Tuesday, November 24, 2009


VERY interesting what is happening in the monetary world.

- China sent Obama home empty handed

- IMF chief says US dollar not good world reserve currency

- brit PM Brown is for the Tobin tax

- international stable currency (based on 30 commodities) gains ground

here is a good roundup of the economist quasi-science background:

Starting in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among various policy makers from the world's industrialized economies. This has included discussions and implementation of some economic policies in accordance with the recommendations made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression.such as fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.[1][2][3][4]

From the end of the Great Depression until the early 1970s, Keynesian economics provided the main inspiration for economic policy makers in western industrialized countries. The influence of Keynes's theories waned in the 1970s, due to stagflation and critiques from Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Jr., Friedrich Hayek and other economists who were less optimistic about the ability of interventionist government policy to positively regulate the economy. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 prompted a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among policy makers. Paralleling this change, there has also been some rethinking of the relevance of Keynes' ideas among academics, however, the revival of Keynesian economics in academia has been more controversial and muted.

Competing views on macroeconomic policy

Macroeconomic policy focuses on high level government decisions which affect overall national economies rather than lower level decisions concerning markets for particular goods and services. The Keynesian resurgence can be understood in the context of various competing perspectives from which policy recommendations originate. A key issue of contention is the optimal level of government intervention in economic affairs. For an overview on the different perspectives, see Liberal, Realist & Marxist. For more detail on specific systems of thought relevant to debate on this fiscal policy see Keynesian economics, Monetarism, Austrianism, New Classical economics, Real business cycle theory, and New Keynesian economics.

Over the last sixty years, most strikingly in the Anglo American economies but to a large extent worldwide, the two competing views receiving the most attention at policy-making level have been Keynesianism and Monetarism. Commentators such as Sunday Times economics editor David Smith have gone as far to say the "entire economics debate could be characterized as a struggle between Monetarists and Keynesians".[5]

Monetarists advise minimal government intervention in the economy, apart from tightly controlling the money supply and publicizing targets for future modest expansion, thus setting expectations so as to reduce inflation. Monetarists also tend to favor free market policies such as clamping down on powerful labor unions, fairly light regulation, and generally small government . although not typically to the extremes favoured by other economic liberals such as Austrian school economists and Libertarians.

Keynesians, in contrast to Monetarists, tend to place greater importance on the role of fiscal policy over monetary policy in the ups and downs of the economic cycle; they advise government intervention, especially in a recession where the standard recommendation is for increased government spending - especially on capital projects such as infrastructure - and tax reductions in order to stimulate aggregate demand. In a boom they often suggest measures to dampen demand such as raising taxes and interest rates, and throughout the business cycle they prefer regulation of economic activity.

Keynesian Economics evolved from the Keynesian Revolution. In contrast to the recent resurgence of Keynesian policy making the revolution initially comprised a shift change in theory. [6] There had been several experiments in policy making that can be seen as precursors for Keynes ideas, most notably Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous "New Deal" (Roosevelt was US president from 1933 to 1945). These experiments however had been influenced more by morals, geopolitics and political ideology than by new developments in economics, although it is notable that Keynes had found some support in the US for his ideas about counter-cyclical public-works policy as early as 1931.[7] According to Gordon Fletcher, Keynes' General Theory provided a conceptual justification for 'New Deal'-type policies which was lacking in the established economics of the day - immensely significant as in the absence of a proper theoretical underpinning there was a danger that ad hoc policies of moderate intervention would be overtaken by extremist solutions, as had already happened in much of Europe.[6] Keynes did not however agree with all aspects of the New Deal; he considered that the almost immediate revival of business activity after the program's launch could only be accounted for by psychological factors, which are dangerous to rely on,[8] such as the boost to confidence by Roosevelt's inspiring oratory.

