Tweet
Don't know a lot about Niall Ferguson. What I've read or seen (his TV series) hasn't impressed. Still, some friends respect him so I've given him the benefit of the doubt.
The debate between him and Krugman (among others) as described below seems kind of funny:
http://www.andrewpurcell.net/?p=375
What's funny to me is that he could (apparently) bugger up so badly making the case against liberal orthodoxy with, for example, the spluttering "If you wanna try the Soviet model, fine…” but, most importantly, that he is for the financial bailouts (but, presumably, not bailouts that serve the real economy directly.) Wow.
To me, the tragedy is that the financial bailouts make a mockery of everything free markets are supposed to represent:
- institutions are rewarded to the extent that they threaten the system, substituting a race to become too big to fail for competition between banks
- these institutions are saved at the expense of those who best exemplify sound banking that serves the real economy (represented by - some - regional banks. Think, for instance, of the tarp money being used to acquire banks (for access to their depositor base, which presumably, will be fed into the wall street value destroying wood-chipper down the road.))
That we could get this far along without realising this seems kind of incredible to me. All this talk about socialism is entirely beside the point. There's nothing socialistic about resolving a bank. And there's nothing capitalistic - in the proper, classical sense - about saving a financial marketplace that has devolved into a monopolistic, rent seeking, form of value destroying regulatory arbitrage.
Too bad they couldn't get Chris Whalen on the panel. I believe he's a republican who also understands the difference between conservative, free market principles and what Wall Street goes to Washington to get. For god's sake, even Michael Hudson would better represent this capitalist point of view.
The debate between him and Krugman (among others) as described below seems kind of funny:
http://www.andrewpurcell.net/?p=375
What's funny to me is that he could (apparently) bugger up so badly making the case against liberal orthodoxy with, for example, the spluttering "If you wanna try the Soviet model, fine…” but, most importantly, that he is for the financial bailouts (but, presumably, not bailouts that serve the real economy directly.) Wow.
To me, the tragedy is that the financial bailouts make a mockery of everything free markets are supposed to represent:
- institutions are rewarded to the extent that they threaten the system, substituting a race to become too big to fail for competition between banks
- these institutions are saved at the expense of those who best exemplify sound banking that serves the real economy (represented by - some - regional banks. Think, for instance, of the tarp money being used to acquire banks (for access to their depositor base, which presumably, will be fed into the wall street value destroying wood-chipper down the road.))
That we could get this far along without realising this seems kind of incredible to me. All this talk about socialism is entirely beside the point. There's nothing socialistic about resolving a bank. And there's nothing capitalistic - in the proper, classical sense - about saving a financial marketplace that has devolved into a monopolistic, rent seeking, form of value destroying regulatory arbitrage.
Too bad they couldn't get Chris Whalen on the panel. I believe he's a republican who also understands the difference between conservative, free market principles and what Wall Street goes to Washington to get. For god's sake, even Michael Hudson would better represent this capitalist point of view.
Comment