Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Wrap Up For September '14

While this month's wrap up doesn't have any particular theme, there were plenty of links to gather over the course of the month, and I've included further observations where possible. I hope that all of my readers had an enjoyable September!

In the future, healthcare options will likely include local settings which do not always involve the compromise of expensive - and often distant - hospital stays of which family members can travel for only so often. That can only be a good thing, especially given that infection risk during hospital stays is only growing over time.

An interesting perspective with this link, but I was reminded of the "spin factor" which Kevin Erdmann attributed to article headlines in last month's wrap up! Hence the given inequality framing can be misleading. Such framing seems to suggest Piketty "solutions" which only make it more difficult to envision coordination strategies for resource needs.

Speaking of state monies...

"Labor Market Fluidity and Economic Performance" by Davis and Haltiwanger,
From the abstract:
These results suggest that the U.S. economy faced serious impediments to high employment rates well before the Great Recession, and that sustained high employment is unlikely to return without restoring labor market fluidity.
Arnold Kling noted that Davis and Haltiwanger mostly offered speculations as to why this was the case. Indeed much of what has occurred in recent decades is anecdotal and dependent on a range of circumstance which vary depending on income and region. What I have experienced in terms of economic change, is often different from that which readers have observed, for instance.

State unemployment rates for August:

As it turns out, some property rights are better than others - a thoughtful article from Eli Dourado:

It's good to see that skills sets are being emphasized for resumes now. That goes beyond some of the old definitions: The resume section that matters more than you think

Of course in terms of skills arbitrage for knowledge use systems, it would be helpful to emphasize both hard and soft skill sets. Along these same lines in coordinated community settings: expanded versions of one's resume might include personal non fiction library favorites for those who are interested in pursuing what the time arbitrageur has already explored. Good non fiction has a wealth of information that schools cannot be expected to provide. Another option for self promotion in these kinds of environments might include semester "meets" days in which varying groups can promote the kinds of skills sets they would like to utilize with others in the coming months.

Tim Ferguson of the Forbes staff called this a great step toward an "inclusive" economy.

One of the questions floating around this month came from Peter Thiel: What important truth do very few people agree with you on? Regular readers probably suspect my answer: Voluntary time use in aggregate can be tapped as a new and direct source of wealth. Because evenly matched time coordination needs no support from redistribution or production residuals, what had been fiscal activity is possible to achieve as monetary activity instead. No more austerity necessary...among other things!

I wouldn't be surprised if some aspects of local job opportunities play into this as well...

Lots of survey results in this Neil Irwin post. Not all of them what people might expect:

Tyler Cowen highlights an article from Vaclav Smil. Just think how important a scarcely thought about product like wood chips actually is. How Prominent are European renewables?

Monday, September 29, 2014

Limit Markets? Limit Longevity

Fortunately, longevity is attributable to many things besides what gets offered up in the "usual circles". Not so fortunate, are tight marketplace definitions which can limit prospects of longevity in aggregate - that is, not just the expectations of traditional healthcare by any means. Just the same, some who once aspired to a long life might be thinking twice - given that what today's healthcare marketplace has on offer is slowly shrinking. Some of my readers have probably given some thought this week, to Zeke Emmanuel's recent article regarding 75 as an optimal age.

Could we have expected any other result, than these slightly unsettling new public arguments to live and enjoy life while we can? Some baby boomers now try to hold out for what might be expensive healthcare needs while they wait for the eventual (?) Medicare coverage. Meanwhile, social security gets pushed to an "optimal" (?) age where some lower income levels can't expect to live long enough for late life "repairs". How did anyone expect to extend longevity in aggregate much further, while strict limitations on physician quantities - let alone knowledge use constraints on drugs of all kinds - continue to exist?

Plenty of folk shifted their priors somewhat, after reading Emmanuel's article. As for myself, there were lingering questions whether I was strong enough to engage in certain workplace environments were I to take the plunge and seek a city with low unemployment statistics (I know, only useful to a point). Of course the possibility of early social security exists since I just turned sixty. But...argh. Like many, I always imagined living a long and full life, which included the idea of delaying social security as long as possible.

Sure "live for now" is the kind of philosophy that can help anyone. Even so, I remain uncomfortable about experts making longevity decisions for everybody. Yes, my mother's last year was quite rough, after an extensive surgery and the ever hopeful prognosis which had gone with it. But I would not have questioned any of the decisions she made, to extend her life to the best degree she was able.

