to exporters. Will Washington try to pick winners in the global marketplace, like green energy? More often than not, this kind of industrial policy wastes money, fosters inefficiency and creates few permanent jobs.

For the full story, see:

W. MICHAEL COX. "An Order of Prosperity, to Go." The New York Times (Weds., February 17, 2010): A23.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Keli Carender resists the idea of a Tea Party leader -- "there are a thousand leaders," she says. But she has become a leader, and a celebrity. Ms. Carender at a recent rally in Olympia, Wash." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) SEATTLE -- Keli Carender has a pierced nose, performs improv on weekends and lives here in a neighborhood with more Mexican grocers than coffeehouses. You might mistake her for the kind of young person whose vote powered President Obama to the White House. You probably would not think of her as a Tea Party type.

But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first.

A year ago, frustrated that every time she called her senators to urge them to vote against the $787 billion stimulus bill their mailboxes were full, and tired of wearing out the ear of her Obama-voting fiancé, Ms. Carender decided to hold a protest against what she called the "porkulus."

. . .

(p. 19) The daughter of Democrats who became disaffected in the Clinton years, Ms. Carender, 30, began paying attention to politics during the 2008 campaign, but none of the candidates appealed to her. She had studied math at Western Washington University before earning a teaching certificate at Oxford -- she teaches basic math to adult learners -- and began reading more on economics, particularly the writings of Thomas Sowell, the libertarian economist, and National Review.

Reading about the stimulus, she said, "it didn't make any sense to me to be spending all this money when we don't have it."

"It seems more logical to me that we create an atmosphere where private industry can start to grow again and create jobs," she said.

For the full story, see:

KATE ZERNIKE. "Early Arrival at the Tea Party: A Young and Unlikely Activist." The New York Times, First Section (Sun., February 26, 2010): 1 & 19.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 27, 2010 and has the title "Unlikely Activist Who Got to the Tea Party Early.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) This has been an unforgettable year in the history of American spending.

It began with an eye-popping $800 billion stimulus bill that came from nowhere and went to nowhere. Done with that, the Washington Democrats turned to President Obama's health-care reform, which looked big at first, but turned out to be bigger. A well-publicized June estimate of the Senate bill's cost by the Congressional Budget Office put the 10-year price tag at $1.6 trillion. So $800 billion, then a trillion.

Dollar signs rocketed into the sky all year: hundreds of billions on various TARP salvage projects, much drawn from some magic stash held by the Federal Reserve. The Obama cap-and-trade bill was going to use an auction to siphon $3.3 trillion from various states to Washington over 40 years. Oh, almost forgot--an FY 2011 $3.8 trillion budget.

For the full commentary, see:

DANIEL HENNINGER. "It's the Spending, America ." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., February 18, 2010): A17.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"An unoccupied office building in San Jose, Calif., in December. Many tech firms are hiring engineers abroad to do their work." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B3) SAN FRANCISCO -- Silicon Valley's economy is sputtering and risks permanently stalling, according to an annual report by a group of researchers in the region.

Part of the toll on Silicon Valley has resulted from the recession. The region, the center of the global technology industry, lost 90,000 jobs from the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009. Unemployment is higher than national levels and the worst in the region since 2005, when technology companies were still recovering from the dot-com implosion.

The drop in the number of midlevel jobs -- the engineers who drive much of the Valley's growth -- has been sharpest. And when companies do hire, they are cautiously hiring independent contractors instead of regular employees, and are hiring abroad, according to the "2010 Index of Silicon Valley" report, which was produced by the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, two local nonprofit groups.

Other economic indicators are also gloomy, the report found.

"We show no evidence that the recovery has arrived," said Russell Hancock, chief executive of Joint Venture.

For the full story, see:

CLAIRE CAIN MILLER. "Report Warns Silicon Valley Could Lose Its Edge." The New York Times (Thurs., February 11, 2010): B3.

Note: The online version of the article is dated February 10, 2010, and has the title "Report Warns Silicon Valley Could Lose Its Edge.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohoe. Source of caricature: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) The White House's war on the Chamber has come just as the group is launching a new $100 million campaign promoting free enterprise.

"We want to encourage and promote and educate and get a bunch of enthusiasm behind . . . the free enterprise system with free capital markets and free trade and the ability to fail and fall right on your ass and get up and do it again!" he says.

The belief in that system, Mr. Donohue says, has been eroded by the recession and subsequent criticism of the free market. "The purpose of this is to get out of the doldrums! Quit sulking and worrying." He hopes the campaign will remind Americans that "We created 20 million jobs in the '90s, we can do it again. We don't have to do it exactly like that--Adam Smith didn't have a BlackBerry--but we ought to pay attention to what made it work."

For the full interview, see:

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL. "OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Tom Donohue; Business Fights Back; His organization under attack by the White House, the president of the Chamber of Commerce stands by his defense of free enterprise." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., October 24, 2009): A13.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date October 23, 2009.)

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A man took in the view of Dubai from the 124th floor of the newly opened, $1.5 billion Burj Khalifa, a rocket-shaped building that soars 2,717 feet." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A7) CAIRO -- In the heady days of the Dubai gold rush, when real estate sold and resold even before a shovel hit the ground, the ambitious emirate was hailed as the model of Middle Eastern modernity, a boomtown that built an effective, efficient and accessible form of government.

Then the crash came and revealed how paper-thin that image was, political and financial analysts said. That realization, not just in Dubai but also in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of the United Arab Emirates, has cast a harsh light on an opaque, top-down decision-making process, not just in business but in matters of crime and punishment as well, political and financial analysts said.

The financial crisis and now two criminal cases that have generated critical headlines in other countries have demonstrated that the emirates remain an absolute monarchy, where institutions are far less important than royalty and where the law is particularly capricious -- applied differently based on social standing, religion and nationality, political experts and human rights advocates said.

"I think what we learned here the last four months is that the government, at least on a political level, is still very undeveloped," said a financial analyst based in Dubai who asked not to be identified to avoid compromising his ability to work in the emirates. "It's very difficult to read or interpret or understand what is going on. The institutions have not shaped up to people's expectations."

For the full story, see:

MICHAEL SLACKMAN. "Dubai Memo; Entrenched Monarchy Thwarts Aspirations for Modernity." The New York Times (Fri., January 22, 2010): A7.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated January 21, 2010.)

(Note: ellipsis added.)

"Workers repaired a phone line next to an office building in Dubai's Internet City. Even after a bailout, Dubai remains heavily burdened by debt." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 5) . . . subsidies, . . . , have spurred excess capacity and created a dangerous political dynamic in which these investments have to be propped up at all cost.

China has been building factories and production capacity in virtually every sector of its economy, but it's not clear that the latest round of investments will be profitable anytime soon. Automobiles, steel, semiconductors, cement, aluminum and real estate all show signs of too much capacity. In Shanghai, the central business district appears to have high vacancy rates, yet building continues.

. . .

Over all, there is a lack of transparency. China's statistics on its gross domestic product are based more on recorded production activity than on what is actually sold. Chinese fiscal and credit policies are geared toward jobs and political stability, and thus the authorities shy away from revealing which projects are most troubled or should be canceled.

Put all of this together and there is a very real possibility of trouble.

For the full commentary, see:

TYLER COWEN. "Economic View; Dangers of an Overheated China." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., November 29, 2009 ): 5.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 28, 2009.)

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A member of the National Guard stands guard during a inspection of prices at a store in La Guaira outside Caracas Jan. 12." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) CARACAS -- President Hugo Chávez's decision to devalue Venezuela's currency in order to shore up government finances could backfire on the populist leader if the move leads to substantially higher prices and extends an economic downturn.

Just days after Mr. Chávez cut the value of the "strong bolivar" currency, some businesses were marking up prices. Shoppers jammed stores to stock up on goods before the increases took hold.

Amelia Soto, a 52-year-old housewife waited in line at a Caracas drugstore to buy 23 tubes of toothpaste. "Everywhere I hear that prices are going to skyrocket so I want to buy as much as I can now," she said.

Airlines have doubled fares; government officials said they were looking into reports that large retail chains were also increasing prices.

. . .

The price increases are setting the stage for confrontations with authorities following Mr. Chávez's orders to shut down retailers that raise prices.

. . .

The higher prices for consumer goods represent a huge liability for a country facing 27% inflation, one of the highest levels in the world.

For the full story, see:

DARCY CROWE and DAN MOLINSKI. "Prices in Venezuela Surge After Devaluation." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., JANUARY 13, 2010): A8.

(Note: the online version of the article has the title "Venezuelans Rush to Shop as Stores Increase Prices.")

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. B5) Venture capitalists, whose money provides fuel to technology start-ups, last year invested the lowest amount in such companies since 1997, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association released on Friday.

. . .

In 2009, venture capitalists invested $17.7 billion in 2,795 start-ups -- 37 percent less cash and 30 percent fewer deals than in 2008. Internet companies, which have excited investors for more than a decade, took a big hit as investment declined 39 percent.

For the full story, see:

CLAIRE CAIN MILLER. "Venture Capital Was Tight for Tech Start-Ups in '09." The New York Times (Fri., January 22, 2010): B5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Chanos' views discussed below are plausible and worth taking seriously. Earlier and overlapping worries about the sustainability of China's boom were expressed in a credible and scary book by David Smick called The World is Curved.

In addition to some of the concerns expressed by Chanos, Smick also emphasizes that China's restrictions on the internet will dampen the ability of its entrepreneurs to succeed. That view seems prescient given China's growing attempts to censor the internet and to hack Google.

(p. B1) SHANGHAI -- James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.

As most of the world bets on China to help lift the global economy out of recession, Mr. Chanos is warning that China's hyperstimulated economy is headed for a crash, rather than the sustained boom that most economists predict. Its surging real estate sector, buoyed by a flood of speculative capital, looks like "Dubai times 1,000 -- or worse," he frets. He even suspects that Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent.

"Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses," he said in a recent appearance on CNBC. "And there's no bigger credit excess than in China." He is planning a speech later this month at the University of Oxford to drive home his point.

. . .

(p. B4) . . . he is tagging along with the bears, who see mounting evidence that China's stimulus package and aggressive bank lending are creating artificial demand, raising the risk of a wave of nonperforming loans.

"In China, he seems to see the excesses, to the third and fourth power, that he's been tilting against all these decades," said Jim Grant, a longtime friend and the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, who is also bearish on China. "He homes in on the excesses of the markets and profits from them. That's been his stock and trade."

Mr. Chanos declined to be interviewed, citing his continuing research on China. But he has already been spreading the view that the China miracle is blinding investors to the risk that the country is producing far too much.

"The Chinese," he warned in an interview in November with Politico.com, "are in danger of producing huge quantities of goods and products that they will be unable to sell."

For the full story, see:

DAVID BARBOZA. "Shorting China: the Man Who Predicted Enron's Fall Sees a Bigger Collapse Ahead." The New York Times (Fri., January 8, 2010): B1 & B5.

(Note: the online version of the article has the title "Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China" and is dated January 7, 2010.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference to the Smick book is:

Smick, David M. The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy. New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2008.

"Now Mr. Chanos is betting against China, and is promoting his view that the China miracle has blinded investors to the risks in that economy." Source of caption and poster: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: http://image.exct.net/lib/fef61175736207/m/1/Q9-Report-Card2.gif

The Kauffman Foundation recently invited me to participate in a quarterly survey on economic policy that they are compiling from among bloggers who they have identified as among "the country's most prolific and influential economics bloggers." I agreed to participate.

Apparently tomorrow (2/2/10) they will release the results of the first survey.

Below I have quoted most of a press release that they emailed out today.

(The Kauffman Foundation is one of the leading non-profit organizations supporting research on entrepreneurship.)

Top Economics Bloggers Grade U.S. Institutions that Influence Economy in New Kauffman Survey

Watch for complete results tomorrow of the first
'Kauffman Economic Outlook:
A Quarterly Survey of Leading Economics Bloggers'

The country's most prolific and influential economics bloggers grade the institutions and organizations that impact the economy in a new Kauffman Foundation survey. On an A to F grading scale, the nation's top economics bloggers give the highest marks to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and General Accountability Office (GAO), as well as to the "U.S. business community." Central banks such as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank got passing grades by most, with few A's and many F's. Similarly, the World Bank had mixed marks. The worst marks went to Wall Street firms (31 percent F's) and the U.S. Congress (51 percent F's).

