LyrArc Article Gist
Wall Street Journal analysis shows top earners at 38 U.S. banks and securities firms will get $145 billion in 2009, an 18% increase over 2008. This even after increasing public anger about exceedingly high levels of executive compensation with no relation to performance, and at a time of high unemployment.

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson points out that the golden age of bipartisan harmony never existed. Yet it is true to say that with the constant chatter on cable television and stridently expressed views, the activism of the more extreme wings of both American parties, and the role of money in politics, the partisan nature of politics in America has increased. And this is happening even when the Gallup polls from 1992 and 2010 show similiar numbers for the people who describe themselves as Conservative, Liberal or Moderate, showing that the people themselves haven't changed (42-43% Conservative, 35-36% Moderate, 17-20% Liberal), but activism at the edges of both parties has. In this condition, only 7% of americans have a "very positive view" of the Republican party, only 11% of Americans have a "very positive view" of the Democratic party and only 12% of Americans have a "very positive view" of the Tea party (even though the Tea party is at the height of its mometum). The net impact says Samuelson is that the nation's important problems get neglected. There is little discussion about the expenditure of blood and treasure in Afghanistan, says Tom Brokaw, see his article. There is little discussion of the need to rebuild America's deteriorating infrastructure. Or a serious discussion on deficits or energy. All this is lost in the dysfunctional politics of the moment. This is a significant observation....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman says austerity measures alone won't work as the economies in the eurozone shrink in 2012.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Frank writing about the public outrage about executive compensation quotes Bill Black, a Professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who makes an important point. Beyond the size of this compensation there was something else happening that was perverse in its design and in its effects. Black says that at each point in the development of the disaster of mortgage securitization, it was the pay for performance systems that sent the wrong signals to loan officers, real estate appraisers, accountants, and bond rating agencies. The compensation or reward systems actually encouraged wrong, unethical and ultimately disastrous behaviours for the companies and the economy. Another way to look at it, the way it happened on Wall Street- especially at Merrill Lynch and some other financial institutions- the bonuses and other compensation was a way for executives to recklessly milk (loot is the other word) the companies for all they could yield regardless of the results afterwards. And as Black says, to do this through normal corporate mechanisms. A whole range of behaviours of this type took place in the final years of the boom. See other articles by Thomas Frank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner says Republicans are working to thwart the Dodd-Frank legislation- by slowing down and diluting the impact of rules required to be written under Dodd-Frank, crimping the resources of regulatory agencies, and blocking the nominations of heads of regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

LyrArc Article Gist
On Monday August 8, 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Averages went down by 634 points and closed below 11,000 points. This is not far from the 10,165 level of the DJIA on August 27, 2010. It was on August 27, 2010 that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke made the speech at the Kansas City Fed's Jackson Hole conference about the strategy for a QE II. Its about the time for this years Jackson Hole conference and the gains in the stock market are melting away. The DJIA closed at 12810 by April 29, 2011, then went below 11,000 by August 8, 2011. With higher inflation the Fed's options are limited.

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial says a smaller Wall Street and growing jobs in other fields will be good for New York as well as good for the country. It says New York politicians should focus on finding new ways for New York to broaden its tax base and get new businesses and new opportunites in fields such as media, advertising, entertainment, health care and tourism. Especially welcome are initiatives such as the science and tech campus of Cornell University promoted by Mayor Bloomberg. Tighter financial rules and higher capital requirements are good for the country and for New York the editorial emphasizes, because they help control reckless banking practices that destroy capital and opportunities for growth elsewhere in the economy. It points to Kevin Rose's Nov. 21, 2011 account in the Times showing a healthy culture shift in New York and the country with the status jobs being seen not at Goldman Sachs but at Google, Apple and Facebook. Rose's account shows that in the last 3 years the number of Wall Street employees of ages 20-34 declined by 25%....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Richard Portes of the London Business School provides two good reasons why the EU's decision to adopt the French Banking Federation's proposal for rollovers with 10% interest costs is a serious mistake. It doubles the interest costs from 4-6% to 10% with 2% Greek GDP growth and makes debt servicing untenable. Portes says the real Brady Plan from the 1980's included a 35-40% bondholders haircut. Deals of this type have a precedent- in Mexico in 1988 and in Argentina in 2001 such bond exchanges were soon followed by deals that placed bondholder haricuts on creditors. The lesson from Latin America in the 1980's, says Portes, is that the burdens of servicing a debt of such proportions under onerous conditions only extinguishes the enterprise, investment and productive capabilities of the particular country trying to service that debt, making the debt even less serviceable. See the Wall Street Journal's editorial on this deal which it calls "The French Deception." The terms sound like Greek to the editors leaving a sense that French banks are only saying "gimme." The only benefit achieved may be putting off the problem and avoiding contagion to Portugal and Spain. Yet this is not that much of a benefit when one realizes that the problem has not gone away, and is likely to look much worse six or nine months from now....

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
The IMF's changing views on the value of fiscal austerity. In the current debate about the value of fiscal austerity, there is the IMF view, a German view based on its own experience, and the views of other countries in Europe. The IMF's view has shifted over time. The IMF World Economic Outlook 2010, describes its view of the effects of austerity measures in the form of spending cuts and tax increases- "Fiscal consolidation typically has a contractionary effect on output. A fiscal consolidation equal to 1% of GDP typically reduces GDP by about 0.5% within 2 years and raises the unemployment rate by about 0.3% percentage points." Over the longer term there are benefits as the private sector is not crowded out in the search for captal funding by the excessive government borrowing. The IMF's economic models suggest that it would take 5 years before reaching the breakeven point when the benefits of austerity measures exceed the effects of austerity. The German view held by German central bankers is that the actions stimulate growth in the short term. Manfred Neumann, professor emeritus at the Institute for Economic Policy at the University of Bonn, says this is called the "German hypothesis" as it reflects the experience of Germany from austerity actions taken by Germany. Laurence Ball, professor of Economics at John Hopkins University, is critical of the "German hypothesis" and its application across Europe in different situations. Germany is a large exporting nation and exports helped counterbalance the effects of austerity measures. Within the eurozone with fixed exchange rates the exports of less competitive countries cannot be boosted through devaluing the currency to gain price competitiveness. The other problem is that with interest rates close to zero in the euro zone the central banks cannot cut rates aggressively to counteract the effects of spending cuts. The problem gets compounded when a number of countries are taking austerity measures at the same time accentuating the downturn....

LyrArc Article Gist
Spain's central bank was lauded for macroprudential supervision before the housing bubble burst. Will China's central bank and financial authorites which have managed the housing bubble upto this point face similiar problems? Can China be the sole exception even as housing bubbles burst with wide repercussions in the U.S., UK and Spain? Nicholas Lardy, of the Peterson Institute of international Economics, says urban housing stock makes up 41% of Chinese household wealth in 2011. The same figure for the U.S. is 26%. Chinese buyers invest in homes because low interest rates on savings accounts cannot keep up with inflation. Real estate investment was 13% of GDP in 2011. Home ownership is a recent development in China, only since 1990, Chinese have never experienced large price declines. Household debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased significantly in recent years, up to 53.6% in 2011 from 31.3% in 2008, according to Lardy.