LyrArc Article Gist
How the IMF conditionality has changed in the 2009 global economic crisis. The IMF head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn of France, is aware how sensitive nations around the world have become to the word IMF. So much so that it has even suggested removing the word IMF from loans to get takers. The IMF conditons worsened the S. Korean financial crisis in 1998. See link to this. This time Kahn has advocated that the developed countries of Europe and the USA increase stimulus spending to 2% of GDP.And there are fewer calls for cutting spending in developing countries offered help by the IMF. Pakistan was asked to increase interest rates by 3% but actually increased them by 2% to fight inflation. But to get some idea how the IMF is viewed with suspicion and hostility in many countries one has to listen to comments made. The move for Pakistan was so unpopular in 2008 that Mohsin Khan a top IMF official says he met with agroup of generals to get their backing. Some IMF officials insistend on a 10% rate increase. Something like that would have led to riots in Pakistani cities. IMF loaned Pakistan $7.6 billion. When S. Korea said no to the IMF credit line, Lee Hyoung-ryoul, a Korean Finance Ministry official said that S. Koreans tremble and financial markets turn sensitive whenever they hear the word "IMF." This time Brazil, S. Korea and Mexico, were offered condition free credit lines. But it has found no takers from these three conuntries, so badly is the IMF viewed in developing countries. Even though it appears that Kahn, in the small club of western nation's officials and staff that form the governing body of the IMF, is trying to give the IMF a new image, its just so bad and the views of the old timers at the IMF on spending or interest rates so contrary to the needs of people in the developed and developing countries, that a new generation of people in finance and economics will be needed before real change is established. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zombrun describes the effect of low interest rates on savings for the bottom half of households in the U.S., the pressure to invest in stocks without the skills and experience of the better educated part of households in the top 20% of households by wealth and income. This resulted in a negative effect, a depletion of savings compared to an increase under a higher interest rates scenario with less pressure to take risks in a volatile stock market. This is the direct cost of the crises in stock and financial markets of 2000 caused by a internet bubble, and the larger crisis of 2008-2009 caused by the bubble in mortgages and housing. The secondary effects of the mortgage price bubble and faulty mortgage securities was in the millions of homeowners who went into foreclosure in 2009-2013, which further depleted wealth and savings of households in the bottom half lacking the experience and skills to navigate this type of housing market. The failure of the Obama administration to stem the foreclosures with practical steps which would have helped not hurt the banking sector, as suggested by FDIC's Sheila Bair and Harvard economist Martin Feldstein in many WSJ op-eds in 2010-2012, added to the erosion of savings and wealth of the bottom half. Minorities in particular were hit hard. A third effect is of communities across America that are feeling the effects of job migration to emerging markets such as China that has been underway as part of the globalization of the last three decades. A fourth effect in the rising cost of education, particularly since 2000, has reduced the opportunities for struggling working class people to enter the middle class and enjoy the higher incomes in precisely the very period when the divergence of incomes between less educated, less killed people and the more educated and better skilled people was taking place. The last two effects were neutral as part of the overall process of emergence of a globalized economy with a premium on more skills and education, requiring action by the government, universities and business for a concerted effort to mitigate in some places the negative effects and enhance in other places the positive effects. The first two effects were man made crises which required managing in constructive and positive ways for the entire American people, taking risks where necessary such as fears about the financial system if foreclosures did not go through. The risks of a long period of extremely low interest rates for savers and the middle as well as working class were poorly understood by the Fed since 2000. A similiar crisis is being faced in Europe with extremely low interest rates. Janet Yellen was only doing the honest thing by acknowledging how far and how different the situation is now compared to the period of three decades following 1945- a question not just of values cherished in America, also of the need for societies to advance through creation of wealth across all sectors of society or regress, as described by Smith in the Wealth of Nations....

