Saturday, January 31, 2009

Saturday Round-up 3

More from the week’s reading.

  1. I was happy to see uniform Republican opposition to the Obama stimulus package in the House. A little gridlock is what this piece of legislation needs. While the measure passed it gives me hope that the Senate Republicans will torpedo the legislation with a filibuster. Long shot, but here’s hoping. I quickly emailed both my Senators (both Democrats unfortunately) a revised copy of the LTC I used last week for the 2nd round of TARP funding.
  2. It’s good to see some principled bankers rejecting TARP funds for fear of expanding government controls foisted upon their firms. If the ones who faced insolvency were only so principled.  Sneak peek at a post I wrote covering that very threat.
  3. Not every economist thinks the Keynesian stimulus is the order of the day, regardless of what our politicians want you to believe. This ran in the New York Times last week.
  4. Great editorial in Europe WSJ. “Lax Regulation Didn’t Cause This Crisis.” The author uses some key facts retrospectively to help make the case that it wasn’t the free markets that were at the cause of the economic crisis.
  5. A quick metaphor for what is wrong with the rationalism infecting today’s economic sciences, from George Mason University economist, Tyler Cowen.

1 comment:

Burgess Laughlin said...

Re #2 on some bankers rejecting TARP funds on principle.

I am not a subscriber to the WSJ, so I was unable to read the remainder of the article.

What principle were the bankers operating on when they refused TARP funds and therefore more controls? An ethical or political principle?

I ask because, in my experience, often individuals who oppose government actions in particular cases are doing so for "pragmatic" (unprincipled) reasons--just as those support the same actions are acting "pragmatically."