LyrArc Article Gist
Adam Parker, chief equity strategist of Morgan Stanley, sees the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index ending 2012 at 1167. Garry Evans, global head of equity strategy at HSBC, sees the S&P 500 stock index ending 2012 at 1190. This is down from the end of 2011 level of 1257. David Kostin, top equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, sees the S&P at 1250 at the end of 2012. Parker, Evans and Kostin, share concerns about the macroeconomic environment and Europe. Parker also sees weakness in bank earnings contributing to this level in the S&P 500 stock index. Parker view global macroeconomic factors determining 50% of the outcome, with weaknesses not only in Europe but also in China. His predictions for S&P earnings per share are at about $100 for 2012 and $103 for 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum talks to two researchers at the University of Chicago and Princeton, Prof. Sufi and Prof. Mian, on the record of U.S. president Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and underwater borrowers, comparing that record with their record in helping the banks. The issue is relevant as the policy and handling of homeowners had to be part of an overall effective plan for recovery in the U.S. economy, because ultimately without the U.S. consumer any recovery would be weak in the long run- a situation the U.S. faces in early 2014. The response to the issue of irresponsible homeowners borrowing beyond the limit without an equally robust response to irresponsible bank management that allowed wildly excessive leveraging of assets, and successful aggressive lobbying by banks in a shortsighted policy of going through with a wave of foreclosures; besides creating questions of fairness and equitable handling of the problem, also had major ramifications for the future of the U.S. and global economic growth. Here Christina Romer and other administration advisors say Bernanke was right in tackling the problem from the perspective of the banks needing to be recapitalized. Thoughtful advisors looking at the entire problem, Martin Feldstein and Sheila Bair strongly pushed for providing the same help to homeowners without getting caught up in the issue of who was responsible home buyers or the banks, and looking at the interests of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people. Proposals by Feldstein and Bair were equally robust in helping banks as they were in helping homeowners, only the banks understood their interests narrowly and had more access to policymakers in the Bush, as well as the Obama administration, Paulson as well as Geithner. This leaves us with the ultimate irony of the Obama administration pushing for the minimum wage, even to the point of electoral posture, when lasting damage had been inflicted on homeowners from the weaker portions of America's middle class by a policy that went against what two respected financial and economic experts from the Reagan period, Sheila and Bair had strongly advocated. See links and groups on Feldstein and Bair. Applebaum has followed most aspects of this problem closely and continues to provide exceptional reporting including the piece on the thinking of new Fed chairman, Janet Yellen. Private enterprise rules that require management at banks just as for other companies to take responsibility for failures, and be replaced with new management, was largely avoided leading to a fundamental failure in how a free market economy such as the U.S. and western European economies are supposed to function. Rules aggressively pushed by Geithner's mentor Treasury Secretary Rubin for a vigorous cleanup at banks in South Korea during a similiar situation in 1997, were not followed in any way here, also setting wrong precedents for the long run. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In 2010 Chicago Federal Reserve president Charles Evans sugggested the Fed adopt a "7-3 rule"- the Fed would keep interest rates low and credit flowing till unemployment dropped below 7%, and inflation was below 2.5% and not taking off. He modified this to keeping rates low till unemployment reaches 6.5%, as long as inflation remained below 2.5%, on Nov. 27, 2012. In Fed meetings Evans was supported by vice chairman Janet Yellen, with Minneapolis Fed president Kocherlakota and Boston Fed president Rosengren offering similiar proposals. On Dec. 12, 2012, Fed chairman Bernanke announced a position very close to what Evans has suggested. Charles Evans, worked on the staff of the Chicago Fed for 20 years before being appointed president of the Chicago Fed in 2007, at the beginning of the financial crisis.

