LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....

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
Economists at the IMF estimate that the public debt of the leading 10 industrialized countries would reach 114% of GDP by 2014, from 78% today. The governments then owe about $50,000 for each person in the country. Unlike World War II this situation is not temporary, because of the pension and health care costs of a population that is getting older. So what is to be done? Without the stimulus, the deep and prolonged recession would lead to greater damage to the finances of these countries. But continued in this manner the government would crowd out private investment and lead to lower economic growth. In some countries, Greece, Ireland, Italy Portugal and Spain it might lead to default, in other countries the real cost of the debt may be reduced through inflation. In the USA yields on 10 year Treasuries reached about 4% on June 10th, in December it was about 2%, a consequence of the economic recovery. If interest rates are allowed to rise too fast, it might abort the economic recovery. A rise in taxes is also not the answer, because in Europe the taxes are already at 40%, in America they are around 30%. But raising consumption taxes at the time when the economy was fragile, aborted a recovery in Japan during Japan's earlier crisis decade. A caution signal that says fiscal tightening can backfire, especially some years after a banking crisis when things are still in a weak condition. Some steps that can be taken are raising the retirement age, which would cut pension costs as people work longer and would boost tax revenues, and eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage payments in the US. Its important to build credibility that the government and the legislative bodies are serious about controlling the finances and acting with prudence. In America wasteful health care spending is a priority, as this would reduce the burden on public finances considerably , and should be as much of a priority for the new Obama administration, as providing universal health care. With today's finances its not something that can be put off....

LyrArc Article Gist
What does transformational liberalism mean? What does fairness mean? What does it mean to have unemployment insurance, to have health care, to have jobs, to open the door to the middle class for a college education. Is this transformational liberalism? Or is this "transformational liberalism" a part of a vocabulary of cliches that have lost meaning as the nation confronts job losses of the magnitude of 500,000 a month, and this is only the beginning. Much of the increased debt the nation is occurring is going to provide government help to financial institutions like the $177 billion that has gone to AIG so far, just one company, and there are the Citigroups and other companies like AIG. What does it mean to have "burden sharing," when the rest of the country is frightened, scared, losing jobs, losing savings, and at this juncture cliches may have lost meaning, as its those who profited most and got us into this crisis like the investment bankers and senior management of companies in industries like the mortgage industry, auto industry who will be paying their larger share not because of redistribution, but because they may be the ones who can most bear this burden wihtout great sacrifices like cutting down on necessities and basics. See the link to Countrywide's Kurland who plans to profit both by overselling mortgages and creating the tinder that started this fire, and now to profit by buying distressed properties at pennies on the dollar, with $200 million from Black Rock as an investor, and $200 million on stock he sold before the crisis. Is a Kurland who has not been subject to any regulatory action, or management of AIG, or Citigroup or GM or the other companies receiving federal money by the hundreds of billions of dollars about to ask the half amillion of unemployed and the others threatened with job loss each month, for "burden sharing"? Nobody wants to see any of this happen, what has happened, including the debt, but it has happened, and it was not engineered in the new budget or in the few weeks since early January 2009....

LyrArc Article Gist
Only 1.9 million hourly workers in manufacturing now earn more than $20 per hour, its down 60% since 1979, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of all hourly workers in every sector of the economy the percentage of people earning more than $20 per hour shrunk to 18% in 2008 from 23% in 1979, thus losing some of the gains the US made since World War II which helped build the American middle class. One can see this unwinding clearly in the auto industry as wages are being reduced to match nonunion Japanese plants, and the industry itself is going through a huge downsizing fast. The hourly work force totals 76 million or 52% of all workers ranging from managers and professionals to factory and construction workers to technicians, educators and sales people. The wages of salaried workers show a similiar trend but are not converted into hourly amounts. As the numbers for 2007 are at the point where the economy was still booming, the path ahead as things go through a steep downturn can only have serious implications such as a slow recovery for demand in 2010. If a number of trends converge, employers shift to part time employment, auto related workers downshift to lower wages and benefits, shift to nonunion plants in the south or the midwest, and work is offshored or outsourced, this could worsen effects on consumption for years ahead especially with the credit remaining tight and consumers paying off old debt. Frank Levy, a labor economist at MIT, says that all this is happening wihtout a political debate or discussion, as people are worried more about having a job, and only secondly about what it pays and whether they are losing ground. Even the Pennsylvania primary debate, says Levy, between Hillary Clinton and Obama was conducted without quantifying the decline, and no one mentioned the eroding of the $20 per hour wage. What happened to support the consumption and support imports, was to pay for consumption by going into debt or refinancing the home. This has implications that range from the future of export industries in China's booming coastal sector, to how long the recovery drags on, and to what the future would look like....

