CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Andrew Ross Sorkin Warns Readers Not to Make Wall Street Unhappy

Andrew Ross Sorkin Warns Readers Not to Make Wall Street Unhappy

Print
Tuesday, 31 August 2010 05:15

Mr. Sorkin noted Wall Street's shift of funding to Republicans and told readers that:

"Mr. Loeb’s views, irrespective of their validity, point to a bigger problem for the economy: If business leaders have a such a distrust of government, they won’t invest in the country. And perception is becoming reality."

Is that so? Well, business leaders were never more angry at the government than during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. And, let's see what they did in those years. Here are the growth rates for non-residential fixed investment in the first four years of the New Deal.

1934   27.4%

1935   26.7%

1936   35.2%

1937   19.8%

It looks like the business leaders were able to put their anger aside and invest where it was profitable. Of course business leaders always stand to gain if they convince the public of the argument that Mr. Sorkin is making -- if the government doesn't give them everything they want then they won't invest. However, the evidence does not seem to support Mr. Sorkin's assertion.

 

Comments (7)Add Comment
extractive industry
written by scott, August 31, 2010 7:42
No, Wall Street is playing a domestic carry trade game, getting their 1/2% loans an buying 3% T-bills, inflating commodities.

Oil should be $10/barrel:
http://www.cnbc.com//id/38915139

and, the economy is doing much better than Wall Street is letting on, anyone investigate who's shorting the economy?
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/28/2429553/a-tale-of-two-cities.html

You should notice another point embedded in the second story, that in Burbank home prices are above their bubble highs, but in Stockdale CA, they are lower--two big differences, Burbank is upper class, Stockdale middle/working class; and Burbank pays 1/3 for electricity as Stockdale.

You haven't written about this at all, you've perpetuated the Housing bubble beyond evidence, and never looked at the pernicious effect of "deregulation" and other extractive wealth generators.

Forbes recently listed Ambit as the fasted growing company in America--they provide NOTHING but a charade of competitive electricity. Our policies cripple the poor and working class, which is unnoticed by the elites--which you MUST consider yourself.
...
written by izzatzo, August 31, 2010 7:52
There was also a continuous series of deficits in the billions every year from 1932 to 1946 as listed below in nominal year dollars, except for the smallest in 1938 at only $89M, when FDR tried to balance the budget with less spending, and the economy went into a double dip recession, until reversed by subsequent record deficit war spending that peaked with a debt/GNP ratio of 123%, followed by years of prosperity.

In 1936 a deficit of $4.3B coincided with Bakers private investment growth rate of 35.2%, where the latter would have been much higher, but investors were convinced that the Social Security Act just passed in 1935 would become an IOU Treasury Bill swamp, the present value of the damage including the trust fund raided by 310 million cow tits by 2010 to crowd out private spending with inflation and high interest rates borrowed abroad from the commies to fund high trade deficits.

1932 - $2.76B

1933 - $2.6B

1934 - $3.59B

1935 - $2.8B

1936 - $4.3B

1937 - $2.2B

1938 - $89M

1939 - $2.85B

1940 - $2.9B

1941 - $4.9B

1942 - $20.5B

1943 - $54.6B

1944 - $47.6B

1945 - $47.6B

1946 - $15.9B

* Recent issues of school texts consistent with Intelligent Design Economics do not include this data, explaining instead that WWII and the Great Depression were overcome by divine intervention, and had the claimed deficits actually occured, America would be no more.
...
written by diesel, August 31, 2010 10:16
Intelligent Design is a no brainer.
...better than what we have and what we have had?
written by Scott ffolliott, August 31, 2010 1:36
If the U S Treasury were the lender of last resort not to the banks, but directly to production that benefits the public good, would it not create benefits for ordinary people more equal and better than what we have and what we have had?

“Acceptance of inequality rests on assumptions that 'free markets' make us all richer in the end. Growth figures tell it differently” - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...ket-growth
What a Crock
written by libhomo, August 31, 2010 9:18
These days, "business leaders" are too busy speculating in China's economy to invest in ours.
Disinvestment, who distrusts whom?
written by deanx, September 01, 2010 6:01
As is often said, What goes around comes around. Whilst Wall Street distrusts the Government, Main Street is distrusting Wall Street;

Money-Market Outflows $4.58 Billion In Latest Week
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100818-709733.html

Sounds like alot of finger pointing going around.
libhomo
written by scott, September 01, 2010 8:58
Wall Street is speculating on commodities on a global scale, vastly inflating the cost of goods for everyone. If oil prices were based on supply and demand it would be at $10/barrel. Dean doesn't believe this, but what's unclear is what he doesn't believe in, supply and demand, or his theory based in nothing but blind ideology that speculation doesn't raise the costs of commodities. Sure, there is a day of reckoning, but those players who have insider info, (GS and BP) won't be the last suckers at the table. Naive, naive Dean.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives