From the creators of the QE bears, presented last year, Omid Malekan is back with an essay on the Fed.
A recent article from Reuters on fears within the Economics profession of political encroachment on Fed action reads like a standard piece by the Media on the Central Bank. It starts with the assumption that the Fed is all knowing, and concludes that anyone trying to interfere with that process is wrong. This a remarkable anomaly from an industry that prides itself on its ability to speak truth to power. Traditionally in American politics, the more powerful a government official or body, the more critical and varied the media coverage, as can be seen by the turnout for a Presidential press conference vs one held by your local County Executive. But when it comes to the Fed, the relationship is turned upside down, and that’s remarkable for two reasons.
If you missed his newest sharp arguments regarding the Eurozone, here is refresher via Spiegel online. George Soros, still going strong.
The fate of the euro will be decided in Germany. That’s what legendary investor George Soros writes in an essay this week published first by the New York Review of Books and later by SPIEGEL ONLINE in Germany. The 82-year-old believes that Germany either needs to be convinced or pushed to take greater action. And he argues that the country must either lead as a “benevolent hegemon” or leave the euro.
Soros, a native of Hungary, has emerged as one of the leading critics of the German government’s policies in addressing the euro crisis. In light of the dramatic developments in recent weeks, the billionaire investor has once again sharpened his arguments. (Full reading here).
Guest post by Azizonomics.
A whole lot of pundits are spending column inches trying to explain the cruel reality of the last forty years — stagnant wages for full-time male workers, and falling wages for men as a whole:
And there has been a huge outgrowth of men who aren’t in the labour force. In 1954, 96 percent of American men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. Today, that number is down to 80 percent. That’s a humungous decrease.
The question is why.
Mainstream media pundits are suggesting that men are unsuited to the present economic landscape. The suggestion is that men have been bad at adapting to change, and that women have been good at adapting to change:
In The End of Men: And the Rise of Women, Hanna Rosin argues that changes in the world economy have dramatically shifted gender roles. Women have adapted more skillfully to the new socioeconomic landscape by doggedly pursuing self-improvement opportunities, rebranding as the economy requires it, and above all possessing the kind of 21st century work attributes — such as strong communication skills, collaborative leadership and flexibility — that are nudging out the brawny, stuck-in-amber guys. Rock steadiness, long a cherished masculine trait, turns out to be about as useful in our fleet-footed economy as a flint arrowhead. Life favors the adapters, and it turns out they’re more likely to be women.