LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jan Corzine, Governor of New Jersey has talked to governors from the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, and Massachusetts about how best to execute an effective economic recovery stimulus program with the federal government. Here are the ideas they have come up with. The stimulus should cover five areas, infrastructure, countercyclical programs, housing, education, and middle class tax cuts. The principle to keep in mind is to take advantage of the strengths of the federal government and of the state and local governments. Infrastructure investment should be intelligent ones to modernize the capabilities of the country for the next phase of development and competition in the global economy and in making far reaching changes in transportation and energy for sustainable development in a global economy. A key point of Corzine's here is that safety net social programs will need to be shored up or the stimulus effects will be lost. Over the 2 years 2009 and 2010 he suugests the federal government boost its countercyclical spending by at least $250 billion. And it should do this by increasing the federal medical assistance percentages, federal share of Medicaid costs and other health care related programs such as reimbursement to hospitals for treating the uninsured, Temporary Asistance for Needy families, and child care grants. He proposes doubling the federal funding of unemployment trust funds under the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, with incentives to cover vulnerable low-wage and part-time workers who are often denied unemployment benefits. Corzine emphasizes this. That even if the Obama administration puts large sums into infrastructure spending, cutbacks in state and local safety net programs would cancel out much of the effect of the stimulus. The reason is simple while the federal government is adding to jobs on one hand, the states without the money would be cutting back jobs and services. This point will be critical in making the stimulus work. The other point Corzine appears to emphasize by quoting Roosevelt at Oglethorpe University in 1932, is that bold experimientation not clinging to rooftops in the flood, will be needed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Its now known that some of the money that the government used to bailout AIG is going to Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, so that they can pay the hedge funds to whome they sold credit default swaps. The way it works is this. Hedge funds bet against the housing market that if mortgage defaults reach a certain level they would be paid a large amount. To do this they buy credit default swaps from banks like Deutsche Bank and Goldman. In turn Deutsch and Goldman go out and hedge the risks of selling these credit default swaps. Its hard to find someone to sell this insurance, but AIG becomes the dominant insurer for these credit default swaps. What does AIG get out of this. Only fractions of apenny for every dollar of insurance sold to the banks, less than $10 million for $1 billion of insurance. These swaps were sold in 2005, when some of these hedge funds saw risks in the housing markets excesses, and they were making the bets for an event that was a very plausible one, with very little risk to themselves. And the banks were passing on a lot of the risk for insurance on the cheap to AIG, which ends being the sucker holding a big part of the risk. What did have to gain from this, and why it agreed to sell this insurance is a mystery. Its this insurance that has caused AIG its biggest headache, to have to set aside money to pay the banks who in turn pay the hedge funds. When these pools of mortgage assets of companies like Countrywide Financial, which were created by Deutsche Bank and Goldman, called by names such as 'START' and 'ABACUS', went down in value AIG has to set aside money to pay the banks. As these assets fall in value from mid September to December 2008, AIG and by this the government which now owns 80% of AIG, paid $5.4 billion to Deutsche and $8.1 billion to Goldman under credit default swap contracts AIG has written. This adds up to $52 billion paid to all the banks that bought insurance for credit default swaps they sold and covered with AIG insurance. And this is a large part of the $170 billion of government money to AIG. Its for this kind of financial wizardry that makes little sense, and showed no sense of responsibility for the firm, that the Financial Products Group's 370 employees are to be rewarded with $400 million in bonuses, with binding contracts as reported in the Washington Post. The $165 million so widely reported in bonuses sent out recently, are only a part of the $400 million. While this is going on its surreal that on the other side Michigan is hurting , auto states in the midwest are hurting badly. And $17 billion barely makes it through in time to keep GM and Chrysler running in December 2008, and the money can be called in by the government in February 2009 leading to