LyrArc Article Gist
European leaders meeting in Brussels set Sunday July 12, 2015, as the final day by which Greece is expected to submit proposals and reach an agreement with the EU. All EU leaders will be present at the Sunday meeting at which Greece's postion as a member in the eurozone will be settled, and measures for humanitarian aid to Greece can be discussed. EU chief Juncker called Sunday July 12, 2015 the deadline date. Greece's finance minister Tsakalotos surprised European leaders by not having any proposals to submit. German chancellor Merkel said at a news conference- "There are only a few days left for a discussion on what's going to happen in the future. What we need now is a multi-annual program tht goes far beyond the program that we discussed ony 10 days ago." Experts at Bruegel research organization in Brussels say the ECB providing emergency financing is dependent on Greece coming to an agreement with the EU, and if no agreement is reached Greece's exit from the eurozone is very likely....

LyrArc Article Gist
Gordon points to Roosevelt's experience in 1938 when the Republicans did very well that year in the midterm elections, two years after Roosevelt's decisive wins in 46 states in 1936. The tendency for new administrations to get a lot of the legislative agenda done in the first two years, and the losses in midterms for Wilson, Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton.

LyrArc Article Gist
Research shows that when a home's value falls below 75% of the amount owed on the mortgage, the homeowner thinks hard about walking away even if he has the money to keep paying, as it does not make economic sense to keep paying. By 3rd quarter 2009 4.5 million Americans reached this point and by June 2010 it is estimated by Corel Logic, a real estate firm, that 5.1 million will reach the 75% point- or 10% of all mortgages. Homeowners who made the mistake of buying as the market was cresting are seriously considering walking away and bank's reluctance to reduce the payments is for them the last straw. The Obama administration hasn't helped as this comment by assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions, Michael Barr, shows. He discounts the idea that many people will walk away from their homes, saying that the overwhelming number will stay in their homes. Consultants at Oliver Wyman show from their research that at least 17% walked away from their homes even though they could make payments in 2008, or 588,000 people, and this was before the full impact of the global financial crisis. These numbers could be much higher in today's depressed market....

LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Fedstein has a new idea for solution to the mortgage and credit crisis. He has a Loan Substitution Program and this is how it works. The Government would loan mortgage holders 20% of their current mortgage loan, with a 15 year payback period, and an adjustable interest rate based on what the government pays on two-year Treasury debt (now just 1.6%).The loan proceeds would go to immediately reduce the borrower's primary mortgage, cutting interest and principal payments by 20%. Participation in the program would be voluntaryand participants could prepay the government loan at any time. The basic idea is to lower the Loan to Value Ratios and help prevent foreclosures and defaults so that house prices which may have another 10-15% to fall, do not fall steeply and overshoot as millions of foreclosures take place across the country in coming months. Legislation would require that the government must be repaid before all creditors except the mortgage lenders, and that the debt to the government would have to be paid, even if the homeowner defaults on a mortgage. The critical thing this would accomplish is that homeowners would pay less in total interest. In exchange for that reduction in that interest, they would decrease the amount of the debt they can escape by defaulting on their mortgage....

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein is back after his proposal that the government step in with low cost loans to families thatwould help homeowners reduce what they owed the bank by 20%, for those homeowners who are close to negative equity but not there yet. This is needed to prevent the next big wave of defaults on loans, from homeowners who see that walking away from their loans is a rational solution once they reach the point of negative equity. Feldstein hammers away at some critical points that point out that reducing rates risks more than it accomplishes. Food prices globally do not benefit from lower rates, as governments may have to raise interest rates to cool inflation in their economies. Rising food prices threatens the livelihoods of poor and working classes in the global economy, especially in developing countries of Asia and Africa. It also does little to stimulate the economy in the USA and actually helps increase inflation for commodities like oil and food products. So why is the Fed lowering rates even though the costs are more significant than the benefits. Lowering rates would be counterintuiive in this situation as Feldstein points out. Bernanke's response would be that its a temporary crisis response, lower interest rates helps financial firms restructure their debt and helps them restore health to their balance sheets in the fragile financial markets, where the financial architecture itself is being questioned. And the immediate crisis was in the financial markets, whereas some other solutions could be found for the damage this caused to the overall world economy in terms of inflation. Feldstein quotes estimates of inlation at 4% in the last 12 months and of 4.8% this year. The inflation rate in China is estimated much higher at about 8.5% and has become the focus of government efforts including relaxing the exchange rate, as the rise in prices especially of food affects the large working poor in China. Another aspect of lower interest rates is that lower rates surely would do little when there is such a large inventory of unsold homes. Significant also is the fact that lowering rates for fed funds by 3% from this time last year, has done little to lower mortgage interest rates which have come down only by 0.5%. So it does not give much relief to homeowners either. So is lowering rates a medicine that comes with a lot of side effects that you adminster only because the patient is in a critical condition, as the financial and credit markets appeared to Bernanke and Paulson that weekend only a few weeks ago? Probably so,which takes one back to Feldstein's main point. That main point is that the only way to get to solutions that strike at the core of this crisis is to help homeowners avoid default on their home mortgage loans, by reducing the loan amount by something like 20%, through government loans which can later be recouped to some extent. It cautions the Fed to use the medicine of lower rates sparingly, and urges the market participants and the public that insists that there be no "bailouts" to come to their senses, and accept that their will be tolerable losses for all if there are not to be intolerable losses for all....

