I wanted to post mine here- but held back due to previous instances calling my link of Catholic ethics to economics "economic fiction".
This document was originally written in Italian- few Church documents in the last 100 years were sourced in Latin.
I would also post links to my two articles on this subject on my personal non-economics related blog, as well as, for logical continuity, the seven documents over the past century and a quarter that evolved this doctrine and to which Pope Benedict refers:
Why I'm so different on economics was written during one of the times when I got introspective about my own "economic fiction"- when I first realized I was following the Popes more than modern economists.
Charity in Truth was written today- my response to my first read-through of Caritas in Veritate, which could also be translated as Love in Truth, depending on how you read the Latin. I choose charity for a reason, for that is the First Degree of the Knights of Columbus, an order to which I belong.
And now, the seven Papal documents, so far, on economics, so that you can get a feeling of the history of the Doctrine of Distributism: Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
People think that Catholic doctrine never changes- but it's dogma that doesn't change, doctrine changes ever so slowly because of the concern for human error. The Doctrine of Distributism is as solid as any other form of economics I can think of, but unlike communism, which requires total subservience to the state, and capitalism, which requires total subservience to self, distributism is duty to protect other people's rights and justice to fulfill other people's needs. And in return- other people have a duty to protect YOUR rights and fulfill YOUR needs. Interdependence, rather than independence.
And that ethic I think is really worth thinking about.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Instead of PPIF for financial conglomerates use the money from treasury and private investors to purchase all distressed mortgages at current market rates (ie. pennies on the dollar). Then truly restructure the mortgage loans to a point where loan to income ratios are more in line with old industry standards.
This public-private fund, if it can purchase these loans for pennies on the dollar, can afford to restructure the loans because of the margins/spreads.
It will mean reduction in principal but there is no way to avoid it. As for "moral hazard" problem for borrowers - doesn't exist. Borrowers are already feeling the pain/stress from losing their home and credit histories probably already damaged.
so much of this is still "trickle upon" in so many words and in order to work, including Keynesian stimulus, it has to be "bottom up". That's the fundamental problem here.
But what to do about people in houses when the actual price of a home was/is so out of alignment with wages, what people can afford is another question.
Here's another thing that drives me nuts. Where were all of these people before policies were enacted. Why do we read about policy follies after the fact....
I mean we are officially a layperson's blog yet we all know this was bad policy from the get go...
But we might be watching the wrong ones for this situation. *Everybody* preaching recovery in the past 10 years has been wrong when it comes to middle class wages.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Was, according to Bloomberg, more than 10x the real economy. Our consumption was based on the fake economy of derivitives- and that's what we've lost.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
The United States saw a crime wave like no other, as people tried to use illegal activities to recover from the crash of 1929.
I have to wonder if "recovery" without employment will produce a similar effect this time around.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Eighteen months into a deep recession triggered by a credit bubble, consumers have made little progress shrinking a mountain of debt. Until they do, the economy will struggle to grow — likely for years.
Household debt peaked at $13.9 trillion in 2008, almost double the figure from 2000. Since then, as consumers cut up credit cards, refinanced outsized mortgages and slashed spending, debt has fallen — all the way to $13.8 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.
"We really have a long way to go," says economist James Hamilton of the University of California-San Diego.
...
Household debt peaked at 133% of disposable income in 2007 vs. 65% in the mid-1980s. To pare it back to a sustainable level, consumers will have to pay off — or walk away from — roughly $5 trillion of the total debt outstanding, says David Rosenberg, chief economist of the investment firm Gluskin Sheff. That's more than China's total economic output.
Some debt will be erased through home foreclosures and credit card defaults. But the remainder must be painfully repaid, by consumers holding expenditures below earnings for years. Already, the savings rate, which fell into negative territory before the financial crisis, has jumped to 6.9%.
and watch out, NDD has been right repeatedly when others were dead wrong. Completely analytical, so I suggest trying to understand his data and analysis first. but yes I'm working on some things on some EIs w.r.t. globalization and not capturing data accurately.
First, $250 Billion is certainly ridiculously small to throw at a $625 Trillion hole. Like trying to save the Titanic by sticking a needle in the iceberg hole.
