Both Friedman and Keynes focus on dollars and cents. The economy is physical; money is just the means we use to exchange the physical goods or work. If you focus on money, you can't see the actual physical necessities you need to have an economy. Ex. Green energy may look good to these types because it creates jobs, people take out loans, and it makes money exchange hands. Yet in reality, solar panels and windmills don't create enough megawatts of electricity to fit in a growing economy.
@ghuegel Peter Robinson is the interviewer. The following is his short bio Peter is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's vidcast program, Uncommon Knowledge™. Robinson spent six years in the White House, serving from 1982 to 1983 as chief speechwriter to Vice President George Bush and from 1983 to 1988 as special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan.
Abolish the Fed! In my opinion, if there was no governing bank that acted as a lender of last resort (i.e. the Federal Reserve), I don't think investment banks would even consider engaging in such risky lending practices in the first place, don't you think? Hoover Institution, I would appreciate your response to this, preferably from an academic economist. I seldom get objective responses to queries like this.
I believe rather that, investment banks engaged in such risky lending practices precisely because they knew the Fed had a moral obligation to act as lender of last resort. The result is that it creates incentives for banks to transfer their responsibility/risks to someone else. And so, the fundamental premise of Friedman's philosophy, 'Friedmanomics' if you will, still holds, i.e. that no body takes someone else's responsibility as seriously as their own.
In “How to balance inequality” on UA-cam, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose. How to balance inequality
This interviewer is great. I saw him interview Christopher Hitchens and his questions there were really interesting too. Who is this interviewer?... it's not in the description.
Yes we are now or should be in post Keynesian economics. Reason: secular stagnation is not solved via supply side and monetarist policies alone, QE2 has been tried over and over without fiscal stimulus and has proven to be insignificant on its own. Keynes creates growth with use of Aggregate Demand MPC and the multiplier especially if potential demand is not fully realized to potential GDP. There can be no doubt that Keynesian multipliers creates growth to realize real GDP of 3+. The TARP should have been larger. Stagflation is created by a combination of factors all of which if we cannot just use monetarist policies on their own to solve; stagflation cannot be managed proactively via the use of monetarist and/or supply-side economic policies alone. Watch Joseph Stieglitz, Paul Krugman or Larry Summers. The moderator needs to learn a bit more about international macroeconomics to get more out of these guys. They are monetarists and supply siders. Productivity gains over last 10 years or more have only seen marginal. A debate with a Keynesian economist and a supply- sider would have proven more analytical. The Posner citation is right on the money. The gutting of Dodd-Frank was also a big reason for the 08 financial crisis. The inability of the big banks not to manage financial risk/return is inexcusable. After all risk determination to manage discounted NPV via financial tools such as Black-Scholes and Modigliani-Miller, Fama, etc. is their core competency. The banks need to manage their own risk not relying on the regulators to manage their risk. The collapse and takeover of Bear Stearns wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder value in a matter of days. The investment bank's employees were some of the biggest losers. Their share price was trading at $2 per share down from $70 per share a week earlier. The problem with the Fed is it is too full of monetarists to solve a much larger problems. The Stockman claim is none sense. Stockman was not a trained economist and graduated in theology. Govts have power to print their own currency to solve problems, via QE2 and bond market. that is the power of owning a sovereign currency, as long as inflation is tempered.
I love the video, but gosh am I tired of old white guys (Taylor) trying to lure you into respecting them with pessimistic rhetoric. Glad the new generations do not do this as much. It may have worked back in the mid-20 the century, but today it just cheapens the total conversation.
Man epstein is long winded. That man has a lung capacity on him that would make otters jealous. I like him none the less.
Both Friedman and Keynes focus on dollars and cents. The economy is physical; money is just the means we use to exchange the physical goods or work. If you focus on money, you can't see the actual physical necessities you need to have an economy.
Ex. Green energy may look good to these types because it creates jobs, people take out loans, and it makes money exchange hands. Yet in reality, solar panels and windmills don't create enough megawatts of electricity to fit in a growing economy.