Learn more about what these insightful analysts think about U.S. economic performance, policy, institutions, and the deficit in the first "Kauffman Economic Outlook: A Quarterly Survey of Economics Bloggers," which will debut tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2010, at www.kauffman.org.

The survey was conducted in mid-January 2010 by soliciting input from bloggers ranked among the top 200 economics bloggers according to Palgrave's Econolog.net. Ten core questions and seven topical questions were designed in coordination with a distinguished board of advisors.

Web version of press release:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5916727d650c747316&m=fef61175736207&ls=fded1c77726707797712717c&l=fe5815757461007a7c13&s=fe27157476630575771d75&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe2f16767565027b701575

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

(p. A17) Several pieces of evidence point to extreme caution by businesses and households. A regular survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) shows that recent capital expenditures and near-term plans for new capital investments remain stuck at 35-year lows. The same survey reveals that only 7% of small businesses see the next few months as a good time to expand. Only 8% of small businesses report job openings, as compared to 14%-24% in 2008, depending on month, and 19%-26% in 2007.

The weak economy is far and away the most prevalent reason given for why the next few months is "not a good time" to expand, but "political climate" is the next most frequently cited reason, well ahead of borrowing costs and financing availability. The authors of the NFIB December 2009 report on Small Business Economic Trends state: "the other major concern is the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usually [sic] source of uncertainty for the economy. The 'turbulence' created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst. . . . There is not much to look forward to here."

Government statistics tell a similar story. Business investment in the third quarter of 2009 is down 20% from the low levels a year earlier. Job openings are at the lowest level since the government began measuring the concept in 2000. The pace of new job creation by expanding businesses is slower than at any time in the past two decades and, though older data are not as reliable, likely slower than at any time in the past half-century. While layoffs and new claims for unemployment benefits have declined in recent months, job prospects for unemployed workers have continued to deteriorate. The exit rate from unemployment is lower now than any time on record, dating back to 1967.

According to the Michigan Survey of Consumers, 37% of households plan to postpone purchases because of uncertainty about jobs and income, a figure that has not budged since the second quarter of 2009, and one that remains higher than any previous year back to 1960.

These facts suggest that it was a serious economic mistake to press for a hasty, major transformation of the U.S. economy on the heels of the worst financial crisis in decades. A more effective approach would have been to concentrate first on fighting the recession and laying solid foundations for growth. They should have put plans to re-engineer the economy on the backburner, and kept them there until the economy emerged fully from the recession and returned to robust growth. By failing to adopt a measured approach to economic policy, Congress and the president may be slowing the economic recovery, and thereby prolonging the distress from the recession.

For the full commentary, see:

GARY S. BECKER, STEVEN J. DAVIS AND KEVIN M. MURPHY. "OPINION; Uncertainty and the Slow Recovery; A recession is a terrible time to make major changes in the economic rules of the game." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., JANUARY 4, 2010): A17.

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the commentary quoted below, "LTCM" stands for the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund.

(p. A25) Because families without the real economic means to repay traditional 30-year mortgages were getting them, housing prices grew to artificially high levels.

This is where the real sin of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac comes into play. Both were created by Congress to make housing affordable to the middle class. But when they began guaranteeing subprime loans, they actually began pricing out the working class from the market until the banking business responded with ways to make repayment of mortgages allegedly easier through adjustable rates loans that start off with low payments. But these loans, fully sanctioned by the government, were a ticking time bomb, as we're all now so painfully aware.

A similar bomb exploded in 1998, when LTCM blew up. The policy response to the LTCM debacle is instructive; more than anything else it solidified Wall Street's belief that there were little if any real risks to risk-taking. With $5 billion under management, LTCM was deemed too big to fail because, with nearly every major firm copying its money losing trades, much of Wall Street might have failed with it.

That's what the policy makers told us anyway. On Wall Street there's general agreement that the implosion of LTCM would have tanked one of the biggest risk takers in the market, Lehman Brothers, a full decade before its historic bankruptcy filing. Officials at Merrill, including its then-CFO (and future CEO) Stan O'Neal, believed Merrill's risk-taking in esoteric bonds could have led to a similar implosion 10 years before its calamitous merger with Bank of America.

We'll never know if LTCM's demise would have tanked the financial system or simply tanked a couple of firms that bet wrong. But one thing is certain: A valuable lesson in risk-taking was lost. By 2007, the years of excessive risk-taking, aided and abetted by the belief that the government was ready to paper over mistakes, had taken their toll.

With so much easy money, with the government always ready to ease their pain, Wall Street developed new and even more innovative ways to make money through risk-taking.

For the full commentary, see:

CHARLES GASPARINO. "Three Decades of Subsidized Risk; There's a reason Dick Fuld didn't believe Lehman would be allowed to fail." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A25) While a slight improvement over last month's numbers, today's employment update from the Bureau of Labor Statistics presents a dismal picture for American workers. As policy makers search for the best remedies to strengthen our economic performance, they can't afford to overlook new firms and young firms.

Unfortunately, in troubled economic times the language of recovery is too often tilted toward large, established companies or to "small businesses," a broad term that traditionally applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. The conventional wisdom is that such businesses account for half of the labor force and are therefore the engine of future job creation.

That's not quite the case. The more precise factor is not the size of businesses, but rather their age. According to the Census Bureau, nearly all net job creation in the U.S. since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old. A Kauffman Foundation report released yesterday shows that as recently as 2007, two-thirds of the jobs created were in such firms. Put more starkly, without new businesses, job creation in the American economy would have been negative for many years.

. . .

Entrepreneurs have a proven track record of job creation, especially in the early years of their firms. Eliminating or lowering the economic and regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of their success will pave the way for sustained expansion after the government's current stimulus measures come to their inevitable end.

For the full commentary, see:

CARL SCHRAMM, ROBERT LITAN AND DANE STANGLER. "New Business, Not Small Business, Is What Creates Jobs; Nearly all net job creation since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of cartoon: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) Last year, a typical investment portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds lost roughly a fifth of its value. Standard portfolio-construction tools assume that will happen only once every 111 years.

With once-in-a-century floods seemingly occurring every few years, financial-services firms ranging from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to MSCI Inc.'s MSCI Barra are concocting new ways to protect investors from such steep losses. The shift comes from increasing recognition that conventional assumptions about market behavior are off the mark, substantially underestimating risk.

. . .

(p. C9) Many of Wall Street's new tools assume market returns fall along a "fat-tailed" distribution, where, say, last year's nearly 40% stock-market decline would be more common than previously thought.

Fat-tailed distributions are nothing new. Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot recognized their relevance to finance in the 1960s. But they were never widely used in portfolio-building tools, partly because the math was so unwieldy.

For the full story, see:

ELEANOR LAISE. "Some Funds Stop Grading on the Curve." The Wall Street Journal (Tues., SEPTEMBER 8, 2009): C1 & C9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A19) After reporting GDP, the government released new numbers claiming that the stimulus programs have "created or saved" over a million jobs. These data were collected from responses by government agencies that received federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Agencies were required to report "an estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained by the project or activity." This report is required of all recipients (generally private contractors) of agency funds.

Unfortunately, these data are not reliable indicators of job creation nor of the even vaguer notion of job retention. There are two major problems. The first and most obvious is reporting bias. Recipients have strong incentives to inflate their reported numbers. In a race for federal dollars, contractors may assume that the programs that show the most job creation may be favored by the government when it allocates additional stimulus funds.

No dishonesty on the part of recipients is implied or required. But when a hire conceivably can be classified as resulting from the stimulus money, recipients have every incentive to classify the hire as such. Classification as stimulus-induced is even more likely if a respondent must only say that, except for the money, an employee would have been fired. In this case, no hiring need occur at all.

. . .

Net labor market figures do exist. Administrations have always been held to the time-tested and well-understood monthly job numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports the unemployment rate and the net job gain or loss for the economy as a whole. It is important to use reliable, accurate and well-understood numbers to determine the true causes of recovery. The unemployment rate, now at 9.8%, has continued to rise, and job losses have remained at high levels throughout the stimulus period. Few will be comforted by the good-news-only claim that the stimulus "created or saved" over one million jobs.

For the full commentary, see:

EDWARD P. LAZEAR. "Stimulus and the Jobless Recovery; Jobs 'created or saved' is meaningless. What matters is net job gain or loss, and that means the unemployment rate." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., NOVEMBER 2, 2009): A19.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the article was dated Nov. 1st.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The small dark blue squares indicate the "number of nations that have imposed protectionist measures on each country" and the light blue squares indicate the "number of measures imposed on each category of goods." Source of quotations in caption and of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A5) BRUSSELS -- This weekend's U.S.-China trade skirmish is just the tip of a coming protectionist iceberg, according to a report released Monday by Global Trade Alert, a team of trade analysts backed by independent think tanks, the World Bank and the U.K. government.

A report by the World Trade Organization, backed by its 153 members and also released Monday, found "slippage" in promises to abstain from protectionism, but drew less dramatic conclusions.

Governments have planned 130 protectionist measures that have yet to be implemented, according to the GTA's research. These include state aid funds, higher tariffs, immigration restrictions and export subsidies.

. . .

According to the GTA report, the number of discriminatory trade laws outnumbers liberalizing trade laws by six to one. Governments are applying protectionist measures at the rate of 60 per quarter. More than 90% of goods traded in the world have been affected by some sort of protectionist measure.

For the full story, see:

JOHN W. MILLER. "Protectionist Measures Expected to Rise, Report Warns." The Wall Street Journal (Tues., SEPTEMBER 15, 2009): A5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A9) Cash-for-clunkers programs have no lasting economic benefit and could even lead to a "substantial weakening" in euro-zone automobile sales next year, the European Central Bank said.

The findings, though far from original, amount to an official slap on the wrist to European governments including those of Germany, France and Spain that rolled out the popular programs to stoke demand in their auto sectors at the height of the financial crisis.

. . .

Such incentive measures should be applied "with caution," the ECB said, "as they may hamper the efficiency of the functioning of a free-market economy and may delay necessary structural change, thereby undermining overall income and employment prospects in the longer term."

For the full story, see:

BRIAN BLACKSTONE. "Clunker Plans Are Risky Route, Central Bank Says." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 16, 2009): A9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Work has been put on hold for this stretch of 132nd Street between Blondo Street and West Maple Road. Omaha officials say the stimulus funds will be worth the wait, but some nearby residents are upset about the slowdown." Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

We live near the still-two-lane stretch of 132nd pictured above, and were happy to read in the Omaha World-Herald early last spring that the city would be finishing the widening of 132nd, by widening the above stretch during the summer of 2009. As the summer progressed and widening did not, we became more and more puzzled.

Well, after you read the passages quoted below, you will 'know the rest of the story' as Paul Harvey used to say:

(p. 1A) The federal stimulus program, which was designed to accelerate roads projects around the country, instead put the brakes on widening a major Omaha thoroughfare.

The chance to grab $3.5 million in stimulus funds was worth delaying a widening project along 132nd Street between West Maple Road and Blondo Street, Omaha officials decided.

Work was supposed to begin last summer. Now the project between the Champions and Eagle Run golf courses won't begin until next spring.

Preliminary work was begun in March, when utility lines were moved out of the way. Part of the street was closed for that work.

Area residents expected more crews to start work during the summer.

When nothing happened for months, a handful of residents in the nearby Sunridge neighborhood called the city. They com-(p. A2)plained that digging from the utility work was causing mud and rainwater to pool near the subdivision's entrances off 132nd Street.

Resident Mary Ellen Pollard was surprised to find out that the widening work had been put on hold because of the stimulus program.

"I thought that stimulus package was for projects that were ready to go," she said Monday. "If it was ready to go, why didn't they proceed with it? . . . The barricades are up. Let's go get it done."

Plans change, public works officials said.

Meeting federal stimulus guidelines for environmental studies on the 132nd Street project, plus other planning and documentation requirements, took several months, City Engineer Charlie Krajicek said.

