Thank you, @andrewrsorkin, for compiling these - largely, appropriately critical - essays on Milton Friedman's work of a half century ago. But one critical argument is absent: The change in composition of share ownership over the past 50 years.>> nyti.ms/2GRaXTK
As Hyman Minsky wrote sometime after Friedman's disturbing exegesis on corporate capitalism, even by the 1970s - larger by magnitudes since - the shareholders for whom profits are being generated have become isolated from corporate governance/oversight by "money managers.">>
This "money manager capitalism" is not really focused on profits, but on values reflected in stock prices. Regardless of profitability, manager-intermediaries seek, at all costs, price gains that place them in a competitive, or at least equal, position with other managers.>>
And they reward - handsomely - a managerial class for obtaining stock price gains, without regard to short of long term profitability. And, for the most part, these money managers can't "vote with their feet" and exit otherwise mismanaged companies for fear of their own...>>
...competition (other managers) NOT exiting and obtaining superior portfolio returns. Friedman's deluded prescription ignored the then developing nature of share ownership. Reading into Friedman a commitment to long-term profitability is, accordingly, besides the point.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dan Alpert

Dan Alpert Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DanielAlpert

3 Apr
MARCH 12th - keep that date in mind this morning. We will have lots to talk about regarding the #BLS employment situation report at 8:30am EDT. But remember that the test date for "jobs day" data is the 12th of the month being reported. And March 12 was before the lock downs.>>
>>Consequently, today's Non-farm Payroll data won't come anywhere near reflecting the reality of the #COVID19 pandemic impact.
Nevertheless, will be back at 8:30 and expect to see a material, if early, loss of front line low-wage/low-hours - see why, here: jobqualityindex.com
#BLS #NFP Payrolls decline by 701,000 with the unemployment rate at 4.4. This is just the tip of the iceberg as the reference date for the data is the week ending March 13th, before the social and economic lock downs. But really bad.>>
Read 14 tweets
11 Mar
If I had a $ for each time I have heard MMT used positively over the past month, I could monetize the debt of an average US household! The markets, CEOs and not just a few pols are cutting from "mainstream" economists. My prediction: An epochal change, the likes of 1932 and 1980.
See, for example, this from today:

Rishi Sunak to signal end of austerity with huge leap in borrowing - giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/ac… via @FT
And, you might see my piece from the weekend as to why this is happening - and should be (in which I never actually refer to MMT - just its essential logic):
Read 4 tweets
1 Nov 19
#BLS Today's job's report will be the last prior to the launch of the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index (JQI) on November 14th, which will thereafter be updated and released on each "jobs day." #JQI is a collaborative of @Cornell, @cpa_tradereform, @UMKC and @GISP_Tweets,>>
>and tracks shifts in job quality related to relative levels of weekly income (wages times hours) on a real time basis from month to month. The JQI reveals is three decades of astonishing job quality decline, reflecting a substantial increase in the number of>>
> production and non-supervisory jobs that are below the mean level weekly incomes of all such jobs. In 1990, 52.7% of those jobs fell below the mean – but since then, 63% of all net new job formation has been lower wage/lower hours. >>
Read 10 tweets
28 Sep 19
To all folks out there convinced that 20 Republicans cannot be found to turn against Trump, let me point out the following. There are three Republicans retiring from the senate who have the latitude to do the right thing. And, of course, there is Romney who almost>>
>>certainly will. Now, for the rest, there are 20 Republicans up for reelection in 2020 who are not retiring. Let's assume all of them would have a problem (although, frankly, a couple - like Susan Collins - may have more of a problem if they DON'T vote to remove Trump).>>
>>So that leaves 30 Republican Senators who are facing a different calculus - 22 of whom are up for reelection in 2022. They face two unknowns if they vote not to remove Trump: (a) whether he wins or loses in 2020, and (b) whether Republicans hold or lose the Senate then.>>
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!