How much is that 60th senator worth? Eric Singer of Congressional Effect Management reports in his latest "wealth destruction monitor" that

Since the end of 1934, the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, has gone up in price 1.13% during the 14 years there was no ability on the part of a minority to filibuster new legislation. Through the end of 2008, in the 60 years where the minority could successfully filibuster, the market appreciated 7.60%....Unchecked government expands more rapidly than in normal times; it expands at the expense of the private sector, and that can cause lower stock prices.

The Economist, which, as we've noted previously, is one of those foreign press outlets less in thrall to President Obama, really lets the president have it in a scathing "leader" (British for editorial) on the decision to impose a 35% tariff on tires imported from China. The magazine, which endorsed Mr. Obama before the election, says the move is "bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America." More:

Evidence of a weak president being pushed leftward might cause investors to worry whether he will prove similarly feeble when it comes to reining in the vast deficits he is now racking up; and that might spook the buyers of bonds that finance all those deficits. Looming large among these, of course, are the Chinese. Deteriorating trade relations between the world's number one debtor and its number one creditor are enough to keep any banker awake at night.

And never mind the bankers. How about the rest of us?

What is it about politicians that makes them think taxes are voluntary, or makes them want to portray them as such to the public. First Senator Reid, and now, in today's Financial Times, the foreign minister of France, Bernard Kouchner, writes of a "voluntary contribution" that turns out to be a tax of 5 cents on every $1000 financial transaction. Elsewhere in the article, he calls it a "tax" and says it is "necessary," so it is hard to see exactly what is "voluntary" about it, other than that the politicians are volunteering the money of private individuals who participate in financial transactions and diverting the money for the politicians to use for their own purposes. It gives new meaning to the word voluntary. Would America still have a volunteer army if the army were composed of French conscripts?

The standard New York Times worldview is that ordinary investors need more government regulation to protect them from the sophisticates in the financial industry. So it's refreshing to see an article today arguing that "Perhaps hedge funds need to be deregulated, breaking down the wall that restricts hedge fund investing only to the wealthy." The article is a bit vague on whether the funds would be required to accept investments of any size from any investor who comes along (which actually might be a regulation, not a de-regulation) or just allowed to accept such investments (which would be a genuine de-regulation). It also seems that the author wants to use the small investors who he wants to allow into hedge funds as investors as levers to justify subjecting the funds to more regulation, such as requiring the funds to disclose all of their holdings. Those issues notwithstanding, it's an intriguing argument, and good to see it in the Times. Particularly intriguing is the writer's point about how markets are moving faster than regulators by offering small investors the chance to participate in hedge-fund-like strategies through exchange-traded funds and through owning stock in publicly listed hedge fund firms: "The S.E.C. has tried again and again to restrict public investment in hedge funds, but the problem is that the markets are moving too fast. The financial revolution and demands of investors mean that hedge fund-like products that are being marketed to the general public are being created, legally."

'Risk Avoidance" is the headline on a Wall Street Journal "Heard on the Street" column item that reports the holdings of U.S. government bonds in Pimco's Total Return Fund soared to 44% at the end of August as compared to 25% at the end of July. The Journal says "Risk appetite is back with a vengeance. Not, it seems, for" Pimco. The Journal seems to be buying into the idea that U.S. Treasury bonds are low risk, or even no-risk. Traditionally U.S. Treasury bonds have had low risk of default, but they certainly aren't risk-free. Except for TIPS, they are subject to inflation risk. And while it may seem a remote possibility, the risk that the Treasury would default on certain government debt is not so remote that it isn't being discussed in some corners of Wall Street. Most see inflation/dollar devaluation as a more likely scenario because it avoids the public embarassment of a default. But these are risks, and someone investing in U.S. government bonds isn't avoiding those risks, he's embracing them.

The chief executive of the Coca-Cola Corporation is fighting back against the President Obama-New York Times call for a tax on "sugary drinks," reports the Wall Street Journal, which says the Coke CEO, Muhtar Kent, called the tax

"outrageous" in a speech Monday in Atlanta, saying it reminded him of his days as a Coke executive in the former Soviet Union, when he watched the government dictate consumers' choices by stocking only one type of fruit in a store at a time. "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink," he said. "If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."

