LyrArc Article Gist
Details of the $825 billion stimulus plan. Renewable energy does well under the plan including production tax credit for renewables, with $32 billion for a "smart" electrical grid for which GE makes components and lobbied for. Renewable energy producers win an extension of production tax credits now convertible into cash for companies whose losses leave them unable to use the credits. Transportation infrastructure green projects did not do so well, with $32 billion for transportation projects and only $10 billion for mass transit projects.The Natural Resources Defense Council had compiled a list of more than 80 environmentally friendly infrastructure and transportation projects worth about $405 billion. Only a small number of these projects made it. What is in the stimulus to create jobs and stimulate capital investment? Businesses get bonus depreciation, which speeds up depreciation deductions for companies that invest in plant and equipment. The stimulus doubles the amount small businesses can immediately write off for capital investments and purchasing new eqipment, and gives incentives for businesses to invest in renewable energy. States get help with $90 billion going to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments, and an additional $79 billion to help states avoid cutbacks in education and other services. And there is a "Make Work Pay" tax credit for $500 per worer and $1000 per couple. Experts say the effects of the stimulus will be felt in the latter part of 2009 and into 2010. Which is one reason the view of economists that there would be a second half recovery does not reflect conditions on the ground. Goldman has revised its view to 2010 and even that may be optimistic. One example of what has happened in the stimulus in this respect is that the earlier optimistic view of largeinvestments in science and technology, broadband networks, and transportation projects for fast rail and transit have all been trimmed down. Part of the reason may be that the bill for the nation's banking system revival may be larger than realized as an additional amount of $15-20 billion is being negotiated for Bank of America and more money will go to Citigroup. $6 billion is shown for highspeed internet access for rural and underserved areas. Science facilities get $10 billion. Repair of public infrastructure (read roads and bridges) gets $31 billion. School modernization gets $21 billion. And modernization of health information technology systems gets $20 billion which its hoped will provide equivalent or higher returns to pay for some of the universal health care costs, and preventative care gets $4 billion. There is a tax credit for R&D work on energy innovations and renewable energy production of $20 billion, and $32 billion for a "smart electricity grid." These are the proactive parts of the stimulus that create something new and make improvements. They add up to $144 billion. So much money goes to shore up the existing services and supplement incomes, and to relieve stresses on the banking system, and other ways to shore up the system, that the proactive expenditures are only a small fraction or 17% of the $825 billion stimulus. And all the time the federal deficit and debt increases with these huge outlays just to shore up the system. The Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Director Mr. Beach told Congressmen at a discussion chaired by Congressman Cantor (R), on January 16, 2009, that the federal debt would reach 92% of the nation's GDP in 2009 from 58 billion or 70% in 2008, with the $825 billion for stimulus. The federal deficit would go up to $1.31 trillion or 9.2% of GDP up from $541 billion in 2008. See the research paper on the Heritage website. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Clive Crook points to the dangers of complacency in 2010. He reminds readers that the critical thing is as Charles Goodhart mentioned in the Financial Times, that capital and liquidity requirements must be time varying and strongly anti-cyclical. He points out that in good times when lending is expanding quickly and financial institutions are least concerned about capital, liquidity requiremets must tighten, something that is not happening under current rules. Repairs in areas of "too big to fail", separating investment banking and commercial banking, and others, will not succeed unless this principle is adopted. And this he says will be opposed by financial institutions because it reduces their growth. But this fight has to be won. It goes back to William McChesney Martin's idea of taking away the punch bowl before the party gets going.

LyrArc Article Gist
A congressional oversight panel reported in October 2009 that fewer than 2000 of 500,000 loan modification applications in progressunder the Making Homes Affordable program of the Obama adminsitration had become permanent. When Treasury reports on the program in December 2009 its expected to report that the number of permanentloan modifications are in the tens of thousands out of 650,000 borrowers in the program. Mortgage companies are collecting lucrative fees on long term delinquencies so there is not enough incentive to make permanent loan modifications according to lawers defending homeowners.