"We expected to have some work going this year, but it just didn't work out," he said.

For the full story, see:

Tom Shaw. "Stimulus slows 132nd St. work." Omaha World-Herald (Tuesday October 6, 2009): 1A-2A.

(Note: the online version of the article is dated Weds., October 7 and has the slightly expanded title: "Stimulus Watch: Program slows 132nd St. work.")

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Source of map: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A23) If you want to know why Americans are so fearful of a government takeover of the health-care system, take a look at the results of a new Gallup poll on government waste released Sept. 15. One question posed was: "Of every tax dollar that goes to Washington, D.C., how many cents of each dollar would you say is wasted?" Gallup found that the mean response was 50 cents. With Uncle Sam spending just shy of $4 trillion this year, that means the public believes that $2 trillion is wasted.

In a separate poll released on Monday, Gallup found that nearly twice as many Americans believe that there is "too much government regulation of business and industry" as believe there is "too little" (45% to 24%).

Perhaps most significantly, in both of these polls Gallup found that skepticism about government's effectiveness is the highest it's been in decades. "Perceptions of federal waste were significantly lower 30 years ago than today," say the Gallup researchers. Even when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 with the help of the antigovernment revolt of that era, Americans believed only 40 cents of every dollar was wasted, according to Gallup.

. . .

Over the last decade, the federal government has become bloated and inefficient. Voters are on to the scam. Mr. Obama keeps calling federal spending an "investment," but Americans apparently feel this is the worst investment they've ever made. They've come to regard Washington as a $2 trillion Bridge to Nowhere. They are right.

For the full commentary, see:

STEPHEN MOORE. "Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowhere; Americans believe Washington squanders half of every tax dollar." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., SEPTEMBER 23, 2009): A23.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A23) The global recession and financial crisis have refocused attention on government stimulus packages. These packages typically emphasize spending, predicated on the view that the expenditure "multipliers" are greater than one--so that gross domestic product expands by more than government spending itself. Stimulus packages typically also feature tax reductions, designed partly to boost consumer demand (by raising disposable income) and partly to stimulate work effort, production and investment (by lowering rates).

The existing empirical evidence on the response of real gross domestic product to added government spending and tax changes is thin. In ongoing research, we use long-term U.S. macroeconomic data to contribute to the evidence. The results mostly favor tax rate reductions over increases in government spending as a means to increase GDP.

. . .

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

For the full commentary, see:

ROBERT J. BARRO AND CHARLES J. REDLICK. "Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work; Our new research shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect. There is evidence that tax cuts boost growth." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., OCTOBER 1, 2009): A23.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

A longer and much more detailed account of Barro and Redlick's recent research on this topic can be found in:

Barro, Robert J., and Charles J. Redlick. "Macroeconomic Effects from Government Purchases and Taxes." NBER Working Paper # w15369, Sept. 2009.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Print of New Amsterdam by Joost Hartgers, 1626." Source of caption and image: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) The financial collapse of 2008 and the Great Recession have had, not surprisingly, a major adverse impact on the economy of the country's financial center, New York City. There have been over 40,000 job losses in the financial community alone and both city and state budgets are deeply dependent on tax revenues from this one industry. There has been much talk that New York might take years to recover--if, indeed, it ever can.

But if one looks at the history of New York there is reason for much optimism. The city's whole raison d'être since its earliest days explains why.

The Puritans in New England, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Catholics in Maryland first and foremost came to what would be the United States to find the freedom to worship God as they saw fit. The Dutch--who invented many aspects of modern capitalism and became immensely rich in the process--came to Manhattan to make money. And they didn't much care who else came to do the same. Indeed, they were so busy trading beaver pelts they didn't even get around to building a church for 17 years.

Twenty years after the Dutch arrived, the settlement at the end of Manhattan had only about a thousand inhabitants. But it was already so cosmopolitan that a French priest heard no fewer than 18 languages being spoken on its streets.

. . .

Deep within the heart of this vast metropolis--like the child within the adult--there is still to be found that little hustly-bustly, live-and-let-live, let's-make-a-deal Dutch village. And the creation of wealth is still the city's dearest love.

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN STEELE GORDON. "Opinion; Don't Bet Against New York; The financial crisis has been devastating, but the city has reinvented itself many times before.." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Sept. 19, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the last few decades the accepted opinion among most economists was that the profession understood what caused the Great Depression sufficiently so that we could be confident that we know how to avoid another Great Depression in the future.

Now the accepted opinion is becoming less accepted. I quote below the last sentence of Harold Cole's review of a 2007 book that surveys current views of the Great Depression by distinguished economists:

(p. 418) I came away from the book struck by the fragmentary state of the science with respect to the Great Depression and the challenges that we still face in terms of developing a truly satisfactory quantitative theory of what happened.

Source:

Cole, Harold. "Review of Parker's "the Economics of the Great Depression"." Journal of Economic Literature 46, no. 2 (June 2008): 415-18.

The book under review is:

Parker, Randall E. The Economics of the Great Depression: A Twenty-First Century Look Back at the Economics of the Interwar Era. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar, 2007.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A23) The nearby chart reviews income and consumption through July, the latest month this data is available for the U.S. economy as a whole.

Consider first the part of the chart pertaining to the spring of this year and observe that disposable personal income (DPI)--the total amount of income people have left to spend after they pay taxes and receive transfers from the government--jumped. The increase is due to the transfer and rebate payments in the 2009 stimulus package. However, as the chart also shows, there was no noticeable impact on personal consumption expenditures. Because the boost to income is temporary, at best only a very small fraction was consumed.

This is exactly what one would expect from "permanent income" or "life-cycle" theories of consumption, which argue that temporary changes in income have little effect on consumption. These theories were developed by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani 50 years ago, and have been empirically tested many times. They are much more accurate than simple Keynesian theories of consumption, so the lack of an impact should not be surprising.

. . .

Incoming data will reveal more in coming months, but the data available so far tell us that the government transfers and rebates have not stimulated consumption at all, and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic--not the fiscal stimulus program--deserves the lion's share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter. As the economic recovery takes hold, it is important to continue assessing the role played by the stimulus package and other factors. These assessments can be a valuable guide to future policy makers in designing effective policy responses to economic downturns.

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN F. COGAN, JOHN B. TAYLOR AND VOLKER WIELAND. "The Stimulus Didn't Work; The data show government transfers and rebates have not increased consumption at all." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., SEPTEMBER 17, 2009): A23.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A7) BERLIN -- Could the heir apparent to Chancellor Angela Merkel be a wealthy, handsome 37-year-old baron who loves rock 'n' roll?

The baron, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, vaulted to prominence this year when he took over the often dull job of economics minister in the midst of the financial crisis. His independent stand on a thorny economic matter earned him the respect of voters.

. . .

It was his independent streak that earned him the respect of voters, rather than just their curiosity. Mr. Guttenberg broke ranks with Mrs. Merkel over how to handle the troubled German automaker Opel. Mrs. Merkel supported a consortium led by Magna International, a Canadian auto parts maker, and Sberbank, a Russian bank. Mr. Guttenberg favored bankruptcy, and even offered to resign just months into his tenure.

He lost the battle, but gained credibility with voters -- an important commodity with a disenchanted electorate that has largely ignored the coming vote. At the big kickoff campaign rally in Düsseldorf for Mrs. Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union, Mr. Guttenberg was the only politician to receive a spontaneous ovation from the crowd of 9,000.

For the full story, see:

NICHOLAS KULISH and JUDY DEMPSEY. "Aristocrat's Rise Shakes German Doldrums." The New York Times (Weds., September 22, 2009): A7.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A13) Consider someone rushed into an emergency room in severe cardiac distress. After starting acute life-support measures, doctors still apply the rule stated by Galen of Pergamum more than 1,800 years ago: primum non nocere, or "First, do no harm." Treatment interventions are selected carefully from a battery of technologies and potent drugs while recognizing that any one of them, or a combination, could hurt the patient if misapplied or given in the wrong dosage. Economic interventions require no less care.

. . .

Our economic doctors should permit America's uniquely effective immune system to take over as companies and financial institutions deleverage their balance sheets. With people and with capitalism, the tincture of time is often the best medicine.

For the full commentary, see:

MICHAEL MILKEN and JONATHAN SIMONS. "Illness as Economic Metaphor; The first rule, as always, is do no harm.." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 20, 2009): A13.

(Note: italics in original; ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A6) The next program to test the effect of government funds comes this fall. Consumers who buy high-efficiency appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines and dishwasher can receive rebates of up to $200 on certain products; no trade-ins would be required. The $300 million program was included in the $787 billion stimulus law.

As with the clunkers program, it's unclear whether the rebate program will offer anything more than a short-term economic boost.

"The people who will most like likely respond to this are the people who need appliances, and they were probably going to buy appliances anyway," said Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "If all you've done is move that from tomorrow to today, then the economy is going to lag even more tomorrow."

For the full story, see:

SUDEEP REDDY. "Dealers Get More Time to File for Clunker Rebates." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., AUGUST 25, 2009): A6.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Source of caricatures: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman is no friend of the free market, and more importantly, his manner of dealing with opponents is a long way from gracious civility.

But he is not always completely wrong:

(p. 36) Few economists saw our current crisis coming, . . .

. . .

(p. 37) As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth.

For the full commentary, see:

PAUL KRUGMAN. "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?." The New York Times, Magazine Section (Sun., September 2, 2009): 36-43.

(Note: ellipses added.)

The economist on the left is probably intended to resemble Keynes, but he also bears some resemblance to Hayek. Source of caricatures: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A17) Venture-capital funds deal solely with privately purchased equity securities in start-up companies, which are not traded in public markets. They have as their limited partners only people who meet the S.E.C.'s definition of a "qualified client" (meaning they possess a substantial amount of money to invest). These investors, who typically allocate a small percentage of their portfolios to venture capital, are familiar with risk, but it is long-term risk, stretching out 7 to 10 years. They put their faith not in publicly traded securities but in entrepreneurs, emerging technologies and new markets.

Because their business is contained within the ecosystem of limited partners, venture-capital funds and the companies in which they invest absorb all the risk: there can be no domino effect in the world financial system.

. . .

It would be a shame to impose any new limits now, when venture capital is the asset class that can best help build and nurture the companies that bring about growth and job creation. The figures are compelling. In 2008, venture-backed companies that went public in previous years accounted for 12.1 million jobs and $2.9 trillion in revenues for the United States Treasury.

The names of companies financed by venture capital are legendary: Cisco, Google, Facebook, Apple, Federal Express, Staples, Yahoo, Amazon, Genentech and on and on. The privately purchased equity securities that helped start these companies supported new technological and scientific ideas, all of which led to new jobs.

For the full commentary, see:

ALAN PATRICOF and ERIC DINALLO. "Stopping Start-Ups." The New York Times (Mon., August 31, 2009): A17.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A13) Everybody is looking for stimulus money.

From bridge builders to food stamp recipients, from roofers to subway riders, from teachers to housing project residents, people are eager to feel some part of a tidal wave of federal dollars in their lives.

The mob is eager, too.

Federal and state investigators who track organized crime believe that some members have geared up to take advantage of the swift and enormous cash influx -- if they have not already -- looking, as the old Sicilian expression goes, to wet their beaks.

Nimble, innovative and with a seemingly boundless appetite for the taxpayer's dollar, the mob's more sophisticated cadre has plundered municipal, state and federal coffers for generations.

. . .

(p. A14) The distinctiveness of the immediate challenge surrounding the stimulus money is owed in part to the bill's twin imperatives: Get a lot of money out and get it out as fast as possible. And it is compounded by the fact that law enforcement agencies like the F. B. I. and prosecutors' offices are hip deep in the competing priorities of counterterrorism and the explosion of corporate and mortgage fraud cases.

Making matters worse, the money is flowing into familiar territory for those with a history of feeding at the public trough. Two of the largest portions of the stimulus pie in the New York City area are going to sectors of the economy -- Medicaid and infrastructure projects -- where the mob and Eastern European crime groups have flourished for decades, perfecting old schemes and developing new ones.