LyrArc Article Gist
What changed asks the Economist between the summer when the stimulus was petering out and analysts sniffed deflation for 2011, and today with the euphoria for stock markets and estimates of 4% growth for 2011? Much of the reason for the change is a second round of quantitiative easing for $600 billon announced by the Fed- buying bonds with newly created money to push down rates and stimulate lending. And the December 2010 compromise for across the board extension of the Bush tax cuts. But even though this improves the prospects for 2011, the situation after that is still in the medium term as treacherous as ever, even more so, says the Economist. High interest rates and shaky business confidence can be fixed with strong stimulus, but households and banks have to work off the excessive debt taken on in the last decade. And this deveraging has years to go. So expect more difficult patches where investor euphoria quickly turns to gloom. One other aspect of the current situation is worrisome. The bipartisan deal for the Bush tax cuts was not real bipartisanship, as each side agreed to the others huge giveaways. Real bipartisanship must mean more painful decisions in spending and taxes. The US government's failure to sort out its finances will continue to cast a shadow over the future of the economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
As the trade problems with the U.S. escalate in tit for tat tariffs, China looks back at its history for parallels. The period of the "unequal treaties" imposed by the Western powers on China in the period 1850-1900, the Korean War of the 1950's, and other analogies that come up to people. Yet China's planners and leaders are looking at another situation the Plaza Accord of 1985 in which the western nations pressured Japan into accepting a significantly higher exchange rate to reduce its trade surplus and the Japanese yen appreciated by 50%. Japan cut interest rates from 5% to 2.5%, and introduced huge fiscal stimulus, banks opened up to lend vigorously. The result was a boom by 1990's followed by a bust that led to another decade of lending to loss making firms called "zombie" businesses, that led to a stagnant economy. This has persisted for three decades. This China sees as an unacceptable situation when China has still not achieved developed economy status in terms of per capita incomes. It fears getting into a middle income trap as the economic growth slows and the aging population makes a recovery more difficult.  The difference with Japan in the 1985-1990 period is that Mr. Trump lacks the kind of five nation economic coordination that put pressure on Japan. Today there are differing views on China in Europe and the U.S. and different policies. Mr. Trump is known for his style of deal making and could settle early, as feared by some Republican leaders in Congress who see in China a challenge to America's technological dominance. There are no calls to appreciate China's currency. Only calls for China to change its state subsidies model and put in writing and through laws that change the way of doing business that does not require American companies to hand over advanced technology. This is also a concern for Japan and the European Union countries such as Germany, and is something all nations try to protect in global competition. Japan is still facing the consequences in creating a new competitor in high speed train technology after building the first high speed trains in China and transfer of the high speed train technology by Kawasaki. The Household Survey by the Federal Reserve showing the financial fragility of 40% of American families shown on this page today shows how this situation is likely to evolve as working class families in the U.S. support a trade stance that protects American jobs and technology. Job losses over three decades and a $891 billion trade deficit in 2018 are seen as unacceptable to the U.S. in 2019. A stronger U.S. dollar helped increase the U.S. trade deficit by 10% in 2018, nullifying some benefits of Mr. Trump's trade actions. Mr. Robert Lighthizer was a negotiator in the trade dispute with Japan in 1985, and runs the negotiations with China with support from president Trump. This alone has kept the Japanese situation in 1985 uppermost in the minds of China's leaders as they try to come up with a way to settle the trade dispute with Mr. Trump.