. . . the Commerce Department released its final estimate of Gross Domestic Product for the second quarter. That marked five years since the recession ended—a period of massive experimentation with expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. While those policies were doubtless well intended, all they did was what standard economic theory says they would do—move future economic output to the present. They did not by any means increase long-term economic growth.
The headline seemed encouraging—4.6 percent growth in the second quarter. But the first quarter was negative, so the average for the first half of 2014 was just 1.25 percent. If we get, as expected, growth between 3 and 3.5 percent for the second half of the year, 2014 will come in with average growth of just about 2.25 percent. That compares with average growth of 2.2 percent over the last two years, 2.2 percent over the last three years, 2 percent over the last four years and 2.2 percent over the last five years. Does one see a trend here?
Come Tuesday, the national pastime will be the subject of oral arguments in a portentous Supreme Court case. This pastime is not baseball but rent seeking — the unseemly yet uninhibited scramble of private interests to bend government power for their benefit. If the court directs a judicial scowl at North Carolina’s State Board of Dental Examiners, the court will thereby advance a basic liberty — the right of Americans to earn a living without unreasonable government interference.
This deserves at least a few questions from the relevant House oversight committee.
See also "The Not-Credible Shrinking Unemployment Rate: Is the government deliberately misclassifying job seekers?"
I can't vouch for any of these courses, but they could well be useful.
By Richard Kovacevich, former CEO of Wells Fargo. It's strikingly clear, concise, and forceful. Everybody who runs for Congress or who manages the Fed or the SEC should be asked about it. Excerpts:
I am sure most of you have noticed the publicity surrounding BaoBao, the new panda cub at the Smithsonian National Zoo this year. Well, BaoBao should fit in well in Washington: she costs a fortune, she has no useful skills, and she is always on TV. . . .
If you don't remember anything else I say today, please remember this: only about 20 financial institutions perpetuated this crisis. About half were investment banks and the other half were savings and loans. Only one, Citicorp, was a commercial bank, but was operating more like an investment bank. . . . Yet 6,000 commercial banks are being punished with Dodd-Frank penalties in the same way as the guilty parties. . . .
Politicians and regulators have responsed to each crisis by piling on more extensive and burdensome reulations, assuring citizens that they have fixed the problem without addressing the actual causes.
Today the 6,000 commercial banks and their boards and management are spending most all of their time and resources on compliance, regulatory changes, and litigation for something they didn't do.
From Breitbart California:
In what will be a devastating blow to California public employee unions, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein ruled in the Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy of the City of Stockton that pensions managed by the California Public Employee Retirement System, known as CalPERS, can be cut in bankruptcy “like any other garden variety” unsecured debt. He rejected the unions’ argument that the world’s largest pension fund is an “arm of the state” and that public employee pensions are protected by federal and state laws.
I used to use the wool and mohair subsidy program as an example in class and a couple of students all but accused me of making it up. It's here as well as a few other apt and distressing examples.
More on the same theme that Philip K. Howard has been advancing for some years now. (With new examples and details I hadn't seen before.)
But as I've noted before, it's a really good theme.
“Clear law” turns out to be a myth. Modern law is too dense to be knowable. “It will be of little avail to the people,” James Madison observed, “if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The quest for “clear law” is futile also because most regulatory language is inherently ambiguous. Dense rulebooks do not avoid disputes—they just divert the dispute to the parsing of legal words instead of arguing over what’s right. Indeed, legal detail often undermines the regulatory goal. “The more exact and detailed a rule, the more likely it is to open up loopholes, to permit by implication conduct that the rule was intended to avoid,” Judge Richard Posner observed.
But now that I have a young daughter, brunch is completely impractical. By noon I’ve been up for hours and am ready for an actual lunch — although that meal is an increasingly endangered species on the weekend. For most restaurant owners, serving brunch is mandatory. It’s a revenue stream that also exposes restaurants to diners who might become regular customers. Even our local Thai restaurant insists on topping every dish with a poached egg on weekends and offering an ambiguously Asian mimosa. . . .
This leaves an increasing number of well-off young professionals who are unencumbered by children — exactly the kind of people who can fritter away Saturday, Sunday or both over a boozy brunch. Our once diverse neighborhood now brims with the homogeneity of an elite university. (Julian Casablancas, I imagine, will be disappointed to discover the same crowd of white people brunching in Phoenicia, Hudson or Beacon upstate.)
“Brunch,” said Mr. Micallef, the author, over the phone, “is a visible sign of the changes that sometimes feel out of our control.”