And it is not just criminals who are causing concern. Several officials noted that in an area where close to two dozen state and city legislators have been indicted in recent years, the flow of stimulus funds through government agencies will provide ample opportunity for corrupt public employees.

. . .

. . . , the speed with which the program has been put in place, along with what many officials have called insufficient oversight, has left some in law enforcement with grave concerns.

"It's coming out without the internal controls in place," said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly. "It's like putting a bank robber in a toll booth."

For the full story, see:

WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM. "Concern Is High That the Mob May Seek a Cut of the Stimulus Pie." The New York Times (Fri., August 31, 2009): A13-A14.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) . . . beyond amelioration and providing the judicial (or in the case of the FDIC, quasi-judicial) procedures for reorganization, there is little more that the government can do to accelerate the unwinding and renewal necessary to put the economy back on an even keel.

The process involves a sequence of negotiations and experiments that cannot be truncated by throwing in more resources. As Frederick Brooks wrote in his celebrated book on software development, "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering": "When a task cannot be partitioned because of sequential constraints, the application of more effort has no effect on the schedule. The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned." "Brooks's Law" suggests that increasing the size of software teams may delay development.

The wide variety of problems and circumstances in an economic downturn precludes the effective use of a single solution. And the federal government doesn't have the capacity to determine adjustments on a case-by-case basis. The late Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek taught that the "man on the spot" with the appropriate local knowledge was much more capable of making good investment decisions than a central planner.

. . .

Suppose that, when the financial crisis broke two years ago, our leaders had shown a Churchillian steadfastness and allowed the normal realignment to play out under a predictable judicial and regulatory regime. The prices of stocks, bank debt and houses would still have crumbled and unemployment risen. Although recovery wouldn't have been immediate, we'd at least have progress, instead of a sullen paralysis and futile efforts to turn the clock back.

More loans would have been renegotiated and foreclosed properties auctioned off. The FDIC would already be engaged in finding a good home for the loans and deposits of a megabank or two. That agency, now operating with about one-third the staff it had in the 1980s, could also have used some of the bailout money that helped pay for bonuses at AIG and its counterparties to recruit, train and retain more employees.

Best of all, more entrepreneurs and innovators, who capitalize on the opportunities to be found in the midst of turmoil, could have been building the foundations of a prosperous future.

For the full commentary, see:

Amar Bhidé. "You Can't Rush a Recovery; While small business struggles, Goldman Sachs was protected from its AIG mistakes." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., APRIL 9, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"John A. Allison IV, chairman of the banking company BB&T, is a devoted follower of Ayn Rand's antigovernment views." Source of photo and caption: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) OVER much of the last four decades, John A. Allison IV built BB&T from a local bank in North Carolina into a regional powerhouse that has weathered the economic crisis far better than many of its troubled rivals -- largely by avoiding financial gimmickry.

And in his spare time, Mr. Allison travels the country making speeches about his bank's distinctive philosophy.

Speaking at a recent convention in Boston to a group of like-minded business people and students, Mr. Allison tells a story: A boy is playing in a sandbox, only to have his truck taken by another child. A fight ensues, and the boy's mother tells him to stop being selfish and to share.

"You learned in that sandbox at some really deep level that it's bad to be selfish," says Mr. Allison, adding that the mother has taught a horrible lesson. "To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it's bad because he's alive."

If Mr. Allison's speech sounds vaguely familiar, it's because it's based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who celebrated the virtues of reason, self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism while maintaining that altruism is a destructive force. In Ms. Rand's world, nothing is more heroic -- and sexy -- than a hard-working businessman free to pursue his wealth. And nothing is worse than a pesky bureaucrat trying to restrict business and redistribute wealth.

Or, as Mr. Allison explained, "put balls and chains on good people, and bad things happen."

Ms. Rand, who died in 1982, has all sorts of admirers on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms and in the entertainment industry, including the hedge fund manager Clifford Asness, the former baseball great Cal Ripken Jr. and the Whole Foods chief executive, John Mackey.

But Mr. Allison, who remains BB&T's chairman after retiring as chief executive in December, has emerged as perhaps the most vocal proponent of Ms. Rand's ideas and of the dangers of government meddling in the markets. For a dedicated Randian like him, the government's headlong rush to try to rescue and fix the economy is a horrifying re-(p. 6)alization of his worst fears.

For the full story, see:

ANDREW MARTIN. "Give Him Liberty, but Not a Bailout." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., August 2, 2009): 1 & 6.

(Note: the online title is the slightly different: "Give BB&T Liberty, but Not a Bailout.")

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Uncreative destruction. "Jose Luis Garcia pours sodium silicate into a junkyard car engine to render it inoperable at a lot in Sun Valley, Calif., on Tuesday. The process destroys the car's engine in a matter of minutes." Source of photo and part of caption: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) WASHINGTON -- Who doesn't like the government's "cash for clunkers" program? Your mechanic, for one.

Owners of automotive repair shops say the program to help invigorate sales of new cars is succeeding at their expense.

Bill Wiygul, whose family owns four repair shops in Virginia, said he has already had five or six customers decide against repairs. A man who sits on the board of Mr. Wiygul's bank traded in his car rather than repair it. "He'd been a customer at our Reston store since it opened," Mr. Wiygul said.

The clunkers program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, offers subsidies of as much as $4,500 to consumers who trade in older vehicles and buy new, more fuel-efficient models. The program was initially given $1 billion. That money was spent in one week.

The Senate reached a deal to extend the clunkers program Wednesday night, agreeing to vote on a measure Thursday that would add $2 billion to the program, the Associated Press reported.

The House approve a $2 billion extension last week.

For Mr. Wiygul and other mechanics, until now the recession has brought them more customers as people fixed cars rather than go into debt for new ones. He has hired five people and is expanding one of the shops.

Auto dealers who offer the rebates on new cars in exchange for clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models by disabling the engines and shipping the dead vehicle to a junkyard.

The loss of such potential work -- as many as 250,000 vehicles will be destroyed in the program's first round -- prompted Mr. Wiygul to question the federal program's focus on dealers and big business at the expense of the little guy.

"How do we get on the special interests, special treatment bandwagon? How much is it going to cost me and to whom shall I send the check?" he said. "Who picks the winners in this game 'cause obviously the game is fixed."

For the full commentary, see:

GARY FIELDS. "Clunkers Plan Deflates Mechanics." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., AUGUST 6, 2009): A4.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) . . . , starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base -- which is comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash -- by a little less than $1 trillion. The Fed controls the monetary base 100% and does so by purchasing and selling assets in the open market. By such a radical move, the Fed signaled a 180-degree shift in its focus from an anti-inflation position to an anti-deflation position.

The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10 (see chart nearby). It is so far outside the realm of our prior experiential base that historical comparisons are rendered difficult if not meaningless. The currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base -- which prior to the expansion had comprised 95% of the monetary base -- has risen by a little less than 10%, while bank reserves have increased almost 20-fold. Now the currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base is a smidgen less than 50% of the monetary base. Yikes!

. . .

With an increased trust in the overall banking system, the panic demand for money has begun to and should continue to recede. The dramatic drop in output and employment in the U.S. economy will also reduce the demand for money. Reduced demand for money combined with rapid growth in money is a surefire recipe for inflation and higher interest rates. The higher interest rates themselves will also further reduce the demand for money, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures. It's a catch-22.

It's difficult to estimate the magnitude of the inflationary and interest-rate consequences of the Fed's actions because, frankly, we haven't ever seen anything like this in the U.S. To date what's happened is potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5% and inflation peaked in the low double digits. Gold prices went from $35 per ounce to $850 per ounce, and the dollar collapsed on the foreign exchanges. It wasn't a pretty picture.

For the full commentary, see:

ARTHUR B. LAFFER. "Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates; The unprecedented expansion of the money supply could make the '70s look benign." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., June 10, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. 13) The single most important question for the future of America is how we treat our entrepreneurs. If we smear, harass, overtax, and overregulate them, our liberal politicians will be shocked and horrified to discover how swiftly the physical tokens of the means of production collapse into so much corroded wire, eroding concrete, scrap metal, and jungle rot.

Source:

Gilder, George. Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise: Updated for the 1990s. updated ed. New York: ICS Press, 1992.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gary Becker. Source of caricature: online version of the WSJ interview quoted and cited below.

(p. A9) "What can we do that would be beneficial? [One thing] is lower corporate taxes and businesses taxes and maybe taxes in general. Particularly, you want to lower the tax on capital so you raise the after-tax return to investing and get more investing going on."

. . .

What Mr. Becker has seen over a career spanning more than five decades is that free markets are good for human progress. And at a time when increasing government intervention in the economy is all the rage, he insists that economic liberals must not withdraw from the debate simply because their cause, for now, appears quixotic.

As a young academic in 1956, Mr. Becker wrote an important paper against conscription. He was discouraged from publishing it because, at the time, the popular view was that the military draft could never be abolished. Of course it was, and looking back, he says, "that taught me a lesson." Today as Washington appears unstoppable in its quest for more power and lovers of liberty are accused of tilting at windmills, he says it is no time to concede.

For the full interview, see:

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY. "OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW; Now Is No Time to Give Up on Markets." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., MARCH 21, 2009): A9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Gary Becker. Source of photo: http://larryevansphotography.com/Gary%20Becker_2.jpg

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. W13) With each passing week that the assault against global capitalism continues in Washington, I become more nostalgic for one missing voice: Milton Friedman's. No one could slice and dice the sophistry of government market interventions better than Milton, who died at the age of 94 in 2006. Imagine what the great economist would have to say about the U.S. Treasury owning and operating several car brands or managing the health-care industry. "Why not?" I can almost hear him ask cheerfully. "After all, they've done such a wonderful job delivering the mail."

. . .

I've been thinking a lot lately of one of my last conversations with Milton, who warned that "even though socialism is a discredited economic model and capitalism is raising living standards to new heights, the left intellectuals continue to push for bigger government everywhere I look." He predicted that people would be seduced by collectivist ideas again.

. . .

A few scholars are now properly celebrating the Friedman legacy. Andrei Shleifer, a Harvard economics professor, has just published a tribute to Friedman in the Journal of Economic Literature. He describes the period 1980-2005 as "The Age of Milton Friedman," an era that "witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. As the world embraced free market policies, living standards rose sharply while life expectancy, educational attainment, and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined."

For the full commentary, see:

Moore, Stephen. "Missing Milton: Who Will Speak for Free Markets?" The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 29, 2009): W13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

The full reference to the article by Shleifer, is:

Shleifer, Andrei. "The Age of Milton Friedman." Journal of Economic Literature 47, no. 1 (March 2009): 123-35.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Big pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars to buy other drug giants lately, leaving behind small biotech companies that can no longer find investors.

The biotech industry had thrived as a new-drug incubator for big pharma companies, which poured money into acquisitions and partnerships to build up their biotech-drug product line. Some of that is still happening, but most sources of investment funding have dried up in recent months.

Since November, 10 biotechs have declared bankruptcy, says Ellen Dadisman, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Meanwhile, 120 of the 360 publicly traded biotechs have less than six months of cash left, compared with just 12 companies in that position a year ago, according to Burrill & Co., a venture-capital concern in San Francisco that follows the industry.

For the full story, see:

KEITH J. WINSTEIN. "Cash Dries Up for Biotech Drug Firms." Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 16, 2009): B1.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of photo: http://images.quickblogcast.com/82086-71861/pedicurex_large.jpg

(p. A1) Until Mr. Ho brought his skin-eating fish here from China last year, no salon in the U.S. had been publicly known to employ a live animal in the exfoliation of feet. The novelty factor was such that Mr. Ho became a minor celebrity. On "Good Morning America" in July, Diane Sawyer placed her feet in a tank supplied by Mr. Ho and compared the fish nibbles to "tiny little delicate kisses."

Since then, cosmetology regulators have taken a less flattering view, insisting fish pedicures are unsanitary. At least 14 states, including Texas and Florida, have outlawed them. Virginia doesn't see a problem. Ohio permitted fish pedicures after a review, and other states haven't yet made up their minds. The world of foot care, meanwhile, has been plunged into a piscine uproar. Salon owners who (p. A12) bought fish and tanks before the bans were imposed in their states are fuming.

The issue: cosmetology regulations generally mandate that tools need to be discarded or sanitized after each use. But epidermis-eating fish are too expensive to throw away. "And there's no way to sanitize them unless you bake them for 20 minutes at 350 degrees," says Lynda Elliott, an official with the New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics. The board outlawed fish pedicures in November.

In Ohio, ophthalmologist Marilyn Huheey, who sits on the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology, decided to try it out for herself in a Columbus salon last fall. After watching the fish lazily munch on her skin, she recommended approval to the board. "It seemed to me it was very sanitary, not sterile of course," Dr. Huheey says. "Sanitation is what we've got to live with in this world, not sterility."

. . .

State bans have disrupted Mr. Ho's plans to build a nationwide franchise network. Currently, he has four active franchises, in Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri. But others have terminated franchise agreements. In Calhoun, Ga., Tran Lam, owner of Sky Nails, says she paid Mr. Ho $17,500 in exchange for fish and custom-made pedicure tanks. A few weeks later, in October, the Georgia Board of Cosmetology deemed fish pedicures illegal. "I'm very mad," says Ms. Lam. "I lost a lot of money and the economy is so bad."

For the full story, see:

JOHN SCHWARTZ. "Ban on Feet-Nibbling Fish Leaves Nail Salons on the Hook; Mr. Ho's Import From China Caught On, But Some State Pedicure Inspectors Object." Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 23, 2009): A1 & A12.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bernie Medoff, and friends, swimming naked. Source of caricature: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

The article quoted and cited below, is most notable for the wonderful illustration of the famous Warren Buffett quote on how hard times reveal who has been prudent and who has not been prudent.

(p. 19) Though we may be caring less, we're hearing a lot more about Ponzi schemes lately, perhaps because the scams tend to fall apart when markets drop. As Warren Buffett so memorably put it, "You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out."

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN SCHWARTZ. "Lost in Bernie Madoff's Shadow." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., April 11, 2009): 19 & 24.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/11610000/11613340.jpg

(p. A19) . . . some excellent books for general readers in the past few years, notably Brian Ward- Perkins's "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" (2005), have shown how devastating was the economic and human cost paid between 450 and 900. It is still unfashionable to speak of the Dark Ages (there was continuing cultural life), but these were certainly the Poor Ages, in which protection for the weak and vulnerable, from roaming killers and even from the weather, was much more precarious than it had been under Roman rule.

For the full review, see:

SCOTT PATTERSON. "Bookshelf; The Emperor Left Town." Wall Street Journal (Tues., APRIL 21, 2009): A19.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the book mainly under review by Patterson, is NOT the book featured in this blog entry.)

The reference for the Ward-Perkins book, is:

Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A11) I think there are two major but not fully formed or fully articulated fears among thinking Americans right now, and the deliberate obscurity of official language only intensifies those fears.

The first is that Mr. Obama's government, in all its flurry of activism, may kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This is as dreadful and obvious a cliché as they come, but too bad, it's what people fear. They see the spending plans and tax plans, the regulation and reform hunger, the energy proposals and health-care ambitions, and they--we--wonder if the men and women doing all this, working in their separate and discrete areas, are being overseen by anyone saying, "By the way, don't kill the goose."

The goose of course is the big, messy, spirited, inspiring, and sometimes in some respects damaging but on the whole brilliant and productive wealth-generator known as the free-market capitalist system. People do want things cleaned up and needed regulations instituted, and they don't mind at all if the very wealthy are more heavily taxed, but they greatly fear a goose killing. Economic freedom in all its chaos and disorder has kept us rich for 200 years, and allowed us as a nation to be generous and strong at home and in the world. But the goose can be killed--by carelessness, hostility, incrementalism, paralysis, and by no one saying, "Don't kill the goose."

For the full commentary, see:

PEGGY NOONAN. "What's Elevated, Health-Care Provider? Economy of language would be good for the economy." Wall Street Journal (Sat., MAY 15, 2009): A11.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A3) "We like a nice, gentle, upward slope," said Donald E. Goetz, the president of DeMotte State Bank, an 11-branch operation in the northwest part of Indiana.

"This kind of growth, like you see in the stock market" -- Mr. Goetz ran his hand through the air, tracing the shape of a mountain range -- "that doesn't interest us."

. . .

Mr. Goetz, who was wearing a tie and a short-sleeve shirt, started as a teller at DeMotte right after he graduated from college in 1976, and he's been president since 1988. He is a stolid guy who, when asked what he does for fun, offered two words: "Yard work."

He sounds somewhat aggrieved. His bank, which opened in 1917, didn't make any subprime loans, nor did it take any bailout money. Even when bank stocks were soaring, not one of his 246 shareholders needled him to earn more than the 3 to 4 percent dividend that DeMotte has generated for years.

. . .

"We had three or four people panic," he said. "A couple of them said, 'It's not the bank. We just don't trust the government.' And I told them, 'If the government fails, the money you're taking out of this bank won't be worth anything.' "

Mr. Goetz, like a lot of his competitors, is livid about the mortgage shenanigans born of the securitization craze. But he thinks his public relations problem had many authors.

"The media, Congress, the president, everyone just keeps saying 'the banks, the banks, the banks,' like we're all the same thing," he said. "Well, we're not all the same thing."

. . .

At DeMotte, Mr. Goetz is bracing for a steep increase in a crucial overhead cost: the bill from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is basically an insurance fund underwritten by banks.

Last year, DeMotte paid $42,000 into the fund. This year, because of failures in other parts of the country and particularly among national banks, that sum will rise to $500,000 or more.

"Isn't that the American way?" he says, folding his arms. "Whoever is left standing, whoever was prudent, is always the one who has to pick up the pieces."

For the full story, see:

DAVID SEGAL. "We're Dull, Small Banks Say, and Have Profit to Show for It." The New York Times (Tues., May 12, 2009): A1 & A3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) Taiwan, where for years the government encouraged information technology companies with tax breaks, cheap land, loans and more, is probably the most endangered of the small Asian economies. The result of that government largess is an economy extremely dependent on a single industrial sector that has been devastated by plunging worldwide sales of electronics. "Half of the industries just got a bad cold, they probably can recover quickly -- the other 50 percent, they've got, not cancer, but close," said Preston W. Chen, a chemicals tycoon who is also the chairman of Taiwan's Chinese National Federation of Industries.

For the full article, see:

KEITH BRADSHER. "Memo From Singapore - East Asia's Small Edens of Trade Wilt as Need for Exports Dries Up." The New York Times (Thurs., March 5, 2009): A8.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of cartoon: online version of the WSJ commentary quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) . . . the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

. . .

. . . , Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

For the full commentary, see:

ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE. "Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich Americans know how to use the moving van to escape high taxes." Wall Street Journal (Mon., MAY 18, 2009): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sometimes one of Peggy Noonan's columns reminds us that she was once one of Ronald Reagan's best speech writers:

(p. A11) I heard a man named Nathan Myhrvold speak of a thing called Microsoft. I saw a young man named Steve Jobs prowl a New York stage and unveil a computer that then we thought tiny and today we'd call huge. A man named Steve Wozniak became a household god as my son reported his visionary ways. It was a time so full of genius and dynamism that it went beyond words like "breakthrough" and summoned words like "revolution." If you were paying attention, if you understood you were witnessing something great, the invention of a new age, the computer age, it caught at your throat. It was like hearing great music. People literally said what had been said in the age of Thomas Edison: "What will they think of next?" What a buoyant era.

. . .

And for a moment, as I sent and received my first airborne Wi-Fi emails, I was back there. And I was moved because I realized how much I missed it, how much we all do, that "There are no walls" feeling. "Think different." "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.' " That was 25 years ago. The world was on fire.

It has cooled. And the essential problem with the crash we're in is no one can imagine quite feeling that way again. People can remember it, but they can't quite resummon it.

. . .

I end with a hunch that is not an unhappy one. Dynamism has been leached from our system for now, but not from the human brain or heart. Just as our political regeneration will happen locally, in counties and states that learn how to control themselves and demonstrate how to govern effectively in a time of limits, so will our economic regeneration. That will begin in someone's garage, somebody's kitchen, as it did in the case of Messrs. Jobs and Wozniak. The comeback will be from the ground up and will start with innovation. No one trusts big anymore. In the future everything will be local. That's where the magic will be. And no amount of pessimism will stop it once it starts.

For the full commentary, see:

PEGGY NOONAN. "Remembering the Dawn of the Age of Abundance; Times are hard, but dynamism isn't dead." Wall Street Journal (Sat., Feb. 21, 2009): A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Jackson was the first in a long line of populist Democratic presidents:

(p. 24) He relished the roles of protector and savior. Just after dusk on a cold March day in 1791, when Jackson was practicing law on the circuit around Jonesborough, Tennessee, he and his friend John Overton were traveling with a small group through dangerous territory. Reaching the banks of the Emory River in the mountains, the lawyers spotted a potentially hostile Indian party. "The light of their fires showed that they were numerous," Overton recalled to Henry Lee, and "that they were painted and equipped for war." Under Jackson's leadership (Overton credited him with a "saving spirit and elastic mind"), the travelers scrambled into the hills on horseback, riding roughly parallel to the river--which they had to cross to make it home. Pursued by the Indians, Jackson, Overton, and two others pressed on through the night, coming to a place where the water looked smooth enough to allow a hastily constructed raft and the horses to make it to the other side. Jackson look charge of the raft piled high with saddles and clothes. Overton would follow with the horses.

There was immediate trouble. The waters were not as smooth as they had appeared; a powerful undercurrent swept the boat--and Jackson-- downstream, toward a steep waterfall. "Overton and his companion instantly cried out and implored Jackson to pull back," Lee wrote. But he either not being so sensible of the danger, or being unwilling to yield to it, (p. 25) continued to push vigorously forward." Jackson struggled with his oars; disaster was at hand. He and the saddles could he lost, and the Indians were still on their trail. "Finding himself just on the brink of the awful precipice," Lee recounted, Jackson extended his oar to Overton, who "laid hold of it and pulled the raft ashore, just as it was entering the suck of the torrent." Catching their breath on the bank of the river, Overton and Jackson looked at each other.

"You were within an ace, Sir, of being dashed to pieces," Overton told him. Jackson waved him off, replying, "A miss is as good as a mile; it only shows how close I can graze danger. But we have no time to lose--follow me and I'll save you yet." They eluded the Indians, arriving home exhausted but safe.

Source:

Meacham, Jon. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York: Random House, 2008.

(Note: the semi-colons in the above passage were hard to distinguish, in the online version, from colons. I judged them to be semi-colons from context, but I could be wrong.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) One of the more interesting ideas found in this somewhat rambling book contends that "philanthropic" business activity is in fact at odds with what is best about capitalism itself and thus counterproductive.

Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president and former Treasury secretary, states the difficulty succinctly: "It is hard in this world to do well. It is hard to do good. When I hear a claim that an institution is going to do both, I reach for my wallet. You should too." He offers as an example Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-created corporations that were supposed to achieve a social goal -- affordable housing -- while operating as businesses. They did neither well, eventually leaving their catastrophic debts for taxpayers to pay.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner, along with other contributors, notes that companies often suffer losses when they set out to address a social problem. If they could really make a profit by doing good works, the argument goes, they would no doubt already be hard at it. But if they do good works at the expense of profit, they will become less efficient, making themselves more vulnerable to competitors. Economist Steven Landsburg suggests that companies sacrificing profit to accomplish philanthropic goals end up betraying their shareholders, who rightly expect the best return on investment. Sometimes acting philanthropically will result in an indirect business benefit, such as improving worker skills. In that case, philanthro-capitalism might be in a company's interest -- but Judge Posner and others of like mind suspect that such instances are rare.

Their skepticism echoes Milton Friedman's objections to "corporate social responsibility," expressed in a 1970 article that is usefully reprinted in the book's appendix.

For the full review, see:

LESLIE LENKOWSKY. "Bookshelf; The Do-Good Marketplace; Reducing poverty, improving lives - maybe 'philanthro-capitalism' is just another name for capitalism." Wall Street Journal (Fri., JANUARY 2, 2009): A13.