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How the government under Secretary Paulson's plan will restructure and financially support Fannie and Freddie while gradually winding them down. Secretary Paulson says that it would be a grave error if we did not use this time to permanently address the structural issues presented by the G.S.E.'s a reference to them as government sponsored enterprises. Government support said Paulson has to be explicit or nonexistent.To wind them down the plan calls for reducing their portfolios by 10% a year. In return for $1 billion in senior preferred stock from each company to the government which pay an interest rate of 10% at least the government is committing $100 billion to each company to cover future losses. The government also receives warrants that allows it to to buy upto 80% of the stock of each company at a nominal price of less than $1 a share. Beginning in 2010 both companies will pay a quarterly fee to the government in return for financial help. Senator McCain had some words for the people running the companies: "its an example of cronyism, special interests and lobbyists. A quasi governmental organization where the executives were making hundreds of some billion dollars a year, while things were going downhill, going to hell in a handbasket." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Boskin of Stanford University, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under the elder Bush, on the risks of protectionism and higher taxes to the economy in the long run, and the need for the Fed to balance the need for providing help with rate cut with the need to keep inflation at low levels. He suggests workouts of the losses from subprime mortgages not bailouts is the correct answer. P.S. A note on December 6, 2008, after the crisis with Bear Stearns in early 2008, and the severe October credit crisis and a series of bailouts of banks, financial institutions and the Detroit auto industry. If one looks for the thinking that was behind the Republican Bush administration's early stand to take no proactive steps to improve things in the economy, then Boskin's article summarizes some of the thinking behind it. Lowering rates at the time except gradually,after the Greenspan moves in preceding years to lower rates and let them stay that way too long (leaving too much liquidity and loose lending in the financial markets), was not to be taken lightly with additional concerns of pushing inflation upwards. And Boskin way underestimated the losses from subprime in December 2007 when he used the estimate of $300 billion investor losses centred in real estate made by the OECD at the time, or as he puts it just one-half of 1% of American's net worth. Concluding that in a $14 trillion economy such losses could be absorbed. He anticipated delays in financing and the need to mitigate that but did not anticipate a collapse of credit markets. Part of this may stem from not realizing the impact of highly leveraged debt on the books of financial institutions and what it could do if fear gripped the financial markets, and underestimating the impact of subprime debt with mortgage securities that had no transparency and distorted credit ratings. Which is why he says that policy should be for workouts not bailouts, emphasizing that the worst idea out there is for a broad interest rate freeze for mortgage borrowers which would throw into question the sanctity of private contracts and thus deter investment. This policy of resisting loan modifications continued as policy of the Bush administration even as Martin Feldstein, another Harvard economist and Reagan administration economic advisor, advocated just that from early 2008 with repeated oped articles in the WSJ throughout the rest of the year....

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ opinion section. WSJ points to the British plan as "a Plan -at Last", something that gets to the root of the crisis more than Paulson's plan to buy toxic assets. It will directly help to capitalize British Banks. The British govbernment will inject 50 billion pounds in return for preferred shares. It will guarantee 250 billion pounds in new debt issuance for those banks that participate in the recapitalization plan in order to secure their short term funding. And an additional $200 billion pounds is provided as additional liquidity through the Bank of England's Special Liquidity Scheme. And the British, the Fed, the Swedes, the Swiss, all lowered interest rates by half a point in a coordinated effort. Note that the British just as badly or even worse than the Americans binged and got drunk on debt and British banks were overleveraged to extreme. America is hardly the oonly scapegoat in this WSJ points out and reminds Brown that the five biggest British banks combined assets are about 4 times Britain's GDP. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Easing of monetary policy, a reduction in interest rates by the Federal reserve probably will not prevent a serious house prices decline says Mishkin, a Fed Governor and a Columbias University economist. And a 20% decline in prices says Mishkin in a recent paper could lead to about 2% drop in consumption spending within 2 years. See the other article on Sept 17, wsj, that a rate cut or rate cuts may still not prevent the economy from suffering from the effects of the credit crunch and the housing decline, and drops in consumer spending, decline of the dollar, leading to lower growth.