@ghuegel Peter Robinson is the interviewer. The following is his short bio
Peter is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's vidcast program, Uncommon Knowledge™.
Robinson spent six years in the White House, serving from 1982 to 1983 as chief speechwriter to Vice President George Bush and from 1983 to 1988 as special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan.
I learn from this type of program/discourse, but I can only whine at the news programs.
Abolish the Fed! In my opinion, if there was no governing bank that acted as a lender of last resort (i.e. the Federal Reserve), I don't think investment banks would even consider engaging in such risky lending practices in the first place, don't you think? Hoover Institution, I would appreciate your response to this, preferably from an academic economist. I seldom get objective responses to queries like this.
I believe rather that, investment banks engaged in such risky lending practices precisely because they knew the Fed had a moral obligation to act as lender of last resort. The result is that it creates incentives for banks to transfer their responsibility/risks to someone else. And so, the fundamental premise of Friedman's philosophy, 'Friedmanomics' if you will, still holds, i.e. that no body takes someone else's responsibility as seriously as their own.
I love this. Both these guys say regulation is bad, yet give excellent points on why regulation is needed.
Bernstein is brilliant. Taylor is wise. You need a combination of brilliance and wisdom to make an economy hum.
In “How to balance inequality” on UA-cam, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose.
How to balance inequality
What is fair is whatever the person wants their inheritance plans to be to dispose of their private property. Not forced redistribution schemes.
monopoly can only be played more than once if winners return the money to the box once the game is over!
Skibum Willy Who holds the box? The government? You trust them? Everybody starts from scratch? That is the dumbest idea I have heard in years.
This interviewer is great. I saw him interview Christopher Hitchens and his questions there were really interesting too.
Who is this interviewer?... it's not in the description.
@Wormtail81 guess what? the people didn't want the bailout.
Yes we are now or should be in post Keynesian economics. Reason: secular stagnation is not solved via supply side and monetarist policies alone, QE2 has been tried over and over without fiscal stimulus and has proven to be insignificant on its own. Keynes creates growth with use of Aggregate Demand MPC and the multiplier especially if potential demand is not fully realized to potential GDP. There can be no doubt that Keynesian multipliers creates growth to realize real GDP of 3+. The TARP should have been larger. Stagflation is created by a combination of factors all of which if we cannot just use monetarist policies on their own to solve; stagflation cannot be managed proactively via the use of monetarist and/or supply-side economic policies alone. Watch Joseph Stieglitz, Paul Krugman or Larry Summers. The moderator needs to learn a bit more about international macroeconomics to get more out of these guys. They are monetarists and supply siders. Productivity gains over last 10 years or more have only seen marginal. A debate with a Keynesian economist and a supply- sider would have proven more analytical. The Posner citation is right on the money. The gutting of Dodd-Frank was also a big reason for the 08 financial crisis. The inability of the big banks not to manage financial risk/return is inexcusable. After all risk determination to manage discounted NPV via financial tools such as Black-Scholes and Modigliani-Miller, Fama, etc. is their core competency. The banks need to manage their own risk not relying on the regulators to manage their risk. The collapse and takeover of Bear Stearns wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder value in a matter of days. The investment bank's employees were some of the biggest losers. Their share price was trading at $2 per share down from $70 per share a week earlier. The problem with the Fed is it is too full of monetarists to solve a much larger problems. The Stockman claim is none sense. Stockman was not a trained economist and graduated in theology. Govts have power to print their own currency to solve problems, via QE2 and bond market. that is the power of owning a sovereign currency, as long as inflation is tempered.
Great interview, but Richard Epstein looks a bit like Jerry Lewis in the Nutty Professor :)
LOL - what an echo chamber
I love the video, but gosh am I tired of old white guys (Taylor) trying to lure you into respecting them with pessimistic rhetoric. Glad the new generations do not do this as much. It may have worked back in the mid-20 the century, but today it just cheapens the total conversation.
+Mark X If truth bothers you when it is delivered by old White men, then you deserve everything that the young Browns and Blacks give to you.