The book under review is:

Kinsley, Michael, and Conor Clarke, eds. Creative Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of image: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) The dot-com bust earlier in the decade dragged down high-fliers like Sun Microsystems and America Online but set the stage for a new generation of Web powerhouses like Google and other innovative Internet software companies like Salesforce.com, founded on disrupting the status quo.

The recession of the early 1990s sent I.B.M., then the dominant force in technology, into a five-year tailspin. But it also propelled Microsoft and Compaq, later acquired by Hewlett-Packard, and Dell to the forefront of computing.

Indeed, Silicon Valley may be one of the few places where businesses are still aware of the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist who wrote about business cycles during the first half of the last century. He said the lifeblood of capitalism was "creative destruction." Companies rising and falling would unleash innovation and in (p. B4) the end make the economy stronger.

Recessions "can cause people to think more about the effective use of their assets," said Craig R. Barrett, the retiring chairman of Intel, who has seen 10 such downturns in his long career. "In the good times, you can get a bit careless or not focused as much on efficiency. In bad times, you're forced to see if there is a technology" that will help.

So who's up, who's down and who's out this time around? Microsoft's valuable Windows franchise appears vulnerable after two decades of dominance. Revenue for the company's Windows operating system fell for the first time in history in the last quarter of 2008. The popularity of Linux, a free operating system installed on many netbooks instead of Windows, forced Microsoft to lower the prices on its operating system to compete.

Intel's high-power processors are also under assault: revenue tumbled by 23 percent last quarter, marking the steepest decline since 1985.

Meanwhile, more experimental but lower-cost technologies like netbooks, Internet-based software services (called cloud computing) and virtualization, which lets companies run more software on each physical server, are on the rise.

For the full story, see:

BRAD STONE and ASHLEE VANCE. "$200 Laptops Break a Business Model." The New York Times (Mon., January 25, 2009): B1 & B4.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Carl Schramm. Source of image: online version of the WSJ interview article quoted and cited below.

(p. A9) . . . who are the real stakeholders in foundations? Mr. Schramm can think of only one: the donor. "At Kauffman I think the trustees and I are very, very clear: We work for Mr. Kauffman," says Mr. Schramm, acknowledging that his boss passed away in 1993. Kauffman not only left extensive writings but also videotape of himself describing how he wanted the foundation to operate. Mr. Schramm says that one board member told him he was hired because he was the only candidate who had read Kauffman's book.

. . .

. . . within a year of taking over, Mr. Schramm began a serious overhaul of the foundation. He laid off about half of its 150-person staff and cut off funding to some of its biggest grantees, many in Kansas City. There was a public outcry from local nonprofits and from some former members of the board. One told the New York Times that "Carl doesn't seem to understand that there isn't an 'I' in team." It reached the point where Missouri's then attorney general, Jeremiah Nixon, launched an extensive investigation. He determined that Mr. Schramm had not led the foundation astray. What ultimately saved his job, says Mr. Schramm, were the detailed writings that Kauffman left before his death.

"What happened was not atypical in foundations. Often around 10 years after the death of the donor there's a moment of truth." People who were close to the donor will say, "Yes, he said that but he didn't mean that." Mr. Schramm concludes: "If there was one piece of advice I'd give to someone who was starting a foundation it is this: Think very, very hard of the long term and write down what you want your foundation to look like in 30 years or 40 years."

Despite the fact that the foundation's endowment has fallen by $722 million since the end of 2007, Mr. Schramm sees this as Kauffman's "moment." While "no one hopes for a recession," it's during economic crises that entrepreneurs "challenge companies that have gotten big and lazy." The downturn, he says, will even challenge Kauffman to "think about how we can do our work better, like every business." In fact, Mr. Schramm adds, "The only people immune from thinking hard in moments like this are in government."

For the full interview, see:

NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY. "Opinion; THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Carl Schramm; Giving Capitalism Its Due." Wall Street Journal (Sat., APRIL 4, 2009): A9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"French Caterpillar executive Nicolas Polutnik, center, with workers after his release Wednesday." Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) PARIS -- Of the 22,000 workers Caterpillar Inc. plans to lay off this year, the French ones have perhaps the most radical tactic for negotiating their severance deals.

In an aggressive, and peculiarly French, negotiating strategy, they held their managers hostage. The workers detained the director of their plant and four other managers for about 24 hours this week. Workers released them only after the company agreed to resume talks with unions and a government mediator on how to improve compensation for workers who are being laid off.

. . .

Jérôme Pélisse, a sociologist, surveyed 3,000 companies in 2004 and found that 18 of them had experienced an executive detention in the prior three years.

For the full story, see:

DAVID GAUTHIER-VILLARS and LEILA ABBOUD. "In France, the Bosses Can Become Hostages." Wall Street Journal (Fri., APRIL 3, 2009): B1 & B5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Men lining up for free dinner in New York in the early days of the Great Depression." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. C1) In this interpretation Roosevelt is a well-meaning but misguided dupe who not only prolonged the Depression but also exacerbated it.

. . .

Amity Shlaes, a syndicated columnist who works at the Council on Foreign Relations, helped ignite this latest revisionist spurt with her 2007 book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression."

"The deepest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace," she wrote, lumping Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt together as overzealous government meddlers.

. . .

(p. C7) Nonetheless, they argue that most of his mucking about in the economy crowded out private investment and antagonized the business world, and thus delayed recovery.

Unemployment remained high throughout the decade until World War II, Ms. Shlaes told conference attendees, because the uncertainty created by Roosevelt's continual tinkering paralyzed private investors.

When the federal government keeps changing the rules, it's like having Darth Vader in control, John H. Cochrane, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said during a panel. "I have changed the deal," he intoned like Vader, the "Star Wars" villain. "Pray I don't change it any further."

. . .

"No episode in American history has been so misinterpreted as the Great Depression," declared Richard K. Vedder, an economist at Ohio University. By artificially keeping prices and wages high, he argued, both Hoover and Roosevelt prevented the economy from adjusting, which is why unemployment remained in double digits until the United States entered the war.

Anna Schwartz, who collaborated with Milton Friedman on a classic study of the Depression, and the Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas Jr. argued that the idea of stimulating the economy with federal spending is a fairy tale. Government spending just crowds out private investment, they asserted; the money supply is the only thing that matters.

. . .

At the final panel, a questioner asked at what point on the 1930s timeline is the United States right now.

. . .

To Ms. Shlaes, the best analogy is 1937 -- "the depression within the Depression" -- when the unemployment rate shot back up to the middle and high teens after falling. "The economy wanted to recover," she said, but the government's interventions ended up paralyzing the business world.

. . .

Mr. Vedder playfully offered another analogy: the recession of 1920. Why was that slump, over and done with by 1922, so much shorter than the following decade's? Well, for starters, he said, President Woodrow Wilson suffered an incapacitating stroke at the end of 1919, while his successor, Warren G. Harding, universally considered one of the worst presidents in American history, preferred drinking, playing poker and golf, and womanizing, to governing. "So nothing happened," Mr. Vedder said.

Of course Mr. Vedder does not wish ill health -- or obliviousness -- on any chief executive. Still, in his view, when you're talking about government intervention in the economy, doing nothing is about the best you can hope for from any president.

For the full story, see:

PATRICIA COHEN. "New Deal Revisionism: Theories Collide." The New York Times (Sat., April 3, 2009): C1 & C7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

The full reference on on Shlaes' excellent book, is:

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A7) Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

. . .

Rand . . . noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.

Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.

For the full commentary, see:

YARON BROOK. "Is Rand Relevant?" Wall Street Journal (Sat., MARCH 14, 2009): A7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A25) Years ago, when I was a reporter, I remember getting a call from a woman in the Bronx who was screaming: "They're over on Moshulu Parkway planting dead trees!"

A city work crew was, sure enough, digging holes along the side of the street and carefully sticking in brown and dried-up pieces of foliage. The men claimed the trees had simply lost their leaves for the winter -- an explanation somewhat undermined by the fact that they were evergreens.

I'm telling you this because on Tuesday I was talking with a high-ranking Obama administration official about the stimulus plan. "There will be a dead tree planted, figuratively speaking," he said somberly. "That will happen."

For the full commentary, see:

GAIL COLLINS. "The Dead Tree Theory." The New York Times (Thurs., February 25, 2009): A25.

(Note: the online version is dated Feb. 26, and has some substantial differences from the midwest print edition version I have, though there are only minor differences in the brief passages quoted above, which agree with my print copy.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is known for his economic liberalism." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A6) To supporters, Mr. Klaus is a brave, lone crusader, a defender of liberty, the only European leader in the mold of the formidable Margaret Thatcher. (Aides say Mr. Klaus has a photo of the former British prime minister in his office near his desk.)

. . .

As a former finance minister and prime minister, he is credited with presiding over the peaceful 1993 split of Czechoslovakia into two states and helping to transform the Czech Republic into one of the former Soviet bloc's most successful economies.

But his ideas about governance are out of step with many of the European Union nations that his country will lead starting Jan. 1.

While even many of the world's most ardent free marketeers acknowledged the need for the recent coordinated bailout of European banks, Mr. Klaus lambasted it as irresponsible protectionism. He blamed too much -- rather than too little -- regulation for the crisis.

A fervent critic of the environmental movement, he has called global warming a dangerous "myth," arguing that the fight against climate change threatens economic growth.

. . .

Those who know Mr. Klaus say his economic liberalism is an outgrowth of his upbringing. Born in 1941, he obtained an economics degree in 1963 and was deeply influenced by free market economists like Milton Friedman.

Mr. Klaus's son and namesake, Vaclav, recalled in an interview that when he was 13, his father told him to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to better understand Communism's oppressiveness.

"If you lived under communism, then you are very sensitive to forces that try to control or limit human liberty," he said in an interview.

For the full story, see:

DAN BILEFSKY. "A Fiery Czech Is Poised to Be the Face of Europe." The New York Times (Tues., November 25, 2008): A6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The comments of Maart Laar, former prime minister of Estonia, are worth considering:

(p.A13) It is said that the only thing that people learn from history is that people learn nothing from history. Looking at how the world is handling the current economic crisis, this aphorism appears sadly true.

World leaders have forgotten how the collapse of Wall Street in 1929 developed into a world-wide depression. It happened not thanks to market failures but as a result of mistakes made by governments which tried to protect their national economies and markets. The market was not allowed to make its corrections. Government interventions only prolonged the crisis.

We may hope that, even as we see several bad signs of neo-interventionist attitude, all the mistakes of the 1930s will not be repeated. But it is clear that the tide has turned again. Capitalism has been declared dead, Marx is honored, and the invisible hand of the market is blamed for all failures. This is not fair. Actually it is not markets that have failed but governments, which did not fulfill their role of the "visible hand" -- creating and guaranteeing market rules. Weak regulation of the banking sector and extensive lending, encouraged by governments, are examples of this failure.

For the full commentary, see:

MART LAAR. "Economic Freedom Is Still the Best Policy." Wall Street Journal (Fri., FEBRUARY 13, 2009): A13.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. C1) Despite the reputation of the New Deal, deep government interventions are unpredictable and sometimes harmful, reminds Amity Shlaes, who wrote a popular history of the Depression, "The Forgotten Man."

Ms. Shlaes points to the period of 1936 and 1937, when the Federal Reserve used New Deal laws to tighten reserve requirements on the nation's banks. The goal was to make the banks stronger, but the result was that banks tightened still further. That cut off credit to the economy at a sensitive period. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than a third between August 1937 and January 1938. Unemployment surged. It was the "depression within the Depression."

It wasn't the revival that FDR had predicted back in 1935, when he boasted: "Never since my inauguration in March 1933, have I felt so unmistakably the atmosphere of recovery."

. . .

"When you're in the expert business, after a while you realize there are no experts," says Richard Sylla, New York University's Henry Kaufman Professor of The History of Financial Institutions and Markets.

The important thing to know, it seems, is how little we know.