How to slowly back out of an intense end of life support paradigm without leaving a void? That's the problem, because little really exists in any organized capacity which could provide what so many of these older patients seek. Hence we'll probably get more rationale for further cutting back, with too little thought how new doors can open as old ones close. Indeed, healthcare decline "inevitability" is closely linked to today's "limits on growth" mindset . Some arguments include studies showing that while longevity gains have occurred, not necessarily so quality of life. So it's surprising - given our lousy physicians to population ratio - that decades of dialogue assumed populations would have "ever growing" longevity statistics.

What about the missing healthcare marketplace which once tended not only to the needs of the poor, but others as well? Don Boudreaux highlighted a quote by William Easterly which seems apt:
The rich have markets, the poor have bureaucrats.
For healthcare in the U.S., fortunately this has not always been the case. Before the bureaucrats became heavily involved in the 20th century, there were small town healers and other health advocates who were sought out not just by the poor, but also people from all walks of life if they believed those individuals could help them. When lines became long for these healers, it was because of the degree to which they were able to directly prove their worth to a public which responded in kind. Sure, a few charlatans were out there. But the same is true today.

A rich and diverse marketplace in health options once assisted the poor - along with everyone else - for as long as anyone could remember. Finally representatives of this marketplace were driven underground or out of business, only to have many of their knowledge and skills sets resurface in altered form - often decades later - in "exclusive" clinics and equally exclusive remedies. Lower income levels are today expected to rely on whatever the physician decides - or not - to provide for them instead. So treatment options tend to be all or nothing. All too often, earlier methods of less invasive healing are no longer available to them. As it turned out, when "real" healthcare came to town in the 20th century, that often erased the memories how locals gained good results through knowledge and resources in their own midst.

Bureaucrats not only defined what healthcare is supposed to be, they have limited the available marketplace by doing so. Think of a giant supermarket of health options which - in aggregate - has purposely turned itself into a small grocery store. Maybe it does not seem so yet, but insurance offerings see little choice. Bureaucratic healthcare was able to win the day because special interests convinced the public that entire shelves of goods are worthless, then get to decide among themselves afterward whether that is really the case. They handily won the game of "What do you know??" This Cato article about a squeezed marketplace was difficult to excerpt, as it is worth reading in its entirety:
Medicine is simply no longer the profession it one was. In 1970, the average income of general practitioners was $185,000 (in 2014 dollars) Today, even though doctors now see nearly twice as many patients as they did back then, the average physician income has fallen to just $161,000. At the same time, the average medical-school graduate now begins his career with more than $170,000 in debt...Existing government programs already reimburse physicians at rates that are often less than the actual costs of treating a patient. Estimates suggest that on average physicians are reimbursed at roughly 78 percent of costs in Medicare, and just 70 percent of costs in Medicaid.
Few aspects of life are more politically correct than what people still expect of healthcare. Politicians of all stripes have not really sought to change the basic structure, which now makes the art of healing something that can only be practiced by the few and the privileged. No one can expect populations to maintain healthcare markets for the long run, under such circumstances.

It's perfectly understandable that we gained medical schools which expected their graduates to go above and beyond, who were capable of meeting exceedingly high standards. Who would not want the work of these graduates when they are waiting on the operating table for an important surgery? There's just one problem. The United States built and continues to back an exclusive system, yet still expects every citizen to be able to take advantage of it when the time comes...

I respect the thought processes that went into this logic. However now it is time to move beyond them, and allow education for healthcare of all kinds to once again flower, for all income levels, for all places that people desire to live. It's time to quit insisting that all populations depend on extremely limited markets. These are environments which mostly burn out the ones who still attempt to provide services as if they were superhuman. Let people practice healthcare in the ways that make sense to them and to those who seek their help. If some desire to live to 100 or beyond, by all means allow them to do so.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Money Can Become What We Want it To Be

Why is this significant? Some insist that money is incapable of representing more positive aspects of our lives, but I suggest there has only been a lack of consensus to make it that way. All too often, money gets the blame for the degrees of economic separation which people have unwittingly imposed on one another. What if populations decided it would be worthwhile, to make money capable of representing human effort as a whole? It's not impossible to do so. There would be far fewer people on disability today, if the focus was on keeping them economically engaged, instead of sending them a check because they were deemed "unsuitable" for some workplaces.

There's little progress to be had by insisting that money is mostly a tool for credit and finance, particularly when much about life should be livable without loans as a necessity. What's more, central bankers are the last ones who should be treating finance as the center of the economic universe, given the need for monetary stability. As a result, entire populations have been told that economic growth must be put on hold, indefinitely. What about the millions of people who happened to be born at the "wrong" time?

