LyrArc Article Gist
Comments by Eric Schmidt CEO of Google in an interview with the NYT's Helft. Important points emerging from the interview. Google he says does not know how long this crisis will last. Response not to waste money means less hiring and more careful expense reviews, and more focus. Managers are very very sensitive to important aspects of its culture, so such perks will continue which make it fun to work at the company for employees. And he says careful investment inthe future. "If you tighten too much, you eliminate future innovation, and then you set yourself up for a really bad outcome five or ten years" down the road. And here is the most important point he makes in advising the Obama administration. Do not take up the economy first, and let energy come in afterwards, deal with all the major problems at once, especially energy, which are part of the problem and the opportunity for the economy. For instance as the auto industry shrinks these job losses can be filled with jobs making parts for renewable energy like wind turbines and blades, like solar energy generation parts. This is actually happening already, government could speed things up by mandates for renewable energy and by help to companies through incentives. See the link to this in the NYT about companies in places like Newton, Iowa where lost jobs at Maytag are being replaced by renewable energy jobs. And several million jobs can be generated in energy to make up losses in auto jobs in the midwest. These parts of the Obama plan may have come up through conversations with Schmidt and other advocates of this, and by seeing what is already happening as reported by the NYT in the link. It makes Obama look like a farsighted genius, but its just sharp observation and careful listening. Pickens is already advertising this on television for his wind farms in Texas. It is not only Google's thinking, as Schmidt says, but good common sense and some ballpark estimates that would tell one that it would save sending 1 trillion dollars to Middle East and other nations that is needed for investment at home in the U.S.. Schmidt's calculations are that this amount could be saved in 22 years through renewable energy, plug-in hybrids and other innovative technologies. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The firing of John Bolton as National Security Adviser opens up the possibility of a meeting of Trump with President Rouhani of Iran. There is a need for both sides to begin talks on a nuclear deal that would replace the one Iran signed with president Obama to address issues raised by Mr. Trump and Republicans. Iran and countries that buy oil from Iran such as India, China and Japan have an interest in relief from sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on imports of Iranian oil. The European Union is keen to preserve aspects of the nuclear deal. Relief from sanctions is critical for Iran to develop its economy. The last two decades have seen Iran struggle to develop its economy with the sanctions imposed by  different U.S. administrations.   President Trump expressed flexibility on sanctions saying "we will see what happens. I think Iran has potential. They are incredible people." President Rouhani urged Mr. Trump "to put warmongers aside." Mr. Trump told reporters that he had resisted Mr. Bolton's opinions on issues and realized he had moderate views when compared to someone like Bolton.  Trump told Iran "We are not looking for regime change. We hope we can make a deal and if we can't make a deal thats fine too. But I think they have to make a deal." Helping the U.S. and Iran come to talks is president Macron of France who hopes to setup a meeting at the UN General Assembly which meets next week following his efforts at the G-7 meeting in France last month. In the past when tensions were high in the Straits of Hormuz President Trump refrained from aggravating this by saying actions that are "disproportionate" should not be taken and respected Iranian intentions. The tone of the conversation between the two sides has moderated to the point where both sides realize the need for coming to some compromise. This is in sharp contrast to the period a few months ago with rising tensions in the Straits of Hormuz and the seizure of an Iranian ship. Bolton's opinions were not the only issue for president Trump. He was also seen as the source of leaks including one that said Mike Pence, the Vice President, had opposed Mr. Trump's plan to bring the Taliban to Camp David. Also contributing to the new climate for talks is Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State, who has promoted the idea of talks with Iran. He told the media about such a meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York- "Sure. The president has made it very clear that he is prepared to meet with no pre-conditions." The willingness to try new ideas even contrary ones to policy pursued only a short while ago as long as the desired goal is reached is a feature of this presidency and key advisers. From the beginning of the Trump administration there is a firm sense of the need to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. and reduce foreign entanglements that have dragged on wasting resources and destroying priorities. With a willingness to try all sorts of approaches even ones that appear to be contradictory always keeping the end goal in sight. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Support for the climate change bill by companies including Exxon frustrates Republicans, says this report in WSJ. Exxon CEO Darren Woods calls the climate bill "a step in the right direction." A letter signed by 38 companies including the arms of BP and Shell in the US calls for quick passage of the climate change bill. It says- "Investments in the climate change bill would reduce climate related risks across the economy while combating inflation, reducing costs for families, and improving energy security." This letter is organized by two climate oriented business groups. Republicans are now lecturing the oil companies for their response to what oil companies see as a bill that finally is tackling climate change. As one Senator puts it once you enter the cloak room of the Republican party in the Senate you enter another world that does not connect with the climate change, drought in the western US and in Europe, floods and other effects of climate change happening in the world. Oil companies see little advantage in distancing themselves from necessary climate change action and see quick passage of the bill. Oil companies also see the positives in the efforts of Mr. Manchin to negotiate provisions for boosting oil and natural gas in the interim period. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Compromise reached at the October 2010 G-20 meeting in S. Korea to reduce trade imbalances, and for countries with current account surplus exceeding 4% of GDP (China 4.7% and Germany 6.1%) to bring these balances down by 2015. Countries with large current account deficits, Turkey 5.2% and South Africa 4.3%, were expected to bring their deficits down and increase national savings. The US is at 3.2%. The US proposal for a target was accepted by Japan as long as it was not a fixed target but a reference point. Germany was opposed, saying it was a return to planned economy thinking. China did not comment on the issue. Canada, Australia and the UK supported the US position. The compromise was an effort to continue pressure on China to redirect its policies away from exports to increasing domestic consumption, while still refraining from a fixed target. It also takes some of the pressure off a fast track currency rebalancing, with China expected to increase the value of the yuan, but given more flexibility than the rhetoric would suggest....

LyrArc Article Gist
How the Russian aircraft industry is being consolidated to produce a win-win relationship between Europe and Russia- markets, lower costs and R&D for Europe, advances for Russia's aircraft industry and new markets for Russian aircraft in the regional and cargo planes market.

LyrArc Article Gist
Al Maktoum is prime minister of Dubai. He points out some important facts about the Arab world. About half of the 300 million people in the Arab world are under the age of 25. Unemploment is very high among these 150 million Arab youth. About 50% of the jobless are youth, according to the prime minister. About 65 million of the Arabs are illiterate, and 10 million children under the age of 25 are not enrolled in any school. He points out that with so little education, the Arab youth are especially vulnerable to propaganda that creates extremism and is hostile to the west and the USA. One of his key points is that the Arab world is the most militarized place in the world, and spending on conflicts in the Middle East in the last 60 years is about $3 trillion. And in the last 15 years he says the spending on education which is 20% of what the world's 30 wealthiest countries spend, has dropped to 10% of that amount. And very little is being done to educate girls and give them opportunities. As a result of these convictions, Al Maktoum, who is also the ruler of Dubai and from the royal family, has committed about $3 billion to various initiatives to provide schooling to children, especially girls, and education for young people. This makes him one of the more enlightened leaders in the region pushing for new directions. This also reveals the critical weakness among the Arab peoples and why they tend to be so radicalized. Improvements in education and more opportunities for jobless youth, and creating a peaceful region -with the US and the EU countries committing to policies that lead to much diminished military sales to Mideast countries and reducing hostilities in the region -would do more to reduce anti-American sentiment in the region and improve US security than any other policy actions. As Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Muslims of India share the same characteristics as the Arab peoples, and the same cultures, the same is true of this region, actually more so. Education has been even worse neglected in the South Asian Muslim region than among the Arabs. It is the key to peace, does more than troops to ensure the peace. The need is for more schools to be built and run in the region, for essential services like healthcare and development, and financing of job creating industries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Stuttaford's excellent review of a book on the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany. In early 2010, the out of print book, "When Money Dies," by Adam Fergusson was trading for four figure sums. It describes life under hyperinflation in Germany and the events leading to it, the efforts to find a solution, and the collapse of the German economy with the worldwide great depression. The book describes the death of the German mark, with 20 marks needed to buy one British pound in 1914, going to 310 billion in late 1923! The story starts with the onset of war in 1914, and the fateful German decision to fund the war effort largely through debt and the printing presses. What exacerbated the situation was the relatively shallow capital markets in Germany, the creation of 'loan banks' funded by a printing press used by the central bank, and the muffling of all information. The stock markets were closed during the war and foreign exchange rates were not published. The destruction of the war, revolution, protests, imposition of reparations by the victorious powers, and terrotorial occupation worsened the situation. The efforts of central bank president, Rudolf Havenstein, to prevent mass unemployment by devaluing the currency to keep exports competitive, worked only for a time. In the end, says Fergusson, the music stopped. Lacking a reliable pricing mechanism and faced with huge strains, including the onset of the worldwide depression, the whole German economy stopped functioning at even the most basic level. The whole economy was reduced to barter. Rent