Since the 1940s the influence of Keynesian Economics on government policy makers has both waxed and waned under pressure from free market economics, and from late 2008 appears to be waxing once again.[9] [10]

The Keynesian ascendancy: 1941.1979
Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, based his government's economic policy on Keynes' ideas.
See also: Golden Age of Capitalism

While working on his General Theory, Keynes wrote to George Bernard Shaw saying "I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize, not I suppose at once but in the course of the next ten years . the way the world thinks about economic problems . I don't merely hope what I say, in my own mind I'm quite sure".[11] Professor Keith Shaw wrote that this degree of self confidence was quite amazing especially considering it took more than fifty years for the Newtonian revolution to gain universal recognition; but also that Keynes's confidence was fully justified. [12] Keynes provided the main inspiration for European and American economic policy makers from about 1941 . 1979. The fifties and sixties, where Keynes's influence was at its peak, has been described as appearing in retrospect to have been a golden age. [13] [9] In late 1965 Time magazine ran a cover article with the title inspired by Milton Friedman's statement, later associated with Nixon, that "We Are All Keynesians Now". The article described the exceptionally favourable economic conditions then prevailing, and reported that "Washington's economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes's central theme: the modern capitalist economy does not automatically work at top efficiency, but can be raised to that level by the intervention and influence of the government." The article also states that Keynes was one of the three most important economists ever, and that his General Theory was more influential than the magna opera of his rivals - Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx's Das Kapital.

Displacement by monetarism: 1979.1984
Milton Friedman; A leading critic of Keynes from the mid 1950s and an advocate of Monetarism, his ideas achieved widespread acceptance in the 1970s.
Main article: Post-war displacement of Keynesianism

The stagflation of the 1970s, including Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971 and in 1972 unilaterally canceling the Bretton Woods system and ceasing the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, as well as the 1973 oil crisis and the recession that followed, unleashed a swelling tide of criticism for Keynesian economics, most notably from Milton Friedman, a leading figure of Monetarism, and the Austrian School's Friedrich von Hayek.[15][16] In 1976, Robert Lucas of the Chicago school of economics introduced the Lucas critique, which called into question the logic behind Keynesian macroeconomic policy making.[17] [10] By 1979, the election of Margaret Thatcher as UK prime minister brought monetarism to British economic policy. In the US, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volker adopted similar policies of monetary tightening in order to squeeze inflation out of the system.[18]

The monetarist experiments in the UK in the early 1980s succeeded in bringing down inflation, but at the cost of unemployment rates in excess of 10%. Contrary to monetarist predictions, the relationship between the money supply and the price level proved unreliable in the short- to medium-term. The US Federal Reserve officially discarded monetarism in 1984[19] and the Bank of England likewise abandoned its sterling M3 money targeting in October 1985.

The early 90s saw some instances of fiscal intervention by policymakers in the US and UK, and such Keynesian remedies were never wholly dropped in Europe and other parts of the world. This period has been described as a time of pragmatism[20], when, rather than following any one economic doctrine, policymakers chose whatever solution seemed to suit the particular circumstances they faced best. Yet free-market influences broadly sympathetic to Monetarism remained very strong at government level in powerful normative institutions like the World Bank, IMF and US Treasury, and in prominent opinion-forming media such as the Financial Times and the Economist

In the wake of the Financial crisis of 2007.2009 the free market consensus began to attract negative comment even by mainstream opinion formers from the economic right.

In the United States and Britain

In March 2008, free-market guru Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, announced the death of the dream of global free-market capitalism, and quoted Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, as saying "I no longer believe in the market's self-healing power."[22] Shortly afterward economist Robert Shiller began advocating robust government intervention to tackle the financial crisis, specifically citing Keynes.[23][24] Macro economist James K. Galbraith used the 25th Annual Milton Friedman Distinguished Lecture to launch a sweeping attack against the consensus for monetarist economics and argued that Keynesian economics were far more relevant for tackling the emerging crises. [25]

A series of major bailouts followed, starting on September 7 with the announcement that the U.S. government was to nationalize the two firms which oversaw most of the U.S. mortgage market.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In October, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to Keynes as he announced plans for substantial fiscal stimuli to head off the worst effects of recession, in accordance with Keynesian economic thought.[26] Similar policies have been announced in other European countries, by the U.S., and by China. [27] This is in stark contrast to the scope given to Indonesia during its financial crisis of 1997, when the IMF forced it to close 16 banks simultaneously, prompting a bank run.[28]

Prominent Keynesian economists included the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman, described by the Financial Times as a "radical keynesian economist", [29] along with Robert Reich [30] Greg Mankiw[10] and Joseph Stiglitz.[10] Mankiw argued that Keynes was the economist who provided the greatest single insight into the crisis,[31] but later encouraged skepticism about a fiscal stimulus.[32]