The definition of money is not set in stone, by those who continue to define present day circumstance for the public. It's hard to convey just how important this fact really is. After all, economies are supposed to be about what everyone does with a major part of their lives and in the same context, so is money.

Once, it worked relatively well to externalize monetary concepts beyond the personal level, when commodities were primary in the economy. Certainly large governments have benefited from the largess of commodities. But as services have grown with the spread of knowledge across the globe, money needs to be more closely associated with the time that we engage with others in the use of knowledge at local levels. When it comes to time use, money also needs to be recognized as an internal concept also capable of coordinating with the exogenous reality of the world's tradable goods.

This needed shift is all the more relevant, given the fact that too many services remain on the fiscal side of national ledgers - especially indirectly - as healthcare has been in the U.S. As a result, services are being blunted at the very moment when populations seek them out as primary goods. In mature economies such as Japan, the fiscal aspect of services means further attempts to spur growth can't readily percolate throughout the entire economy. Even in the midst of Japan's revitalization efforts there is now a broken labor equilibrium which is difficult to mend.

Nations may ultimately resort to some form of guaranteed income plan, for those who struggle to find gainful employment. But what would it feel like to find out early on, that one must become resigned to a minimal life? Only think about what people would choose instead at a young age if they had the chance, while it was still possible to think clearly about such things. If they were told there was no real room for the challenges they would seek through work...would they rather take money for not working, or would they rather be paid for finding ways in which to purposely engage with one another? I imagine that most would choose the latter.

It's not always easy to connect what we enjoy about life with others in meaningful ways. But I continue to believe it makes more sense to create compensated systems where individuals explore the possibilities, than it does to pay individuals to wander down lonely paths no one else can share.

Over time I hope to be able to explain my posts more plainly, for I need to become more directly engaged with everyone in what is becoming a growing search for labor participation solutions. Perhaps I need to put some outlines together, so that readers are able to review these concepts quickly. I really needed to set aside working on the book aspects of this ongoing project until at least a thousand posts were written - this coming week makes 500. Part of what makes it difficult to explain quickly of course, is that these are not corner solutions. If only that were all that was needed!

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Intentional Structure

Isn't the idea of intentional structure more "needless" planning? Bah! Sure sounds like it...and things are highly organized already. So what gives? Whether one is partial towards free markets or not, people of different political persuasions agree that too many markets have become more dysfunctional in some capacity.

Through all the layers of regulation and limitations, it's hard to imagine how this present "mess" could benefit from a fresh start or different outlook. Why add even more confusion? Especially when "good" intentions often restrict access further, instead of breaking through the logjam. Small wonder it's difficult, knowing what to add and what to take away.

So how to think about simpler structures that are also capable of maintaining the preexisting structures which matter most? Some of those earlier "intentions" worked out quite well. Coordinated intentions built perfectly good pathways for product of all kinds, before other factors began to block those once clear paths. Even so, limited access for tradable goods is only part of the problem. In some respects, pathways have scarcely existed in the 21st century for skills sets which - in spite of investment and considerable commitment - are all but non tradable in the present.

No wonder the marketplace has more than its share of confusion, as different sectors attempt to adjust and adapt within an increasingly out of date template. Is it possible to build more viable means for today's services potential? Present day services options - especially those that have treated aggregate time use as a negative externality, are not just short of spatial infrastructural equivalence. Limits to services have meant a missing marketplace which skews economic factors as a whole.

As a result, definitions of productivity are somewhat muddled. What's more, services cannot be realistically included as a true marketplace until they overcome the limitations of fiscal definitions. So long as important time use functions are defined in exclusive terms, it will be all but impossible to remove the fiscal stigma. Fiscal definitions in services do more than prevent individual choice and aggregate participation. They also prevent the active use of knowledge from spreading through all parts of the economy.

There are other spatial aspects of intentional structure, which still make it difficult for populations to organize in coherent fashion. One reason it was possible to move so far from the ideal of optimal time aggregates was the substitution of fossil fuels for human time components in the 20th century. While fossil fuels add to productivity in terms of single institutions (expanded ability to pick and choose among populations), they detracted from the productivity potential of spontaneous local coordination.

Communities need to be able to tap into those earlier coordination abilities, in order to bring economic complexity and knowledge use to regions which could especially benefit from aggregate time use densities. This would result in a broader adaptation of productivity than single firms or non profits are able to utilize.

