This is paine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following paine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
paine
pinko
Interests: organize the unorganized
Recent Activity
Amen brother...amen !
Toggle Commented Oct 22, 2016 on The Walloon mouse at Dani Rodrik's weblog
"starting with plainly false core assumptions and then simulating is useful only if the resulting model yields accurate predictions." in there lies both the false heaven and the final hell of it all some models predict well ..until they don't
1 reply
ahh poor hicks natural father to all those new frontier macronauts rejected his own legacy late in his career
1 reply
anne read up on the chap maybe start here http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/134863/raghuram-g-rajan/the-true-lessons-of-the-recession
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2013 on Links for 08-07-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
delong isn't loyal he's a rubber man a stooge of the Rubin gang that unashamedly continues implementing where and when it can the brighter side of the "neoliberal" agenda the paper last year by Delong --with larry's name also stuck on it --- instructing uncle sam just exactly when its smart to" borrow and spend " in fact consolidates the ruling aradigm of neo liberal fiscal interventionist minimalism
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2013 on Links for 08-07-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
"eing Fed chair ought to be an apolitical role. ..." horse feathers not possible the chair always has a more or less obvious "economic class position " implicit in his (or hopefully now her ) policy approach since mariner eccles panicked over the post war union led wage boomand got bounced down a few seats its been pretty damn much straight wall street think over at the FED well maybe we gotta give the interval 48 to winter 51 a pass
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2013 on Links for 08-07-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
all from kwak http://baselinescenario.com/2013/08/05/the-lame-uncertainty-defense/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaselineScenario+%28The+Baseline+Scenario%29
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2013 on Links for 08-07-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
brad delong as stooge "The indefatigable Brad DeLong has devoted his energies to singlehandedly protecting Larry Summers from the Internet (although, he makes pains to say, he likes Janet Yellen almost as much)." "...DeLong on Brooksley Born’s proposal to think about regulating OTC derivatives in 1998." ".... Born, as chair of the CFTC, was worried about the risk posed by OTC derivatives, which were effectively unregulated at the time. On May 7, 1998, the CFTC issued a “concept release” asking for comments about the regulation of OTC derivatives. Summers, then deputy treasury secretary, along with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt, opposed Born, and they issued their own press release on the same day opposing the CFTC. Over the next several months they successfully blocked the CFTC from regulating OTC derivatives, convincing Congress to stop the CFTC from moving forward, a position that was enshrined in statute in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." "Now that it is widely recognized that OTC derivatives needed to be regulated, this has been an uncomfortable bit of history for Summers et al. The current defense was put forward by an unnamed person and by DeLong: One person close to the process described it this way: “The concern with Born’s concept release back then was that CFTC jurisdiction rested on the contracts being futures contracts, and if they were futures contracts, they had to be exchange traded, and existing hedging contracts were not exchange traded (at the time they basically couldn’t be), so there was a concern that the existing contracts would be void (illegal).” . . . Cal Berkeley professor J. Bradford DeLong, who has authored papers with Summers, Tweeted last night: “‘Brooksley Born approach’ made all existing derivatives contracts unenforceable. Very bad idea.” There are several problems with this defense. First, this argument targets one possible outcome of Born’s process, not the process itself—which is what Summers et al. shut down. The purpose of the concept release was ”to solicit comments on whether the regulatory structure applicable to OTC derivatives under the Commission’s regulations should be modified in any way . . . and to generate information and data to assist the Commission in assessing this issue.” Born wanted to discuss the issue. Yet her opponents then—and now—jumped to the “worst” possible outcome (for them, or rather for certain market participants) and equated that with what Born was doing. Second, that isn’t how the law works. It was recognized at the time that OTC derivatives were in a legal gray area—hence the desire for “certainty” that was finally satisfied by the CFMA. If some activity is in a legal gray area, and you do it anyway, you can’t simply assert that now the activity must be allowed by law because you are doing it. If the contracts you wrote, knowing they might not be enforceable, now become definitively unenforceable—well, tough luck. You can’t dictate what the law is simply through your own actions. Third, the argument proves too much. Again, Born was proposing to think about about whether and how OTC derivatives should be regulated. If that is a “very bad idea,” then, by implication, OTC derivatives can never be regulated—because you have to think about regulating something before you can regulate it. Is that really a position that Summers and DeLong want to defend? Fourth, if the problem is existing contracts, then there’s an obvious solution: grandfather them. In fact, the concept release included this language: “This release does not in any way alter the current status of any instrument or transaction under the CEA. All currently applicable exemptions, interpretations, and policy statements issued by the Commission regarding OTC derivatives products remain in effect, and market participants may continue to rely upon them.” It is true that that language applied to the release itself, not necessarily to any regulations that might have been issued later. But those regulations would have to go through the usual notice-and-comment process, and the other regulatory agencies would obviously be at the table. If Summers’s real concern was past contracts, then that’s something he could have negotiated with Born.* (And if she refused, then he could have gone to Congress, or to the courts.) That concern doesn’t justify what happened. Summers would be better off—at least as far as this Fed chair thing is concerned—simply admitting he was wrong, rather than trying to win a fifteen-year-old argument. At the end of the day, however, the whole Brooksley Born affair is a bit beside the point—if the question is trying to understand Larry Summers. The Summers camp thinks they can justify his anti-regulatory stance during the Clinton years by making Born look like an extremist; by implication, he was just a moderate. But the Born affair (and, or course, the great “thirteen bankers” quote) is just one piece of evidence. We know that Summers opposed derivatives regulation. The report of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets with his name on it unanimously recommended providing “legal certainty” by definitively exempting derivatives from the Commodity Exchange Act. He was secretary of the treasury when the CFMA was passed. Robert Rubin said in his 2003 memoir (before he had anything to be embarrassed about), “Larry characterized my concerns about derivatives as a preference for playing tennis with wooden racquets–as opposed to the more powerful graphite and titanium ones used today.” (Rubin now claims that he was in favor of derivatives regulation, although he didn’t do anything about it.) And it isn’t as if Summers had some other, better proposal to regulate OTC derivatives. He was against it. That’s the issue—not whether the legal status of derivatives contracts under the CEA somehow changed because of a concept release issued by the CFTC.
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2013 on Links for 08-07-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
I know u think of Poland as central European like the czechs but its eastern Europe to many northern Europe to anglo americans means teutonic/Nordic and...okay maybe Magyar -finn ...maybe and yes even some balts Estonians for example but that is clearly over reach like NATO a fear poles long ago drifted into the eastern orbit in the mind of anglo Saxons irish are celts closer to the gaulish side of the French Celtics are not Nordics by any measure and ortho-slavs ...heavens !! as a pole you ought to know "they " ---like the few muslim slavs --- are strictly eastern
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2013 on Links for 08-06-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
" as with all things the direction of causality matters greatly and should never be assumed" irony in that
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2013 on Links for 08-06-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
pk speaks darkly and I love it " In trade, we had an explosion of theory in the 1980s — an explosion set off by new models of industrial organization, especially but not only Dixit-Stiglitz, that made it possible to talk coherently about increasing returns and imperfect competition." " This was hugely liberating; the New Trade Theory suddenly made sense of observations about the world, like trade between similar countries, that had been terra incognita before. It was a great time to be in the field." " After a while, the new approaches came to seem too liberating; by the early 90s the joke was that a smart graduate student could devise a model to justify any policy." ---------------------------------------- "In business cycle macro, the story was on the surface very different: what happened there was that theorists were able to prove some strong results — notably, that anticipated monetary policy should have no real effects — that were manifestly untrue." "new Keynesian theory tried to patch this up with some ad hoc assumptions about price setting, etc.," " the sad truth about macro is that, as tools of practical analysis, the models in 1978-vintage undergraduate textbooks seem to work as well as — or, in general, better than — all the theory the field has turned out since then." -------------------------------------------------- sum up: "theory lost its luster in trade because it could prove anything " "theory lost its luster in macro because it proved things that weren’t so."