This item was inspired by reader B.K., this one by reader S.L., this one by reader J.H., and this one by reader J.G. This site is intended to be a conversation, not a lecture, and many minds and eyes are better than one. So keep the tips flowing, please, to [email protected]. Or use the comments function at the bottom of the individual item pages (click on the headlines of short items, or on the "continue reading' buttons of longer ones) to add your own thoughts directly, if you are so inspired.

One of the notes we have been sounding around here is that, "there's a risk that attacks on crony capitalism or on corporations subsidized by the government will end up souring Americans on firms that happen to be organized as corporations. Many of those corporations employ a lot of people, make useful products and pay taxes." The Wall Street Journal has now picked up on the possibility of a legal push against corporations by the newest Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, reporting on a recent oral argument in which she suggested that "the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have."

We told you that Associated Press article depicting her as having been "a partner in a corporate law firm" was fishy.

FutureOfCapitalism.com is mentioned in Cityfile.com and on Romenesko. And it now also has a dedicated page at The Palgrave Econolog. Please tell your friends about FutureOfCapitalism.com and help spread the word.

In his new book, End the Fed, the Republican congressman Ron Paul tells the story of a helicopter ride he took with Ronald Reagan when Reagan was president. The president told him, "Ron, no great nation that abandoned the gold standard has remained a great nation."

Writes Mr. Paul: "Despite his sympathy for the gold standard, Reagan did nothing about the issue. His advisers successfully kept him quiet on this issue, fearing that he would be seen as crazy or kooky."

Mr. Paul apparently has no such inhibitions, which makes this book, a no-holds-barred attack on the Federal Reserve, an entertaining read. The Federal Reserve Bank, he writes, is a "ninety-five-year-old failed scheme," that is "involved in a full-time counterfeiting operation to sustain monopolistic financial cartels."

Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres of Resurgent Republic have posted a report on focus groups they did in August with independent voters who voted for Obama but are undecided between Democrats and Republicans on a generic Congerssional ballot. Among their findings were that these voters think "Americans will eventually pay for mounting Federal debt one of four ways: "Broad-based tax increases, Cuts in future government services (resonant with younger voters, who were skeptical they would see any benefit from Social Security, and older voters, who fear cuts in Medicare), Inflation or,China having a greater controlling or even ownership stake in our economy."

A post here yesterday highlighted the absurdity of a Wall Street Journal article that claimed "the government's efforts are the primary reason the housing market is functioning at all." Today the New York Times gets into the act with an article that begins "When Congress passed an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers last winter, it was intended as a dose of shock therapy during a crisis. Now the question is becoming whether the housing market can function without it." To its credit, the Times quotes some skeptics of the tax credit. But the same analysis offered here yesterday applies:

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal accuses President Obama of engaging in a "distortion" when he claims that "buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." The Journal calls this "simply false," citing a Congressional Budget Office study that asserts, "Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower—about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies."

Businessweek is out with its 2009 "Best Places to Launch a Career" list. Highlights: The top four firms are accounting companies: Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and KPMG. Next is the State Department. Goldman Sachs sank to no. 6 from its no. 4 spot in the 2008 survey. Teach for America rose to no. 7 this year from no. 11 in last year's list. The results are based on surveys of students, employeers, and college career services offices. It all suggests something about where the country is headed, no?

Reader B.K. writes to suggest I have a look at an article in The New Republic, "The Next Financial Crisis," by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson. The reader writes, "A key issue addressed, as I interpret it, is whether higher capital requirements or sufficient skin-in-the-game by private parties and private institutions might enable our country to steer a virtuous mean between the twin vices of predatory capitalism and regulatory collectivism, thus preventing cost shifting and fostering responsible stewardship. Without this reform one wonders whether any amount of regulation could serve as a substitute, whereas with the reform a vast number of regulations might prove unnecessary and avoidable. From this would hopefully flow an improved competitive position, greater humanity and a spreading of the blessings of freedom."