LyrArc Article Gist
It took a long time for the banks to understand what is in their best interests is in the best interests of the country's economy and homeowners, something Sheila Bair has been saying since the beginning of this year and implementing at IndyMac. Its just too costly for banks to use the foreclosure process to recover their money and it makes much better financial sense on the bottomline of banks and for the economy to make home payments affordable. Because the worse home prices get the worse the economy and banks do and nothing drives home prices down like foreclosures. The Bank of America settlement for Countrywide with state attorney generals to modify loans for 400,000 homeowners because of predatory lending practices also set the direction. Chase Bank is now using the Bair template to get the monthly payments down to an affordable level which is about 40% of the current payment by reducing interest rates and using a smaller loan balance and keep homeowners in their homes. Chase's plan will help 400,000 homeowners and will also help homeowners who are having difficulty making payments. It will put a 90 day hold on foreclosures till the program is put in place. Yet there is one problem. Only $350 billion of the 1.5 trillion in home mortgage it services are owned by Chase, the rest are owned by investors in the form of mortgage securities. It can do little for homeowners covered by these securites that are owned by hedge funds and other funds as a few of these funds oblivious of the overall interest including their own have threated to sue if loans are modified, and it would take some time to figure out who owns each security and what the terms are for modifying loans for that security. Its this part of mortgage securitiization that has slowed down a rational process of unwinding this problem throughout housing by making homeowners monthly payments affordable. And Fed's Bernanke did not come to grips with this point in his talk about mortgage securitization to UC Berkeley on October 31,2008, that mortgage securitization done in a way that make loan modification difficult is dangerous as it is today, and makes a crisis bigger than it otherwise would be, and turn a USA crisis into a global crisis through ricotcheting effects and a series of bad decisons....

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial after the Senate passed a bill in October 2011 calling for action on the misaligned Chinese currency, points to ways a misaligned currrency is damaging for China. It cites the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate that this is costing China $240 billion a year. This is a result of accumulating huge dollar reserves that have a declining value against the renminbi. Higher import prices lead to higher inflation. And low interest rates on savings, to the point that they are lower than the inflation rate, hurt the vast majority of Chinese and reduce domestic consumption. And perversely this leads to money pouring into speculative uses such as real estate, creating unsustainable bubbles in housing. The Times editorial says China is not generating jobs from this strategy, as the export strategy is relying on use of advanced technology in manufacturing and not creating many jobs. It cites a statistic showing employment has increased by only 1 percent a year from 2004 even with GDP growth above 10%. China is beginning to realize the cost of this strategy, and is planning a shift in its five year economic plan. But this rebalancing has many obstacles. The current system dominated by state run companies, banks, local and federal government, is biassed in favor of the old export led strategy, and experts are pessimistic about the possibilities for change. The Times suggests China may be falling back on the export led strategy as the global economy is slowing. The whole system would have to change after three decades of this kind of development, and would require new leadership and major changes....

LyrArc Article Gist
Complacency from the Bush Administration reflected in the remarks of Edward Lazear the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the outgoing Bush administration. He sees no recession in the USA. "I would be very surprised if the NBER looking back at this period would date this as a recession" is what he is quoted as saying to reporters. He went on to say that the $152 billion stimulus of government checks mailed to the people, and Fed interest rate cuts should make the second half of the year a "solid growth period." What this means is that the moves by Congress to help homeowners stave off a new wave of foreclosures through a bill that just passed through Congress on May 7, 2008, is likely to be vetoed by Bush and efforts along the lines suggested by Martin Feldstein, Chairman of Council of Economic Advisors under Reagan, and Sheila Bair at FDIC, to help homeowners avoid foreclosure in her proposal may remain just that as proposals. This situation is likely to be turned over to a new President and make for an election that may revolve around economic issues, as the next wave of foreclosures lead to the start of a