LyrArc Article Gist
A hard look at the idea of the "Great Moderation" a peiod of stable prosperity that America has enjoyed for 20 or so years with low inflation, stable unemployment and smaller bumps along the road even in recessions such as the one in 1990 and in 2000 which had shorter durations with good rebound. The IMF report on the world economy for September looks at this period of stability and sees a continuation. This report takes a look at the current crises in housing and credit markets and takes a more cautious view wondering if things may be at a turning point where such stable growth cannot be taken as a given. In general the world economy has become more flexible and structural shifts to globalization and the shifts in manufacturing to other parts of the world such as emerging countries have made for a more resilient world economy compared to the economy that faced the oil shocks of the seventies. The three specific causes to which this stable period is attributed are the better handling of monetary policy, the better inventory management with Just in Time and manufacture to order, inventories literally being the shipments that are carried by Fedex or UPS on a particular day, and credit markets securitization of debt packaging it into marketable securities creating a large credit pool so thay companies could have better access to credit. Securtization has suffered because some of the basic rules were broken such as how securities are rated and not because of the basic concept. Have the markets and investors and households taken on more risk in their asset portfolios because of the belief that this period of 'Great Moderation' would simply continue. Its these kinds of behaviour that get tripped up until things get cleared up and return to normal. Is this simply a phase like the prior downturns preceding it that should see a similiar rebound or is it something different. One thing that is noted is that the period of relative prosperity has ocurred as in many countries in Europe and Asia. And the housing markets in many countries in Europe and Asia have also seen rising prices similar to that of the US. Can this turn into a worldwide recessionary situation? Comment made later on April 12, 2008 after the Bear Stearns crisis in March 2008 and the Fed meeting summary describing the downturn as expected to " be protracted and severe", and the emergency measures by the Fed itself made to prevent a possible global financial crisis. In hindsight the 3 reasons for the Great Moderation can be evaluated in this way. The first was the only real one to which researchers attribute about 50% of the Great Moderation, which is the revolution that Just In Time inventories have accomplished for smoothing drops in demand. The second financial innovation proved to be illusory just as mentioned here because it was gamed because the financial houses and other firms were able to get around regulation or the regulations were inadequate and the innovation fell victim to unrestrained greed in the manner mortgage securitization was done. The third wise better monetary policy as mentioned here did not get much credit from researchers and this turns out to be true. Keeping interests rate low was possible because of the disinflationary aspect of globalization specifically manufacturing in China which ended in 2007. Further the success of the US economy made it possible for the US dollar to remain strong and the USA to continue to attract capital for much of this period even while interest rates were low. But its the export of disinflation from China, and no pressures of inflation from globalization through commodities demand for much of this period, that kept inflation low and made it possible for the Fed to keep interest rates low without creating inflationary pressures. Of the three financial innovation and monetary policy may have in them in fact unlike the first Just in Time and information technology, may have in them the seeds of trouble as well as gain if not carefully managed, like fire a good servant but bad master, and this is really what happened in what turns out to be a very human world, greed subverted financial innovation without the necessary appropriate regulation to go with it and the Fed's libertarian instincts and complacency or lack of energetic oversight under a man past eighty years made it lose sight of its need to adjust interest rates to cool off excesses in the market and send appropriate signals to the financial and housing markets. The Economist was slightly ahead of the curve when it makes the observation here that this is likely to be a global housing crisis and a global credit crisis with all the implications of this for global economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Battle at Wamat in 2008 where militants outnumbered an American outpost of 48 soldiers and overran the place in eastern Afghanistan. THe mistakes made and how its part of the new strategy for General McChrystal.