The works on Keynes of Hyman Minsky,[33] Robert Skidelsky,[34] and Donald Markwell[35] were widely cited. Much discussion reflected Keynes's advocacy of international coordination of fiscal or monetary stimulus, and of international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which he had helped to create at Bretton Woods in 1944, and which many argued should be reformed at a "new Bretton Woods".[36] This was evident at the G20 and APEC meetings in Washington, D.C., and Lima, Peru, in November 2008, and in coordinated reductions of interest rates by many countries in November and December 2008. IMF and United Nations economists and political leaders such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown advocated a coordinated international approach to fiscal stimulus.[37] The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, advocated that all developed country pledge 0.7 percent of its stimulus package to a vulnerability fund for assisting developing countries.[38] It was argued (e.g. by Donald Markwell) that the absence of an international approach in the spirit of Keynes, or its failure, risked the economic causes of international political conflict which Keynes had identified (e.g. in the 1930s) coming into play again.[39] [8]

In a speech on January 8, 2009, President Barack Obama unveiled a plan for extensive domestic spending to combat recession, further reflecting Keynesian thinking. The plan was signed by the President on February 17, 2009. There had been extensive debate in Congress concerning the necessity, adequacy, and likely effects of the package, which saw it being cut from $819 to $787 billion during its passage through the Senate.[40][41]

A renewed interest in Keynesian ideas was not limited to western countries. In a speech delivered in March 2009 entitled Reform the International Monetary System, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People's Bank of China revived Keynes's idea of a centrally managed global reserve currency. Dr Zhou argued that it was unfortunate that Keynes's Bancor proposal was not accepted at Bretton Woods in the 1940s. He argued that national currencies were unsuitable for use as global reserve currencies as a result of the Triffin dilemma - the difficulty faced by reserve currency issuers in trying to simultaneously achieve their domestic monetary policy goals and meet other countries' demand for reserve currency. Dr Zhou proposed a gradual move towards adopting IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as a centrally managed global reserve currency.[42][43] Dr Zhou's view was echoed in June 2009 by the IMF [44] and in September was described by the Financial Times as the boldest statement of the year to come from China. [45


China was one of the first nations to launch a substantial fiscal stimulus package , estimated at $586 billion spread over two years [46] , and in February 2009 the Financial Times reported that both government officials and private investors were seeing signs of recovery, such as rises in commodity prices, a 13% rise in the Chinese stock market over a period of 10 days, and a big increase in lending.reflecting the government's success in using state owned banks to inject liquidity into the real economy [47].

As late as April, central bankers and finance ministers remained cautious about the overall global economy, but in May 2009 the Financial Times was able to report that according to a package of leading indicators there are signs that recovery is now imminent in Europe to, after a trough in March. The US was one of the last major economies to implement a major stimulus plan, and the slowdown there looks set to continue for at least a few more months [48]. There has also been a rise in business and consumer confidence across most of Europe, especially in the emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia and India. [49] In June, OECD reported improvements to the global economic outlook, with overall growth now forecast for 2010 instead of a small contraction. OECD specifically credited stimulus plans, which they warned should not be rolled back too swiftly.[50] The IMF also reported a better than expected global economic outlook in July, though warning the recovery is likely to be slow. Again they credited the "unprecedented" global policy response and echoing the OECD in urging leaders to avoid complacency and not to unwind recession fighting fiscal and monetary policy too soon. [51] [52] In a widely syndicated article published in August 2009, Paul Krugman announced that the world had been saved from the threat of a second great depression, thanks to "Big Government". [53] The US economy emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, which the Financial Times credited to the stimulus measures. [54]

Calls for the resurgence to extend further

In 2009 there were several books published by economists advocating a further shift towards Keynesian thinking. The authors advocated further reform in academic economics, [55] [56] [9] policy making [55] [56] [9] and even the publics general ethics.[9] Theoretical arguments regarding the relative merits of free market versus mixed economy policies dont always yield a clear conclusion. In his 2009 book Keynes: The Return of the Master, economic historian Lord Skidelsky has a chapter comparing the performance of the world economy between the Golden Age period of 1951 . 1973 where Keynesian policies were dominant with the Washington Consensus period of 1981 . 2008 where free market polices were adopted by leading governments. Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times has called this part of the book the key chapter for the practically inclined reader. [57] Using data from the IMF, Skidelsky finds superior economic performance on a whole range of metrics, except for inflation where he says there was no significant difference. [9]