LyrArc Article Gist
When experts say corporate earnings and balance sheets are healthy this is because they are speaking of the situation in aggregate. Companies that benefitted from the commodities boom like the oil companies and companies like Microsoft and Apple have hundreds of billions of dollars, but this is very deceptive and misleading. About two thirds of nonfinancial companies, 1600 companies, carry a junk rating according to S&P. How does this compare with earlier periods? Its up 50% from the beginning of the last bust in 2000 and 40% higher than in 1990. Also Wall Street hugely expanded the market for speculative floating rate loans with $1.2 trillion raised like this in the last 4 years to 2007, according to Thomson Reuters. And the junk bonds are much junkier. Between 2003 and 2007 lenders financed $194 billion worth of bonds in the bottom tier of non investment grades with B- or below. And that was twice the amount of the previous 4 years. Histoically it should be noted 23% of bonds in this group default within 3 yearsafter they are issued vs just 3% in the top 3% of junk. Which companies are likely to default? Amusement park operator Six Flags, construction products maker Georgia Gulf, trucking company Swift Transportation, and sports equipment maker Easton-Bell Sports. Private Equity owners who have loaded the companies they own with debt also could default. This includes real estate brokerage operator Realogy, newspaper company Tribune and pizza chain Uno Holdings. S&P's estimate that the default rate among US junk rated borrowers will jump from 1% last year to 4% this year but other experts estimate it at around 8%. And if history is any guide it will probably be in double digits. After the 2 lending booms the one in late 1980's for LBO's and commercial real estate and for telcom and tech in the late 1990's default rates reached double digits. And with a recession one expert Fridson of research service FridsonVision estimates default rates of upto 16% for two consecutive years considering the huge amount of debt that has built up....

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ makes the America centric thinking mistake of forgetting where China started from in assessing progress and China's new priorities. In 1960 the World Bank shows China per capita at $90 which does not change much till 1990 when it was $300, the Deng opening to western technology and capital pushed it up to $3000 the year 2000 (US $36,000) and $4500 in 2010 (US $50,000) when the global financial crisis hit. Since 2010 the Chinese economy was burdened by high local government debt and struggled to get to $10,000 in 2020 under Xi Jinping's first two terms as president. Yet it paid a huge price for this -the chance of Bo Xilai (2014) upsetting the twin banners of Science and Modernization of the May 4th 1919 movement that set the course of China for 100 years uninterrupted through the Nationalists, the Japanese occupation, the Maoist CCP, the Deng CCP opening and Jinping CCP pullback. The huge inequality was seen as an opportunity for Bo Xi Lai or some other leader to capitalize on moving China in an unknown direction that posed risks for the future of China. Even then the first preference of Xi would be to carry on with what had worked after Deng. Yet it was clear that working class votes were shifting the dynamics of elections after the Trump election and closing the doors to open access to western capital, technology, and investment. With Trump in erratic and uncertain ways, with Biden after the elections of 2020 consistent and with single minded determination to limit flows. Not just Xi, any other Chinese leader would have had to have the internal discussions about the need to shift back to a model China was familiar with and one that worked before- that of state intervention in the economy, that of reducing the inequalities that posed risks for the CCP's survival as forging a path for stability to carry out the twin banners of the May 4, 1919 Movement - Science and Modernization as China's salvation. Unlike the hysteria about China posing a challenge to the US these internal debates of Xi and the party may have concluded that the US with about half the population of China's as it grows with immigration in the future and multiple times the per capita GDP was a country that no other country was going to come close to. In this sense the supply chains are deceptive as these are likely to be completely redone under the Biden administration to bring most important manufacturing back to China. It is in this context that Xi had limited room to manoeuvre and decided to focus on stability for the long term to fulfill China's dream of the May 4, 1919 Movement of the last 100 years for Science and Modernization casting aside the risks associated for instability of the inequality that comes with more of the western type of growth, and with the climate change risks also associated with it. Lower growth gives China a chance to correct some of the flaws of the hyper growth that was partly of its own making and partly thrust upon it by investors from the outside, so that the new climate would best serve the goals of the May 4, 1919 Movement of keeping high the banners of Science and Modernization. This kind of rethinking is also going on in the US in the same manner about inequalities and hardships for workers and families, with some of the anger directed at China as internal political sentiment- hence the trillions of dollars moved by the Biden administration to address the flaws of growth under free markets and intervene in the economy where needed as in climate change to give firm sense of direction. In a sense the direction taken in different contexts the American and the Chinese are the same - address the problems of workers and families, of the people, as Lincoln had pointed out and striven so hard for, so that Labor is the more important than Capital, and workers and families vital to the nation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Singer, head of hedge fund firm Elliott Management and its unit NML Capital, has relentlessly pursued a case in U.S. courts involving collecting full payment on bonds from the Argentine government after its default on the bonds in 2001. Singer bought bonds with face value of about $170 million according to legal filings, but paid a price well below the original value. Elliott and other investors are now seeking $1.5 billion, including unpaid interest. Judge Griesa's ruling in a federal court in Manhattan blocks Argentina from paying bondholders who accepted an agreement for about 25 cents on the dollar from being paid $530 million in interest in July 2014. Argentina has to consider other risks in settling the dispute as more than the $1.5 billion as a one off payment is involved, because as Stevenson points out in another article (see link), the payment could run from $15- $27 billion depending on whether it then has to pay all holdout bondholders or all exchange and holdout bondholders at a higher rate. The result is an intractable dispute beyond the statement of honoring creditor rights, seen by a debtor country facing difficult finances in a different light. Serving as a reminder for Greece, Argentina, and other countries with chronic borrowing and debt history about the need for care and constant vigilance on state finances. In May 2012 Greece paid over $436 million in a one off payment to holdout bondholder financial firm Dart Management in a similiar bind, even as pensions were being cut and Greeks protested daily on Athens streets with over 20% unemployment (see link)....

LyrArc Article Gist
Democrats Reid and Schumer say Eric Cantor is a stumbling block to an agreement on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. Plan B suggested by Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, and supported by Senate Majority leader Reid, includes setting up a debt reduction panel of 12 members from both parties to draft a long term framework for reducing the national debt. The new debt committee would have a deadline to make recommendations, probably by the end of 2011. The recommendations would then be fast tracked through the House and the Senate without amendments. The McConnell plan is to separate the task of raising the debt ceiling from talks on deficit reduction.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair says she fears the next crisis will start in Washington. Bair points to the need for urgent action along the lines recommended by the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission. Areas identified by Bowles-Simpson should be tackled as early as possible, she says - tax subsidies for housing and health care that lead to misallocation of resources, defense spending, special-interest provisions. She points out that the increase in the deficit is a result of the unwillingness of governments over the last two decades to make the hard choices necessary to control the structural deficit. Total federal debt doubled in the last 7 years, to almost $14 trillion, or about $100,000 for every American household. Bair, as Chairman of the FDIC, played a critical role in the efforts to control the US financial crisis of 2008-2009. Relentless federal borrowing she says, undermines the confidence private investors have in US government obligations. The cost for bond investors and others to purchase insurance against a default by the US governmet went up from 2 basis points in January 2007 to 100 basis points in early 2009, and is now at 41 basis points. With 70% of US Treasury obligations held by private investors scheduled to mature in 5 years, a decline in investor confidence would lead to higher government and private borrowing costs. She writes this just as the debt crisis in Ireland is taking place, following the one in Greece, and contagion to Portugal and Spain is feared. Bair fears a similar loss of confidence in US public debt. High and volatile interest rates could lead to losses for financial institutions holding Treasury debt and raise funding costs for depository institutions....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Census Bureau reports that 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010. This is an increase of 2.6 million over 2009. This is the highest number of Americans living in poverty since 1958, when this statistic was first measured. Poverty is defined for 2010 as income at or below $22,314 for family of four. Also relevant is the median household income which went down to $49,445 in 2010, a decline of 2.3% from 2009. The typical household earned less in 2010 than in 1997, in inflation adjusted terms. The Census Bureau reports 16.3% of Americans had no health insurance coverage in 2010, the same as 2009.