LyrArc Article Gist
According to real estate data firm CoreLogic, 38% of U.S. home owners who took a second mortgage on their homes are under water on their loans. 18% of borrowers who did not take a second mortgage are under water and have negative equity in their homes. Second mortgages are loans taken out on a property that are subordinate to first mortgages, including home equity loans and lines of credit. Borrowers with second mortgages have an average of $83,000 in negative equity compared to $52,000 for borrowers without second mortgages according to CoreLogic. During the boom borrowers took out cash using home equity loans and lines of credit for everything from home renovations and automobiles to tution and other expenses. Federal Reserve Board data show homeowners took out a huge amount, $2.69 trillion, from their homes for 2004-2006. Overall the number of underwater homeowners, or homeowners with negative equity in their homes, remained steady, according to CoreLogic's report- 10.9 million Americans in the first quarter of 2011, compared to 11.1 million for the fourth quarter of 2010, 22.7% of all homeowners nationwide compared to 23.1%. The slight decline reflected completed foreclosures, suggesting that the market conditions have not changed. Roubini and other experts predicted large housing losses in 2011-2012. This also affects America's largest banks. While the large part of the first mortgages were bundled and sold as securities, the home equity loans remain on bank balance sheets. About three fourths of the $950 billion in home equity loans outstanding were held by commercial banks at the end of 2010. Over 40% of this is on the books of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. A writedown on these loans could use up a significant part of the bank's capital....

LyrArc Article Gist
Professors Cole and Ohanian of the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA, provide a new interpretation of FDR's economic policies during the period 1932-1934 and the period 1937-1941, based on their research. This suggests conclusions different from that of Obama advisor, Christina Romer, and Fed chairman, Bernanke about that period. Changes in economic policies under the Roosevelt administration that helped bring wages in line with productivity, reduced strikes, and gradual elimination of the undistributed profits tax, improved incentives for business investment during 1938-1939. Cole and Ohanian, say that by 1941, before the U.S. entered the war, close to half of the increase in nonmilitary hours worked in the U.S. between 1939 and the peak of the war, had already been achieved. And this was primarily the result of the changes in FDR's policies in 1938. They say a similiar opportunity is presented by the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction, by lowering the corporate income tax through simplification of the tax code and reducing or eliminating most tax expenditures. Improving the incentives for business to hire and invest through this and other steps is likely to do more for the economy than the steps tried so far since 2009....

LyrArc Article Gist
As the federal revenues rise to about 18.1% of GDP (close to historical rates after return to growth) and outlays to offset the effects of the 2008 recession diminishing, the deficit is forecast to drop to 3% of GDP in 2014, and 2.6% in 2015, close to the average for the last 40 years. The deficit is estimated to be total $514 billion for fiscal year 2014, declining from $1.4 trillion in 2009. Real GDP growth (adjusting for inflation) of 3% is forecast for 2014-2017. In 2018 and the years to 2024 the deficit will increase because the pace of growth slows, and spending will increase- slower growth of the labor force as the population ages, increasing health care costs, subsidies for health care, and increasing cost to service debt. Outlays other than for health care, Social Security and interest payments on debt for year 2016-2024, are set to be the lowest percentage of GDP since 1940, according to the CBO report in 2014. Debt will increase to 79% of GDP by 2024 from an estimate of 74% for 2014. CBO projects unemployment only slowly decreasing, remaining above 6% till late 2016, with the rate of participation in the labor force- lower now because many people have opted to not look for work discouraged by the job prospects- slow to recover....

LyrArc Article Gist
International Energy Agency estimates show the U.S. surpassing Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020 because of the boom in shale oil production. The estimates are for 11.1 million barrels a day from the U.S. in 2020.

