tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post5273385599597611012..comments2024-03-16T07:16:24.301+00:00Comments on Global Economics And Structures: Newtonian gambleTamashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-23676463488889598442008-10-01T10:00:00.000+01:002008-10-01T10:00:00.000+01:00Have you seen this? Also about leadership...Have you seen this? Also about <A HREF="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186056&title=Awkward-Loan-Interview" REL="nofollow">leadership</A>...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-213355935318918352008-09-30T14:25:00.000+01:002008-09-30T14:25:00.000+01:00And it got rejected. But, unfortunately, it seems ...And it got rejected. But, unfortunately, it seems that throwing it back has more to do with short term political calculations than actual arguments. Populism is rampant on both sides. I bet Paulson and co. are dead tired trying to push something (anything) through. (And there is nothing more promising than sleep-deprived decision making...)Tamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-14110009185904292402008-09-29T15:04:00.000+01:002008-09-29T15:04:00.000+01:00tamas, you ask for new thinking. i don't know if t...tamas, you ask for new thinking. i don't know if thinking in general is the strength of the 'global decision makers'. have you seen the text of the bailout deal? <BR/><BR/>it promises some immediate relief of expectations, but only if you believe in it... <BR/><BR/>other than that: more uncertainty, and piles of hidden costs -- this is no bail-out, neither buy-in. this is merely a bail-in (which,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-45306558956604556342008-09-25T09:48:00.000+01:002008-09-25T09:48:00.000+01:00A retrospective, Enron time failure of leadership ...A retrospective, Enron time failure of leadership <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/opinion/25suskind.html?th&emc=th" REL="nofollow">piece</A>.Tamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-20585451704827571072008-09-25T09:29:00.000+01:002008-09-25T09:29:00.000+01:00A similar observation about the absence of leaders...A similar observation about the absence of leadership in a <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/opinion/25thu1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow">NYT leader</A> today.Tamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-55263598670904412042008-09-25T06:56:00.000+01:002008-09-25T06:56:00.000+01:00of course there is no new ideas, but thats more th...of course there is no new ideas, but thats more the rule than the exception. most policy makers can never escape the framework of their own times.<BR/><BR/>and what sort of times are we in ?<BR/>one of moral hazard and an unwilingness to tolerate pain. so while the market should act as a stabiliser, rewarding good choices and punishing bad, the last 15 years everything has been done to alleviate spagettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141785799734886089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-90038209799172637632008-09-25T00:16:00.000+01:002008-09-25T00:16:00.000+01:00Interesting as always... just to lighten the mood,...Interesting as always... just to lighten the mood, here's a 60 year old black woman's take on capital as a malignant organism whose movements no rules or regulations have the power to contain:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbdtXJp4bO4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-80529214441670021652008-09-23T11:53:00.000+01:002008-09-23T11:53:00.000+01:00Good point. You are right. Using the old framework...Good point. You are right. Using the old framework of thinking is safer in terms of being fairly sure of what to expect as the immediate reaction of the economy to your policy actions. Furthermore, coming out with something completely new, would probably be regarded as wacky, and would ultimately unnerve the already screaming markets.<BR/><BR/>The difference between ‘wacky’ and ‘new direction forTamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11641190007103495073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7511163176410365484.post-7454343886705247192008-09-23T00:04:00.000+01:002008-09-23T00:04:00.000+01:00Isn't it irresponsibly risky to start using a new ...Isn't it irresponsibly risky to start using a new framework? Or at least, could be perceived as such, and hence would undermine the effort? <BR/><BR/>It seems that predictable old rules might be part of the answer because they are predictable and old. Or at least, risk-averse policy-makers might be inclined to think so. Stepping out of the current thinking and framework is a gamble in itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com