But you're also right that they didn't direct it correctly.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
In that I'm not sure that we should consider managers who do no manufacturing inside the United States, to be a part of the GDP.
There's a big hole in the definition of GDP that includes overseas manufacturing- if manufacturing was really expanding again domestically, we'd see an increase in the raw number of people employed, and we're not seeing that.
What aspect are you looking at that shows a true growth in the economy, as opposed to a growth in special interest parasitic salaries?
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
But, NDD is operating off of Macro Economics, indicators, predictors and other analysis....and it's good solid stuff.
Robert, I do appreciate what NDD has done in the past, but I think we really need to redefine our economic language in this arena.
NO RECOVERY WITHOUT LOWERING UNEMPLOYMENT should be the new definition.
The real argument here isn't between yellow weeds and green shoots- it's between true economic expansion and nuclear wipe out of the American middle class.
And anybody who thinks we can have both, is just fooling themselves, because *there are no other consumers left in the world*.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
it's a beholden issue. They could have easily, easily given power to even Volcker, but to other economists, experts, policies. People have been almost screaming about it...
so I would claim team Obama is beholden to some agenda. Larry Summers is just the tip of the iceberg.
I look at that "sticking your thumb in the air and guess" 1% of GDP = Stimulus, otherwise known as "throw money at it" and shake my head. It is just not a valid methodology and it's being proved again and again.
I wrote this, Global Implosion overviewing some of the World Bank statistics, from June 22, 2009.
The World Bank report shows very muddied, dire situation for the U.S. even with GDP. Projections are: 1.8% - 2010 2.5% - 2011 GDP growth...
but.... look at India, China. and then (I'm working on this) GDP attributed to the U.S. really isn't because they wrongly calculate productivity that is really offshore, into U.S. GDP.
(BTW: the world bank website sucks. They break their links almost daily, so we might have to upload data to EP).
But to answer your real question, it's largely inflation positive- which is what we need right now. If they work anything like the BND has, state banks free up credit for other uses, creating local inflation, which is what is needed to create local jobs.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
is slowing the process down? Funneling money through state bureaucracies could be slowing it down. States may have certain procurement requirements on top of the requirements attached to the Federal dollars.
this one is really news for it's an entire policy document, talking about changes in economic policy as well as problem descriptions.
Right back to the theme of this song from UB40 way back in 1981 (when the unemployment rate in England was 10%)
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
I wanted to post mine here- but held back due to previous instances calling my link of Catholic ethics to economics "economic fiction".
This document was originally written in Italian- few Church documents in the last 100 years were sourced in Latin.
I would also post links to my two articles on this subject on my personal non-economics related blog, as well as, for logical continuity, the seven documents over the past century and a quarter that evolved this doctrine and to which Pope Benedict refers:
Why I'm so different on economics was written during one of the times when I got introspective about my own "economic fiction"- when I first realized I was following the Popes more than modern economists.
Charity in Truth was written today- my response to my first read-through of Caritas in Veritate, which could also be translated as Love in Truth, depending on how you read the Latin. I choose charity for a reason, for that is the First Degree of the Knights of Columbus, an order to which I belong.
And now, the seven Papal documents, so far, on economics, so that you can get a feeling of the history of the Doctrine of Distributism:
Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII
Quadragesimo Anno from Pope Pius XI
Mater et Magistra from Pope John XXIII
Populum Progresso from Pope Paul VI
Centesimus Annus from Pope John Paul II
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis from Pope John Paul II
Caritas In Veritate by Pope Benedict XVI
People think that Catholic doctrine never changes- but it's dogma that doesn't change, doctrine changes ever so slowly because of the concern for human error. The Doctrine of Distributism is as solid as any other form of economics I can think of, but unlike communism, which requires total subservience to the state, and capitalism, which requires total subservience to self, distributism is duty to protect other people's rights and justice to fulfill other people's needs. And in return- other people have a duty to protect YOUR rights and fulfill YOUR needs. Interdependence, rather than independence.
And that ethic I think is really worth thinking about.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
food stamp overview.
I just scanned this but it's really frightening.
