21–30 of 214 posts
"Too much finance is bad for the economy. Please pay us to hear our reasoning."
Given that the working paper is free, I have no idea why you would say that. http://bis.org/publ/work490.pdf
Basically bankers are like lawyers, gardeners, cooks, doctors, pool cleaners etc: service jobs to help other people get things done. When you elevate the sector to have implicit value you get a terrible distortion.
To put a finer point on it, doctors and cooks, along with farmers, builders, teachers, daycare workers, et al. existed ever since everyone started specializing. They directly support life needs.
No, a large financial sector is an indicator of inefficiencies elsewhere. Else, there wouldn't be a reason to pay middlemen to solve said inefficiencies.
"Too much finance is bad for the economy. Please pay us to hear our reasoning."
What would you rather have?
Basically bankers are like lawyers, gardeners, cooks, doctors, pool cleaners etc: service jobs to help other people get things done. When you elevate the sector to have implicit value you get a terrible distortion.
Unlike pool cleaners, doctors, cooks and gardeners.
The article doesn't explain the linkage. Why would poaching of high-skilled workers lead to investment in companies with collateral? Or, are they just saying that whenever finance becomes prominent it attempts to drive out risk ruthlessly?
Meh. What do we need economic growth for anyway? Producing and throwing away another hundred million tons of food every year? New phones every six months or once a quarter? A third car? More shoes? We have enough of everything and much more, there is absolutely no need to grow western economies any further.
Basically bankers are like lawyers, gardeners, cooks, doctors, pool cleaners etc: service jobs to help other people get things done. When you elevate the sector to have implicit value you get a terrible distortion.
Bankers are middlemen and gatekeepers. Unlike pool cleaners, doctors, cooks and gardeners.
For example, let's look at your checking account. A banker's not a middleman here - they're providing a service that allows you to keep you money safe for free while they invest it and assume the risk. Seems like a good service to me.
No, a large financial sector is an indicator of inefficiencies elsewhere. Else, there wouldn't be a reason to pay middlemen to solve said inefficiencies.
Fraud at the heart of high finance, unsustainable lending, de-regulation of gambling activities and ZIRP all contribute to said inefficiencies.
Meh. What do we need economic growth for anyway? Producing and throwing away another hundred million tons of food every year? New phones every six months or once a quarter? A third car? More shoes? We have enough of everything and much more, there is absolutely no need to grow western economies any further.
Unfortunately, the individual, market demand for these large-scale "products" is minuscule - which means that (modulo SpaceX) you only get political will behind them, which means academic research funded by government grants, which means a not-very-well-paid and overtly politicized existence for anyone wanting to "get out and push".
That said, I think there's a curious and under-served middle-ground in First-World countries, particularly in the US, which is to develop distributed, self-reliant, green (and inherently 'local') ways of living through technology. It helps with the biosphere goal, and plays to the "rugged individualism" meme that is still present, at least in a vestigial form. Maybe when people are running their own solar panels, hydroponic garden/air purifier, reusing waste water, there will be less interest in finance.