Breaking: Countries Act In Their Own Interests In Spite Of What's Best For Everyone Else
from the now-that-that's-settled... dept
The prisoner’s dilemma, it seems, is still a profitable mine in economic academia.
A couple of researchers at the New York Fed are out with a new paper on capital controls. In it, conventional wisdom (and the aforementioned dilemma) proves right and the contrarian view, dating from the Asian financial crisis 15 years ago, wrong.
When countries simultaneously and independently engage in such interventions in the international flow of capital, not only global but individual welfare is adversely affected….
Countries decide to restrict the international flow of capital exactly when this flow is crucial to ensure cross-border risk sharing. Our findings point to the possibility of costly “capital control wars” and thus to significant gains from international policy coordination.
But here’s the really shocking revelation:
The paper does allow that restricting capital flows can make sense from the perspective of an individual nation. It’s just that in following this path, trouble is created for the broader global financial system.
NY Fed Paper Argues Against Capital Controls [WSJ Real Time Economics]
Other posts from Dealbreaker:
- Dell Board Suggests That Shareholders Not Get Too Attached To Dell
- Apple Not The First Company To Think It Can Make Better Use Of Its Money Than David Einhorn
- Dell Shareholders Will Punch Themselves In The Face To Force Silver Lake To Be Nicer To Them
Filed Under: countries, dealbreaker, interests, new york fed
Comments on “Breaking: Countries Act In Their Own Interests In Spite Of What's Best For Everyone Else”
The Entertainment Industry Act In Their Own Interests In Spite Of What’s Best For Everyone Else
Isn’t it a human trait? To think of their own welfare first while ignoring that the collective welfare actually is better overall?
Link to the actual paper...
“Capital Controls in a Small Open Economy”
If you don’t trust the link, (and really, you shouldn’t) just google the authors’ names. It should be the first hit:
Bianca De Paoli and Anna Lipinska
Nature vs Idealists
Every living thing on Earth is self-interested.
? Eco-systems are overrun by invasive (self-interested) species
? Food chains are designed in a pyramid to ensure a large base to support more specialized (self-interested) higher life
? Human desires are based on a self-interested hierarchy
?Maslow?s Esteem Needs? breaks this down nicely – all VERY self-interested
1) Thirst, Hunger
2) Security, Protection
3) Social needs, Love
4) Self-esteem, Recognition
Govts are run by self-interested humans, so it always ?shocks? idealists (I call them fools) when people/Govts conduct themselves in a self-interested manner.
Re: Nature vs Idealists
Eh, he’s wrong.
Most basic human instincts (programming, drives, whatever):
And that’s where it aaaaallllll begins…
Re: Re: Nature vs Idealists
Funny how a nobody is telling everyone that a well known, established and accepted concept of Hierarchy of Needs is wrong.
Elbows and aholes, everyone’s got’em…
Re: Re: Re: Nature vs Idealists
Funny how an anonymous coward doesn’t have the balls to identify himself, and yet calls the guy with a real name a “nobody”. :tard:
“academics” have been wrong before; and they are usually a bunch of pompous asses who will twist everything to fit their own view of the world. At least I call it like I see it, right :tard;?
It should be “POLITICIANS Act in Their Own Interests In Spite of What’s Best for Everone Else.”