Skidelsky suggests the high global growth during the golden age was especially impressive as during that period Japan was the only major Asian economy enjoying high growth . it was not until later that the world had the exceptional growth of China and other emerging economies raising the global average. [9] Lord Skidelsky also comments that the golden age was substantially more stable - comparing slightly different periods, Martin Wolf found that between 1945 - 71 (27 years) the world saw only 38 financial crises, whereas from 1973 - 97 (24 years) there were 139.[58] Skidelsky also reports that inequality was generally decreasing during the golden age, whereas since the Washington Consensus was formed it has been increasing. He notes that South America has been an exception to general rise in inequality - since the late 1990s inequality has been falling there, which James Galbraith explains as likely due to the regions early "retreat from neoliberal orthodoxy". [9]

StumbleUpon PLEASE give it a thumbs up Stumble It!

Friday, November 6, 2009

Hawaii photo number one... METH VIRGINITY

(click on the photo, then use UP-DOWN LEFT-RIGHT keys)

Isn't that the most fitting image that hawai's public service message have to offer?
What could be more perfect that the honest-to-god truth about a society in climate paradie?

Paradise lost. Pradadise gained. There are the OWNERS and the WORKERS (non unionized)
there are the DOERS and the VICTIMS.


Bericht aus hawaii, ausm wirtschaftsabsturzland... hier ueberall braunes papier in
schaufenstern, starbucks machte zu, mcdonalds ist superteuer geworden...
nur sprit ist noch im rahmen ( 70eurocent)

report from hawaii... from the economy-crash-land. Packing-paper-clad
shop windows, starbucks branch closed, McDonalds has become a pricey gourmet
restaurant, only gasoline is still the same (3.10per gallon)
(europe is about 8$ per gallon!)

Aber automaten-waschsalons, essen, busfahren etc alles im preis verdoppelt oder mehr
in nur 2 jahren. boutiken, geschaefte, geschenkartikel, service.. alles macht
zu, weniger jobs fuer unterschicht. Trotzdem wenige Bettler,
im Vergleich zu Vancouver ... die Polizei ist streng.

laundromats, food, public transport... all doubled or tripled in price in only
2 years. Boutiques, gift-shops, service .. all closing down, with less jobs
for the underclass. In spite of that beggars' numbers have not increased,
there are far fewer beggars that in vancouver... the police is very heavy
and racist, as always.

Man hat den verdacht, dass die eliten-verbrecher (bei bush gabs noch 99c McDreck hamburger
jetzt kostet der billigste 3$+!!) dem *Obama* die Bankenkrise aufgedrueckt haben,
um Soziales unbezahlbar zu machen und arme leute richtig ungluecklich zu machen.
Die Radiosender sind uebervoll von Talkshows der Rechten, die die Regierung
fuer alles verantwortlich machen.

One suspects that the elite-criminals -- under BUSH there were 99c McCrap Burgers,
now the cheapest is 3$+ !!) -- are weighing-down Barak Obama, making a banking crisis
that makes social programmes unaffordable and poor people REALY unhappy.
The GIANT WURLITZER of right-wing talk shows hold the government responsible

Selbstverstaendlich gibt es noch viele reiche leute in mercedes cabriolets,
und die appartments stehen laengst nicht alle leer. Aber die Strassen
haben noch mehr schlagloecher, oeffentlichen gebaeude sehen noch ungepflegter aus.

as a matter of course there still are rich people in mercedes cabriolets,
and luxury appartments are far from totally empty. But the streets have
yet more potholes, public buildings look less maintained than ever.

Sozialer Unfriede? Alle sind ruhig. Es gibts keine Ungehorsam, die Strafen sind
eher drakonischer geworden...

Social Unrest? Everything quiet on the western front! There is obedience,
because disobedience is not an option as punishment is ever more drakonian.

demnaechst gibts fotos zu sehen!
Soon  there will be photo galleries to show...





Hawaii-1 ... Hawaii-2 ... Hawaii-3 ... Hawaii-5


StumbleUpon PLEASE give it a thumbs up Stumble It!