LyrArc Article Gist
New York Times readers respond to Drew Western's article in Sunday Review, NYT of August 7, 2011. Readers express disappointment with President Obama's lack of courage and initiative.

LyrArc Article Gist
The experience of shift worker Randy Johnson, at Ampad. American Pad & Paper (Ampad) was acquired by Bain Capital in 1992.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that about 13 million Americans without insurance gained health insurance under the Obama plan. He says if it is turned back 8 million whites without a college degree in that 13 million will lose health insurance. Of these eight million about two out of three voted for Trump, so that 5 million Trump supporters could now lose health insurance even though they are older and have more health conditions. Krugman says this aspect of the election campaign was not covered well in the misinformation and social media information of the 2016 campaign, and the lack of media focus on the important issues in the election. On manufacturing jobs he says most of the jobs lost are not returning, and only token jobs such as at a Carrier plant in the news will take their place.

LyrArc Article Gist
A black supporter of Obama, Ms. Hart, tells him- " I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration. I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class." This encounter happened at an hour long town hall meeting on CNBC, which John Harwood moderated. Harwood asked Obama whether he was having difficulty connecting with average Americans because of attending Ivy League schools and spending part of his youth overseas. The incident reflects the frustration and disappointment felt by average Americans with the Obama administration and with Obama.

LyrArc Article Gist
As the Obama administration plans a large stimulus spending plan that may approach $1 trillion over several years, considering also the second phase of the $800 billion first phase stimulus, there is a concern that there may be wasteful spending and social costs of borrowing and spending by the government of such proportions. In economics jargon this hinges on whether there is amultiplier effect of spending, higher if its efficiently and well spent with less impact on private consumption and investment, and lower if the opposite were true. The assumption behind amultiplier of 1.0 for an additional bridge or road is that resources like manpower and capital that would be otherwise idle are deployed to produce something useful. An increase in one unit of government purchases increases by one unit the real gross domestic product. The government has effectively created the additional bridge or road without a cut in anybody's consumption or a businesses investment. The other contrasting approaches are to say there is a multiplier of zero, meaning there is a social cost in two ways. One the reduction of consumption and the crowding out of businesses investing in new products and technologies for example, and second in the inefficent use of resources if a government bureaucracy is put to work allocating money and the additional dangers of favoritism and corruption. To say that there is a multipier of 1.5 would mean that the government figures out a way to get private investment through conversion of plants for automotive parts say to make wind turbine blades by giving incentives, tax benefits and grants, spends on a dilapidated road and public transportation infrastructure that may provide benefits in increased growth capacity over future years. The limits of a government bureaucracy and inefficiency of government would in this case be addressed by transparency rules adopted and measures that track progress that are freely available to all citizens say on a website on the internet, and by bringing in fresh management talent from the private sector. There appears to be no generalization that can be applied for one multiplier for all projects. It may be that the multiplier will vary with the project. Some projects like the conversion of a factory making unneeded auto parts to a badly needed wind energy part, to change the dynamics of energy market pricing, to meet energy needs and cut emissions, may end up having a multiplier much above 1.0. A redundant or less needed bridge has a lower multiplier than a bridge rebuilt before it leads to breakdown. And also the complication that too large a movement in one direction say of stimulus spending, might result in a shift of the curve towards a smaller multiplier and diminishing returns, as the resources to track such a large expenditure and the talent to adminster are overextended. The social cost of private investment not making that investment in new technology, new product or improved product has to be figured into all this, both at the conceptual level as all costs and benefits may not be picked up in the analysis, and at the macro level keeping in mind that the animal spirits, as they were once described, may just not be there to absorb the huge outlays which a government can make. These do not come without an opportunity cost and borrowing costs. All this leads one to to conclude that spending has to be carefully evaluated and projects assessed on a case by case basis for costs and benefits. The spending has to be balanced to provide just as many incentives for private investment to invest in new products and technologies. One way the Obama team is attempting to address this is to include a $300 billion tax cut for businesses and individuals. The business tax cuts are aimed at helping small business with losses, and for future investments and making hires and forgoing layoffs. The other part relates to careful evaluation of spending projects and transparency so the people can see if they are effective. See the link to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....