LyrArc Article Gist
In China since 1981 the poorest people making below $1.25 a day fell to 207 million in 2005 from 835 million in 1981. In India the number of people below $1.25 a day increased to 455 million in 2005 from 420 million people in 1981. The share of the people in poverty fell to 42 percent from 60 percent during the same period. Corresponding figures for East Asia including China show a drop from 80% of the people in poverty in 1981 dropping to 18% in 2005. The proportion of people living below the $1.25 a day poverty line worldwide fell over the nerarly 25 year period from 1981 to 2005 from 52% in 1981 to 26% in 2005. In subSaharan Africa, now the poorest region half or 50% of the people live under the poverty line of $1.25 a day in 2005 almost where it was in 1981. In absolute numbers the region had 380 million people living below the poverty line in 2005 compared to 200 million people in 1981. Note that the World Bank this year changed the poverty line from $1 to $1.25 a day, to make allowance for the inflation that is hitting the poorer countries. Is China a rich nation after the Olympics? Some parts of China, the coastal regions and the regions around big cities like Shanghai and Beijing are relatively affluent with pockets of poorer people but in the rest of the country there is poverty as defined perhaps in terms of deep poverty, poverty, poor middle class without health insurance or any kind of savings for emergencies. With 200 million people in 2005 below the poverty line a question could be asked how many people in China below say $2.00 a day which could be seen as being poor at a time when inflation in food and fuel costs has been significant in developing countries. If its somewhere in the range of 300 and 400 million people in China this explains why in relative terms China would identify with India and the rest of the developing countries and it also explains its stand in the WTO trade talks acting as a developing country protecting the rights of agriculture and farmers within China. And it also explains the reasons why China sees a long transition before it ceases to be a poor developing country and why there is real concern that these 300-400 million people as well as others adversely affected by the rapid industrialization and exercize of state authority, corruption and increasing gaps between rich and poor, adverse effects on environment, that these people adversely affected are listened to and accomodated in the interests of stable progress and fairness. Much of recent history has shown that countries open to foreign trade have done better given the right conditions and careful policy measures. China opened up around 1981, and India around 1991. Also progress and gains are more significant in infrastructure building and in poverty reduction in the latter phases of development as the synergies increase, capital pool increases, and the development accelerates, this shows why China's gains look significant compared to India's at this point in time. In ten years or fifteen years a better assessment could be made and then some points may favor China and some India, and the results will be a result of different history, experiences and problems faced and routes taken because of prior developments in each region and varying complexity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's David Cameron leads the successful effort to hold down spending in the European Union's next 7 year budget plan, supported by Germany and the Netherlands. The new 2014-2020 EU budget plan holds down government contributions to the budget to 959.99 billion euros. There is a 35 billion decrease from the last budget plan after adjusting for inflation, and less than the 1.03 trillion euros proposed by the European Commission, the EU's executive body. Actual spending is set at 908 billion euros compared to 943 billion euros for 2007-2013. Cuts were made in some areas- direct subsidies to farmers went down to 277 billion euros from 337 billion euros. EU funding to tackle high youth unemployment and build transnational infrastructure increased 37% to 126 billion euros. Funds allocated for investment projects in poorer regions slightly declined to 325 billion euros. Special rebates to the UK and the Netherlands remain- the Netherlands rebate is 1 billion euros. The mood of European leaders was summarized in the words of Britain's prime minister Cameron: "Frankly, the European Union should not be immune from the sorts of pressures that we have to reduce spending, find efficiencies and make sure that we spend money wisely that we are all having to do right across Europe."...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Goodman in the NYT shows that the ANC has lost most of the moral authority it had under Mandela. After 9 years under president Zuma, and after the term of his predecessor Mr. Mbeki from 1999-2008, South Africa remains stuck with stagnant economy, and about two thirds of young people in the townships being jobless. The challenge is how to change the economy to where growth is generated and benefits go to a broader section of the population. Problems the new president Ramaphosa faces are how to change the protections given to conglomerates that dominated the economy under Apatheid, and the patronage network that evolved with the ANC in the post Apartheid era. Growth performance of the South African economy is dismal. According to the World Bank the South African economy in 2016 was about the size of the economy in 2009. Many warnings about the economy and the operation of the state run electric utility appeared during Mr. Zuma's presidency, including one by former president De Klerk. Growth in 2018 is expected to be only about 1.1%. The economic gains by the largely black population have suffered with lack of growth and mismanagement of the economy. Official unemployment is at 27%, with about two thirds of the young people in the townships being jobless.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Binyamin Applebaum cites different experts on how U.S. Fed policy could play out in 2017-2019. He cites Fed governor Dudley that there is increased uncertainty under the Trump administration, and other economists who say that aging population, lack of innovation, and steady growth under the Obama administration with falling unemployment, make it unlikely that growth will jump well above 2%. The Fed's own forecasts are for for under 2% growth in 2017 and 2018, and Applebaum says this is not expected to change by much. Janet Yellen does not see a huge stimulus as a positive, says Applebaum, because it would increase the deficit at the wrong time. He cites Yellen who prefers to see more fiscal space now that unemployment is down to 4.6%. Steady growth in the view of Fed officials has taken up much of the backlog of people looking for work since the 2008 crisis. Yellen sees some fiscal space as desirable with high debt to GDP ratio at 77 percent, so that the government could respond to some adverse event in the future. A Republican Congress is also averse to sudden increases in the deficit. See the link to views about the uncertainty of how things can play out in a separate article by Neil Irwin of NYT. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin of NYT provides some counter intuitive ideas on U.S. Fed interest rate policy. He says it can't be take as a given that the Fed will raise rates in 2017-2018. This depends on how much punch there is in the Trump economic policies for stimulus, and for infrastructure spending, tax cuts. He cites Senate Majority Leader McConnell who said he would like to keep "tax reform revenue neutral." Getting large spending and pushing up the deficit is likely to run up against Republicans in Congress who have for 8 years opposed large spending increases and large deficits. Trump has given few details about his stimulus or infrastructure spending plans. He says the scale of the spending might not match the talk. Irwin cites JP Morgan Chase economists who have kept their forecasts for GDP growth just under 2% for 2017 and 2018. And he points out that even Trump appointees at the Fed might act independently. The Fed might look at being cautious considering that increased trade tensions with China, and the unpredictability of a Trump administration could hurt growth. Irwin does not mention the uncertainty in other areas such as policy towards Russia on which the Republican party and Congress have very different views than Trump, tensions over Taiwan, that can also affect growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krueger and Posner, eminent economists, say the reason wages have stagnated in the U.S. with wages not having budged much over a decade 2008-2018, is not only because of globalization and automation as long term trends. They attribute this stagnation in wages to "monopsony power," or power American corporations have over workers because of their stronger bargaining position and because workers have few alternatives.  For most of this period 2008-2018 high unemployment as reflected by the people out of work and taking part time jobs or having stopped looking for work, shifted bargaining power to companies. The Economist magazine pointed out that workers have not shared in the profit and gains corporations made during this period. Here Krueger and Posner show additional factors such as non compete clauses in worker agreements that have depressed wages. Half of franchise agreements prohibit competition for labor. Outsourcing work to other companies that hire workers means these outsourcing companies have more power over workers than the original companies using the labor. Unions represent only 7 percent of private sector workers by 2017, compared to 35 percent in the 1950's, so that there are no mechanisms to counteract the greater bargaining power gained by companies vs. workers. The way workers have roots in the communities they live and the consolidation of employers into a few companies in a particular area, mean fewer options exist for workers.  Senators Warren and Booker and the anti-trust division of the U.S. Justice Department are in agreement on this issue of widespread use of noncompete agreements that is considered unlawful, says this report in the NYT, offering hope for a solution to bring a better balance between the rights of workers to fair wages and companies seeking profit for stakeholders. Issues about workers, lack of gains for workers, prevalent outsourcing, and the frustrations of labor with parties that had lost touch with their worker base- such as Labor in Britain, SPD in Germany, Socialist Party in France and the Democratic Party in the U.S. - have led to political upsets with support shifting to other parties. This has not led to significant change to improve bargaining power of workers to correct the imbalance that now exists between labor and companies, leading to calls for change. Eric Posner is a law professor at the University of Chicago law school and co-author of a new book "Radical Markets: uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society." This book turns the popular notion on its head that free markets have produced the imbalances that hurt social cohesion and democracy, by saying it is precisely the suppression of free competition such as for labor that have created this unhealthy situation. This is true in other areas where monopoly power has developed in other parts of the U.S and European economies in 2008-2018, as also for distortions in capital allocation that hurt infrastructure and other public investment. Krueger is a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors in 2011 under Obama, showing that Democrats themselves failed to correct this imbalance leading to a shift to other parties and Mr. Trump, who also appear to lack ideas or solutions to this problem that affects social cohesion and democracy. This is contrary to the vision of American or European society of better opportunity for all shared by all Americans and Europeans for most of the twentieth century. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Meltzer says a Fed QE III woud be bad monetary policy. He puts several questions to Bernanke- how the Fed and Ben Bernanke can know now what is the right interest rate policy in mid 2013, and what reason can the Fed give for adding excess reserves when U.S. banks have $1.6 trillion in idle reserves at the Fed. Meltzer cautions the Fed and other policymakers not to pay attention only to short term forecasts, which can be susceptible to large errors. And calls for attention to the long term consequences of their actions. One point he emphasizes is that the unemployment problem cannot be resolved with short term policy actions nor can it be resolved in a short time. It will take population growth, falling housing prices and rising rents to create opportunities for new construction. Another change is the transition to a less consumption driven and more export oriented economy. This transition which has started will also take time. He urges the Congress and the administration to focus on: reducing corporate tax rates by closing loopholes, long-term reductions in entitlement spending, a 5 year moratatorium on new regulations, and the Fed adopting an explicit inflation target between 0% and 2%....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Labor Department reports that there is no U.S. productivity growth in the 4th quarter of 2014 over the prior year. U.S. productivity growth is about 1.3% for the period since 2009, showing a weak expansion. Job gains of 295,000 in February 2015 show an improving jobs picture, yet wage gains are tepid. This is partly due to slack in the labor market not reflected in the official unemployment rate of 5.5% for Feb. 2015, with a large number of part time workers who do not have full time work. The low productivity growth is another reason for low wage gains in this economic recovery. Economic growth is also weak with economists estimating GDP growth for the 1st quarter 2015 at 1.5% annualized. GDP growth is in the 2-2.5% growth range since 2009. Hourly wages are up less than 2% since 2009, with hourly wage growth in Feb. 2015 at 2% over the prior year. Weak business investment is part of the reason for the sluggish economic growth. Macroeconomic Advisors estimates the capital investment for equipment software and buildings is seeing growth of only 0.3% in the last decade, much lower than in the last forty years. With most of the gains from the internet technology advances already made there is less prospect of a sudden increase in productivity....

LyrArc Article Gist
Moody's Investor's Service downgrades China's credit rating to A1 from Aa3. Moody's predicts a slowdown in growth for China. GDP growth for 1st quarter 2017 was 6.9%. Total debt has grown from 149% of gross domestic product in 2008, to 213% in 2013, and is now 253%, according to JP Morgan. The problem is that ever higher levels of credit have supported growth and more of this is coming from the shadow banking sector. Higher levels of debt in future years from the already high levels will weigh heavily on growth, leading to an eventual slowdown in the economy's growth rate.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's GDP growth accelerated slightly to 6.9 percent in the 1st quarter of 2017, after five consecutive quarters of GDP growth at 6.7-6.8%, according to government data. This reflected larger use of steel in the construction industry and more mortgages issued by the state controlled banking sector. Government officials say productivity is improving helping GDP growth, with closing of less efficient manufacturing plants. Industrial production increased 7.6% in March 2017, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The government is trying to control higher lending and reduce the backlog of bad loans at banks. Higher growth helps to reduce the bad loans at banks from the earlier period after 2008 financial crisis, improving financial stability.

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Lawrence Lindsey says the Fed has boxed itself and has little choice but to keep interest rates low. Borrowing at the more normal interest rates of 5.7%- which is what it was over the last three decades- and not at the current 2.5%, would mean an increase in borrowing costs for the U.S. government of $800 billion in 2021, says Lindsay. Lindsay bases this on the U.S. debt growing from $14 trillion in 2011 to $25 trillion by 2021, and interest rates going back to normal levels by 2021. Just to put this in perspective Lindsay says it would require all the cuts Republicans and Rep. Ryan are asking for just to pay for the added interest, not even about reducing the size of the U.S. debt. This would be a disaster for the U.S. Treasury, so we're stuck with really low rates. The term used by economists is "financial repression." Savers and retirees will have to put up with low returns. Lowering unemployment is only one aspect of U.S. Fed policy, the other aspect is in the constraints Bernake faces....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Census Bureau shows incomes of American households, the median household income, surged in 2015 by 5.2%. This increased by $2800 to $56,500. This is the largest increase since 1967. It shows that steadily improving employment and hiring is leading to improvement in incomes for the middle and working class. Ris in minimum wage has also helped . The largest increase was for the lowest 20% of the income tiers. Full time working women did better than men, with increase annually of 2.7% for women, and 1.5% for men. Nocitizen incomes increased 10.5% to $45,100, native born households went up 4.4% to $57,200. The number of people without health insurance also declined from 33 million or 10.4% of the population to  29 million people or 9.1%. Another way the changes are helping lower income households is the decline of the official poverty rate to 13.5% in 2015 by 1.2 percentage points from 14.8% in 2014. Through a series of small incremental steps the path is being set for a recovery of household incomes for the middle class and working class. A bright spot is that the improvement has affected all age groups, household types, regions and ethnic groups, though among full time workers women did better than men. In this recession older white men have had more difficulties getting back into the workforce. This is reflected in the political scene in 2015-2016 for the election season. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's statement calling for a list of goods for tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods leaves China without a clear response and facing new risks. The U.S. exports about $150 billion in goods to China so that China would have to impose penalties to respond at the same level. Placing restrictions on American firms on access to China's market, and imposing other penalties would have the effect of reinforcing the perception of unfair practices targeting American business and lead to hardening of U.S. response.  The U.S. sees itself as being in a better position with the U.S. economy experiencing a growth trend. China with large local government and bank debt faces a difficult situation. President Jinping's policy of reducing the risks of bad debt in the banking system involved sacrificing some growth to stabilize the system. China's GDP growth in 2017 was 6.9%, the target at 6.5%. Future targets and actual growth now look to be much lower.The trade war with the U.S. has the effect of dampening growth leading to calls for the central bank to loosen its monetary stance. In response to Trump's announcement the People's Bank of China pumped $31 billion into the nation's banks. China is studying Japan's response in the 1980's and 1990's when the U.S. took strong action against Japan's growing trade surplus. Japan responded by appreciating its currency and using stimulus to cushion the effect of lower exports on the economy. The stimulus led to the housing bubble and over time a period of low growth and stagnant economy. The large China stimulus in 2008-2009 has compounded the problems in the banking system. Not deleveraging and controlling financial risks in China's banking system because of the trade war would bring a new set of risks. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernanke in reflections on his policies for quantitative easing in response to the 2008 financial crisis, says the policies were intended to protect Main Street and the average American, even though this is not readily apparent. He says the policies did not lead to inflation as critics have stated, and one has only to look at today's inflation statistics to know this- referring critics to the government CPI report in Jan 2014 that consumer prices went up by 1.5% in 2013 and less than 2% for 2012. Bernanke says he hopes he took the right actions, and still retains the conviction that the American economy will recover losses from the 2008 financial crisis- even though the answers to this questions won't be seen for some time.

LyrArc Article Gist
Taylor on the Bernanke Federal Reserve's quandary over its exit strategy from a loose monetary policy. He points to the consensus among leading economists, Rajan, Meltzer, Feldstein, who share his view that the costs of a loose monetary policy outweigh its benefits, that the Fed's policies are not working, and the need for a more rules based monetary policy.

LyrArc Article Gist
John Taylor on the dual mandate for inflation and unemployment and discretionary policies by the U.S. Federal Reserve that ended up creating booms and busts in the U.S. economy. He advocates replacing the dual mandate of "maximum employment" and "stable prices," which was inserted into the Federal Reserve Act in the 1970's, with a single mandate for "long-run price stability." Taylor points out that this will still give the Fed flexibility, as it is focussed on long run price stability. The Fed does not have to overreact to short run increases in inflation. And he points out that this actually will work well for unemployment as the booms caused by an overextended period of low interest rates such as that in 2003-2005, have led to booms followed by busts with high unemployment.