LyrArc Article Gist
Tankersley points to the broken links between economic growth and growth in jobs and incomes since 1989, which have created a shrinking U.S. middle class. In the postwar period before 1989, a one percent increase in economic growth generated a six tenths of one percent increase in jobs growth during economic recoveries. During the 1992 recovery under George Bush this was down to 0.4%. In the 2001 recovery under George W. Bush this dropped to 0.2%, during the current recovery under Obama this is at 0.3%. Income growth also showed a similiar pattern. Median household incomes declined from 1990-1992 and from 2002-2004, after adjusting for inflation, even with economic growth of 6% during this period. For the 2009-2011 recovery period the economic growth was about 4% yet real median incomes increased barely at 0.5%. By contrast from 1982 to 1984 with economic growth of 11%, real median incomes went up by 5%. The result workers median wages are lower now in the beginning of 2013, after inflation adjustment, than at the end of 2003, and real household income lower in 2011 than in 1989, says Tankersley. Why were the recoveries of 1990 and 2001 for the most part jobless? U.S. Federal Reserve studies show employers mindset had changed, instead of hiring back laid off workers during recoveries, employers did not add many jobs. Automation in factories requiring fewer workers, global outsourcing and supply chains, manufacturing overseas, lack of union-management cooperation on wages and jobs in industries such as the auto industry, increase in temp workers, all played a part in creating fewer and fewer good paying jobs. Some of this is playing out worldwide. In Japan the economic recovery has also come with similiar costs- moving jobs overseas for the auto and electronics industries, increase in temporary worker jobs with lower pay and benefits to about one third of all jobs, and depressed consumer spending as a result lowering the economic growth potential. Even the recent German economic recovery has come with an increase in lower paying temporary jobs and driven by exports to Asia. For the U.S. the situation was worsened by three additional factors- housing foreclosures and the hit to savings from the 2008 financial crisis, high cost of college tution and resulting debt, and the high cost of medical care. The Obama administration's effort to increase the minimum wage would help the poor, but do little to address the broken links between economic growth and jobs growth/income growth. The push for college education does not address affordability and neglects jobs training. Most of the questions raised by the changing patterns remain unanswered, which may be why Obama calls this a generation's task, not that of one administration....

LyrArc Article Gist
German chancellor, Angela Merkel, speaking to the German parliament, the Bundestag, in Berlin, on December 2, 2011. She talked about the need for early agreement on changes in treaties that would place strict controls on budgets. Merkel said she sees the process of resolving the debt crisis as a long one, saying "this process will take years." At the same time she continued to emphasize the future of Germany in the European Union- "The future of the euro is inseparable from European unity. The journey before us is long and will be anything but easy. But I am convinced it is the right path. It is the right path to take to reach our common goal: a strong Germany in a strong European Union that will benefit the people in Germany, in Europe." Merkel compared the process to a marathon run, with efforts being particularly difficult at the 35 kilometre mark, making it helpful to know this at the beginning of the race. She ruled out common eurozone bonds as "unthinkable." Instead of agreements, Merkel expressed the need for "legally binding regulations," saying this was the time to "fix the mistakes of construction" by founders of the eurozone....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Public-Private Investment Program of the U.S. Treasury Department has not had a good start. With most banks passing the U.S.government's stress tests and raising $50 billion in the markets, PPIP which was intended to to help resolve the situation of all the toxic securites siting on the bank's books, has gone the way of all the prior efforts to solve this problem. Simply postponed this time hoping that the housing market recovers. With the Rogoff-Reinhardt study showing that it takes about 6 years or longer before housing recovers from such aserious crisis as this one, it would be 2012, before one sees an improvement. See the link to the Business Week analysis that shows housing markets in the USA having some aspect of normalcy in 2012. Yet even this analysis is using an optimistic scenario, because