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2013 on Links for 08-06-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
excellent stuff -------------------------- "Yellen/Summers had to fix Bernanke's mess". obviously a mess in the eyes of ben's sponsoring class "our country's " economic guardians that operate from the sunny side of wall street
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
"All jobs are NOT created equal" you bet !! " part-time jobs don't equal full-time jobs benefited job aren't the same as non-benefited jobs jobs that provide a living wage aren't the same as those that don't" amen
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
"Note that despite the data and the Fed speak, rates remain stubbornly high relative to the pre-June 19th period. " qualitatively higher ? high enough to grind the recovery wheels ? "On that date, Bernanke firmly reset expectations." okay " Unless the Fed is willing to accelerate the pace of asset purchases it is difficult to see the Fed reversing June 19th." why not just extend the purchase system so its co extensive with the zero policy rate ? does ben fear a reversal of course speed is ben trying to preserve some spooky notion of fed board infalliblity ?
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
" I tend to see the bar to tapering as low, but the bar to ending zero rates as high needs more justification perhaps as might the model that drives this imperative notion : "adjusting the mix " or the implied allocational omniscience of this : " alleviate some financial distortions specific to quantitative easing " it all strikes me as perilously vague hunchy stuff and this " If you have a Phillips Curve view, then unemployment is quickly approaching a level in which upward pressure on inflation would be expected" sez who ? the bloody barons of wall street ? MY Phillips curve has a NAIRU LINE OF 4.5%
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
."It will also allow the market to adapt to a significant buyer (the Fed) slowly removing itself from various asset markets." now the FED is a wide ranging investor why not set targets for various security markets price change ? in the present moment why are we to consider security markets in need of a pull back when the policy rate on the other hand is not yet anywhere near in need of a pull back ? why the dichotomy ? only in part a question
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
??????????
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
"the costs of QE may be rising in the form of financial instabilities. " its that kind of caution that ruined the gentle ben era as chair we needed a bold QE program as bold as Volckers figure four credit squeeze prove the fed can bust out of the so called liquidity trap all by itself jst like Vocker proved the FED was willing and able to stop an inflation spiral all by itself ya tons of QE with lots of forward guidance prolly about "getting back to the trend line of NGDP " talking about shrinking debt to gdp ratios etc ben was capable of that technically but .....
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2013 on Fed Watch: Septaper or not? at Economist's View
1 reply
rest of fed employment has dropped after the barry peak in 2011
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
nearly 150k postal jobs slaughtered ...so far
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
chinn music: "July statistics indicate Federal employment workers is 38,000 lower than when President Obama took office" but "excluding Postal Service, it is 107,300 higher " yup up up up
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
" Based on current revenue and cost trends, and assuming a move to 5-day delivery, the Postal Service can only afford a total workforce by 2015 of 425,000, which includes approximately 30% lower cost, more flexible, noncareer employees." "Attrition and certain other measures will allow us to achieve a portion of the savings " " We estimate that attrition will only result in a staff reduction of approximately 100,000. " "in order for the Postal Service to reduce complement to meet projected volume degradation, we must eliminate roughly 220,000 career positions between now and 2015." " to eliminate the remaining 120,000 career positions by 2015,... it is imperative that we have the ability to reduce our workforce rapidly." " Unfortunately, the collective bargaining agreements between the Postal Service and our unionized employees contain layoff restrictions "
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
menzie chinn link: highlights a massacre http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/08/11/National-Politics/Graphics/WhitePaperRIF.pdf the postal service is going postal on itself " We recognize that asking Congress to eliminate the layoff protections in our collective bargaining agreements is an extraordinary request by the Postal Service, and we do not make this request lightly."
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
too little impact
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2013 on Links for 08-03-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
u iz a man thinking big thoughts all on his own I guess
Toggle Commented Aug 3, 2013 on Links for 08-03-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply