LyrArc Article Gist
The NYTimes asks whether the administration has the will to take the tough actions necessary for an effective action plan for the banks, including ownership by the government of insolvent banks, new management, haircuts for bondholders.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's different take on the bank rescue plans, raising the issues related to Bank of America's "forced" acquisition of Merrill by Paulson and Bernanke.

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama in his speech at Georgetown, April 13, 2009, describes the thinking behind the decisions made in the first 12 weeks of his administration- why the actions are not aggressive and overreaching as some critics say, and why they are not timid as other critics have said. This was not a typical downturn of the business cycle, but a perfect storm arising from irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking in Washington, Wall Street and Main Street- in effect several crises colliding for something like an explosion, if not dealt with at once, and with strong action. He says "the key to dealing with our deficit and debt is to get a handle on out-of-control health care costs, not to stand idly by as the economy goes into free fall." The recognition that the crisis itself brings with it new possibilities, the opportunity for coming to grips with and forging a good solution to health care, energy and education issues that were neglected while Wall Street directed investments to areas other than investment in building for the future. To the critics like Krugman, Rosenfeld and others who say that the takeover of insolvent banks should be done quickly before the situation worsens, he says it is not because of any ideological or political judgement he has made about government involvement in banks, but because it is more likely to undermine than create confidence at this point. He goes on step by step, through the process of decisionmaking, first to step in and boost spending vigorously, second to get lending flowing again to businesses and families, strengthening the non-bank credit market for consumer purchases and loans, the housing plan, the auto plan, and the work at the G-20. Then President Obama goes on to project his vision and the road to getting there. The five pillars he sees for the future are: redirecting Wall Street and banking to constructive investments for the future, investments in education, investments in renewable energy and technology to create new industries and new jobs, investments in health care to cut costs for businesses and families, and new savings in the federal budget to bring down the deficit. Obama says he will look for savings line by line in every corner of the budget, and has already identified two trillion dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade. And the goal is to reduce discretionary spending for domestic programs as share of the economy by more than 10% over the next decade. Procurement reform will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 billion. Secretary Gates is attacking th problem of hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and cost overruns that have bloated the defense budget, without adding to the nation's safety. And education programs that don't work will be removed, and waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program will be controlled. Finally, Mr Obama points to the nation's political system as one more reason we are in this perfect storm- "a fundamental weakness in our political system." He cites the putting off hard decisions for another day, scoring political points instead of rolling up up sleeves to solve real problems, an impatience that is only worsened by the 24 hour news cycle, and a short attention span that focusses on the immediate results and on poll numbers. And there is too much responding to the "tempest of the moment until the furor has died away and the media coverage has moved on, instead of confronting the major challenges that will shape our future in a sustained and focussed way." After these 12 weeks President Obama says, for the first time there are glimmers of hope, and way off in the distance can be seen a vision of America's future that is far different than its troubled past. And citing the parable in the Sermon on the Mount about that "house built on a rock", he sees America's house built on a rock, a house for which we use this moment to lay a new foundation, come together and begin the hard work of rebuilding, persisting and persevering in the face of disappointments and setbacks that surely lie ahead. Then he has no doubt "that this house will stand and the dreams of our founders will live on in our time." Its a remarkable speech in its directness, its simplicity in approaching the subject, and its borrowing from the Bible for that story of that house built on a rock, and its Lincolnesque reference to the house that will stand. And more than a speech, it describes a vision, and the set of actions and steps taken and to be taken to get there. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After a severe financial crisis that could have snowballed into a Depression type situation and the credit rating agencies playing their critic-for-hire role in causing the crisis, there has been very little done to reform or correct the basic way in which credit ratings are made. Other than small patches to the system that failed the country badly by 2008, it has been left alone by Congress, the Obama administration, and regulatory agencies. The Attorney General of Ohio, Richard Cordray, says the "rating agencies total disregard for the life's work of ordinary Ohioans caused the collapse of our housing and credit markets and is at he heart of what's wrong with Wall Street today." Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's Attorney General says he plans to join the suit against the credit rating agencies, Fitch, Standard and Poors and Moody's. Cordrays suit was filed Nov. 20, on behalf of Ohio's pension funds. It seeks billions of dollars in damages from these ratings agencies and accuses the agencies of negligence and fraud. About the failure of Congress to make even the basic change to the system of ratings, Joseph Grundfest, a professor of securities law at Stanford says ; "What you see in these bills are Botox shots, for a little while everyone is going to be frozen into a grin, and then the shots are going to wear off.'' A deputy dean at Yale Law School, Jonathan Macey, was a member of a bipartisan task force on credit ratings reform and met with lawmakers in Congress on this issue. He says its mortifying to see that this problem which is different from other complicated issues like water shortages around the world has been left unsolved, as it could be easily solved if there was even a basic degree of political will to do so. Congress looked at the option of creating an independent fee financed credit rating agency along the lines of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, established after the Enron, but did nothing with this idea. Rep. Kanjorski and Senator Reed have led the efforts to look at the credit ratings agencies in Congress and have basically decided this to leave the system very much the same as before the crisis, with the conflict of interest problem and incentives to improve profitability at the expense of the integrity of the ratings process still intact. Bills in Congress give more oversight powers to the S.E.C. and require companies to strengthen their compliance teams. In the period leading to the 2008 crisis the internal compliance teams did not get top management support at the credit rating agencies and there is skepticism about the effectiveness of compliance teams. S.E.C. regulatory efforts face push-back from the credit ratings agencies and the effectiveness of S.E.C. regulatory supervision is uncertain given the critical role that is given to credit ratings in bond and securties issuance....

LyrArc Article Gist
The new head of U.S. President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, is Princeton economics professor, Alan Krueger. Kueger is known as the academic's academic, whose office is located with other labor scholars in the Princeton library. His work has focussed on what he calls "Rockenomics" (research about which bands do well and the reasons for this), on commuting, on studies such as the one with a suggestive title, "Sorting in the Labor Market: Do Gregarious Workers Flock to Interactive Jobs?" His appointment suggests the Obama administration is looking at no new policy initiatives, focussing on an incrementalist approach in policy actions, with the hope that he can get both political parties behind smaller changes. Putting a micro-specialist in charge at a time of huge volatility in financial markets shows an administration that is likely to continue the status quo with small changes till the presidential elections in 2012- the opposite of strong action because the Obama adminstration has no idea how to turn this economy around and only hopes things will change....

LyrArc Article Gist
The unemployment rate drops to 7.8% from 8.1% in September according to the Labor Dept. The decline partly comes from people taking part time jobs because they are unable to find full time work. The establishment survey shows 104,000 jobs added in the private sector in September, and revises the figures for July and August to show 86,000 additional jobs created. Of the 104,000 jobs added, jobs increased in health care and transportation. Government added 10,000 jobs. Manufacturing jobs declined by 16,000, a cause for concern. A more accurate measure of unemployment is the underutilization of labor called U-6 by experts, this includes part time workers who would prefer to work full time- this has remained at 14.7% for Sept. 2012. The overall picture is that the job market remains sluggish. Because Labor Department numbers are prone to revision this could change in coming months. The slowing economy in China with the new stimulus in China coming in at one eighth the size of the old stimulus (1 trillion yuan over 4 years compared to 4 trillion yuan over 2 years 2009-2010) because of inflation concerns and risks of aggravating a property bubble, and the declining growth in the eurozone- France with zero growth in 2013 and Germany at 0.9%, Italy and Spain declining growth- means the prospects for U.S. economic growth will be lower in 2013. U.S. GDP growth was 1.3% in the second quarter according to the Commerce Department, and Macroeconomic Advisors predicts GDP growth of 1.5% in the third quarter in downward revisions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Europeans led by France and Germany demand stricter regulation and a financial regulatory system that oversees the entire financial system, and oversees all the larger countries. The US in contrast wants to see a lighter regulatory system, and lighter regulation of parts of the financial system like hedge funds. For the USA where the crisis originated, the emphasis is on larger stimulus spending. For the Europeans which have a larger safety net that they would like to see considered as part of their stimulus- and their social arrangement such as reduced hours in Germany to avoid layoffs, and the presence of a large public sector in France that is about 52% of GDP- the situation as they see it does not require breaking the EU's committment to control large deficits. The cultural and historical roots are also different. Germany was hit by hyperinflation in the period between the two wars, and there is thought there that this helped the rise of demagogic leaders and the collapse of democracy there. At that time the issue was war reparations that Germany found difficult to absorb in an economy devastated by the first war, which strained German finances. France and Germany also have no foreclosure crisis, and car sales and consumer spending are not in the deep decline that is seen in the USA. In fact car sales have increased in the two countries with the refunds for scrapping old vehicles, with no such plan in place in the USA. Making there is a credible position on the European side. Germany does see itself hit by the collapse in international trade. Germany and France face the prospect of helping their banking systems deal with the large bad loan situation facing them in Eastern Europe. At the same time Germany and France want to save some firepower for coming to the aid of key parts of the European community like Spain, Greece, and Ireland, which are facing a worsening crisis. In short both sides have credible positions, and some form of accomodation as events unfold may be a better desired outcome than some unified outcome. And little has been said of the position of the other countries in the G20, the emerging countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina and others, and the position of the World Bank speaking for the poorest countries. These countries may favor stronger stimulus, and would favor the stricter regulation and supervision of global financial systems favored by the Europeans. This is because they may rightly feel that the messups in the global financial system have stolen their chance, at just the point where they were turning the corner in their efforts at bringing better standards of living to their peoples....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernanke's plan to address the deep downturn is very aggressive and he is pulling out all the stops. This includes the purchase of mortgage backed securities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporate debt and other assets, Since it stated its intention in late November to buy such securities, the 30 year mortgage rates have fallen to 5.2% from 6%, and refinance applications have tripled. Now the purchases will be greatly expanded. See the related link to this in Hubbard and Mayer article based on their research paper, in the WSJ, that shows that at a mortgage rate of 4.5% the housing market prices could stabilize. Next step the Fed will, starting early 2009, pump money into markets for student, auto, credit card ansd small business loans in hoping to bring life to those markets. How much money is involved? Quite a bit. All told the Fed's assets could add up to $5 trillion says Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research, up from $2.2 trillion now. Its these sweeping moves and decisions that have overshadowed the December 16 announcement cutting the target federal funds rate to a range from zero to 0.25%, the lowest in its history. Whats the thinking behind this? Coy of BW points to Bernanke's research on the depression years and the lost decade years in Japan. In 1999, in a book he contributed to, Bernanke referred to Japan's monetary policy and passive approach as a self induced paralysis, including all the zombie loans that were allowed to continue on company books and no effort to clear up the bad assets quickly. He always thought highly of the aggressive approach taken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and felt that more tools available and a better understanding of the market system since FDR's day enabled a lot more actions to be taken to reverse the kind of steep global downturn that might occur. Yardeni's view is that even though this huge asset buildup could lead to inflation down the road, the economy in the medium term faces a deflationary environment, and the only way to cope with this series of bubbles bursting is to create another bubble, rather than risk anything going seriously wrong. Basically Bernanke is making an assessment of the current situation, and he sees bad credit situation getting worse, bad unemployment situation getting worse, consumer spending falling off and getting worse, continued home foreclosures and falling prices, the transition between administrations and lack of policy direction for a few critical months complicating things, and he sees the economies of all trading partners in Asia and Europe weakening in great speed, and sees very tough years for 2009 and 2010 no matter what the administration and the Fed do. Not enough aggressive actions to forestall the worst is as bad as inaction in Bernanke's view. And with all the aggressive moves, including the $1 trillion stimulus and infrastructure spending to create 2.5 million jobs that Obama administration plans, the US and global picture for the next 24 months will still be a long uphill climb. So the risks for Bernanke are all in the region of not doing enough and not doing it vigorously and speedily to get the best results. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
According to Census Bureau data analyzed by the Pew Research Center, 6.1 million Hispanic children lived in poverty in 2010. The poverty line is defined as a family of four living on $22,314. Of the total poor children in 2010, 37.3% were Hispanic, 30.5% white, and 26.6% black. Hispanics were hit hard by the 2008-2009 recession because many are employed in construction and the hospitality industries or blue collar jobs. A majority of the Hispanic children were born in the U.S. 4.1 million have immigrant parents and 2.0 million have U.S. born parents. Of the total U.S. population Latinos are 16%, yet they comprise 23% of all the children in the country. With a quarter of America's children being Latino -and with these numbers expected to grow in coming years because of higher birth rates- the fact that many of these children are less likely to get a college education or acquire technical skills because of poverty levels, has serious implications for America's future competitiveness.