these companies ending up in bankruptcy. This puts the situation in new perspective, and Rattner who heads the group looking at the GM restructuring must be aware of this, when he said bankruptcy is not necessarily the best option and the loans would not be called in by the government. Its job losses in the economy, and the fragile nature of the economic outlook, and also the way in which money is being scandalously wasted in other places like AIG with no purpose, that Rattner must have in the back of his mind as he looks at money for GM restructuring and jobs for hurting workers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What oil analysts would like to know about the Khurais oil field in Saudi Arabia is can it deliver. This is the Saudis big effort to sustain and increase oil production as other fields are aging and declining. The Saudis would like to see it add 1.2 million barrels a day to its current production of 11 million barrels a day. no date is set for when this oil field will come on stream and how much of the 1.2 million barrels a day will become reality. The Khurais field has been sitting there for many years while the Saudis tapped the Ghawar field just 60 miles away because of the complexity of the Ghawar field which situated deep within the rocky layers of the earth and dunes. Its been described as a hard sponge compared to the wet sponge that Ghawar is. The natural pressure is not enough to bring the oil up so natural gas or filtered salt water would have to be used. As natural gas is needed for soaring power generation needs filtered salt water will be brought from over 120 miles away from the Persian Gulf through pipes to Khurais and more than 100 injection wells have to be drilled so that 2.3 million barrels a day can be pumped down in a manner that would push the oil up but not kill an oil wellby going through a rocky fissure. All this has to understood through geologic mapping of 2700 square miles down to the microdetail for an area the size of Connecticut so that nothing goes wrong. 2.8 million 3-dimensional images of underground strata to trace any fractures in the rock that might cause trouble and building of models to simulate how the oil field may respond to water injection. The production would have to be monitored from Dhawan where the central monitoring facilites are for Aramco. Aramco the Saudi Oil company brought in for oil field services Foster Wheeler as project manager, Halliburton for drilling wells, Eni SpA's Saipem unit for water injection work, in the plan developed in 2005 with estimated cost of $6 billion. Halliburton is drilling more than 300 wells that go over a mile deep and then branch out horizontally, and 125 water injection wells. Nansen Saleri who heade reservoir management for Aramco and headed the Khurais revitalization effort is now running his own firm in Houston. He described it - the trick is to understand Khurais down to the smallest detail. This is a picture of the complexity and the resulting uncertainties of Khurais. A former head of Aramco oil exploration Mr. Husseini who retired 5 years ago says its quite possible that Aramco may achieve its target of 1.2 million barrels a day but isn't sure that production can be sustained at this level and what it might cost. Khuransiyah project was expected to generate half million barrels a day by 2007 en but is a year off schedule and many projects are running late from a shortage of steel and manpower. It used to cost $4000 to add one barrel of capacity through the 1990's now its estimated by experts to cost closer to $16,000 for a barrel added. So when will Khurais come on stream? And will the even more difficult Manifa field in the Persian Gulf come onstream? Its not certain. meantime oil reached 119 dollars a barrel. But analysts will be sure to watch this one and the new fields in Brazilian offshore waters to bring prices down just as conservation kicks in and global demand slips a bit from the super heated growth of the last few years especially from Asia. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Martin in the NYT points out that Ohio no longer plays a critical role in U.S. presidential elections. It was critical for a Bush win over Gore, and president Obama carried it by 2 points against Romney in 2012. It is critical for Trump to win. For Hillary Clinton other states are gaining importance as they better reflect the demographic changes in the U.S. and the mix with minorities- states such as Georgia, N. Carolina, Colorado and Florida. Ohio has not seen an influx of Hispanics as other states, and is now more white, more evangelical voters, and reflects a mix that was prevalent earlier. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has opinion about the financial crisis that is deeply felt. He wants the wall that separates banks that take in federally insured deposits from the public separated from the risky trading activities of investment banking houses. That would essentially put us back to the situation that existed before Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was revoked in the 1999. The lessons of the thirties apply today. Says Volcker "people say I am old-fashioned and banks can no longer be seaprated from nonbank activity, but that argument brought us back to where we are today." The Obama advisers like Geithner and Summers are close to the bankers- see the links to Geithner and Summers- and believe that extensively regulating the banks would prevent the banks from engaging in risky practices. However as this reporter Louis Uchitelle of the NYT has not pointed out, the problem is that this is more easily said than done. The very fact that there were close ties between Geithner and Summers and the bankers during the Clinton Administration and Geithner as head of the New York Fed under the Bush administration, and the aggressive lobbying by the investment banks like Goldman and others who are now banks to water down any regulation on derivatives trading and on other supervision, can only lead to a situation where neither Volcker's solution or the Obama people's solution is put into effect. THis will only invite another crisis. With the public anger even worse as the bonuses and compensation from trading profits by Goldman and other banks come through cheap money created by the Fed- see links- for the purpose of addressing the financial crisis. Volcker would separate JP Morgan and Bear Stearns trading operations and separate Merrill from BofA, and Goldman would revert from abank holding company to a investment banking house. Volcker believes that the pay on Wall Street "has gotten grotesquely large." Volcker believes that the separation of deposit taking institutions from investment banking would reduce trading profits and consequently automatically reduce these large bonuses. So is Volcker being ignored by the Obama administration, even as his glow helped the Obama people win public support as a better steward of the economy than McCain during the election campaign? During the crisis Volcker headed the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Today he is rarely seen in his Washington office, he talks to administration officials mostly on the phone, at 82 he is not knocking on doors, and the advisory board has been assigned to look at the tax law on overseas corporate profits. Volcker agrees with most of the Obama plan on financial regulation including higher capital requirements and and pay guidelines, but if this is not enacted because of lobbying by bankers then the nation will have the benefit of neither the Volcker Plan or the Obama Plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There are some major problems in the American jobs market which suggest a long drawn out effort to reduce the high unemployment rate. One is the divergence between the vacancies that are developing and the rate at which firms are filling these vacancies. With vacancies remaining, unfilled and firms remaining cautious about the economic outlook and leery of hiring, the increase in economic output or GDP growth of 3% expected on the optimistic side in 2011 is not translating into lower unemployment. Structural problems are causing a great deal of difficulty in reducing the jobless rate. The recession hit manufacturing and construction very hard. And those who worked in these industries are not those with the skills and training to take up jobs in health care and education or other similiar fields- here skill mismatches are the problem. Geographic factors and the property prices drop are creating additional barriers. About 25% of mortgage borrowers owe more than their property is worth, and their are fewer buyers in regions with depressed job prospects like Michigan. There is a large increase in long term unemployment- over 27 weeks. Those out of work for more than 6 months see their skiils, job connections and confidence erode. A Brookings Institution paper estimates that this rise in long term unemployment by itself can cause labor market recovery to take twice as long as after the 1982 recession under Reagan, when unemployment reached a high of 10.8% and took 2 years to get back to 7.5%. Add to this the fact that a lot of jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009, with a six percentage increase in unemployment in a short period unmatched by anything since the Great Depression, with long term unemployed reaching 6.5 millon or nearly half of the total. And the 3% growth rate estimated by the government is anything but certain. It is questioned by the IMF as a stretch. This does not take into account the problems in the banking sector, as home equity loans gone bad show up on their balance sheets in latter part of 2010. According to a CreditSights report (see the US economy in 2010 in Group search for more information on this) with estimated losses of $33 billion. A struggling banking sector and tighter credit will add a structural dimension from the banking sector to the wobbly hiring. The "muddle through" approach to banking problems of the Obama administration in tackling bank's bad debt will continue to pose risks....

LyrArc Article Gist
Gretchen Morgenson of the Times distills key insights from 633 page report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Morgenson points to the role of the Federal Reserve in Washington and New York in being as she describes it, defiantly inert and uninterested in controlling the mortgage bubble even when it had grown to enormous proportions.The problem now is that the same Fed has received more regulatory powers under the Dodd-Frank law. The same Fed repeatedly did not exert its authority on predatory lending. Page 94 of the report cites a total of only three institutions referred to prosecutors by the Fed from 2000 to 2006. Page 164 shows why there have been so few prosecutions for mortgage fraud from the bursting of the mortgage bubble. William Black, a former fraud investigator and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, says the FBI has received virtually no assistance from the regulators, the banking regulators and the thrift regulators. The report contains some outrageous comments by one of the key players in fueling the mortgage bubble, Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial. Morgenson describes him as a lender that roped unsuspecting borrowers into poisonous loans. Mozilo says in an interview on page 105 that his company prevented "social unrest" by providing loans to 25 million borrowers, many from minority groups. Never mind that this wave of poisonous loans has clogged the arteries of the nation's financial system, and resulted in foreclosures for millions of homeowners, creating a troubled housing market that hobbles the economy. Neil Barofsky, special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, sees further bailouts ahead. He said in a report to Congress in late January 2011: "Unless and until an institution like Citigroup is either broken up, so that it is no longer a threat to the financial system, or a structure put in place that it will be left to suffer the full consequences of its own folly, the prospect of more bailouts willl potentially fuel more bad behaviour with potentially disastrous results." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Journal profiles the small company of Dell'Orco & Villani in Prato, in the Tuscany region of Italy, in the context of the eurozone financial crisis in Greece, Italy and Spain. The Italian economy is dominated by such companies that have remained small and decided not to grow because of the difficulties facing them in the form of red tape, the slowness of courts in enforcing contracts, and labor laws that make it harder to hire employees and retrench in a recession. Today Italy's economy is only 3% larger than 10 years ago. Companies with less than 20 workers dominate the economies of southern European countries, employing 60% of the workforce in Italy and Greece, and half the workforce in Spain and Portugal. This compares with 30% in Germany and 20% in the U.S., according to the O.E.C.D. Businesses face an average of 258 days to get permits to open a new warehouse in Italy, compared to 26 in the U.S., according to the World Bank. Enforcing a contract in court could take as long as 1210 days in Italy compared to 300 days in France and the U.S. Italy's postwar economic recovery was based on these small firms around cities like Turin, or textile locations such as Prato. But building economies of scale has eluded these firms, and businessman from that period such as the elder Dell'Orco are content with remaining small. The Dell'Orco family firm makes machines that recycle plastics, rubber and other junk into fibers that can be used for carpets or clothing. The firm has trouble making a decision to hire a new younger worker to do work after four older workers retired. The company makes the machine that only does the first stage of the processing, referring customers to another firm in Prato for the second machine. Most decisions including a tiny showroom are made in excruciatingly slow fashion because they go through the family patriarch, the 91 year old founder. The son and granddaughter defer to him in all decisions. An unsold machine costing 400,000 euros sits in the factory after one buyer decided to delay the purchase, making it risky to grow. During the pre-euro period of the last two decades Italian businesses could take advantage of the regular devaluations of the lira to price below their competitors in Germany and other countries. During the last two decades competition from emerging market economies S.Korea, China and India have added to problems competing in global markets, without the advantages of scale. The inability to hire younger workers hurts unemployment for the young- youth unemployment in Italy is 29% in 2011....

LyrArc Article Gist
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Volcker was Fed Chairman from 1979-1987 and is now 81 years old. He is best known for taming the runaway inflation of that period. He is now the senior economic advisor closest to Obama and they have a developed a sense of rapport and trust through frequent discussions and meetings in which Obama has sought Volcker's advice, especially at critical junctures of the present crisis. So close is the association that Volcker now keeps a cellphone with him at all times and he has gotten used to Obama's messages at all times. And this week he is due to appear on the campaign trail with Obama for the first time. At a round table discussion with voters in Lake Worth, Florida, he will give his view on the state of the economy and the credit markets. This puts the 81 year old Volcker on the campaign stump for the first time. In his debate with McCain at Hofstra University Obama said "let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House." Obama is increasingly relying on Volcker. His staff now routinely reviews policy proposals and speeches wit Mr. Volcker. And conference calls and face to face meetings of economic adviers are increasingly organized to accomodate Mr Volcker's schedule. When there is a discussion of the financial crisis Jason Furman the campaign's economic policy director says the most important question for Obama is "what does Paul Volcker think?" It all started when Obama sought advice from Volcker through his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a 39 year old University of Chicago Professor. The bond between the two started with a dinner invitation in June 2007, when Obama was still a long shot candidate, setup by Mark Gallogly, cofounder of Centerbridge partners, a New York private investment firm. He invited a number of financial executives like Gary Cohn of Goldman and Fleming of Merrill and Mr. Volcker. At a private dining room in a Capitol Hill restaurant Volcker was seated directly opposite Obama. That night on a return flight to New York Volcker told the group that he "was genuinely impressed" by the Senator from Illinois. When this was passed on to Goolsbee his reaction was- "Volcker is a legend.. we want to pick his brain." Since late summer 2007 Goolsbee had regular discussions with Mr. Volcker. Some of them were about including Volcker's ideas that the housing downturn would snowball into a larger financial crisis into Senator Obama's policy positions. A September 2007 speech by Obama to Nasdaq stated that the oversight lapses and abusive practices would cause the markets to "be ravaged by a crisis in confidence." Since then at almost every turn of the crisis after Bear Stearns collapse, Obama and Volcker have consulted together....

LyrArc Article Gist
Under a new program to increased spending on healthcare from 1.3% of GDP to 2.5% the Indian government plans to provide free pharmaceuticals at state run hospitals. This is expected to cost $5 billion over 5 years. Initially 350 drugs would be on a list of essential medicines and would be purchased from generics manufacturers in India. Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, heads the committee advising the Indian government on healthcare. He says this will help improve access to medicines for the vast majority of the people. Estimates show 70% of out of pocket medical costs for Indians come from spending on drugs. About 40 million people are pushed into poverty each year because of the high cost of medicines, says Dr. Reddy. He said that in 1984 31% of the medicines at government run hospitals were provided free to admitted patients, dropping to 9% in 2004. For outpatients this dropped from 18% to 5%. The free medicine program would be part of a larger universal health care program to be introduced over the next decade. India's large generics pharmaceutical industry makes the provision of free medicines on a large scale a feasible option in India because of the lower prices, with additional pricing advantages when purchased in larger volumes by the government. This would also have a major impact on the quality of healthcare in the country of 1.2 billion people for a relatively small investment. It also promotes a sense of fairness and equal access because the benefits of decades of modernization have been unevenly distributed and because of widespread poverty....

LyrArc Article Gist
The difficulties Cerberus is having selling $4 billion of the debt it incurred in buying Chrysler and its pullout of the United Rentals deal are signs that private equity deals are fraying. The credit crunch looks like its going to get a lot worse. And sales of cars are expected to decline from the present 16 million for the year to 15.5 according to Jerry York a former GM board member, and 14.5-15.0 million according to John Stallkamp a former Chrysler president. There is a difficult year ahead for the auto companies and for the economy in general.

LyrArc Article Gist
The best that can be said about all the efforts to stabilize the housing markets is that they help in the context of the credit crisis that hit the economy hard with the Bear Stearns crisis and help to provide an orderly retreat for housing prices and ways to soften the blow to homeowners and lenders caught up in the wave of foreclosures. But housing prices themselves have not declined anywhere near what one would expect. In fact BW, p17, April 7, 2008 shws percentage changes for existing homes from Feb 2007 to Feb 2008 with data from the National Association of Realtors. And they are surprising when you consider sales for the northeast down 26% and prices up slightly 0.4%. Elsewhere the sales are down 29% in the Western states for a 13% price decline, sales down 20% for a 7% price decline in the Midwestern states, and sales are down 22% for a 9% decline in the Southern states. Jobless rates are 3.9% in Austin, Texas and Birmingham, Alabama and only Detroit, St Louis and Cleveland have jobless rates above 6%. What this suggests is that the unemployment situation has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening and drop in capital investment. As house prices have not declined much declines over 10% mostly in the western states and places like Detroit but not in the northeast and across the south, and unemployment still low across many regional communities, consumption spending has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening. Once tightened credit conditions hit payrolls as companies cut their workforce and unemployment moves up then expect to see greater housing price declines as more houses go into foreclosures, and then expect consumption spending to feel the impact which would reduce sales and further trim payrolls as companies run their factories at less and less production capacity. This sequence would continue and bring the economic crisis to more and more parts of the country in a manner that we have hardly see upto this point. What we have seen is the unfolding of a collapse of mortgage securities firms and of mortgage securites insurance providers like ACA, and with it the huge writedowns about $150 billion taken by the investment houses and the banks. And this has happened as a wave of foreclosures took place in 2006. And the collapse of Bear Stearns with the effects felt in global stock markets. In the communities themselves in the areas of consumption spending and in jobs the conditions will only now begin to be felt and the real impact not felt till the end of 2008 and into 2009 with the Fed action to shore up confidence adding several months in slowing the process. See the link to BW, Bernanke the Reluctant Revolutionary, where the BW estimate is that Americans took on about $3 trillion in additional debt between 2000 and 2006 from what they would have taken if they had followed the trajectory of spending patterns that had prevailed upto that point, with their recent free spending ways. It would take abot 3 to 4 years conservatively for Americans to work down all that debt. Another way of saying this is that consumption spending is going to take a big hit and with it sales of companies and consequently higher unemployment and more part time labor force with less benefits, which would tend to depress consumption even more. The winds of housing, credit, consumption and unemployment would all hit the economy in about 12 months time. Credit will further tighten as BW estimates about $130 billion of additional writedowns still expected....

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. And 7.2 million jobs have been lost since December 2007. Where will the new jobs come from to replace lost jobs in retail, banking auto and other job losing sectors and when, and will some jobs never come back. Global Insight forecast show 8.1% unemployment in 2013, suggesting that jobs needed for population growth and some jobs from the pool of job losses will not be recovered for some years.

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
The Obama administration's $38.6 billon loan program using Stimulus funds was intended to create 65,000 jobs. Two years into this program, with half the money disbursed, the program has created a mere 3,545 new permanent jobs according to Energy Department figures. The Energy Department claims its $5.9 billion loan guarantees to Ford Motor Company to produce energy efficient vehicles by upgrading plants in 5 states saved 33,000 jobs. Brookings Institution analyst, Mark Muro, says the administration appears to be counting all the workers at these plants and not the jobs saved. 33,000 is close to half the Ford hourly and salaried U.S. employees. Harvard Business School professor, Josh Lerner, says there is a tendency to do a lot of fuzzy math in these figures. Muro points to the need to set large expectations for short term political calculations. The Energy Department's own figures show 20 "green tech"companies won loans so far under this project by negotiating with the Energy Department. If these companies hire the people they agreed to they would hire 8,050 new permanent workers. Only 10 of these companies have created or saved jobs so far. Of the other 10 some won loan approval only recently. The whole process is time consuming. Even if the Energy Department were to create the 60,000 jobs under the revised estimate, each job saved or created would come at a cost of 640,000 dollars in loan guarantees. Using the figure of $19.3 billion disbursed 2 years into this program (half of the $38.6 billion) and 8,050 jobs created, would give a cost of $2.4 million in loan guarantees for each job created- an astoundingly high figure. Other factors to consider are the additional jobs created downstream by suppliers to these companies as the administration states, and the cost of loans if as in the case of Solyndra a company goes bankrupt. Solyndra received a loan of over $500 million and represents 3% of loan guarantees. The administration and Congress assumed a failure rate of 5-10% for this program. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Amy Goldstein spends time in Janesville, Wisconsin, in U.S. vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's congressional district, and talks to local people to give a glimpse of life in Janesville after the closing of the GM plant and the 2008 financial crisis. She looks at the effects of long-term unemployment and cuts in services in communities such as Janesville as a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, while on leave from the national staff of the Washington Post. Ryan was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 1998, about a decade before the closing of the GM plant, and has been reelected to Congress each time for 7 consecutive terms. Goldstein says Janesville is typical of the communities across America that have suffered job losses- the loss of more jobs in manufacturing than any other sector, a greater impact of job loss for men than women, and a large impact on people who had less education but well paid jobs. As shown by the recent settlement for a Caterpillar plant in Joliet, Illinois, and across the U.S. manufacturing landscape, older workers who enjoyed higher wages are retiring with newer workers coming in at a lower wage, which is improving U.S. manufacturing competitiveness but also increasing the importance of education for higher paying jobs....

