The Boston Globe has the article Central bankers issue strong warning on asset bubbles. I was looking for something sensible in this article.

The organization, which reflects a widespread view among central bankers that they are bearing more than their share of the burden of fixing the global economy, often uses its annual reports to send a message to political leaders, commercial bankers, and investors.

Well that certainly looked promising.  Monetary policy cannot fix what ails the world economy.  It needs some fiscal stimulus.  Let’s see what the central bankers recommend.

The organization said governments should do more to improve the performance of their economies, such as reducing restrictions on hiring and firing.

Well they missed that easy target by a mile.  Maybe they have some advice for corporations.

The organization also had harsh words for corporations, which it said were not taking advantage of booming stock markets to step up investment.

I wonder what part of the following scenario these bozos don’t understand.

Ms. CEO is pondering what to do next.  She responded to the economic crash by cutting back her corporation’s production, closed, plants, and laid off  workers because she wasn’t able to sell all the goods her  corporation was producing.

Now that she has reduced the production level to match the lowered demand, her corporation is making profits again.  In fact they are piling up.  She has already got research and development rolling to come up with new products that will make old products obsolete.  This is about the only way to get people to buy some more stuff because the people who have old stuff don’t need more, and the people who need more stuff don’t have the money to buy it.

Still the profits are piling up.  So Ms. CEO gives herself and her staff whopping income increases.  She ups the dividends to the stock holders, and investors flock to buy more shares so that they can get some level of earnings.

Still the profits are piling up.  Ms. CEO discovers that the corporation can play games with financial investments, derivatives, and financializing the company as an easy way to make even more profits.

She and her fellow CEO’s have trillions of dollars in liquid assets  that they don’t know what to do with.  Suddenly she makes a discovery.  The stock market is booming, her corporation is raking in money hand over fist, yet there is still no demand for more production output from her idle factories.  “I know” she says, “I’ll invest in cranking up my  factories so I can give stuff away for free.  That will fix my problem of too much profit piling up.”  Yeah, right!!!

So what is it that the central bankers expect corporations to invest in?  Does it take deep study of the latest theories in economics to understand the situation.  It’s as simple as “What part of no freakin’ customers do you not understand?”

Some experts are selling the idea that if we focus more wealth at the top of society, that will surely encourage more demand.  How many more  mansions, yachts, and private jets can one billionaire buy.  Eventually they run out of places to spend their money.  They certainly aren’t going to use their money to open up idle factories and hire workers when they already have factory output in balance with the now lowered consumer demand.

So central bankers and congressional experts of a right wing persuasion, I again ask,

“What part of no freakin’ customers do you not understand?”

Politico has the story Harris v. Quinn ruling: Unions hit, but not fatally, by SCOTUS.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home health care workers in Illinois cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they don’t wish to join.
.
.
.
Union leaders had feared that the justices might strike down those state laws as unconstitutional. The justices did not go that far. They issued a more narrow ruling that the home health care workers at issue in the case are not “full-fledged public employees” because they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes, though they are paid in part by the state, via Medicaid.

Apparently it is not enough that workers have a vote in what their unions do, if you don’t like how they represent you, then you can refuse to pay for the work they do even though the majority of other workers agree with the union.

Can I refuse to pay the government the taxes that they use for purposes that do not get my approval? Why just limit myself to the specific part of the taxes they use to carry out a policy I don’t like? Why can’t I just refuse to pay all taxes? This seems to be the logic that follows from this decision.

Perhaps only if I refuse to become a full-fledged resident can I avoid paying my taxes.

From the Syllabus of the decision, we have a discussion of a precedent here called Abood:

(3)Extending Abood’s boundaries to encompass partial public employees would invite problems. State regulations and benefits affecting such employees exist along a continuum, and it is unclear at what point, short of full-fledged public employment, Abood should apply. Under respondents’ view, a host of workers who currently receive payments from a government entity for some sort of service would become candidates for inclusion within Abood’s reach, and it would be hard to see where to draw the line. Pp. 27–29

To dig deeper, I’d have to learn exactly what service the union provides the workers. Is the Supreme Court making a value judgment on the service provided versus the payment that is mandated? Is this something a Supreme Court ought to decide?

This all reminds me of some of the lyrics to the song If I Were a Rich Man.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
“If you please, Reb Tevye…”
“Pardon me, Reb Tevye…”
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi’s eyes!

Are the eyes of judges crossed yet?

Mother Jones has selected what they think are The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision. Here is an example of one of the 8.

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

If it is against your religious principles to hire someone who is not of the same religion, has the Supreme Court just given you the right to discriminate?

This is only one example of self-contradiction in the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or maybe not. This only says that Congress may not do it. Was the original intent that only the Supreme Court could establish religion and choose the ones that would be established? Otherwise, how can you make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion without establishing what a religion is. Establishment must have the meaning I am attributing to it in this context, because the other meaning would not make any sense. Try the following substitution of words to see the problem – “Congress shall make no law respecting a church, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” How do you exercise a church?

Thanks to Jennifer Kaplan’s Facebook post for bringing the Mother Jones article to my attention.

I don’t usually post links to Huffington Post articles, but this one, #FreeTheNipple: This Bikini Top Sticks Two Fingers Up To Censorship, is worth discussing. Also note that this is from the British edition of Huffington Post.

On their website the makers of the bikini, Robyn Graves and Michelle Lytle, write: “Why can’t girls be topless? If you really think about it, what’s the difference between a man’s nipples and a woman’s? Is it really just the extra breast tissue?

I have mused about the irony that the part of a woman’s breast that is most different from a man’s can be completely exposed without legal consequence. The only part that must not be shown is the part that is most similar to a man’s.

Am I allowed to post this on my blog?

As part of “Finding the answers to life’s persistent questions”, you might wonder about the phrase “stick two fingers up”.

The answer is on the WikiPedia page V sign.

It is also used by people of the United Kingdom and related cultures as an offensive gesture (when displayed with the palm inward); and by many others simply to signal the number 2. Since the 1960s, when the “V sign” was widely adopted by the counterculture movement, it has come to be used as a symbol of peace (usually with palm outward).

Read the rest of the definition to see the connection with the phrase in the headline.

Naked Capitalism has the article Randy Wray: The Rise of Monetary Cranks and Fixing What Ain’t Broke.  If I give you the conclusion, I run the risk that you won’t read the article.  However, at least you may have the seed of the idea planted in your head. I assure you that you will learn a lot more by reading the whole article. For instance you will learn why things that are bad when done to excess might be quite necessary when done in moderation.

The Role of Monetary Cranks

Yes, the rotting fish on Wall Street and in London stinks. We need downsizing. We need reform—not only of the financial system that exists, but also of the crisis response that we will need when the system fails next time. You can be sure there will be a next time.

This is the time for monetary cranks.

No good ideas will come out of the mainstream. They never saw the crisis coming, indeed, their advice in the speculative run-up made the crash not only inevitable but much worse than it would have been. They were behind the bail-outs of Wall Street and London. Their rescue of the banksters will hasten and deepen the next crisis. Do not listen to them.

We need to remember two things, however, as we assess the proposals of our cranks.

First, there is no final solution. There is no magic reform that will prevent another crisis. As Minsky said, “stability is destabilizing”. Any successful reform will lead to the recreation of instability that will lead to another crisis.

Second, it is essential that the reform proposal is based on a coherent and valid theoretical framework.

One way to judge the monetary cranks that are proposing reforms is to ask: “Where were you a decade ago?” Did you see “it” (the crisis) coming? Did you have a coherent theory which explained why a financial crisis would occur? Is your proposal consistent with that theoretical framework? What the heck is your monetary framework?

I have seen the term “bankster” in many of the writings of William K. Black. Until this article pointed it out, I never got the intended similarity between “banksters” and “gangsters”.