LyrArc Article Gist
The authors, Becker, Davis and Murphy, are from the University of Chicago. They point out that the uncertainty created by the Obama administration's programs including healthcare and social investments in education, energy conservation, and the desire to reduce carbon emissions, all tend to slow business expansion and investments to create jobs by putting additional costs on business. The expanding federal deficit and national debt also create additional uncertainty. Their point is that it was a mistake to start making major changes to transform the U.S. economy at this time, and that it would have been wiser to do these changes after the economy had recovered completely from the crisis. All efforts they say should have been concentrated on establishing conditions for a strong recovery. When combined with the lack of regulatory reforms to fix problems left behind from the crisis, and other failures, serious questions arise about how things will turn out in coming years. See Krugman- The Feeling of 1937, where Krugman takes this up from another angle, again with concerns about the future....

LyrArc Article Gist
The political warfare between the two parties Republicans and Democrats complicates help to the automakers being released from the TARP $700 billion by Bush in the months before January transfer to the President elect. Bush is purported to want the Democrats to support the Columbia trade agreement which Obama vigorously opposes on the grounds of violence against union workers in Columbia. Complicating the situation further Obama and environmentalists including Al Gore wnat to see the auto industry help in the light of promoting energy conservation and environmental goals, whereas the industry and the unions and their Michigan supporters like Rep. Dingell and others want to see the aid given without any strings attached. This leaves the danger that both sides may be caught in a situation they could not control, the Bush people with a outgoing President who is struggling to preserve something of his legacy amid dismal ratings, and the Obama people without the experience to handle a situation such as this which is getting increasingly complicated. See the editorial pages of the WSJ on November 10 which said government help should only be given if the current management and board are replaced with new management and board, suggesting government receivership for GM. The management and board of GM which have hung onto their jobs through thick and thin are not likely to volunteer for a change. And the public perception is that the automakers management is responsible for this mess having dragged their feet all the way and used lobbyists to delay having to make the fuel efficient automobiles customers want. And another intractable factor that remains in the background is the collapsing sales of automakers which if it continues would require even bigger amount of government aid to keep operations running and pay workers way beyond the $50 billion that is being discussed, almost unrestricted help. In the meantime the Center for Automotive Research athink tank based in Michigan says about 3 million jobs depend directly of indirectly on the automotive industry and suppliers and services and goods providers to autoworkers. At the rate things are going a further deterioration in the conditions of the industry and further sales losses look likely, and GM's share price has already been placed at zero value by auto analysts at Deutsche Bank. It may well turn out that no one is in control and as the situation lurches from crisis to crisis, both the outgoing and incoming administration might find events happening in rapid fire mode one after another may take GM' s share price down close to zero before any solutions are found to an impasse and action taken. This happened with Lehman Brothers where in the end the failure of Fuld to take decisive and correct action early led to a collapse which the Fed and Treasury let happen. The danger to the economy is that when the story of these events is written years hence it may be recorded that very liitle action was taken to prevent foreclosures and action taken was not taken early or decisively. And individuals like Fuld at Lehman in October and Waggoner at GM in November failed to provide the leadership in the months and years leading into the crisis, leading to its steep and worsening nature on the credit front and on the auto front. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Indifference on the Republican side, and a sense that not much is going to get done on the Democratic side, as President Obama pitches a $447 billion second stimulus plan in a speech to both houses of the U.S. Congress on September 8, 2011. Dana Milbank documents the attitudes and skepticism with which members of Congress received the proposals- a general sense that President Obama was too weak and ineffective to get things done and has lost credibility. John Taylor, senior economic advisor on the Republican side pointed out in a Wall Street Journal column a few days before the speech, that the jobs proposals Obama and economic advisor Alan Krueger were presenting were similiar to old plans that have not produced results. Taylor viewed them as placing too much reliance on government and not enough on the private sector to generate economic growth and jobs.

LyrArc Article Gist
Feeding America, a national network of food banks, finds that 37 million, or 1 in 8 Americans, needed emergency food assistance in 2009. Even in affluent suburbs like Long Island it found 280,000 sought assistance for food in 2009. And 39% of these were children under 18. Only 30% of those seeking help received food stamps suggesting that even that program is not reaching everyone that needs help.

LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of respondents in a Pew Research center survey conducted in December 2014 view with disapproval president Obama's handling of race relations, only 40% approve. This includes a steep drop among African-Americans of 16 points since the previous polling in summer 2014. Obama's statement that change is "hard and incremental" comes up short for many Americans who look for leadership in race relations. A cautious presidency fails to speak up for ideals it espoused, for human rights overseas and building a better future for minorities at home, losing precious opportunities at every turn.