Interesting Economic Analysis
Started by LICComment
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
Discussion about
The same forgetfulness holds for recessions, says Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago. . . . The nature of recessions is important because of what may be the free-market economists’ most surprising contention: that the recession triggered the financial crisis, not the other way around. Fama argues that the recession started as early as 2007, with consumers starting to spend less, borrowers... [more]
The same forgetfulness holds for recessions, says Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago. . . . The nature of recessions is important because of what may be the free-market economists’ most surprising contention: that the recession triggered the financial crisis, not the other way around. Fama argues that the recession started as early as 2007, with consumers starting to spend less, borrowers falling delinquent on their loans, and homeowners who lacked a vested interest in their houses beginning to walk away from their mortgages. So the complex financial derivatives at the heart of the financial meltdown were not its cause but its victims. “For 25 years, before the current recession,” Fama points out, “the derivatives worked well in lowering the cost of capital.” What has Fama learned from the crisis, then? “I learned a lot about government overreactions but not much about recessions,” he tells me. Confronted with a sharp economic downturn, governments face political pressure to act; stimulus spending and other state interventions seem sensible, even when the history of past crises suggests otherwise. Worse, the new public debt and regulations then hobble economic recovery. Rebounding from the post-2007 recession would have been quicker, Fama believes, if the government had mostly let free markets clean up the mess, reestablish true prices, and select the enterprises able to survive. . . . As in the 1930s and 1970s, so today: crises are a serious problem, but misguided economic policy makes them worse. After the 1930s, only war production could overcome the negative economic consequences of the New Deal. After the stagflation of the 1970s, it took the bold leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to reorient the West toward free markets and prosperity. How long will it take this time before governments understand that overreacting to the crisis and imposing disproved Keynesian remedies will dampen and delay economic recovery? - http://city-journal.org/2010/20_3_free-marketeers.html [less]
Add Your Comment
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
Most popular
-
6 Comments
-
22 Comments
-
9 Comments
-
192 Comments
-
9 Comments
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
The wikipedia says:
"By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending ... in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[77] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[78] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[79] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938."
Roosevelt also raised taxes and the Fed tightened.
Who did you want to pay for all that government spending alan???
Increased prosperity, of course. Rising sea-levels lift all boats.
Or did you want me to say "you"?
Governments cannot increase prosperity through tax and spend. People who love taking handouts like to believe governments can, but history shows the truth.
Especially the history of the low-tax low-spend third-world.
"Governments cannot increase prosperity through tax and spend."
Then how do you explain Reagan and Clinton?
I'll respond, President raises an interesting question.
Lowering capital gains can at least initially increase gov't tax revenue as capital is destroyed , sold off, etc. This is one of the criticisms of the approach although one might argue that longer term(not the short or intermediate term) new projects are approached with lower NOI requirements and the effect becomes positive once more. Not sure we ever saw that.