Sep 7th 2010, 21:28 by R.A. | WASHINGTON
TODAY'S recommended economics writing:
• Money can buy happiness, but only up to $75,000 (Huffington Post)
• A tale of three states (Economix)
• It's a bad idea to regulate the art market (Felix Salmon)
• Cheng Siwei on China's property bubble (FT beyondbrics)
• Keynes' conference and Morgenthau's dream (Edge of the American West)
• Breakfast at Richard's (Worthwhile Canadian Initiative)
In this blog, our correspondents consider the fluctuations in the world economy and the policies intended to produce more booms than busts. Adam Smith argued that in a free exchange both parties benefit, and this blog's aim is to encourage a free exchange of views on economic matters.
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
"Thus if we want to understand how Bretton Woods happened and why it worked..." from Edge of the American West. It it worked, why did we abandon it in less than a generation and never look back? Keynes was personally charismatic and persuasive, but he knew little about economics, or so said his good friend Hayek who knew his as well as anyone. Hayek called Keynes the greatest man he ever knew, but he admitted Keynes was ignorant about economics.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative: "And if he's urging the FOMC to pay more heed to those views, you'd want him to have the quantitative analysis to back them up."
Keynesians always demand empirical evidence from their opponents, but not for themselves. Keynes wrote it and that's good enough for them. Or they trot out a silly exercise like Zandi's in which a model that assumes the Keynesian multiplier works magically proves that it does.
Keynesians know well that monetary pumping will eventually create price inflation. Hayek asked his good friend, Lord Keynes, what he thought of the inflationary policies of his students, which Keynes found ridiculous. He told Hayek that he would turn them around if they got out of control. But then Keynes died a few weeks later before he could reverse the damage that he say coming.
The only difference between Keynesians and Hayekians is the time horizon: Keynesians care only about the short run (In the long run we're dead) while Hayekians care about the long run. Keynesians pretend that the long run never comes, but somehow it always does and we always have to pay for past sins of focusing on the short run.
The Economist should start following my economics blog: http://GonzoEcon.com. After all, I can spell "economics." (Here's what I pasted from above: "TODAY'S recommended economcis writing:"
Tony Lima
Silicon Valley, CA
Also, my submission for Link Exchange:
The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to fine HSBC USA as much as $500 million for anti-money laundering compliance problems, an amount that would be the largest-ever penalty for such violations, say individuals familiar with the investigation.
Unfortunately the full story is behind a paywall, but here is the link in regards to the investigation:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hsbc-us-unit-probed-over-anti-launderin...
Wait, so HuffPo is telling me this is as good as it's going to get?
Wow, that is depressing. Although I feel less guilty about my blog posting habit now.