Instead of PPIF for financial conglomerates use the money from treasury and private investors to purchase all distressed mortgages at current market rates (ie. pennies on the dollar). Then truly restructure the mortgage loans to a point where loan to income ratios are more in line with old industry standards.
This public-private fund, if it can purchase these loans for pennies on the dollar, can afford to restructure the loans because of the margins/spreads.
It will mean reduction in principal but there is no way to avoid it. As for "moral hazard" problem for borrowers - doesn't exist. Borrowers are already feeling the pain/stress from losing their home and credit histories probably already damaged.
so much of this is still "trickle upon" in so many words and in order to work, including Keynesian stimulus, it has to be "bottom up". That's the fundamental problem here.
But what to do about people in houses when the actual price of a home was/is so out of alignment with wages, what people can afford is another question.
Here's another thing that drives me nuts. Where were all of these people before policies were enacted. Why do we read about policy follies after the fact....
I mean we are officially a layperson's blog yet we all know this was bad policy from the get go...
This is basically a economic power center shift and as a result working America is going to get the shaft.
There is no raise all boats but there sure is sink a few!
But we might be watching the wrong ones for this situation. *Everybody* preaching recovery in the past 10 years has been wrong when it comes to middle class wages.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Was, according to Bloomberg, more than 10x the real economy. Our consumption was based on the fake economy of derivitives- and that's what we've lost.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
The United States saw a crime wave like no other, as people tried to use illegal activities to recover from the crash of 1929.
I have to wonder if "recovery" without employment will produce a similar effect this time around.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
This is related to my article above.
the global economy is only $50 trillion so throwing out some numbers, like $625 trillion aren't based on any real world data that I am aware of.
and watch out, NDD has been right repeatedly when others were dead wrong. Completely analytical, so I suggest trying to understand his data and analysis first. but yes I'm working on some things on some EIs w.r.t. globalization and not capturing data accurately.
First, $250 Billion is certainly ridiculously small to throw at a $625 Trillion hole. Like trying to save the Titanic by sticking a needle in the iceberg hole.
But you're also right that they didn't direct it correctly.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
In that I'm not sure that we should consider managers who do no manufacturing inside the United States, to be a part of the GDP.
There's a big hole in the definition of GDP that includes overseas manufacturing- if manufacturing was really expanding again domestically, we'd see an increase in the raw number of people employed, and we're not seeing that.
What aspect are you looking at that shows a true growth in the economy, as opposed to a growth in special interest parasitic salaries?
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Robert, I do appreciate what NDD has done in the past, but I think we really need to redefine our economic language in this arena.
NO RECOVERY WITHOUT LOWERING UNEMPLOYMENT should be the new definition.
The real argument here isn't between yellow weeds and green shoots- it's between true economic expansion and nuclear wipe out of the American middle class.
And anybody who thinks we can have both, is just fooling themselves, because *there are no other consumers left in the world*.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
it's a beholden issue. They could have easily, easily given power to even Volcker, but to other economists, experts, policies. People have been almost screaming about it...
so I would claim team Obama is beholden to some agenda. Larry Summers is just the tip of the iceberg.
I look at that "sticking your thumb in the air and guess" 1% of GDP = Stimulus, otherwise known as "throw money at it" and shake my head. It is just not a valid methodology and it's being proved again and again.
I wrote this, Global Implosion overviewing some of the World Bank statistics, from June 22, 2009.
The World Bank report shows very muddied, dire situation for the U.S. even with GDP. Projections are: 1.8% - 2010 2.5% - 2011 GDP growth...
but.... look at India, China. and then (I'm working on this) GDP attributed to the U.S. really isn't because they wrongly calculate productivity that is really offshore, into U.S. GDP.
(BTW: the world bank website sucks. They break their links almost daily, so we might have to upload data to EP).
To create balances in rasbucknicks.
But to answer your real question, it's largely inflation positive- which is what we need right now. If they work anything like the BND has, state banks free up credit for other uses, creating local inflation, which is what is needed to create local jobs.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
is slowing the process down? Funneling money through state bureaucracies could be slowing it down. States may have certain procurement requirements on top of the requirements attached to the Federal dollars.
Pages