was payed with butter and lumps of coal were bartered for something else. The only time an economy was reduced to barter in recent times (in the last 2 decades) was the situation in Argentina after a sharp devaluation. The Russian economy also faced a trying period in recent years with the collapse of communism and a collapse of the currency. And the Asian economies faced a difficult period during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. But nothing compares with what happened in Weimar Germany. The book was originally written for a British audience at a time of rapid inflation in the 1970's, and it reminded readers of the connection between the quantity of money in circulation and price stability. Financial crises play out in different ways in different periods, but it is a sobering warning for the need for prudence in financial affairs, avoiding excesses, the need for global cooperation and a measure of peaceful coexistence in world affairs that enables financial systems to work. With excesses in asset bubbles of the stock market or housing kind, bad loans in the financial system, overleveraging in the financial system, lack of reserves, or huge trade deficits, posing the new types of risks in today's environment. Bad loans in the financial system caused problems in Japan in the past and pose risks in China today, overleveraging caused problems in the US in 2008, lack of reserves in S. Korea in 1997, a collapse of the currency in Russia in the 1990's, and a sharp devaluation with a lack of reserves in Argentina. Too much money in the system, as in China today with the sharp increase in bank lending as part of the stimulus following the 2008 crisis, can distort the functioning of the financial system with excesses in real estate speculation and overproduction. The nature of the crises are different but all have a common factor of tolerance for excesses over a long period and a lack of prudence, exacerbated by international tensions and wars that weaken a country's finances. The twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to cost a trillion dollars each and this can only exacerbate the finances in the US, when coupled with other factors such as bad real estate loans in the financial system, and huge trade deficits....

LyrArc Article Gist
The loss of some 4 million jobs is expected by experts in 2009, and Obama economic advisor Christina Romer has presented information at a meeting that shows the current downturn will be more severe than anything we experienced in the last 50 years. At that meeting on December 16, 2008, Obama met with Romer and other economic and policy advisors for 4 hours. It was decided that the target for jobs should be 3 million jobs created in 2009 and 2010. This still means a lot of the 4 million job loss will still occur in 2009, even if the infrastructure jobs estimated at $136 billion by the nation's governors get off to a fast start as they are supposedly ready to go. Money to states and local governments will reduce job losses and loss of services, and money in the form of lower payroll taxes would probably be saved to reduce debt by the public. Money to the poor to support medicaid and health care services and expanding healthcare coverage for those who lose coverage will be safety net reinforcement and support. So finding places to spend where jobs can be created quickly will be a challenge going forward and some of the $1 trillion stimulus will not go directly to job creation but as support. For the December 16 meeting Romer consulted with Martin Feldstein the senior Republican economist who said that " without action the economy will continue to decline rapidly." For a long time Martin Feldstein has been advocating strong action especially to reduce foreclosures and help stabilize housing prices. As the economy has weakened he has revised upwards what needs to be done, and his estimates are close to the lower end of the $800 billion to 1.3 trillion that is being estimated for 2 years. Lawrence Lindsay and other economists are supporting upto $1 trillion stimulus. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How bankruptcy courts can offer a solution to the foreclosure crisis or at least mitigate its effects on the economy and on people. Senator Durbin of Illinois is expected to introduce legislation to put this into effect. It was adopted as a Chapter 12 provision to save farmowners in distress in Iowa in the 1980's, and helped keep many farming families on the farm in that situation. Not all families would be helped as some will not be able to make even the reduced payments given by a bankruptcy judge. But it gives bankruptcy courts the authority to cut through all the red tape and reluctance of bankers and mortgage securities owners to take the initiative and reduce payments, and in the end may actually generate more money for lenders than foreclosure, which has high costs on several dimensions. One cost and one dimension that is not considered is the cost to the economy and to all businesses, from retail to other products, as foreclosures lead to declines in housing prices. This leads in a downward spiral to more homeowners going under water with their homes being worth less than the mortgage, and this in turn leading to foreclosures that lead to further house price declines. The decline in housing prices adds to the incentive to save and reduce spending, which leads to inventory buildup and layoffs. This is why the situation cannot be seen in isolation, and becomes an area where interests of individual parties like lenders and securities holders tend not to be maximized when they follow their personal interest. And there is no party that can take the collective interest in this case except the federal government. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Case-Shiller home price index shows 18.5 % drop year over year for December 2009, for single family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas. The Conference Board Index for consumer confidence dropped from 37.4 in January 2009 to 25 in February 2009. Of the 5000 households surveyed more 90% said they expected conditions would be the same or worse in the next 6 months. The Obama $275 billion plan for homeowners does not address the weakest cities in the market which are in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and much of Florida and Southern California, where prices have fallen 40% or more from their peak. This is because mortgages that are under water are not included, these are mortgages where more is owed on the house than the house is worth, and is ocurring faster in places where price declines are the steepest. One expert Martin Feldstein who is also on the Obama advisory panel has insisted since early 2008 that these homeowners under water have no rational incentive to continue making payments. What this does is to make consumers to postpone purchases like autos and hold back or cut back on all kinds of spending. In this global economy this means places like China's coastal regions which export to the US get hit hard and in turn exporters to china like Germany also get hit hard as what starts in the USA gets passed on theough the global economy from one region to another. Which also means US exports to Asian and other emerging market countries of tech goods and aircraft are in turn hit hard. As Republicans and Democrats follow their ideological leanings they cancel each other out in the debate, as Prof. Potter at Harvard an expert on economic strategy points out in a link, resulting in necessary actions not being taken and no clear direction. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial in September 2014 describes the Russian threat to the NATO alliance and the nations bordering Russia in Eastern Europe. This follows the Russian army's intervention in the Ukraine-Russia border regions in the end of August and early September 2014.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the Economist says the bad loans in the financial system threaten to derail India's rapid growth. It points out that about 17 percent of all loans are estimated to be non-performing. Government plans to set up a bad bank and have bad loans transferred at steep discounted rate to the bad bank are still at an early stage. India weathered the 2008 financial crisis with a financial system in better shape. Since then a surge in lending has led to an increase in the bad loans. Today both banks and corporate firms are facing this problem. The political system and dysfunctional governance with frequent changes for management at state controlled banks are part of the problem.

LyrArc Article Gist
The SEC requirement that companies disclose the ratio between median worker pay and the pay of senior executives. The SEC says it is putting out the rule as part of implementing Dodd-Frank legislation to control excessive executive pay. Companies will be allowed to survey a fraction of their workforce as appropriate for companies with global operations. Executive pay will include pension benefits and stock options under the new rule. A WSJ chart using information from the University of Southern California and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the ratio between what CEO's on average make and rank and file workers make remained at about 30 times in the post war period till about 1970, a period of rapid growth in the U.S. economy. By 1980 this climbed to about 60 times and exceeded 100 times by 1990. The period of stratospheric growth for CEO pay and extreme widening of the gap then occurs between 1990 and 2000. By 2000 the dot com boom- telecom boom and the internet- creates a surge in executive pay reaching over 500 times. This drops to about 280 times in 2008 and picks up again to reach about 320 times in 2011. Many of the poor business practices, the excessive leveraging and risktaking in the financial industry, take place against this background of excessive pay for senior executives. Some of that risk was passed on to others through such methods as securitization in the period leading to the 2008 financial crisis, so that executives were compensated with higher pay for taking excessive risk that they personally or their companies did not assume. Dodd-Frank legislation following the 2008 financial crisis sought to correct this imbalance by having pay information disclosed. The excessive pay has also coincided with an increase in the frequency of boom-bust cycles in the economy. The busts prompted the needs for intervention by the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, to drop interest rates more than would otherwise have happened during this decade, culminating in the huge bond purchases and monetary easing by the Bernanke Fed. The SEC under Mary Jo White is mindful of these distortions in the economy as a result of misallocation of resources based on excessive executive pay, and the need to take action before the next crisis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Laffer says that starting in September 2008, the Bernanke Fed has radically increased the monetary base, comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash, by almost $1 trillion. See graph. The percent increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the last 50 years by a factor of 10, he says, and its outside of anything we have ever experienced. The currency in circulation component which previously comprised 95% of the monetary base, has risen by a little less than 10% while bank reserves have increased 20 fold. With such large reserves banks are lending more money. The 12 month growth rate of M1 is now in the 15% range. But he sees reduced demand for money as confidence is restored in the banking system. He sees the drop in output and manufacturing and employment leading to further reduction in the demand for money. His view is that the reduced demand for money, and the rapid growth in the money supply, will lead to higher interest rates and inflation, unlike anything experienced in th 1970's. The backdrop to this is the huge liabilities taken on by the federal government in the auto and banking bailouts, and through the stimulus and other programs, with a deficit he projects at 13% of GDP. Steps the Fed could take such as issuing $1 trillion in new bonds to contract the monetary base, become difficult, considering that the Treasury plans issuance of $2 trillion in new bonds in the next 12 months. The alternative is to increase the reserve requirements of banks to restrain the growth in the money supply. A too rapid contraction of the money supply would cause the economy to go back into a recession. See Paul Krugman in the NYT, June 15, 2009, who cautions against reversing course. Krugman says the Fed increased reserve requirements in 1937, leading to putting the economy back into a slump. Krugman responds to Laffer by saying that the economy faces deflationary trends, and is in a liquidity trap where policymakers cannot cut interest rates further, making inflation less of a threat at this time. Krugman says overcrowding of private investment is not happening, as government is only stepping in where private investors have retreated....

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
Crude oil or crude world. This book by Peter Maas "Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil," shows how places like Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea suffer from the lack of infrastructure and jobs, as the oil industry does not create many jobs and the companies and the ruling classes in these countries are the main beneficiaries. Nigeria's anticorruption official, Nuh Ribadu, is cited in the WSJ, with an estimate of $380 billion of $400 billion in oil revenues in Nigeria over 3 decades being wasted through corruption and misuse of funds, with little money going into infrastructure and jobs. Manufacturing in China, Vietnam, and Malaysia for basic consumer products from textiles to shoes, creates jobs even at low wages, making the people in these countries better off as wages rise. Oil on the other hand creates few jobs and companies do not move upscale manufacturing tech products in the next stage of manufacturing, leaving the people as worse off as before. The margins are thin in manufacturing, whereas much of the oil revenue can be deposited in accounts of influential individuals. Mouwad in the NYT points out 93% of profits go to the government in Nigeria, only 7% to western oil companies. Even in countries which have tried to root out corruption through socialist experiments such as Venezuela and religious parties such as in Iran, the failure to integrate with the globalized economy and extremist policies leads to lack of development and backwardness. This shows that the best way to develop is through emphasis on education, science and technology, building a culture that thrives on modernization and technological advancement over several decades, even if this means starting with basics and continually moving forwards into higher technologies. Japan, South Korea and China moved from shoes and textiles to iPads and smartphones, Japan starting in the 60's, S. Korea in the 80's and China in the 90's. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Willingness to change opinions as the wind shifts, or as conditions change and new information or insights are gained, is a necessary quality in good leadership. You may not get it right the first time, and that is OK if you are honest with yourself and do the right thing, which is to take stock of the new information and understanding and act upon it, even if that is different from what you said or did before. These skills may be needed by the President in difficult places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as at home in tackling the economy where some actions work and make sense and some others don not work or make sense under the conditions. Or its some new understanding of the conditions that is gained. FDR tried a number of things in his first 100 days in office and he got conflicting advice from some advisors, over time he obtained a better grasp of conditions and an understanding of what actions would be most effective in ending the crisis in the country. He had to be a good learner, be a good observer first hand of conditions, stay in touch with the people, honestly ask himself what would be the best thing to do in each situation. Sometimes he had to chart a new course and he had to know which advisers best represented the interests of the people and the country, and where to look for help. This is described by Adam Cohen of the NYT in his new book "Nothing to Fear". ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The impact of the bank losses will be felt in a process of deleveraging that will exagerate and worsen the credit crunch for years. As banks on the way up in a positive profits cycle can make more money only by leveraging with the leveraging factor may be about 10 times, for an investment bank much higher about 30 times, and on the way down as profits shrink the deleveraging cycle works just as sharply. For every dollar lost as the deleveraging cycle moves into reverse a bank has to contract lending by $10, and for every dollar lost an investment bank has to contract lending by $20-$30 depending on how leveraged it was. A recent study with Anil Kashyap, University of Chicago as one of the authors says the lending contraction frm the mortgage related losses alone would lead to a $1 trillion credit contraction for the USA economy and expects a big shrinking of banks. As all banks contract and some banks go under private equity and hedge funds are likely to take on some of the role of investment banks but they are not regulated so the situation in terms of regulatory oversight would be just as risky as before. Treasury has a list of 100 banks in danger and FDIC has a list of 90 such banks. Merrill Lynch's $48 billion in collateralized debt obligations underwritten in 2007 are almost all on the verge of default or already in default and it will sell off assets like Bloomberg and Black Rock to raise capital....

LyrArc Article Gist
Did Putin overreact as he did in Georgia. On the issue of Russian speaking people in neighboring eastern European countries Putin has strong emotional reaction, as evident in the 2008 Georgian conflict. In Ukraine the issue assumes significance because of the effect of western sanctions, adverse foreign investor sentiment and the tendency of rich Russians, similiar to Argentines, to shift assets abroad. Capital flight was $75 billion in the first 6 months of 2014. Add to this adverse effect on foreign investor sentiment on an already slowing Russian economy, and growth will be seriously affected. Car sales are expected to decline by 12% in 2014, according to a trade group. The rhetoric has been toned down on Russian television. And Russian analysts now say relations with the West must be maintained. Polls by state run polling company WCIOM show 66% of the Russian public oppose Russian forces entering Ukrainian territory.

LyrArc Article Gist
The bottom half of all U.S. households have only recently recovered the wealth lost in the 2009 financial crisis. They still have 32% less wealth than in 2003 when inflation is taken into account. The top 1% of households have more than twice as much as they did in 2003. Wealth is defined as net worth that includes houses , savings and stocks minus any debt. The wealthy have 85% of their wealth in stocks and bonds. For the bottom 50% half of the assets are in the house or family home. Economic and regulatory trends have happened in ways that favored the people investing in stocks, and rescued people investing in stocks with policies designed with this purpose by central banks and the U.S. government. By contrast for the bottom 50% buying a home is more difficult today. The problem this WSJ report points out is that the next recession would most hurt the bottom 50%, even before they have recovered from the last one which was a result of shaky practices of banks in financial lending and not some cyclical swing in the economy. Policy was then geared to provide a recovery first for stock markets as a way to economic recovery. The bottom 50% have little stake in the stock market, the top 1% have most of their gains from the stock market. Much of the popular anger comes from the way policies by both Democrats and Republicans differed little in past administrations in the way they approached this in shaping economic policy. As a result infrastructure building and investments in public services took less priority in this period of 30 years with trade imbalances with China building up on the external front, in another side to this development. The shift to Trump and to right wing populists in Europe is only the first phase in the corrective action that has to take place to return to a fairer distribution of wealth that existed before the last 3 decades. Eventually it is not right wing or left wing factions or parties, but healthy policies, that matter to create a better balance for society.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
France's rail strike goes into its second day with large stations such as the Gare de Lyon deserted, stations empty, platforms deserted and millions of travelers unable to get to work. French unions are testing the French government's effort to change the generous benefits granted in a different era for rail and other workers. Workers at SNCF France's rail system can retire in their fifties even as workers now live longer lives, as early as at age 52.  Workers are hired for life. Pensions are given at the highest salaries and housing is subsidized. SNCF is $68 billion in debt. Costs are much higher to run the system than in Germany. The unions are intent on preserving these benefits from a different period.  This issue came up in the election debates about how the pension system can be put on a good basis with proper funding. Macron has taken a firm stand and the centrist parties in parliament see this as a symbolic fight to changing the future of French society and the economy. The reforms will raise age for pensions, and affects only future hires not the current ones. Yet the unions have chosen to fight this.  Everything depends on how the public and commuters see this. One sign of the changes this time compared to successful strikes by unions in the nineties is that the percentage of employees of SNCF declined on the second day from 33 percent to 29 percent. Polls show a small majority of the French sees the strike as unjustified and Macron's popularity ratings going up slightly. The prestige of the labor union CGT and its strategy is also at risk. Macron's view is that overprotected entities in the French system- the "Statutory Society" referring to the Statute of Railway Workers from a different era- block changes in social and economic life that would increase social mobility. This and France's future is being put to the test.   ...