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
A report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows growing income inequality in 34 OECD countries. OECD Secretary General, Angel Gurria says: "The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, income inequality will continue to rise." Countries with the largest ratios between incomes at the top and the bottom, are the United States, Turkey and Israel, roughly 14 to 1. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have ratios of 6 to 1, with their ratios up from the 1980's. Gaps in Chile and Mexico are at 25 to 1. The study covers the period from 1980 to 2008. Overall inequality went up by 25% in the U.S. from 1980. In 2008 the top ten percent in the U.S. earned $114,000, 15 times than incomes for the bottom 10%. The top 1% of Americans saw incomes go up from 1980 to 2008, increasing from 8 percent to 18 percent. The richest 1% having $1.3 million in after tax income, and the lowest 20% making $17,700. The trends have accentuated an increase at the highest end- the top 1% and top 10% of the people- and a sharp decrease for the bottom 20%, which can be grasped from the $17,700 and the $1.3 million, both at extreme ends. The study attributes the rise in inequality to a growing gap in wages for highly skilled workers as technology advances, a surge in foreign direct investment and a looser regulatory regime that reduces employee protections leading to wage premiums for financial jobs and smaller incomes for workers at the bottom. Income groups and professions and sectors that had the greatest influence in government were able during this period to get the greatest protection for incomes, and able also to maximize their incomes. Incomes in the financial sector increased dramatically in the last decade, as a result of deregulation leading to higher risk and speculative activities in the financial sector, leading to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Financial crises further depress incomes at the lower end. Similiar income inequality trends can be seen for India and China. China has a Ginni coefficient of 0.5 according to researchers at Beijing Normal University, up from 0.3 three decades ago- a Ginni Coefficient above 0.4 is considered destabilizing. Another factor that played a part in these countries is corruption and lobbying by special interests for favored treatment of sectors or groups. Austerity measures taken in Europe and in the U.S. are likely to widen income gaps by depressing the lower end income groups, creating social unrest, especially in the absence of efforts to stimulate growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial on Nov. 23, 2012, points out the importance of a forward looking Britain that has a needed voice in the affairs of the European Union, and positive engagement with the nations in the eurozone that make up its largest trading partner. Roger Carr, head of the British Confederation of Industry, made just such a call saying British engagement with the rest of Europe was "the linchpin of our wider global trade ambitions." The danger now is that because of missteps in the managing of affairs in the EU, including the hasty setup of the euro currency without proper safeguards for debt of individual countries and the strict fiscal arrangements imposed by Germany that stifle the chance of growth, the mood in Britain is now shifting towards exit from the EU. An Opinion/Observer poll suggests a referendum held today is likely to win an yes vote for Britain to leave the EU, a huge mistake for British interests. A referendum is expected to be scheduled for 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
Public sector layoffs in Spain in 2012-2013 under the governments deficit reduction plan- as mandated under fiscal compact rules agreed to in the December 2012 eurozone meetings- will worsen Spain's severe unemployment rate of 25%. These public sector layoffs are only now taking place. Upto now local governments had helped offset rising layoffs in the private sector by preserving employment. The result will be a further increase in unemployment in Spain, creating a crisis of large proportions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Large U.S. companies with overseas operations increased their hiring overseas by 4.4% in 2011 compared to only 0.1% increase for hiring in the U.S., according to the U.S. Commerce Department. Two thirds of multinational employment was in the U.S. in 2011, compared to three fourths in 1999. U.S. multinational companies provide about one fifths of all private employment in the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
The downturn starting in the 2008 financial crisis destroyed a huge portion of the average American's personal wealth- some estmates running to 40%. This was followed by periods of unemployment which depleted savings accounts, lower wage jobs, and followed by further erosion of savings accounts with little or no interest. The gains on the stock market have one problem- the benefits go in large part to affluent Americans who are already well prepared for retirement. A U.S. Senate report shows a huge retirement savings deficit- about $6.6 trillion, which comes to $57,000 for every American household.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jakab's discusses the difference betwen the ADP estimate for jobs added and the Labor Department's figures. ADP numbers had a wide divergence with Labor Department figures for 2011-2013. ADP now uses a different methodology to more closely track the government numbers. For the last five months ADP numbers came out lower than government figures by an average of 32,000, says Jakab. ADP estimate of private non-farm jobs growth is 281,000 for June 2014. A WSJ survey of economists shows nonfarm payroll jobs growth for June at 215,000. In 2010-2011 ADP numbers vastly overestimated the number of jobs created.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's slowdown may be much worse than is generally thought. Germany went through this thinking that it was relatively safe as it had no housing bubble and no consumer debt like the US and the UK. But the drop in demand from China and other countries has led already to a contraction in the German economy by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2008, expected to worsen to 0.8% in 2009. China's National Statistics Bureau announced a 4% decline in electricity output inOctober from a year earlier. This is a result partly of factories manufacturing for export cutting back as their orders decline. There was a 17 drop in production of pig iron and crude steel in October and a 0.7% fall in output in the output sector. From all this it appears that even without the beggar thy neigbor policies of the 1930's, even without the protectionism of that period and even with the global coordination of the G20 and the G7 countries, its hard not to see the impact in one place flowing through to other places. The loss of export markets in the USA for Chinese export factories leads to this slowdown in China which in turn now needs much fewer machinery imports from Germany leading to a contraction in Germany. See the link to German economy in WSJ November 14, 2008. These effects show up in an exaggerated manner with economic contraction because of the heavy dependence on exports in Germany to China, and heavy dependence on exports in China to the USA, and the heavy consumption of Chinese exports in the USA, all ocurring in an exaggerated unsustainable way considering the American spending binge and the zero savings rate in the USA, the pressures on the environment with runaway growth in China, and the lack of any domestic led consumption in Germany. China's infrastructure spending can provide some growth along with the stimulus spending but much of the export led growth may disappear. The stimulus spending could help prevent a contraction in the Chinese economy but may deliver only a few points of growth, way off from the runaway over 10% growth of two decades which was heavily dependent on manufacturing exports. How badly Chinese exports are affected depends on how badly the US market is affected for Chinese imports. Higher unemployment in the US if the auto industry sees a collapse in its market in 2009, would lead to lower consumption in the US as laid off workers cut their purchases at Walmarts and Targets and at other retailers, and this would drive imports from China to even lower levels, wiping off a couple of percentage points of China's GDP growth rate. ...

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
The U.S. trade deficit widened sharply in March from February 2015, increasing by 43.1%, after the ending of a labor dispute at West coast ports. The deficit widened to $51.37 billion. This is more than expected from a strong dollar. This could make 1st quarter GDP figures show a contraction for the U.S. economy. Products imported from China were up 32%, compared with March 2014. Exports were up only 0.9%. Experts estimate GDP contraction of 0.4%- 0.5% for the 1st quarter 2015. In 2014 a similiar situation happened but growth was up for the rest of the year and experts see this happening again in 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Ross Sorkin points out that investors are sitting on their hands and money is moving out of the stock market. About $171 billion has moved out of mutual funds over the last year, according to the Investment Company Institute. About $208 billion has gone into the bond market in the same period. There are now fewer long term investors and the market is dominated by professionals which increases the volatility. There is a lack of confidence in the economy, the same reason that businesses in the U.S. are sitting on $2 trillion in cash that could be invested, and for investors the feeling that the market is rigged to favor insiders. The Financial Literacy Group surveyed 878 students at 18 high schools in 11 states in the U.S. It found that three fourths of the students agreed with the statement: "The stock market is rigged mostly to benefit greedy Wall Street bankers."

LyrArc Article Gist
GDP of the USA contracted by 3.8% in the 4th quarter of 2008. Excluding the inventory adjustment which is the inventory of products made but sitting on inventory shelfs, the GDP contracted by 5.1%. In the last week of January 2009 there were 70,000 layoffs in the U.S. in all sectors from trucks to technology. 2009 is going to get a lot worse which does not bode well for Detroit automakers and other industries, and for economies overseas like China and South Korea which are heavily dependent on exports, and in turn for Germany which is dependent on the Chinese market.

LyrArc Article Gist
The cost of tution for four year colleges has doubled in the U.S. since 1985 even after adjustment for inflation, according to the College Board. Over 3 million households in the U.S. owe more than $50,000 in student loans. Ths is ten times the figure of 300,000 in 1989, and about four times the figure of 794,000 in 2001. Upper middle income families with incomes between $94,000 and $205,000, based on Wall Street Journal analysis of U.S. Federal Reserve data, shows they owed an average of $32,869 in college loans in 2010, up from $26,639 in 2007, after adjusting for inflation. This is affecting the choices parents and students in the middle class are making of colleges, preferring to go to second tier colleges to better manage the costs of tution.

LyrArc Article Gist
How the extended family acts as a lifeline in Spain. High unemployment does not cause homelessness and social distress becuase of the family as an additional support and safety net. Lower mobility also helps as people live near their extended families. Few people end up on the street because of this as unemployment hits 17% a year. Other things to note: the safety net of government benefits is much stronger in Europe. Also the older workers with steady jobs are less affected, as immigrants take the brunt of the high unemployment in Spain. And in France it is the younger workers and the people in temp jobs who are more affected, to some extent true also for Spain. So these countries are holding up better. In the USA President Obama's stimulus measures are picking up some of this, and the universal coverage health care plan should add additional benefits by 2010.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Senate voted 51 to 49 on a Democratic party measure for further reductions in 2012 Social Security payroll taxes for workers and employers, including a surtax on incomes over $1 million. A measure supported by the Republican party to pay for the payroll tax cut by reducing the Federal payrolls was defeated, with half the Republicans voting against it. Democrats hope to use this issue to show Republicans favor the rich over the middle class, as the payroll tax cut benefits most Americans. Polls show Americans by a large majority see Republican policies favoring the rich. A New York Times/CBS poll in October showed 7 of 10 Americans feel this way. Pollster Geoff Garin says the income inequality issue is beginning to override other issues including antigovernment feeling. This is one way in which the Occupy Wall Street Movement's slogan of "the 99 percent" has resonated with U.S. public opinion. The Democratic party sees this as an opportunity to define the campaign issues for 2012, with Republicans running for reelection cautious about being seen this way....