LyrArc Article Gist
About 680,000 homeowners applied for the Home Affordability Modification Program, or HAMP, and had their loans modified so that their mortgage payments are reduced. This is only one in four of the 2.7 millon homeowners who tried to to join the program. This according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data released by the Treasury Department. In 2009 the Obama administration launched the program to reverse the rising home foreclosures in the U.S., by reducing the monthly mortgage payments through lower interest rates and extending the term of loans. About $75 billion was estimated as the cost of the program at the time. Only $1 billion of this has been spent by the Obama administration. The program offered payments to 100 mortgage servicers as inducement to complete loan modifications. About half the applicants or 1.3 million were declared ineligible from the beginning, and the program used stricter qualification criteria than loan modification programs offered by individual banks. Applicants were rejected because the necessary paperwork was not submitted or it was lost by the mortgage company- 266,000 falling in this category. An additional 770,000 homeowners who started the program were later disqualified mostly for the paperwork and eligibility problems, with only a small number rejected for failing to make trial payments. Mortgages less than 31% of pretax income were considered affordable and considered ineligible-255,000 were in this category. Over 80% of homeowners in the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, received no loan modification....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Home Affordable Refinance Program's (HARP) gradual success in 2012-2013 in reducing foreclosures, after struggling in 2010-2011. From about cumulative 1 million who refinanced loans under HARP for relief in home payments the numbers went up to close to 3 million by the end of 2013, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Of this a major proportion were people who owed less than 105% of their home's value. The performance of the program improved with a revamp of HARP at the end of 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Edward DeMarco is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is the independent regulatory agency overseeing U.S. housing lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA was formed in 2008 after merging two existing agencies. Later that year Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government. FHFA head, DeMarco, is reluctant to help homeowners with underwater mortgages on their homes with reduced payments because this would mean losses to the taxpayer. He sees his mandate as protecting the taxpayer. Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, says she understands DeMarco's mandate is not to provide fiscal stimulus, and the Obama administration has been all over the place when it comes to providing homeowner assistance. The result is that there is little help by the U.S. government to homeowners with underwater mortgages since 2008, and this creates larger headwinds for the Federal Reserve Bank to provide momentum to the U.S. economy. Many experts see this as a serious problem and a well respected economist, Martin Feldstein, has made repeated proposals for structuring the help to homeowners since 2008. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Analysts fear an oil shock in 2012 similiar to that in 2008. There is similiarity in the situation now and in 2008- as in 2008, the surge in oil prices comes at a time of higher tensions with Iran and shrinking spare capacity. Spare capacity is at 2.5 million barrels a day on average for January and February 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration. This compares with 3.7 millon barrels a day for the same period in 2011. Part of the reason is that global oil demand is increasing in 2012 by 1 million barrels a day, to 89 million barrels a day. Technical and political problems have shutdown another 750,000 barrels a day. The problems begin to kick in during the second half of 2012. The U.S. ban on dealing with the Iranian central bank for oil trades starts in June 2012. According to the International Energy Agency, the EU embargo and U.S. sanctions will take 1 million barrels a day of Iranian crude out of the market. The result will be that demand exceeds supply by the third quarter by 1.1 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Use of existing reserves in Europe, the U.S. and other countries will make up the gap. The effect will be to put pressure on oil prices. May Brent crude on the ICE Futures Europe exchange was up to $125.81 a barrel, on March 16, 2012, and prices for April delivery were at $107.06 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange....

LyrArc Article Gist
John Taylor on the dangers of a loose U.S. monetary policy and the effects this had in fueling a housing bubble in Spain, Ireland and other EU countries. Taylor points to the bubble ocurring in emerging market economies from low interest rates. Taylor says the ECB's interest rate moves in 2003-2005 were affected by the Fed's low interest rates. He estimates the ECB set rates about two percentage points too low leading to housing bubbles in EU countries. A similiar process is taking place today with the Fed's near zero interest rate policy. Taylor points to interest rates in a group of 18 emerging market economies- including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and Turkey, which have held interest rates on average about 5 percentage points below widely used benchmarks fueling a doubling of global commodity prices between 2009-2011. The U.S. Fed's policies make it harder for central banks in emerging market economies to take aggresssive action against bubbles developing in these countries. Taylor says his does not mean that the Fed should not pay attention to the U.S. unemployment rate and long term unemployed, but should keep in mind the negative effects of slowing demand in emerging market economies and in the EU as a result of its monetary policy of keeping rates at near zero for long periods of time. This feeds back to the U.S. economy at a critical time....