Populations need intentional design for varying resource combinations that work well for multiple income levels and lifestyles. For instance, some communities would seek to create normal transportation routes for time off and weekends (highways, etc.) whereas they might opt for walking and biking paths within more central or general working environments. This combination of wants versus needs infrastructure could provide strategic means for populations to increase the longevity of fossil fuel consumption well into the future.

One of the most important aspects of knowledge use infrastructure is the present dilemma societies face regarding "appropriate" ages for retirement and choices regarding medical needs. By creating alternate services structures at local levels, important decisions regarding individual choice need not be left in the hands of governments.

Growth is now stymied in part, because public dialogue still seeks to make too many factors of life conform to narrow sets of terms. With broader interpretations for services infrastructure, those kinds of hard choices would not always be necessary. Life is easier all around, when people retain the ability to interact with resources on flexible terms to the fullest extent possible.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Rethinking Monetary Flows

One of the problems with the growth slowdown in recent years, is that the earlier growth trajectory for the U.S. had remained in place for well over a century. This fact alone suggests that how money gets utilized in the economy, needs to be examined more closely. What is being missed, which needs to be measured in monetary terms? What's more, other nations have experienced the slowdown in ways that are quite similar. Some who follow monetary events closely, believe that individuals should have larger roles in financial aspects of the economy. However, finance as monetary representation can often be misleading because finance is but an echo of the factors which have true bearing on wealth.

Why is this important? The fiat definition of money in the 20th century had appeared to be more inclusive of human capital, than the gold standard had been. However, fiat money could eventually revert back to a gold or commodity standard, if populations do not make more room for the potential of human capital.

When work was more labor intensive, time value was easier to represent through commodity standards. But today's production which creates actual product, needs little human time. That's not to say that time use and knowledge are not (still) needed for services or manufacture, but until now, these have taken place based on what production residuals or government redistribution could provide.

Now, a substantial part of services formation needs to make a clean break - at least for some populations - with both production residuals and government redistribution, in order to remain a strong economic component well into the future. That is to say, services flows need direct monetary representation instead of fiscal assistance. However, in order to do this, local coordination needs to happen so that production processes are simpler and easier to understand than they are in the present.

While education moved growth capacity towards knowledge use, much of it was able to contribute to the needs of business interests. As a result, the growing use of education was able to transform wealth into a more knowledge based product than it had previously been. What's more, education accomplished this goal primarily through the redistribution systems which already existed, without generating excess burdens. That is, up to a point...When was that point crossed? Today, it has finally become difficult to bring more educational capacity into the economy through commodity backed wealth. A new wealth based approach is needed for education, which is capable of incorporating it into the actual pacing of our working lives.

As monetary systems slowly became defined in fiat terms in the 20th century, healthcare already claimed a substantial part of that representation at the outset. One might say that the U.S. healthcare system evolved at the most auspicious moment possible, when the economy was really starting to take shape. Unlike the benefits education provided for other sectors - however - the services of healthcare gradually began to make demands on other sectors of the marketplace, which in some instances stunted their growth.

Healthcare also makes complex demands on fiat monetary policy as a whole. The fact that healthcare needs continue to grow even as labor participation dwindles, implies a slower growth trajectory in the future than central bankers have already imposed. The best way to turn this slow motion train wreck around is to open the training of healthcare to all who wish to heal others in their own midst. There is no better time to do so, as the spread of knowledge continues to all corners of the globe.

Today's monetary flows originated when knowledge use as primary wealth was scarcely imaginable. Think how these flows have evolved over time, and how in a sense they began with initial resource use formations. These early productive adaptations provided initial income flows in populations. When they were substantial enough, and various institutions started to regionally interact with one another, they provided a point of origination for commodity based money. Those who were employed by these institutions could be thought of as generating initial income flows. What came next?

Asset formation, particularly in the form of housing. Those who took part in the initial resource flows created substantial forms of housing which involved more than just the adaptation of locally available resources. This process sets up a more complex equilibrium in which governments are eventually able to take advantage of follow up asset formations to generate services, hence asset distribution flows through taxation. From this, services income is derived, and then services income redistribution flows bring the process back to a national level. So the process unfolds something like this:

Resource use formations (initial knowledge inputs)
Resources income for participants
Assets formation by participants
Assets redistribution flows through governments
Services income either directly or indirectly from governments
Services income redistribution flows through governments

In a sense this process may not quite scale up to national levels until services income and services redistribution flows come into play. The latter part of the process is what needs to be reconfigured from the ground up. In some instances, services knowledge also needs to move to the front of the line for wealth formation. As it turns out, national - or state governments for that matter - are in a lousy position to dictate how populations resolve and negotiate services formations which involve the use of personal time. Some of the most serious problems between political parties are the result of unsolvable issues regarding services needs.

