The Economist April 4 - 10th 2009 (Malestrom)

http://www.image-upload.net/images/gearp3kqupb8mal4z8b.jpeg The Economist (April 4 - 10th 2009) 168 Pages | English | PDF Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians?and dangerous for everybody else: The market’s self-correction will not be enough, however. Higher taxes will eventually be inevitable, since so many governments have lurched heavily into deficit. But politicians must tread carefully. Tax rises right away would be a rotten idea, since for the moment fiscal stimulus is needed. And even when governments raise the money, they should first get rid of deductions and reverse unmeritocratic measures (such as George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax) rather than jacking up income-tax rates to punitive levels. Squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, and the juice goes out of the economy. As for heads-I-win capitalism, the problem of asymmetric risk should shrink, because the rule changes needed to make the financial system safer will also remove unwarranted profits. Contra-cyclical capital requirements, forcing banks to build more reserves during good times, will leave them less cash to splurge on bonuses. Many of the sweetest sources of profit sprang up in the cracks between regulatory systems; governments are now filling in these gaps. If central banks focus on asset markets when they rise as well as when they fall, they will remove much of the froth. Treat a bank that becomes too big to fail like a utility, and it will make less money. Curbing the excesses of wealth, then, will be a side effect of regulations designed to make capitalism work better. Such measures will not provide the lyrics to revolutionary anthems, but they are going to be better than going after the wealthy. The rich are an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

slonisko (2009-04-03)

great. thnx a lot.
pls, don't you have more of The Economist?