LyrArc Article Gist
Jenna Wortham asks the question do tech companies have undue influence in Washington especially when they are pursuing their own ecosystem expansion, citing an example from Facebook app Free Basics. There is another question that comes with the election campaigns of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, and issues of upward mobility. With this issue raised also by Janet Yellen of the U.S. Federal Reserve of the loss of intergenerational mobility in the U.S. at a conference in Oct. 2014. This question is whether the tech world in California can be sensitive to the problems of cities depending on manufacturing in the midwest and the eastern U.S. that are recovering from deep recession, because the environments are so different. Working in the tech world in California is so different from the rest of the country, almost a different way of life. It also has deep political implications, because the priorities are different. Sometimes as with the TPP trade agreement they may conflict- this includes an industry such as the auto industry that also is incorporating technology at an accelerating pace and which has employed many times more people than does the tech industry in California, and in many states. This leads to president Obama's support for the TPP trade agreement, an agreement which analysis by some experts shows is more beneficial to the tech industry in California than to the auto industry in the midwestern states. The NYT's Krugman says overall for the U.S. it is marginally helpful as most of the gains in free trade are already behind us. See Lyrarc using search terms-Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership. Yet it remains a mystery why president Obama has made it a part of his legacy, when Hillary Clinton realizing the issues in this election has clearly stated she will not support it. It has other implications as well, as it has given rise to demagogic rhetoric in this election, where other issues far more significant such as the condition of western democracy are at stake. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In its May 2011 special report on international banking the Economist points out the need for banking regulators to take stronger action than they have so far. What it calls "pre-emptive insurance" it says is needed - stronger regulation, larger capital cushions, and some form of separation of different kinds of banking. Without this the dangers of excessive risk taking and banks that are "too big to fail" will continue to threaten the world's economy. Banks that are smaller and better capitalized says the Economist can fail more gracefully than the large mega banks that exist at this time. In fact the banks today in the U.S. are larger than at the time of the 2008 crisis. Other analysts also point to the lack of major changes in banking and financial structures today compared to the situation before the 2008 crisis, both in Europe and the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Gorton and Prof. Metrick of the Yale School of Management review 16 scholarly studies and papers on the causes of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis in the current isue of the Journal of Economic Literature. Another article in the same journal reviews 21 books on the subject. Samuelson says the most cited causes- lax regulation and passive regulators, and the policy of home ownership that encourage the packaging and of securitization of mortgages to government sponsored agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are only the surface causes. If we are to explain how a whole society seemed to believe in the idea that somehow there was a way to maintain a rising tide continuously, with only small corrections over several decades, by the clever manipulation of monetary and fiscal policies; then one has to look to the hubris of economists who acted as if this was possible and the gullibility of business and a public that desperately wanted to believe as some have put it "that this time it was different," or that shrewd management of economic policy could actually bring about such a panacea. The abiding lesson is economic policies based on a better understanding of how modern industrial economies work are merely useful tools, no more no less, and there is no substitute for a good ethic, wise management and careful thinking on the part of the public, business and government, particularly for the people in leadership positions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Federal Reserve governor Daniel Tarullo tells the Council on Foreign Relations that so much remains to be done four years after the financial crisis. The law firm of Davis Polk says 67 percent of deadlines were missed for new rules required to be set in place by the Dodd-Frank legislation, including the Volcker Rule. Tarullo said: "It is sobering to recognize that more than four years after the failure of Bear Stearns began the acute phase of the financial crisis, so much remains to be done." Tarullo fears that crucial momentum may be lost because of the long delays stemming from resistance by the banks. Tarullo met with bank CEO's in April 2012. Banks have protested that Fed stress tests have not revealed the parameters for the testing. Tarullo's response given at a recent Fed conference in Chicago were that this would let banks game the exercize by running the Federal Reserve model and not improving risk management and capital planning, making this a mechanical compliance exercize. Banks have particularly opposed a requirement that limits the risk in business between two banks to 10% of their credit risk....

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...