Keep me signed in on this device for 30 days
You cut your risk of major economic collapse by not putting all your eggs in one basket, as they did with mortgages. The danger is to have too much confidence in (or too much artificial government support for) one type of investment, like mortgages, or solar energy. When banks do stupid things, it’s usually because government has incentivized the stupidity.
Fine interview and podcast. I listened twice so far, there are lots of interesting tidbits. I may have to spend a few bucks on the book.
These are collector edition podcasts, no commercial intro from Rob…yet.
Excellent podcast! Three of the key takeaways I got from this are:
Romney’s got to somehow distill these issues down to a simple enough form that enough voters can comprehend the situation and vote for him. I pray he can do it.
Jim & Ed, really a great podcast. Thoughtful, detailed, provocative. I was taking notes throughout — and am off to buy Ed’s book, too. I’ve long believed that the breadth and depth of innovation is among the most critical factors separating the US economy from the rest of the world. I fear we the current administration’s policies, with the ACA’s caps on medical technology ROI and the general tilt toward MITI-like industrial policy, will do real damage to our innovation engine. I hope I’m wrong.
Jim and Ed’s discussion gives me hope. Looking forward to the next episode, Jim.
Though to be fair, certain foreign governments (China and a few Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds come to mind) were also creating perverse incentives by putting all of their money in the U.S. basket.
The first two episodes of this podcast have been superb. A great addition to Ricochet’s member benefits.
WOW! That was a great podcast. I will probably need to listen to it at least once more to get everything out of it. In the meantime, I have also listened to the first part of his John Stewart appearance and I have the second part cued up, for when I have a chance.
Truly, this podcast post should be bumped back up to the top, to make sure that people (like me) that hadn’t got to it, give it a listen. To partially respond to Mel Foil, I think Conard’s point would be that the mortgage issue, as well as the moral hazard issue, are givens. However, he emphasizes that the withdrawal aspect, forcing banks to maintain additional reserves to protect against runs, that is the avoidable drag on recovery that could be mitigated by admitting that the government is going to be the ultimate gaurantor and charging the banks fees to reflect that reality.
So much to consider, and reconsider, when I have a chance to listen again.
I enjoyed it, especially the setting of the empyrical record straight regarding income growth and percieved inequality, etc; I also liked his mention of rational expectations needed to be better considered in policy debates, especially in tax debates.
However, I think his analysis of the “Great Recession” was flawed. He is far too much in to the Chicago school and isn’t taking into account enough of either Austrian business cycle theory and/or public choice theory (especially regarding the Fed and the cure being worse than the disease–the cure is certainly worse because if as Madison wrote, men aren’t angels). I’d love to hear him have a conversation with Russ Roberts of EconTalk.
Content-dense. Listened to it three times. Wouldn’t hurt to sit down in a hard chair, strong cup of coffee, no outside distractions, and listen to it a fourth time. Great podcast.