For the full commentary, see:

DENNIS K. BERMAN. "THE GAME; Tomorrow's Recession Recovery Is Today's History Lesson." Wall Street Journal (Tues., MARCH 3, 2009): C1.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

The reference to the excellent Shlaes book, is:

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bhide makes thought-provoking comments about the role of the entrepreneurial or "venturesome" consumer in the process of innovation. The point is the mirror image on one made by Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy when he emphasized that consumer resistance to innovation is one of the obstacles that entrepreneurs in earlier periods had to overcome. (The decline of such consumer resistance was one of the reasons that Schumpeter speculated that the entrepreneurial might become obsolete.)

I would like to see Bhidé's evidence on his claim that technology rapidly advanced during the Great Depression. The claim seems at odds with Amity Shlaes' claim that New Deal policies often discouraged entrepreneurship.

(p. A15) Consumers get no respect -- we value thrift and deplore the spending that supposedly undermines the investment necessary for our long-run prosperity. In fact, the venturesomeness of consumers has nourished unimaginable advances in our standard of living and created invaluable human capital that is often ignored.

Economists regard the innovations that sustain long-run prosperity as a gift to consumers. Stanford University and Hoover Institution economist Paul Romer wrote in the "Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" in 2007: "In 1985, I paid a thousand dollars per million transistors for memory in my computer. In 2005, I paid less than ten dollars per million, and yet I did nothing to deserve or help pay for this windfall."

In fact, Mr. Romer and innumerable consumers of transistor-based products such as personal computers have played a critical, "venturesome" role in generating their windfalls.

. . .

History suggests that Americans don't shirk from venturesome consumption in hard times. The personal computer took off in the dark days of the early 1980s. I paid more than a fourth of my annual income to buy an IBM XT then -- as did millions of others. Similarly, in spite of the Great Depression, the rapid increase in the use of new technologies made the 1930s a period of exceptional productivity growth. Today, sales of Apple's iPhone continue to expand at double-digit rates. Low-income groups (in the $25,000 to $49,999 income segment) are showing the most rapid growth, with resourceful buyers using the latest models as their primary device for accessing the Internet.

Recessions will come and go, but unless we completely mess things up, we can count on our venturesome consumers to keep prosperity on its long, upward arc.

For the full commentary, see:

Amar Bhidé. "Consumers Can Still Spot Value in a Crisis." Wall Street Journal (Thurs., MARCH 11, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A23) . . . even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there's probably a value-added tax in our future.

For the full commentary, see:

PAUL KRUGMAN. "Climate of Change." The New York Times (Fri., February 27, 2009): A23.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of the graphic: screen capture from the online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) Much of the world may be struggling with the economic downturn, but life has been getting better in Columbus, Ind., Kingsport, Tenn., and Waterloo, Iowa.

These out-of-the-way places have become trade hot spots as U.S. exports, fueled by the dollar's fall, continue to provide a rare spark in an otherwise gloomy economy.

While many economists expect a recent snapback in the value of the dollar and a spreading global slowdown to soften that growth, exports have become a key to greater local prosperity more than at any time in decades.

. . .

(p. A16) Export-driven growth marks a dramatic shift in an economy that has relied heavily on consumer spending. That has slowed in recent months as Americans, nervous about job losses, teetering banks, falling home values, and rising gasoline and food prices, have tightened spending. Against that background, exports have emerged as a powerful motor.

Over the past year, real-goods exports have risen $115 billion, or 12%, and are up across every major category. They now make up nearly 13.5% of gross domestic product, the highest percentage since World War II. Critics often grumble that the U.S. exports masses of scrap steel and other waste materials to recyclers in China and elsewhere, which is true, but exports of manufactured goods, commodities and services are also growing. Consumer products, from sporting goods to art supplies, have risen 12%, and even autos, which are languishing on showroom floors in the U.S., saw a 4% bump up in exports.

Service exports -- which include media, entertainment, financial services, computer software and foreign tourism in the U.S. -- have grown strongly right along with the larger goods side of the trade ledger. Through the second quarter of 2008, real-service exports are up nearly 10% over the past year.

It's a badly needed tonic for the beleaguered U.S. economy.

For the full story, see:

TIMOTHY AEPPEL. "Exports Bolster Local Economies." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., SEPTEMBER 11, 2008): A1 & A16.

(Note: the title of the article on the web is: "Exports Prop Up Local Economies.")

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A15) The passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill has so far failed to stimulate anything but greater market pessimism. This suggests to us that the strategy behind the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is wrong -- and worse, that the weapons it is using to fight the recession are obsolete.

Just as generals are notorious for fighting the last war, Congress and the White House seem intent on fixing an economy of hidebound and obsolete companies and industries, while ignoring the innovative ones rising before us and those waiting to be born.

Missing from this legislation is anything more than token support for the long-proven source of most new jobs and new growth in America: entrepreneurs. These are the people who gave us everything -- from Wal-Mart to iPhones, from microprocessors to Twitter -- that is still strong in our economy. Without entrepreneurs, we will never get out of our current predicament.

For the full commentary, see:

TOM HAYES and MICHAEL S. MALONE. "Entrepreneurs Can Lead Us Out of the Crisis What Are the Odds of a Depression?" Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 24, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Source of graphs: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 3) Nonetheless, a significant portion of the finance boom also seems to have been unrelated to economic performance and thus unsustainable. Benjamin M. Friedman, author of "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," recalled that when he worked at Morgan Stanley in the early 1970s, the firm's annual reports were filled with photographs of factories and other tangible businesses. More recently, Wall Street's annual reports tend to highlight not the businesses that firms were advising so much as finance for the sake of finance, showing upward-sloping graphs and photographs of traders.

"I have the sense that in many of these firms," Mr. Friedman said, "the activity has become further and further divorced from actual economic activity."

Which might serve as a summary of how the current crisis came to pass. Wall Street traders began to believe that the values they had assigned to all sorts of assets were rational because, well, they had assigned them.

For the full story, see:

PETER S. GOODMAN. "Debt Sweat; Printing Money and Its Price." The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., December 28, 2008): 1 & 4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Benjamin Friedman's book is:

Friedman, Benjamin M. The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. New York: Knopf, 2005.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Robert Barro is a Harvard economist who specializes in issues of macroeconomics and economic growth.

(p. A15) The U.S. macroeconomy has been so tame for so long that it's impossible to get an accurate reading about depression odds just from the U.S. data. My approach uses long-term data for many countries and takes into account the historical linkages between depressions and stock-market crashes. (The research is described in "Stock-Market Crashes and Depressions," a working paper Jose Ursua and I wrote for the National Bureau of Economic Research last month.)

The bottom line is that there is ample reason to worry about slipping into a depression. There is a roughly one-in-five chance that U.S. GDP and consumption will fall by 10% or more, something not seen since the early 1930s.

. . .

In the end, we learned two things. Periods without stock-market crashes are very safe, in the sense that depressions are extremely unlikely. However, periods experiencing stock-market crashes, such as 2008-09 in the U.S., represent a serious threat. The odds are roughly one-in-five that the current recession will snowball into the macroeconomic decline of 10% or more that is the hallmark of a depression.

The bright side of a 20% depression probability is the 80% chance of avoiding a depression. The U.S. had stock-market crashes in 2000-02 (by 42%) and 1973-74 (49%) and, in each case, experienced only mild recessions. Hence, if we are lucky, the current downturn will also be moderate, though likely worse than the other U.S. post-World War II recessions, including 1982.

. . .

Given our situation, it is right that radical government policies should be considered if they promise to lower the probability and likely size of a depression. However, many governmental actions -- including several pursued by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression -- can make things worse.

I wish I could be confident that the array of U.S. policies already in place and those likely forthcoming will be helpful. But I think it more likely that the economy will eventually recover despite these policies, rather than because of them.

For the full commentary, see:

ROBERT J. BARRO. "What Are the Odds of a Depression?" Wall Street Journal (Weds., MARCH 4, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Barro's co-authored textbook on economic growth is:

Barro, Robert J., and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. Economic Growth. 2nd ed: The MIT Press, 2003.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Printing press for $20 bills. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 4) "We got into this mess to a considerable extent by overborrowing," said Martin N. Baily, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Now, we're saying, 'Well, O.K., let's just borrow a bunch more, and that will help us get out of this mess.' It's like a drunk who says, 'Give me a bottle of Scotch, and then I'll be O.K. and I won't have to drink anymore.' Eventually, we have to get off this binge of borrowing."

"This is a dangerous situation," says Mr. Baily, essentially arguing that the drunk must be kept in Scotch a while longer, lest he burn down the neighborhood in the midst of a crisis. "The risks of things actually getting worse and us going into a really severe recession are high. We need to get more money out there now."

. . .

The most frequently voiced worry about the bailouts is that the Fed, by sending so much money sloshing through the system, risks generating a bad case of rising prices later on. That puts the onus on the Fed to reverse course and crimp economic activity by lifting interest rates and selling assets back to banks once growth resumes.

But finding the appropriate point to act tends to be more art than science. The Fed might move too early and send the economy back into a tailspin. It might wait too long and let too much money generate inflation.

"It's a tricky business," says Allan H. Meltzer, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University, and a former economic adviser to President Reagan. "There's no math model that tells us when to do it or how."

For the full story, see:

PETER S. GOODMAN. "Debt Sweat; Printing Money and Its Price." The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., December 28, 2008): 1 & 4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Columbia University Professor Amar Bhidé has authored two important books on entrepreneurship. Some of his thoughts on the current economic crisis follow:

(p. A15) Our ignorance of what causes economic ailments -- and how to treat them -- is profound. Downturns and financial crises are not regular occurrences, and because economies are always evolving, they tend to be idiosyncratic, singular events.

After decades of diligent research, scholars still argue about what caused the Great Depression -- excessive consumption, investment, stock-market speculation and borrowing in the Roaring '20s, Smoot-Hawley protectionism, or excessively tight monetary policy? Nor do we know how we got out of it: Some credit the New Deal while others say that that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression.

. . .

Large increases in public spending usurp precious resources from supporting the innovations necessary for our long-term prosperity. Everyone isn't a pessimist in hard times: The optimism of many entrepreneurs and consumers fueled the takeoff of personal computers during the deep recession of the early 1980s. Amazon has just launched the Kindle 2; its (equally pricey) predecessor sold out last November amid the Wall Street meltdown. But competing with expanded public spending makes it harder for innovations like the personal computer and the Kindle to secure the resources they need.

Hastily enacted programs jeopardize crucial beliefs in the value of productive enterprise. Americans are unusually idealistic and optimistic. We believe that we can all get ahead through innovations because the game isn't stacked in favor of the powerful. This belief encourages the pursuit of initiatives that contribute to the common good rather than the pursuit of favors and rents. It also discourages the politics of envy. We are less prone to begrudge our neighbors' fortune if we think it was fairly earned and that it has not come at our expense -- indeed, that we too have derived some benefit.

To sustain these beliefs, Americans must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee rather than be a dispenser of rewards or even a judge of economic merit or contribution. The panicky response to the financial crisis, where openness and due process have been sacrificed to speed, has unfortunately undermined our faith. Bailing out AIG while letting Lehman fail -- behind closed doors -- has raised suspicions of cronyism. The Fed has refused to reveal to whom it has lent trillions. Outrage at the perceived use of TARP funds to pay bonuses is widespread.

For the full commentary, see:

Amar Bhidé. "Don't Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers." Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 17, 2009): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Bhidé's two books on entrepreneurship are:

Bhidé, Amar. The Origin and Evolution of New Business. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Bhidé, Amar. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Irving Fisher is widely viewed as one of the handful ot top United States economists of the 1920s and 1930s. In addition, he focused on topics that today are considered part of macroeconomics. His not forecasting the economic downturn can be given different interpretations. Some, such as Taleb, would attribute it in part to fundamental uncertainty. Until recently, many economists would have said that Fisher still had a lot to learn, but we are now know more than him.

That may be true, but we still have a lot to learn.

(p. 5) IRRATIONAL exuberance? As the nation entered recession in the summer of 1929, there were still plenty of economists, business leaders and politicians who looked to the future with optimism. And why not? The Dow Jones industrial average was soaring. Then the stock market bubble burst on Oct. 24, which led to several days of panicked selling -- an opening bell for the worldwide economic collapse that soon followed. Here's what some leading politicians, economists and business leaders had to say in the months before and after the crash. Sound familiar?

. . .