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
Congressional Budget Office projections show the difficult choices facing the U.S. - tackling the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cuts expire will lead to low growth. The alternative is growth with much higher deficits. GDP growth would be at about 2.3% in this fiscal year if the payroll tax cut is kept till December 2012. In fiscal 2013 if a number of tax cuts are permitted to expire and across the board spending cuts take effect as scheduled GDP growth would decline to 1.1%. Taxes would increase by $465 billion in 2013 over 2012 if tax cuts expire - individuals and companies would pay $2.99 trillion in taxes in fiscal year 2013 in that scenario. Spending cuts would take effect in Jan 2013 for $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The result- " a sharp fiscal contraction" in the words of CBO director Elmendorf. Unemployment would go up to 8.9% in 2012 year end and 9.2% in 2013 yearend from 8.5% today, if no agreement is made to extend tax cuts and block spending cuts. The risk of not taking the debt reduction actions is to let the debt grow to $11 trillion over 10 years, an unsustainable path, compared to about $3.1 trillion over 10 years if tax cuts are permitted to expire and spending cuts take place. This is the tough choice facing America in 2012, and comes when Europe is facing similar tough choices....

LyrArc Article Gist
The constructive contribution made by the G-20 meetings of leaders towards building agreement on economic and other policies for peace and progress in the global economy. The meetings were especially useful for coordinating policy and addressing issues arising in the global economy after the 2008 financial crisis. Here Li Baodong, China's vice minister for international organizations and conferences, international economic affairs, describes the path ahead: IMF reforms implementation, better coordination of macroeconomic policies, pursuing the anti-protectionist and free trade policies with further support to the WTO and ministerial MC9 meeting in Bali in Dec. 2013, and infrastructure financing proposals for developing countries on the agenda at the St Petersburg, Russia, G-2- meeting in Sept. 2013. Baodong says the mechanism called the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth as part of the G-20 meetings is a major achievement. Each G-20 economy submits it macroeconomic policy plan for a Mutual Assessment Process under this arrangement. The progress from the Bretton Woods financial architecture to the new arrangement- from the G-6 to the G-20 to include developing countries from India to Mexico and Brazil- is another major achievement, not fully recognized by the public, says Baodong. Interestingly Baodong makes particular mention to global rebalancing, rather than pushing what he calls the impossible task of increasing demand to get growth. This is a realization coming to China's economic policymakers under the new Jinping-Keqiang administration after the overly aggressive effort to stimulate demand in the 2009-2011 Stimulus, and the ensuing financial problems in the banking and credit system. It is indicative of the policy shift and its implementation underway in China in 2013-2015....

LyrArc Article Gist
The truth is very different from the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration about helping Main Street America and ordinary workers against "fat-cat bankers," says Goldfarb. Under the Obama administration banks have grown larger and gained more influence over administration decisions. No conditions were made part of the agreement that would require banks to lend a portion of the money handed out to the banks to ordinary borrowers. And not much of significance was done to help homeowners under water, which would enable a faster recovery. In this respect the policies slanted in favor of banks of the Obama administration worsened the prospects of an economic recovery. Experts from Reagan advisor Martin Feldstein- who as early as 2008 advocated serious help to homeowners under water to reduce principal and interest- to the FDIC's Sheila Bair and Princeton Prof. Krugman, across the ideological spectrum, perceived this being in the national interest. Feldstein's first op-ed on his plan appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 3/7/2008, followed by ones on 4/15/2008, 10/4/2008, 1/20/2010/ 10/12/2011 in WSJ, and a oped on 10/30/2008 in the Washington Post, repeating the call for siginificant debt reduction to homeowners. Banks had extraordinary influence on successive administrations in the U.S., both Republican and Democratic- the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations- so that policy actions could be distorted from what would otherwise take place. A study by two University of Michigan professors shows that banks did not increase lending after receiving government money. Instead taxpayer money was used to invest in risky securities for profits from short term price movements, resulting in gains of about 10% in investment returns. Ran Duchin, one of the two professors, says helping ordinary borrowers was not the most profitable use of capital for banks. Without the necessary conditions from the Obama administration, the banks depolyed capital in ways that did not help the economy. Similiarly when banks needed to be restructured no preparatory action was taken because of resistance within the administration- a request by President Obama to Treasury Secretary Geithner for preparing a plan for the restructuring of Citigroup was ignored, according to a report by Goldfarb and Wallsten on 9/17/2011 in the Washington Post....

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. ...