it assumes Moodys Economy.com estimates of economic growth for GDP of 4-5% in 2011- 2012. This assumes the consumer debt that has reached over 100% of GDP will be reversed quickly in 2010, and the the factory capacity utilization currently at 68% and expected to drop further in 2009- with more automobile manufacturing capacity remaining to be scrapped -will recover quickly in 2010-2011. This is unrealistic considering the combination of factors at work. Here Devin Leonard talks to PIMCO chief Bill Gross, who with Warren Buffett and PIMCO CEO Mohammed El-Erian, are key proponents of the PPIP program. Both El-Erian and Warren Buffett say they conceived independently of such a program, in which toxic securties are taken off bank's books with government help. As PIMCO is one of the largest traders of mortgage bonds in the country and has years of successful experience in dealing with mortgage bonds, the New York Fed under Geithner turned to PIMCO for advice in 2008. By this time PIMCO was under ownership of Allianz, a German insurer, which bought PIMCO for $3.3 billion in 2000, with $233 million and a $40 million retention bonus going to Bill Gross. Bill Gross describes how the program would function. PIMCO puts up $500 million, and Treasury matches this with $500 million. Analysts estimate that this partnership would be able to attract as much as $ 4 billion in low interest financing from Treasury and the Fed. Gross says that some of these securities pay as much as 14% interest, and even with a 70% default rate, this partnership could make $250 million a year on the $5 billion partnership, or a 5% return, with PIMCO making a 25% return on its original investment. This isn't exactly pro bono work as Buffett had originally suggested to Bill Gross in the midst of the crisis. But a more fundamental concern is that no one really knows exactly how much of toxic securties the banks have on their books, even though estimates have been made. If this is closer to $1 trillion, PIMCO's expertise and efforts will simply fall short of dealing with a problem of this size, and the window dressing of a problem of this magnitude could only hurt efforts for the eventual resolution of this problem. If housing does not recover as is expected till 2012 at the earliest, and the economy continues to deteriorate in unemployment and factory utilization, then the toxic securities on the bank's balance sheets may pose a bigger problem that will require serious action....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
William Isaac was Chairman of the FDIC during the tumultous years for banks and thrifts in the 1980's, he was Chairman from 1981-85, and organized the rescue of the Continental Illiois Bank in 1984. So what does he think is happening now. His view is that we have been spoiled by 25 years of unprecedented prosperity, and have let the 24 hour news channels and the anxiety of the changing mood of the country as it leaves behind the Bush years, put us into a bit of a shock mentality as we navigate the credit and banking storms now facing the economy with expressions like the worst crisis since the Great Depression in regular use. He says the U.S. had 3000 thrift and bank failures during the 1980's and early 1990's, and still had 130 banks on the problem list at year-end 1991. And he points out that virtually every major bank in the country would have failed in 1984 had a couple of developing countries renounced their debts. which the FDIC considered possible. He sees something positive in the decline in home prices. In his home town of Sarasota, Florida, home prices jumped 35% in 2005. Such price increases put homes beyond the reach of new homebuyers so a price decrease would benefit people especially young people entering the housing market. He understands the situation Bernanke was in when he made the decision to rescue Bear Stearns but he is a bit leery of the Fed becoming too proactive in this area. He organized the rescue of Continental Illinois Bank in 1984 but sees this type of action as a one time event made on an exception basis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. President Richard Nixon adopted Keynesian policies to boost the economy after tightening monetary policy failed in 1970. In 1971 Nixon turned to higher fiscal spending to get the economy closer to full employment. He also adopted wage and price controls. By 1972 the economy had recovered, inflation was at 5.7% and unemployment at 4.9%, and Nixon won re-election. This was the only recovery in an election year since World War II. In international affairs Nixon's policy was to leave the Bretton Woods system and floating the dollar. With a new administration in 1974 inflation surged to 11% and unemployment to 5.6%, because wage and price controls worked only for a short period.