(Note: I only read the first paper in detail, but the second is quite popular.)
Sounds like it's inviting companies to continue to profit while not hiring or rehiring their workforce a lower wage...making less, but probably paying the same living expenses.
A monetary or fiscal stimulus does the same thing - the only difference is that instead of making 10% less dollars, workers earn the same number of dollars but prices go up 10%.
The housing market is flooded with foreclosed properties going nowhere.
This is because regulations allow banks to mark properties to a model, rather than to market. This is also why banks are not foreclosing on a lot of deadbeats - they don't have to admit to shareholders that they took a loss until after they foreclose.
This is basically just a way for banks to cook the books, but for some reason politicians and regulators don't seem to care. Strange.
Sounds like accepting reality. Moral hazard is real, and this has been empirically demonstrated whenever a natural experiment presents itself.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xdATBYGtHBcJ:...
http://ftp.iza.org/dp2171.pdf
(Note: I only read the first paper in detail, but the second is quite popular.)
Sounds like it's inviting companies to continue to profit while not hiring or rehiring their workforce a lower wage...making less, but probably paying the same living expenses.
A monetary or fiscal stimulus does the same thing - the only difference is that instead of making 10% less dollars, workers earn the same number of dollars but prices go up 10%.
The housing market is flooded with foreclosed properties going nowhere.
This is because regulations allow banks to mark properties to a model, rather than to market. This is also why banks are not foreclosing on a lot of deadbeats - they don't have to admit to shareholders that they took a loss until after they foreclose.
This is basically just a way for banks to cook the books, but for some reason politicians and regulators don't seem to care. Strange.