Asset formations are now cumbersome and illiquid in part because of the responsibility they bear for services flows - particularly those of healthcare. As a result, any further suggestions for redistribution only serve to make earlier redistribution less understandable than it already has been. Apologies are perhaps in order for my readers, in that none of the changes I suggest are easy to accomplish. If all members of society do not gain the right to heal, there's no guarantee that human capital can be approached as a direct source of wealth within fiat monetary systems.

The fact that healthcare is central to both welfare needs and human capital formation, has considerable bearing re why reforms haven't happened for a wide range of economic problems in the present - with low employment participation rates and regional poverty at the top of the list. Healthcare issues stand in the way of both conservative and progressive proposals for reforms of all kinds. Only when citizens are able to freely take part in services formations, will it be possible for monetary flows to gain equilibrium.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Can Aggregate Time Use Become Productive...Again?

Lack of real participation in the economy as a whole, remains a primary problem for the people of many nations. As individuals slowly fall away from any representation other than limited consumer roles, countries now suffer the vagaries of primary (fossil fuel) commodity availability and related political circumstance. I know it's only the opinion of a blogger but still...the current political mess which is starting to build up, never should have happened in the first place. Rant time...

It is the mistake of many a nation, to refuse their citizens the right to take part in primary economic roles - particularly the important services roles of the 21st century. One often gets the impression that certain folk in high places believe that value lies anywhere other than the productive capacity of people. It has been the mistake of governments, countries and other assorted nimby factions to blithely assume all will be hunky dory, if anyone who does not "measure up" right out the gate can be left out of the process altogether.

Had it not been for these kinds of elitist assumptions and fierce denials of innovative options, citizens had the chance to build a reality which would not have included the kinds of problems that are now surfacing. Had it not been for power mongers of all stripes who wanted nothing to change, growth would not have been stopped in its tracks. Citizens could have built a world in which their input matters even more than the fossil fuels that nations so rely upon. After all, central bankers in the U.S. sent out a message that people didn't matter, when they shorted aggregate spending capacity just because of a spike in oil prices, and the Great Recession was the result.

The problems of the new secular stagnation could still be overcome, by allowing individuals to locally negotiate for production roles in the services capacities that are important to them. This is a stabilizing growth option which has the potential to return economies to the earlier growth trajectory, because it generates what has been a missing marketplace. No "perfect" form of political organization can really measure up to local systems of coordination. Today's institutions cannot make productive use of knowledge for needed services to the degree that local economies would be able, were they given the chance.

There's no getting around the fact that aggregate time use has not been considered as a source of productive value. Hence, much of time and educational investments are increasingly left out of the economic equation. Some nations continue to put their "extras" in prison, while other groups just keep killing off the undesirables who get in the way of the latest power grabs. As Rana Foroohar said recently of the U.S., "Something is very, very broken in our economy."

When economic representation (aggregate time use) was largely a matter of land management, people had natural connections to resources - hence ways to be productive on their own terms for the full length of their lives. To be sure, their productivity may not have appeared substantial to others but at least the connections with resources in their own environment had not been completely broken. Hence those existing options could often generate means for survival.

Whereas today, our productivity tends to be defined on the all or nothing terms of employment by others, or else it requires a consumer base capable of supporting overhead for self employment. Since agriculture was transformed in the 20th century, few have considered how important it is for all to remain productive based on their own interactions with given resource sets wherever they live. Today, the primary resource sets that institutions utilize are knowledge and people. Commodities of all kinds are - and should be - the frosting on the cake. Just the same, fiat money tiptoed toward the reality of human potential, only to back off as it became more difficult to use people as mere loan recipients.

The lack of resource use options in local environments is the critical missing component of today's economic systems. That missing element could be recreated by reimbursing local groups as they seek ways to assist one another, and remain economically viable for one another. What's more, education needs to back this process instead of working against it. And most importantly, these group efforts would need to be recognized for the direct source of wealth creation (through direct time use matching) that they would in fact create.

Economic systems such as these could provide new hope for the many places which continue to lose control of their destinies. Some places around the globe can scarcely afford to lose any more than they already have. New economic beginnings need to be defined on simple monetary and social terms that people can get behind and support. Such systems need to provide sufficient benefit to individuals so that all have a chance to develop the character which others also need, to lean upon.