declining spiral in home prices leading to further loses in the credit markets and corporate bankruptcies of weaker firms and resulting losses in employment. Rising crude oil prices may result in much of the stimulus being eaten up by paying of some of the debt burden of consumers and rising costs of gasoline at the gas pump. And Feldstein has been very vocal, as have others, about the ineffectiveness of interest rate cuts in the current situation, even doing an oped piece titled "Enough of Interest Rate Cuts." In this sense the current spell of calm in the financial markets may be deceiving, giving Paulson an others in the administration a false sense of hope, and deprive the world economy of some reasonable action to prevent the wave of foreclosures and falling home prices that could set things distinctly downward in the world's largest economy and impacting the rest of the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
The increasing likelihood that Greece will exit the eurozone. This happens as the New Democracy party fails to form a coalition and the other parties are offered a chance to form a coalition. The other opposition parties gained far more votes than New Democracy and Pasok in the elections and some parties favor Greece exiting the eurozone. New elections will be held in June if no government is formed. The current government of Lucas Papademos says it needs an extra year to complete the privatizations, public sector layoffs and improvements in tax collection, giving Greece till 2015 to get the job done. As a senior advisor to Papademos, George Pagoulatos, put it: "There is a sense that Greece has passed its pain threshold... Greece needs some oxygen to breathe." Both the Ifo Institute's Sinn and John Taylor see the exit from the eurozone as the best option for Greece, as interest rates on Greek debt have been reduced and Greek banks recapitalized with the March 2012 bailout. John Taylor, WSJ, Feb. 22, 2012, A Better Grecian Bailout/ WSJ, Feb. 17, 2012, Interview: Ifo's Sinn: In Greece's Interest to Leave the Eurozone.This may already be the preparation the IMF, ECB, EU, and the Greece government has laid out as an option if the voters in Greece overwhelmingly rejected further austerity. This now appears to have happened and far more quickly than politicians in Athens, Brussels and Berlin had anticipated....

LyrArc Article Gist
President Hollande of France is interviewed by Sylvia Kauffman of Le Monde, Angelique Chrisafis of The Guardian, Berna Gonzalez Harbour of El Pais, Jaroslaw Kurski of Gazeta Wyborcza, Alberto Mattioli of La Stampa, et Stefan Ulrich of Suddeutsche Zeitung in mid-October 2012. He tells the reporters that France is the bridge between northern and southern Europe and says he is against division, rancor and the idea of 'each for one's own.' He called recession being as big a threat as deficits and emphasized the need for growth. Hollande pointed out that it was false to say Germany was the only country paying to help, that France was also paying for the solidarity with other eurozone countries. From now on he sees the need for monthly meetings of eurozone countries as opposed to crisis driven meetings which have failed to produce results needed and led to procrastination and political maneouvring. On Merkel's side there is internal politics and parliament which has affected decisions in in the interests of the eurozone and the EU, which he said he respects but which also requires putting the interests of Europe first. On specifics Hollane sees no need to further delay action on direct aid by the European Stability Mechanism to Spanish banks and efforts to bring down Spain and Italy's borrowing rates, and calls the gap between France and Germany's borrowing rates of 1% and Spain and Italy's 7% "unfair."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Keith Bradsher's NYT interview with Raghuram Rajan, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, comes when Rajan has come under criticism from the business sector and the small business support base of prime minister Modi's party. The criticism centers on the drop in oil prices since Nov. 2014, and Rajan's failure to drop interest rates at the Dec. 2, 2014 central bank meeting. Rajan says it was not clear whether oil prices would remain low for an extended period at the Dec. 2, 2014 meeting. Since then new inventory data, EIA estimates and OPEC policy guidance have confirmed low prices will remain for an extended period. Rajan lowered interest rates on Jan. 14, 2015, by one quarter of a percentage point. Under India's setup the central bank chief makes decisions on interest rates, compared to the decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee at the U.S. Federal Reserve. Rajan says there is full understanding between the central bank and the Modi government economic team led by finance minister Arun Jaitley, Jayan Sinha, deputy minister of state for finance, and chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanium. Modi and Jaitley prefer to rely on the advice and policy direction of economic policymakers with long experience in the U.S. and international