LyrArc Article Gist
The shrinking of battleground states under the electoral college system creates serious problems for giving a say to all regions of the U.S. In a functioning democracy all regions would get a say in who will govern the country for the next 4 years. Yet today only a few states in the midwest and in the east determine the outcome of an election. Effectively disenfranchising the rest of the country, the south, the western and eastern coastal regions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany went through a period of stagnant growth and persistently high unemployment leading to reforms of the welfare system and entitlements under the Schroeder administration. The reforms led to lower unemployment benefits and an effort to get the unemployed take up jobs. Instead of unemployment benefits that amounted to half the salary indefinitely, unemployment benefits ended in 12 months under the reforms, and workers were forced to take up jobs or dig into their savings. The cuts to benefits led to more of the unemployed taking jobs that were not their first choice with lower incomes. Unions agreed to defer wage demands and wages remained relatively flat for a long period. The "kurzarbeit" system of government subsidizing employers to retain workers during economic downturns, helped cushion the workforce from ups and downs in the economy. Unemployment which was in double digits a decade ago, is now 6.1%. The system still preserved some other aspects of generous benefits- parental leave of 14 months at two-thirds salary, vacation time and publicly sponsored health insurance. Recent changes include raising the retirement age to 67 from 65. The Organization of Economc Cooperation and Development estimates that the 200,000 jobs saved in Germany during the recession of 2008-2009 cost the government $7 billion. Government funds helped companies retain workers by paying a portion of worker salaries and averting layoffs.This comes to $35,000 per job. Compare this with the $38.9 billion allocated to a loan program at the Energy Department under the U.S. stimulus. 8050 jobs were created under this program according to the Washington Post- for the money spent so far in Sept 2011- 2 years into the loan program, of $19.3 billion. This comes to $2.4 million in government guaranteed loans per job. The Energy Department says that 33,000 jobs were saved under the $5.9 billion that was given to the auto industry under this program for investments in manufacturing to improve fuel efficiency. This comes to $178,000 per job. The Energy Department and Congress estimated a 5%-10% loss on the $38.6 billion loan program for loans that go sour, such as the Solyndra solar company $535 million loan. This comes to $1.9 billion at 5% loss and $3.8 billion for a 10% loss. The purpose of these figures is to show the cost of programs when the programs fail to achieve job goals or produce too little for the investment. The $3.8 billion loss under the program is over half the $7 billon Germany invested for the 200,000 jobs saved as estimated by the OECD. That ranks as a far superior investment than the Energy Department program. For the U.S. there are aspects of German reforms such as "kurzarbeit" that bear emulation, with serious questions about the effective use of the U.S. stimulus funds. For the rest of Europe the stingier unemployment benefits, raising the retirement age to 67, and other reforms send a different message. From the average German the message is: we made the tough changes, the rest of Europe cannot expect Germans to pay higher taxes while they put off similiar changes. Italy needs to change its retirement age, just as the Germans have done. As Chancellor Merkel puts it: "People in countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal shouldn't be able to retire earlier than in Germany. It's important for everybody to put in effort to make it roughly equal. Germany will only help when others really make an effort." Which is why Greece, Spain, Italy, even France are faced with making serious changes. This isn't stalling when it comes to euro bonds, from the German perspective. And it isn't about the lack of committment to the idea of a European Union, as all major political parties in Germany, the CDP, the SDP and the Greens, all strongly support the idea of a European Union. ...