Again, this post was one of those times when I had originally planned to write specifics re how people could learn to help one another locally. Except all of those notes got tossed, as I found myself drawn back into some of the important elements of the bigger picture. It's hard not to think about the primary issues right now, as negative world events continue to escalate.

Our time use - for all of us - has to be productive on monetary terms, if we are able to keep the very part of humanity which got us this far. Without the inclusion of our aggregate time use potential, it is hard to see how human capital will remain the catalyst for growth which it was so capable of, until the Great Recession. Do people still have the ability to build a better world? It's a question which all of us will need to respond to, if an affirmative answer is ever to be found.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Midweek Market Monetarist Links and Summaries - 9/24/14

At least it's not time to tighten...yet (Marcus Nunes) http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/economy-remains-under-the-considerable-time-umbrella/
The Fed was already overly concerned about price levels in 2008: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/four-years-and-things-havent-changed-much/
"What I'm arguing is that the big mistake of 2008...should not be allowed to fall into the 'bygone be bygone' category." Only think what 1.7 trillion dollars more could actually accomplish: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/some-bygones-should-not-be-left-alone/
This does not sound like it is going to end well...http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/rbc-theory-ready-to-do-serious-damage-in-the-ez/
An Australian example: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-sorry-state-of-the-australian-economy-in-two-charts/

Lots of ideas...will anything "take"? (Benjamin Cole) http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/serious-economists-are-everywhere-but-i-say-cut-fica-taxes-financed-by-qe/

The Fed could make the same mistake with QE3 that it made with QE2 (Kevin Erdmann) http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2014/09/inflation-housing-qe-and-taper-in-august.html
Single unit real estate is still a problem: http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2014/09/follow-up-on-august-inflation-etc.html

An odd headline from Yahoo (Scott Sumner) Readers of the Money Illusion are not confused
The FOMC has really suffered as a result: Yglesias on Obama's missed opportunity
Commenters debate the Scotland Vote: No!
Corner solutions are not optimal for either of these: Infrastructure or Entitlements? This was also a continuation of a discussion from post re Hong Kong at Econlog
"It was obvious from the beginning that Abenomics would both 'succeed' and 'fail': Twice is enough (and don't expect miracles)
Scott provides some clarification in this Econlog post: There is nothing tautological about market monetarism
Even though QE has helped, Japan exemplifies the fact that monetary policy needs assistance from combined efforts for structural change: Abenomics is doing better than I expected (shades of grey)

Is there a path in Nick's post which is capable of equilibrium? (David Glasner) http://uneasymoney.com/2014/09/17/nick-rowe-teaches-us-a-lot-about-apples-and-bananas/
The IS-LM model leaves no room for a process where expectations can be revised: http://uneasymoney.com/2014/09/21/krugman-on-minsky-is-lm-and-temporary-equilibrium/
A response to Krugman: http://uneasymoney.com/2014/09/23/temporary-equilibrium-one-more-time/

If Nick Rowe were an orthodox New Keynesian... http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/09/the-orthodox-new-keynesian-position-on-liquidity-preference-vs-loanable-funds.html
For a while, people made jokes about having to eat squirrels: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/09/how-scared-of-deflation-were-you-in-2008.html
At least Old Keynesians and Old Monetarists had a story... http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/09/inventories-of-goods-and-money-si-again.html

A declaration of...peace? (Bonnie Carr) http://dajeeps.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/the-feds-exit-strategy-fact-or-speculation/
Take our good moments where we can get them! http://dajeeps.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/pinch-me-charles-plosser-to-retire-effective-march-1st/

Monetary offset makes the difference (David Beckworth) http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-love-affair-conservatives-should-be.html

Lars Christensen responds to the post by Greg Mankiw: http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/09/18/the-mankiw-darda-rule-tells-the-fed-to-wait-a-bit-with-hikes/
Lars finds some inspiration from Krugman and Mankiw: http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/09/20/there-is-no-bond-market-bubble/

Josh Hendrickson responds to a recent article from Mark Thoma: http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/what-do-we-want-out-of-macroeconomics/

James Caton begins a series on nominal income targeting and free banking: http://moneymarketsandmisperceptions.blogspot.com/2014/09/two-roads-nominal-income-targeting-and.html

NGDPLT is the best way to avoid fiscal austerity (Britmouse) http://uneconomical.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/austerity-forever-or-4-inflation-your-choice-britain/

From the Minneapolis Fed, an interview with Michael Woodford: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=5379&&