Inconvenient Truths: regulators, banks, and industrial economics
Tuesday, 09/22/2009 - 12:58 pm by Joe Costello | 3 Comments
Roosevelt Braintruster Joe Costello is not liking the super-regulator…
Lost on the freeway again
Looking for means to an end
Nobody knows which way its gonna bend
Lost on the freeway again
– Meat Puppets
The FT had good piece yesterday on how the contracting economy has cut global emissions, thus revealing the most inconvenient truth: the only way we’re going to quit destroying the planet is by changing our industrial economic habits. Unfortunately, too much of the environmental movement doesn’t want to take on this fact, but they really shouldn’t be singled out as no one else does either. By living with the planet’s natural rhythms, instead of trying to constantly change them, we could all live better. But our industrial economics offers no solutions.
Speaking of industrial economics, Paul Krugman was in yesterday’s NYT praising Larry Summers and criticizing Obama — phew!! The fact is, the consumer regulatory agency proposed by Mr. Summers and the bankers’ pay issue are sideshows to the main event, but that’s what Mr. Krugman’s job is — to obfuscate. No one should be worry much about what the bankers pay themselves, what we need to do is shrink the industry — by half at least — that will take care of their pay.
Finally, the hopefully-soon-to-be-defeated Senator from CT has thrown-in for the complete idiocy of a financial “systemic regulator.” Here’s a video of Mr. Bernanke’s statements from 2005-2007 to show why both the idea of a systemic regulator and his reappointment are bad ideas. Centralized control, while older than industrial society, is a prime component. As human-created systems grow more complex, we should ask ourselves is there a systemic regulator for the planet’s natural systems?
Nice, competing articles here on ND2.0…the previous article by Lucas Puente sort of embraces the idea of one single regulatory authority, which I think is a bad idea for the simple fact that it’ll be easier for industry to control it, either by buying the head of it, or buying the senators from the then-only committee who will select the head of it.
And while I am equally surprised that Krugman agrees with Larry Summers on something, I don’t agee that his purpose is to obfuscate. I like his role as a left-of-Obama economic policy critic and commentator, and I think his ideas are useful for anyone who wants to operate in what’s considered the ‘mainstream’ economy.
Posted by Zach P | September 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Speaking of industrial economics, Paul Krugman was in yesterday’s NYT praising Larry Summers and criticizing Obama — phew!! The fact is, the consumer regulatory agency proposed by Mr. Summers and the bankers’ pay issue are sideshows to the main event, but that’s what Mr. Krugman’s job is — to obfuscate.”
Not THE Paul Krugman, of whom it is said that he predicted alll seven of the last eight year’s recessions. At his very best, Krugman is a supercilious frog. He is “system” from the newspaper for which he writes to the university from which he draws his paycheck. And you are right to see him here knee deep in irrelevancies. I have little hope for regulatory reform but less now then ever knowing that Krugman is finding it fitting to comment on the subject.
Posted by Andrei Vyshinsky | September 22nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Zach, I’d like to point out that the “systemic regulator” would be different that any sort of FSA. These are two different entities, with varying missions. They just so happen to both be supported by Senator Dodd.
Posted by Lucas Puente | September 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm