Absurd: Inflation was too low

Amusing - if it would not be sad - to read that 'prominent' 'star' economists like Barry Eichengreen  still regurgitate the fable of  'too low inflation'. So what is the right level of inflation for these confused thinkers? One shudders to think how many young students get indoctrinated by his kind.

Der Standard (German)

8 billionaires have the combined wealth of half the world's population

Just another reason why it is pathetic that the economics tribe - Universities, Think Tanks - fiddles around with tiny changes in GDP, employment or interest rates while missing the elephant in the (political economy) room!
These 8 billionaires have the combined wealth of half the world's population

Millionaires own a record 45% of the world's wealth

The really frightening thing is that this trend is continuing! We don't need explanations but solutions! Maybe Economists and Policy Makers should not focus on the next tiny shift in GDP growth but on the BIG picture - how to reverse this trend to ever-more concentration in the world's wealth! What do all the talking heads on CNBC and Bloomberg etc have to say? Or tenured professors sit in sheltered glasshouses and flit from conference to conference - pocketing handsome fees - while neglecting their students.
Millionaires own a record 45% of the world's wealth — and their share is growing

Crusade against Saving

Taking their cue from 'Saint Maynard' the political and economic 'Elites' that rule Western Societies wage a merciless war against Saving, and by implication against individuals that want to manage their own affairs responsibly. The ulterior motive may be to make people completely dependent on the Welfare states that countless bureaucrats are employed to administer.
Given that most economies sail along at a positive rate of growth - albeit not much above zero - and that inflation/deflation can safely be allowed to fluctuate around the zero mark (plus or minus 2 percent should not mean the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination ) it is not obvious why 'QE a outrance' should be on the policy menu at all.
Has a strange form of hysteria taken hold of Central Bankers and their camp followers in Media, Academia and Politics?
Why would it be morally acceptable to steal from savers and give to borrowers when - for thousands of years - saving was to be held in high esteem and spending/borrowing was to be discouraged?

Clueless Economists

It is pathetic, even irresponsible, to predict gloom and doom for the UK now that a majority has voted to leave the EU. he self-appointed experts in academia, think tanks and the media would be well-advised to come up with constructive suggestions about how to make Brexit work. Just being besides the EU member states does not mean that being in some sort of political/economic/social club is mandatory to have a successful society. There are plenty of examples to the contrary - too numerous to mention, we know them all. Shame on the Financial Times and Martin Wolf in drumming up discontent and confusion and playing into the hands of the mob who is unwilling to accept a democratic choice.

Gregory Mankiw and the $300 Textbook

Mankiw is trying his best to increase income inequality. How can he justify the price for his textbook, esp as the 7th edition should mean that he has already reaped a high enough revenue stream through the previous editions.

100 Billionaires control half the World's Wealth?

Depending on who you believe this statement may or may not reflect the truth. But it is beyond doubt that a tiny number of Super Rich control a vastly disproportionate share of global wealth. It does not matter whether they number 100, 400 or 1000. The sad story is that beyond the establishment Economists focus so little on the issue of inequality in incomes and wealth. Maybe this is due to the fact that most of them are just little cogs in the system that seems to be designed to create these disparities. They work in safe jobs in Universities - usually taxpayer-funded jobs for life - or in 'independent' think tanks or research institutes that are either taxpayer-funded or funded by rich individual that act as 'sponsors' or 'trustees'. Employer organisations and Financial Institutions also keep a stable of Economist but these can also hardly be expected to bit the hand that feeds them.

Socially useless Economists?

Starting a discussion about which economic activities are or are not 'socially' useful opens a can of worms. Is Opera - or Music in general - socially useful? or hairdressing beyond simply chopping off surplus hair? Opinions will differ widely and the last thing we want is to leave the answer to this question to authorities, be they religious (we had enough of that for 2000+ years), political or - academics. The discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of High Frequency Trading (HFT) illustrates this very well. While I have often argued that the rules of the stock exchange should be adjusted so that the rules of 'priority and precedence' are brought up-to-date for the internet age it is means overkill when economists or regulators attack the activity per-se claiming that it is socially useless. That may well be the case. Participants may see it as just another form of gambling (Casinos are also a negative sum game for the punters) and should be free to enjoy their game...as long as they are collectively willing to accept the net negative costs associated with this activity. And I am gentleman enough not to question Mr. Stiglitz' social usefulness.

Economists - just Idiot Savants?

It makes the blood boil when one reads about highly (overpaid?) economists sitting in tenured positions in Academia suggesting outright thievery as their preferred solutions to our economic problems. Debt repudiation and wealth taxes are not the only solution to the problems that indebted nations face. The debt mountain can be reduced the same way it has been built up - by small incremental changes over a long period of time, decades, not years. Deficit spending really came into fashion during the 1970s - on the advice of an earlier generation of  Idiot Savants. That the Nobel prize is now being awarded for what in many cases is only a thinly-disguised for of quackery devalues the prizes given to those for 'hard' science. And let's not even remember the Peace Nobel prize awarded to Obama!

Summers regurgitates tired old macro cliches

Guessing what the 'correct' or 'true' natural interest rate is may be a worthwhile passe temps for tenured university professors like Larry Summers but it is of little use to explain/solve the pressing economic problems of our time. Such as Unemployment or Inequality. Both have little to do with macro economic mumbo jumbo but a lot with poorly designed policies and laws. Note the circular congratulations to Stanley Fischer etal - the world of 'celebrity' economists is a small one, but maybe a larger talent pool would not be such a bad thing, given the unhealthy trends in the world economy.

Economics for simple Minds - Unions are bad for Growth (Stelzer)

Economics is not an exact science, if it is a science at all. For that reason ideological prejudices are often hidden in simple statements such as this one: 'A Union revival that will hurt Growth' (Irwin Stelzer, The Weekly Standard). 
Unions may well have created all sort of economic and political havoc but before one makes the statement one should first check the facts: was economic growth really slower when union 'power' was higher? And what about the distribution of the growth? What is growth worth if only a very small minority benefits - today's equivalent of the Robber Barons and their hangers-on?

The problem with 'star' economists

Thanks to the weekly feature 'Lunch with the FT' we now know that Esther Duflo is 'petite' and about to become an American citizen (why is she renouncing her heritage?). God be thanked that the real 'stars' of economics never had to submit to the hagiographic treatment in a FT lunch session. The irony is that the 'star' professors that the 'elite' universities keep are beneficiaries of protectionism as they sit in a tenured position that protects them from the ravages of the economy that they purport to 'study'. Similarily, the 'elite' universities in the USA are part of the 1 per cent system where the rich donate to the same few universities that host their pampered and privileged offspring - thus aggravating and perpetuating a system that favors the few over the many. Maybe this 'star' economist should study this abuse and not wether or not the poor should pay for their mosquito nets or not.

Establishment Economists helpless

By suggesting nothing else but another 'Support Package' for Greece the establishment economists admit that they are helpless when faced with a crisis such as the one Greece (and and.....) is facing. If there is no other solution in today's economic toolkit than to throw ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer's and helicopter money at a problem we might as well bin the insights of 300 years of economic thought.

Professors and Stock Markets don't mix

The (securely tenured) economist Robert Shiller seems to need some help in understanding stock market movements. In the New York Times he tries to explain the recent stock market volatility. But if he - or anyone else - thinks that this volatility was anything particularly exceptional he should just have a look back and he will find that the Cuban Missile Crisis of President Kennedy's stand-off with the Steel Industry in the early sixties also caused sharp sell-offs in the stock market. In the big picture a drop of 15 or even 20 per cent is nothing out of the ordinary. Any investor worth his salt knows that markets tend to decline more rapidly than they rise and if anything should be glad that he is offered the opportunity to acquire shares at much reduced prices.

Poor Advice - we need to freshen up economist gene pool

When a former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan claims that the US debt amounts to $211 trillion one has to wonder who ever believes a word uttered by a representative of that 'science'. Adding up all future entitlements and other spending to arrive at this gargantuan number is the same as adding an individual's expected lifetime spending and declaring that he was 'in debt' by the resulting amount. The number would not be pretty - not for anyone past or present. This type of facile calculation forgets completely that the spending would (hopefully) be paid for by future earnings. To forget the income (or tax) side of the equation is a mistake that no serious economist should ever make. It produces good (and alarmist) headlines only.

Fed Stimulus - the wrong medicine

When economists from the pulpit of their tenured positions complain (Stimulus by Fed Is Disappointing, Economists Say, New York Times, 24 April 2011) that the policy of Quantitative Easing (aka Money Printing) has not been sufficiently forceful I would like to remind them that the policy was wrong right from the beginning. The Keynesian policies of macro economic management - pushing buttons in fiscal or monetary aggregates - give politicians and all those arguing for a powerful state tools to play with but they are not the only - or even correct - reply to problems that stem for wrong micro-economic policies in tax, employment or international trade management.

Euro Crisis: German Experts miss the point

Leading German economic 'experts' urge Chancellor Merkel to take the lead in rescuing the Euro. But while their suggestions may all have some merit they miss the key aspect: All the mentioned remedies are at best a sticking plaster. The critical aspect has been overlooked: the banking system must be isolated from the impact that a bankruptcy in any member state - or a leaving of the Eurozone - can have. Only that would guarantee that no fiscal transfers or bailouts are necessary.