circles. Both Subramanium and Rajan bring this level of experience and expertise. Subramanium brings experience from his years at the GATT which preceded the WTO, the IMF, and the Peterson Institute of International Economics, and Rajan brings experience at the University of Chicago, and as chief economist of the IMF. Modi is a dilgent listener and policymaker giving careful attention to the best advice, making it unlikely that Rajan would be seen as a holdover from the administration of Manmohan Singh. Other criticism that the business sector has made of Rajan are as financial regulator in asking state banks to increase collateral required from large business firms for large bank loans. Rajan points out the need for business to bear the costs as well as the benefits of taking risks. Under previous governments the state banks allowed large firms to keep their holdings at companies even when the risk taking resulted in losses. Rajan has also not tried to reverse the sharp decline in the rupee, which hurts business firms which took on dollar denominated loans. Rajan has instead followed policy of building up the reserves by buying dollars. The reserves were depleted in 2013 by a policy of currency interventions to reverse that decline. Inflation in India reached 9.9% in Dec. 2013, with policy of the central bank under Rajan set to bring it down to 8% in 2014, and below 6% in 2015, so that India could get out of the trap of persistently high inflation with slow growth. This is critical for a new Indian success story. A goal set by Rajan in Oct. 2012 when he was appointed as central bank chief, was to increase foreign investment and encourage new business so that India was no longer dependent on large companies for growth. This is also critical for a new Indian success story, as the Modi administration and the central bank are both keenly aware. Just as Bernanke and now Yellen at the U.S. Fed face criticism for quantitative easing monetary policy, focus on the high long term unemployed, and not focussing on inflation- with their focus on the long term economic recovery in an environment of low inflation below 2% in the U.S.- India's Reserve Bank faces a different kind of criticism for careful and prudent policies to ensure long term growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matt O'Brien points out that the Chinese currency may be overvalued as other currencies including the euro and the Japanese yen weakened. Since 2005 China let the yuan appreciate very gradually. As China's economic growth slowed in 2014 investor outflows have increased with an estimated $800 billion leaving the country. China has spent some of its reserves to keep it stable. Before the move the yuan was managed by letting it trade up or down 2% each day around a midpoint set by the government. The new setup keeps this but lets the market set the midpoint based on where it closed the prior day. This move was recommended by the IMF to help in the transition of the yuan to becoming a reserve currency. O'Brien points out that the soft peg to the U.S. dollar means the yuan appreciated 9.2% against the euro and 57.8% against the Japanese yen in the years 2013-2015, and this is happening as the U.S. Federal Reserve is planning to raise interest rates- the real trade weighted exchange rate being up 14% for the yuan in the last 12 months. The 8.3% decline in the exports for July 2015 over the prior year led the government to this action. The increase in investor outflows as a result will lead to further declines, with some estimates of the eventual decline in the yuan at about 10%....

LyrArc Article Gist
Are bubble type incentives inflating the size of the U.S. auto market in 2012-2013 as happened in the past decade. This could hurt future sales. Japanese automakers have sharply increased incentives to make a come back after the tsunami and earhtquake restricted supplies. U.S. automakers are reluctant to go further down the incentives route that hurt them in the past decade. The result is higher inventories for Detroit automakers, another undesirable result. General Motors had 5 months of Malibu supply at dealers in Nov. 2012 at the current sales rate, Ford 4 months of Fiesta subcompact inventory and 73 days of total inventory overall, Chrysler 6 months of 2013 Dodge Dart inventory. GM has 3 months of Chevy Cruze inventory, and 138 days of Chevy Silverado pickup truck inventory. GM decided to idle one of two plants making the Cruze. In contrast Toyota has 2 months inventory for the Camry and Corolla. The largest incentives in the U.S. market are from Nissan, a 55% jump to average $4,273 in Nov. 2012 from $2,764 in Jan 2012. Honda increased incentives to average $2,428 from $1,978 in Feb. 2012, a 23% increase. Toyota up to average $2,075 in Nov 2012 from $1717 in Jan. 2012, a 21% increase, according to TrueCar.com, with zero percent interest rates not counted in these numbers. Ford offers $2895 off its 2013 Focus sedan, which has 2 months inventory. General Motors offers between $2900 and $3500 in average incentives , according to TrueCar.com....

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...