Irving Fisher, professor of economics at Yale University, in The New York Times, Sept. 6, 1929. He ended up losing much of his wealth in the crash:

"There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash."

. . .

The Harvard Economic Society, November 1929:

"A severe depression like that of 1920-21 is outside the range of probability. We are not facing protracted liquidation."

For the full story, see:

"Word For Word; I'm Having a Flashback; A Storm Unforeseen, Always About to Pass." The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., October 11, 2008): 5.

(Note: no author is listed.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graph: online version of the NYT commentary quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) It's hard to exaggerate how scattershot the current system is. Government agencies usually don't even have to do a rigorous analysis of a project or how it would affect traffic and the environment, relative to its cost and to the alternatives -- before deciding whether to proceed. In one recent survey of local officials, almost 80 percent said they had based their decisions largely on politics, while fewer than 20 percent cited a project's potential (p. B6) benefits.

There are monuments to the resulting waste all over the country: the little-traveled Bud Shuster Highway in western Pennsylvania; new highways in suburban St. Louis and suburban Maryland that won't alleviate traffic; all the fancy government-subsidized sports stadiums that have replaced perfectly good existing stadiums. These are the Bridges to (Almost) Nowhere that actually got built.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID LEONHARDT. "Economic Scene; Piling Up Monuments of Waste." The New York Times (Weds., November 18, 2008): B1 & B6.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Anna J. Schwartz.

Source of image: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A11) Most people now living have never seen a credit crunch like the one we are currently enduring. Ms. Schwartz, 92 years old, is one of the exceptions. She's not only old enough to remember the period from 1929 to 1933, she may know more about monetary history and banking than anyone alive. She co-authored, with Milton Friedman, "A Monetary History of the United States" (1963). It's the definitive account of how misguided monetary policy turned the stock-market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression.

. . .

These are not, Ms. Schwartz argues, the same thing. In fact, by keeping otherwise insolvent banks afloat, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have actually prolonged the crisis. "They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down."

Rather, "firms that made wrong decisions should fail," she says bluntly. "You shouldn't rescue them. And once that's established as a principle, I think the market recognizes that it makes sense. Everything works much better when wrong decisions are punished and good decisions make you rich." The trouble is, "that's not the way the world has been going in recent years."

Instead, we've been hearing for most of the past year about "systemic risk" -- the notion that allowing one firm to fail will cause a cascade that will take down otherwise healthy companies in its wake.

Ms. Schwartz doesn't buy it. "It's very easy when you're a market participant," she notes with a smile, "to claim that you shouldn't shut down a firm that's in really bad straits because everybody else who has lent to it will be injured. Well, if they lent to a firm that they knew was pretty rocky, that's their responsibility. And if they have to be denied repayment of their loans, well, they wished it on themselves. The [government] doesn't have to save them, just as it didn't save the stockholders and the employees of Bear Stearns. Why should they be worried about the creditors? Creditors are no more worthy of being rescued than ordinary people, who are really innocent of what's been going on."

For the full story, see:

BRIAN M. CARNEY. "OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Anna Schwartz; Bernanke Is Fighting the Last War." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., OCTOBER 18, 2008): A10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

Source of portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury from 1934-1945. In the following important quote, he admits that the big New Deal stimulus spending programs had failed.

(p. 2) We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!

Source:

Folsom, Burton W., Jr. In New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. 4th ed. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.

(Note: ellipses in Folsum's version of the quotation.)

Folsum says that this statement was from testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1939; and can be found in Morgenthau's Diary entry for May 9, 1939 at the Roosevelt Presidential Library.

Source of book image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roscoe/3121498653/

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Source of the cartoon: online version of the WSJ quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) William O. Perkins III says he turned a $1.25 million profit trading Goldman Sachs Group Inc. stock last week.

You would think that would count as a pretty good paycheck for the Houston energy trader. Instead, the experience left him so angry about the demise of capitalism that he says he has decided to spend his profits on advertisements attacking President George W. Bush's planned $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

. . .

So he says he bought Goldman Sachs at $129 a share. The stock fell, so he bought more at $100 a share. It fell again, and he bought at $90. The next day it rallied and he sold out at an average price of $130 a share, for a net gain of about $1.25 million over three days of trading, he said.

Trouble was, the stock didn't rally because of the fundamental strength of the company, Mr. Perkins said. It rallied because the federal government announced that it would rescue Wall Street from its own subprime follies, he said.

"The stock did OK because the government came in and said, 'No one can fail,'" he said. "It's capitalism on the way up and communism on the way down."

His success left him furious, and he decided that someone had to speak out about the damage such a plan would cause to a system based on the premise that risk can bring failure, as well as rewards.

For the full story, see:

MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS. "Trader Makes a Quick $1.25 Million on Rescue, Then Slams It." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., SEPTEMBER 24, 2008): A10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Raghuram Rajan, shown at 2005 symposium, warned of rising risks." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

I praised Rajan's analysis in a blog entry back in January 2008. Rajan deserves credit for seeing the situation earlier and more clearly than most other experts:

(p. A7) To outline his fears about the U.S. economy, Raghuram Rajan picked a tough crowd.

It was August 2005, at an annual gathering of high-powered economists at Jackson Hole, Wyo. -- and that year they were honoring Alan Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan, a giant of 20th-century economic policy, was about to retire as Federal Reserve chairman after presiding over a historic period of economic growth.

Mr. Rajan, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth Graduate School of Business, chose that moment to deliver a paper called "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?"

. . .

He says he had planned to write about how financial developments during Mr. Greenspan's 18-year tenure made the world safer. But the more he looked, the less he believed that. In the end, with Mr. Greenspan watching from the audience, he argued that disaster might loom.

Incentives were horribly skewed in the financial sector, with workers reaping rich rewards for making money, but being only lightly penalized for losses, Mr. Rajan argued. That encouraged financial firms to invest in complex products with potentially big payoffs, which could on occasion fail spectacularly.

. . .

Mr. Rajan is now focused on coming up with ways to avoid a regulatory backlash akin to what happened during the Great Depression, when governments around the world threw up protectionist barriers and clamped down on financial markets.

Instead of heavy regulation, he says, the incentives of Wall Streeters need to change so that punishments for losing money are in line with rewards for earning it.

At the start of 2008, he suggested that bonuses that financial workers make during boom times should be kept in escrow accounts for a period of time. If the firm experienced big losses later, those accounts would be drained.

Facing withering criticism over the bonuses paid out in the boom, financial giant UBS and Wall Street firm Morgan Stanley have recently announced they're adopting policies along the lines of what Mr. Rajan proposed.

Mr. Rajan also urges other safeguards. Along with Chicago colleagues Anil Kashyap and Harvard economist Jeremy Stein, he's come up with a plan to create a form of financial-catastrophe insurance that firms would buy into.

For the full story, see:

JUSTIN LAHART. "Mr. Rajan Was Unpopular (But Prescient) at Greenspan Party." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., JANUARY 2, 2009): A7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graphs: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A10) In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan's Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

In the United States, it has also led to calls in Congress, particularly by Republicans, not to repeat the errors of Japan's failed economic stimulus. They argue that it makes more sense to cut taxes, and let people decide how to spend their own money, than for the government to decide how to invest public funds. Japan put more emphasis on increased spending than tax cuts during its slump, but ultimately did reduce consumption taxes to encourage consumer spending as well.

For the full story, see:

MARTIN FACKLER. "Japan's Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson." The New York Times (Fri., February 5, 2009): A1 & A10.

"The soaring Marine Bridge in Hamada, Japan, built as a public works project, was almost devoid of traffic on a recent morning." Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of book image: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41gD4n5UkHL._SL500_.jpg

Niall Ferguson has a recent book on money that has received a great deal of attention (but that I have not yet seen). Here are some of his views, as expressed at the 2009 World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland:

(p. B4) "Even before Obama walked through the White House door, there were plans for $1 trillion of new debt," said Niall Ferguson, a Harvard historian who has studied borrowing and its impact on national power. He now estimates that some $2.2 trillion in new government debt will be issued this year, assuming the stimulus plan is approved.

"You either crowd out other borrowers or you print money," Mr. Ferguson added. "There is no way you can have $2.2 trillion in borrowing without influencing interest rates or inflation in the long-term."

Mr. Ferguson was particularly struck by the new borrowing because the roots of the current crisis lay in an excess of American debt at all levels, from homeowners to Wall Street banks.

"This is a crisis of excessive debt, which reached 355 percent of American gross domestic product," he said. "It cannot be solved with more debt."

While Mr. Ferguson is a skeptic of the Keynesian thinking behind President Obama's plan -- rather than borrowing and spending to stimulate the economy, he favors corporate tax cuts -- even supporters of the plan like Mr. Zedillo and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley have called on the White House to quickly address how it will pay for the spending in the long-term.

For the full story, see:

NELSON D. SCHWARTZ. "Global Worries Over U.S. Stimulus Spending." The New York Times (Fri., January 29, 2009): B1 & B4.

The latest Ferguson book, is:

Ferguson, Niall. The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. New York: Penguin Press, 2008.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A2) Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a young and economically astute Republican leader, has numerous problems with the economic-stimulus package working its way through Congress, but essentially they boil down to this: He fears the U.S. is repeating the mistakes Japan made trying to get out of its own economic ditch in the 1990s.

The Ryan critique is important in part because it's popping up with increasing frequency among congressional Republicans.

. . .

Here's the critique in a nutshell: Japan in the early 1990s, like the U.S. today, saw a real-estate bubble burst, spawning a banking and credit crisis that drove the whole economy down, hard. The Japanese then tried stimulating the economy with giant doses of government spending, which didn't pep things up -- but did bring on deficits that required tax increases later, dragging out Japan's problems for years.

For the full commentary, see:

GERALD F. SEIB. "CAPITAL JOURNAL; Avoiding Japan's Stimulus Miscues." Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 2, 2009): A2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 9) Who's to blame for the implosion of financial markets? The finger-pointing has gone in every direction, and it's easy to see why: the regulatory structure points in every direction.

The apparatus that oversees the nation's financial system is an ad hoc creation: every time there is a fiscal panic, new agencies are formed and existing ones receive new responsibilities.

For the full comment, see:

HANNAH FAIRFIELD. "Metrics; A Snarl of Regulation." The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., October 4, 2008): 9.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(p. A23) My sense is that this financial crisis is going to amount to a coming-out party for behavioral economists and others who are bringing sophisticated psychology to the realm of public policy. At least these folks have plausible explanations for why so many people could have been so gigantically wrong about the risks they were taking.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has been deeply influenced by this stream of research. Taleb not only has an explanation for what's happening, he saw it coming. His popular books "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan" were broadsides at the risk-management models used in the financial world and beyond.

In "The Black Swan," Taleb wrote, "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup." Globalization, he noted, "creates interlocking fragility." He warned that while the growth of giant banks gives the appearance of stability, in reality, it raises the risk of a systemic collapse -- "when one fails, they all fail."

Taleb believes that our brains evolved to suit a world much simpler than the one we now face. His writing is idiosyncratic, but he does touch on many of the perceptual biases that distort our thinking: our tendency to see data that confirm our prejudices more vividly than data that contradict them; our tendency to overvalue recent events when anticipating future possibilities; our tendency to spin concurring facts into a single causal narrative; our tendency to applaud our own supposed skill in circumstances when we've actually benefited from dumb luck.

And looking at the financial crisis, it is easy to see dozens of errors of perception. Traders misperceived the possibility of rare events. They got caught in social contagions and reinforced each other's risk assessments. They failed to perceive how tightly linked global networks can transform small events into big disasters.

Taleb is characteristically vituperative about the quantitative risk models, which try to model something that defies modelization. He subscribes to what he calls the tragic vision of humankind, which "believes in the existence of inherent limitations and flaws in the way we think and act and requires an acknowledgement of this fact as a basis for any individual and collective action." If recent events don't underline this worldview, nothing will.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID BROOKS. "The Behavioral Revolution." The New York Times (Tues., October 28, 2008): A31.

The reference to Taleb's Black Swan book is:

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House, 2007.

Another review of Taleb's book is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. "Review of: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. The Black Swan." Journal of Scientific Exploration 22, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 419-422.

Posted by Art Diamond at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)