1. There is a distinction between neoliberalism-in-theory and neoliberalism-in-practice. Neoliberalism-in-theory says: "Let the markets rip. We can make it up with taxation and redistribution." Neoliberalism-in-practice drops the second sentence. The distinction is that between economics and political economy. If market forces are too healthy, business influence over policy is too strong.
2. In response to Dan Davies: There is indeed an optimal positive rate of *firm* failures. The optimal rate of *systemic* failures is "zero." Which is why bank insolvency law is so important, and the failure to create a credible large bank insolvency regime is so deplorable.
I believe that, to quote Mr. Davies, 'As long as people don’t get into the habit of expecting to be rescued simply from falling markets, this is a valid part of the toolkit…"
that the financial corps (and their share and bondholders) have gotten in the habit of expecting to be rescued from failing markets.
"He will put his money where his mouth is, and he will come to the table to close."
I think what matters is how much money the Russians (presumably via an intermediary) put up.
"But there were never more than a very few Jack Kemp right-neoliberals. And now I think there are none."
2008-2009 killed my faith in good faith, so to speak. Nonetheless, the catechism is still muttered over the head of the decapitated bull as the incense wafts over the scene.
"We may well wind up wishing for the good old days of the Neoliberal Order. Gee, I’m depressed this month, am I not?"
As I recall you were sitting in front of your cereal with the spoon stuck in your mouth, contemplating therapy, back in 2009. It's worse from one perspective but better from another: at least it's out in the open so are at least not get steam-rollered.
elm
also russia's army has taken multiple soccer balls in the shorts
Two disparate notes:
1. There is a distinction between neoliberalism-in-theory and neoliberalism-in-practice. Neoliberalism-in-theory says: "Let the markets rip. We can make it up with taxation and redistribution." Neoliberalism-in-practice drops the second sentence. The distinction is that between economics and political economy. If market forces are too healthy, business influence over policy is too strong.
2. In response to Dan Davies: There is indeed an optimal positive rate of *firm* failures. The optimal rate of *systemic* failures is "zero." Which is why bank insolvency law is so important, and the failure to create a credible large bank insolvency regime is so deplorable.
I believe that, to quote Mr. Davies, 'As long as people don’t get into the habit of expecting to be rescued simply from falling markets, this is a valid part of the toolkit…"
that the financial corps (and their share and bondholders) have gotten in the habit of expecting to be rescued from failing markets.
elm
plunge protection team by any other name
"He will put his money where his mouth is, and he will come to the table to close."
I think what matters is how much money the Russians (presumably via an intermediary) put up.
"But there were never more than a very few Jack Kemp right-neoliberals. And now I think there are none."
2008-2009 killed my faith in good faith, so to speak. Nonetheless, the catechism is still muttered over the head of the decapitated bull as the incense wafts over the scene.
"We may well wind up wishing for the good old days of the Neoliberal Order. Gee, I’m depressed this month, am I not?"
As I recall you were sitting in front of your cereal with the spoon stuck in your mouth, contemplating therapy, back in 2009. It's worse from one perspective but better from another: at least it's out in the open so are at least not get steam-rollered.
elm
also russia's army has taken multiple soccer balls in the shorts