Articles

Our usual problem in history (of economics) is a lack of information.

I think I am on the track of what ‘New Economics’ is, and one could roughly sum up two days of presentations in two diagrams:

Lunch was just interrupted Bill Janeway standing up to announce that this morning he decided to give $25m to INET and the board will fund-raise this up to $100m over ten years, but then George Soros added $50m in unconditional funding for INET.

FT Alphaville has picked up on my friend James Sweeney’s latest, and since James cites the latest writings by other friends Zoltan Pozsar, Manmohan Singh, as well as my own most recent, the piece reads like a discussant’s comments on a shadow banking symposium.

Having just started Findlay and O’Rourke’s mammoth history of world trade in the second millenia, I have been struck by a strange incongruity

Perry and I extend our apologies for the unplanned hiatus. By way of breaking radio silence, it seems appropriate to check in on our two favorite banks.

I am writing from my notes. The event I want to report took place some two months ago, I have since been preoccupied, then occupied, and now increasingly overwhelmed.

When I started this blog, almost exactly one year ago today, my thought was to provide commentary on the financial events of the day, using the Financial Times as my primary source of information about those events.

As we prepare to digest the implications of this week’s ECB move, it seems worthwhile to take a look at the monetary economics of fixed exchange rates.

Amid mass unemployment and economic turmoil, instructors who lecture on the superiority of free markets without acknowledging the dysfunction in the wider economy are at risk of appearing out of touch and exacerbating antipathy towards economics.