LyrArc Article Gist
Municipal yields are back up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says states in the USA will have to close budget gaps of $140 billion in fiscal year 2012, ending in June, down from $160 billion this year. But real shortfalls will increase because federal stimulus funds that helped state and local governments will fall from $59 billion this year to $6 billion next year. Local governments depend on states for one third of their revenue, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, which makes them vulnerable. Property taxes account for a quarter of local government revenue and this too will be declining with declining assessed values. The Federal Reserve Act limits open-market purchases of munis to ones with maturities of less than 6 months, which reduces the scope for help from the Fed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Alexei Kudrin on the potential for a deep economic and political crisis in Russia if Greece exits the eurozone and Europe goes into a recession.

LyrArc Article Gist
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp says the implicit subsidy on "too big to fail" financial firms needs to be addressed. His proposal is for a quarterly tax of 0.035% on assets over $500 billion. The tax would raise tax revenues of $86.4 billion over 10 years. The tax does not go into some bailout fund, which is one reason it does not address the problem adequately, says the WSJ.

LyrArc Article Gist
The asset bubble may be due to the huge infusion of liquidity in the economy. This inflates the value of financial wealth in stocks relative to real wealth in goods and services and businesses that produce them. Industrial production is down but stock prices are up. This leads to distortions that can show up elsewhere such as in the currency markets with depreciating dollar or in the stimulus being withdrawn too early.

LyrArc Article Gist
On one hand the issue of the $165 million in bonuses going out to employees in the 370 person Financial Products Group, and oth the other the need to wind up the complex derivative contracts that are causing these huge losses at AIG. But are such huge payouts needed for these employees to do their job? Isn't this aprofessional responsibility of these employees? And AIG's retention-payment program was disclosed a year ago and the amount of the bonuses $400 million, says the Washington Post, had been widely reported. The company is set to pay according to the WPost $600 million in retention awards to about 4700 people throughout the global insurance units. WHat happens to the $600 million, as no opinion has been voiced on these upcoming payments. The whole idea of retention payment raises another question. Will the skills of these employees be needed in a long drawn out economic downturn spread over several years or longer. And will thefailure of such things as derivatives, and the tighter regulation, mean that they will play amuch smaller role in the future. And even in the insurance units will these skills draw a premium in a market where the supply of new talent is larger than the job market ? One expert has sugggested that even if some of them left, there would be younger people to replace them who might bring an even better set of qualifications, with amix of skills, caution and prudence. So is there something self-interested and spurious in the retention argument itself and shouldn't this bluff be called? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Steven Ratner says the Obama administration is not considering bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, asit does not see bankruptcy as necessarily abetter place for the auto companies, especially because of the consumer-facing nature of these companies. And the government is not considering calling the $17.4 billion loaned to the auto companies. THis takes alot od the pressure off of GM and Chrysler.

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
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
June unemployment numbers will jump say experts at IHS Insight as GM and Chrysler downsize even more to become smaller companies with even less market share. This will reflect closing Pontiac and sale or closing of the other GM brands Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. It will reflect closing of more dealerships of GM and Chrysler. THis might be offset by a pickup in sales if something like the European trading clunkers for new cars program takes off in the USA. But with the US customers more in debt and with rising job losses, the pattern may be different in the US. It may only offer a small boost in sales. Manufacturing still matters in a recovery. In 1980 manufacturing was 20% of America's output, now it is 11.5% says Mark Zandl of Moody's Economy.com. Manufacturing, he says, has a bigger impact than its size suggests, because it responds quickly. As sales resume workers are called back to their jobs. The sharp V shaped recoveries in the early 80's reflected the rapid response of manufacturing. After the 1980's both the declines and the recoveries were shallow in 1990-1991 and 2001. Now with GM and Chrysler shrinking further under the government plan to fix these companies, and taking the supplier impact, the rebound leg of the V is missing. The kick from the Big Three and their suppliers is missing, says Nigel Gault of IHS Insight. Of the 5.7 million jobs lost from Jan 2008 to June 2009, 1.6 million were in manufacturing and 289,000 were in motor vehicles, split almost evenly between assemblers and supplier networks....

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....

LyrArc Article Gist
It is a landmark agreement and more innovative than the GM and Chrysler agreeements, with the UAW getting a significant stake in Ford, something that is a first. UAW supported money going into creating 5 flexible body shops so that investment to get Ford new models and manufacturing capability is put in place in this agreement- showing union management unanimity in understanding Ford's situation. The UAW Ford Agreement details: UAW gets about 18% ownership of Ford and becomes Ford's largest shareholder with about 4 times the shares of the Ford family. Ford will build 5 new flexible body shops in unionized assembly plants, invest separately $200 million in new technology and equipment in unionized stamping plants, and make substantial new investments in engine operations. All new hires will get a starting rate of $14.20 an hour and a full rate of $15.34 an hour, nearly half the curtrent level and its good till Ford reaches 20% of the Ford UAW workforce. When this is reached for entry level positions Ford must first move those hired at the lower wage upto the higher wage before filling in more positions at the lower rate. The VEBA health trust will work this way. Ford will only put in $6.5 billion in cash into the trust and $450 million each year in current dollars. The rest is done innovatively to conserve cash and give the union a stake in Ford that will be a first time in such a deal. It may change the labor vs. management atmopsphere in the long run as Ford recovers. A $3.3 billion convertible debenture note will be issued giving the union a stake of about 18% at current share prices, which terms are still not clear. Ford will also issue a $3 billion secured note. And to cover retiree health obligations until the trust makes payments Ford will pay $2.2 billion. The Jobs Bank is restricted to 2 years. After 2 new job offers are declined the worker goes off the payroll. Ford will also trim about 10,000 to 14,000 workers with buyout packages. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
High inflation and depreciating currencies in India, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa in 2012-2014.