LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Labor Department reported a gain of 236,000 jobs in February 2013. The job gains were broad based, an encouraging sign, with gains of 48,000 in construction, 32,000 in health care, 24,000 in retail. Government jobs declined by 10,000. The unemployment rate declined from 7.9% in Jan 2013 to 7.7% in Feb 2013. Part of the reason for the decline in the unemployment rate was 130,000 people leaving the labor force. Of this some were retiring or returned to school. About 80,000 were "discouraged workers" adding to the continued problem of a declining labor force participation rate, a serious concern for the U.S. Federal Reserve and Fed chairman Bernanke.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A new West Coast Model is emerging with ballot measures in the states of Washington, California and Oregon. The model is to make up for decades of faulty income distribution which favored tech communities in west coast states leaving behind people from minority communities and the working class outside tech hubs such as San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle. During this period budgets for education and healthcare, social services and essential infrastructure suffered as budgets were squeezed for local governments. Minimum wage also lagged behind and communities struggled to keep up. Washington votes for a ballot measure that raises the minimum wage to $13.25 statewide and mandate paid sick leave for workers. In California a ballot measure makes permanent an income tax surcharge on millionaires to use these funds for education. In Oregon measure 97 places a gross receipts tax on corporations with annual sales in Oregon over $25 million, raising $3 billion a year for schools, health care and other programs. The California and Washington measures are likely to pass, Oregon uncertain, say experts. And even in Oregon supporters have learned from the experience to put forward new proposals on the ballot. The Washington measure is supported by Nick Hanauer, and Zach Silk, president of Civic Ventures in Seattle, who say it is essential to put more money in workers wages to increase growth and to bring better lives outside the tech hub areas. Most of the tech booms of the last two decades have not touched the areas outside tech hub metropolitan areas. The conservative approach adopted in Louisiana and Kansas of reducing taxes first and then when holes in state budgets developed to cut education, health and other service expenditures has not worked, and it has led to the backlash in the form of the new West Coast Model, which is expected to be brought up in other states in the east and midwest. The tech hub areas have grown with the boom in tech but this has largely ignored the rural areas, communities just outside of the tech cities, and led to uneven and distorted growth shortchanging the working class and the middle class, and hurting investment in education and healthcare across each state. Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution conservative think tank ,says that its hard to deny that the balanced growth for all communities across the state has lagged far behind as the tech booms boosted growth in the economies of California, Oregon and Washington. An article in the German online site Zeit on Silicon Valley described this vividly showing how this can happen in communities sitting side by side in the San Jose area, with minority Hispanic communities and working class communties seeing very little of the benefits of growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though U.S. president Trump has singled out countries such as Mexico, South Korea and China for trade practices, the U.S. today faces stronger competition in trade from Germany. The trade surplus with Germany for 2016 was $297 billion for Germany compared to $245 billion for China, according to Ifo economic institute. China's trade surplus according to the World Bank was down from 10% of gross domestic product or GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2016, while Germany's has gone up to 8.5%. The Chinese currency is seen as not being undervalued by some experts, while the euro has lost a quarter of its value in the last 3 years, giving Geman exporters an edge. The U.S. also competes with Germany in nine of the 10 export categories such as machinery and electronic equipment, according to the Peterson Institute. Then why is the focus under U.S. president Trump not including Germany? One reason is that China's products have put a downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages, and the the speed with the Chinese manufacturing has grown in certain industries. Germany has very few of the manufacturing subsidies that China provides to its industries. And the depreciation in the euro is not favored by the German government as it opposes the policies of the European Central Bank. Germany also has a higher propensity to save about 10% of GDP compared to about 3% for the U.S., according to OECD. As a result Germany is accumulating foreign assets at a faster rate than any other nation, while the U.S. is borrowing capital from overseas. Ways to change this are minimum wage regulations introduced by the government, but larger measures such as increasing government investment in the economy are not supported as the country prepares for the future with an aging population.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Monthly reports are issued on bank lending by the Treasury. The report for February shows business lending is down by 24% in its dollar value from the previous month, and a similiar decline in student, auto and credit card lending. The only increase is in mortgage lending as government efforts to hold down interest rates heave led to a refinancing boom. The two largest lenders Wells Fargo and Bank of America reported a 35% jump in mortgage lending in February over January. Businesses are charged more for loans by Chase, which it says is to reflect increased risks, and Chase has sharply reduced its business lending. This is bad news for the economy, because it means businesses will continue to pull back, and some businesses will layoff employees and others may close for lack of financing. The other link to the report in the WPost about the consumers who have jobs, but are acting flat broke suggests consumption will continue to decline, which puts stresses on businesses as sales revenues for all sorts of products decline across the spectrum of the economy. With less acess to costlier financing, and declining sales, the picture of continued large job losses is being etched, and will continue to be etched as these are becoming things that will not change for a long time. Banks are insolvent or close to being insolvent, so lending is only like to change if the government takesover the banks and puses through lending at attractive rates. But it has to do this quickly, before confidence drops to a level where the demand for loans just isn't there. China is able to push lending through the banks because government controls the banks, this cannot happen in the US unless the government actually steps in to take over the insolvent banks and push through a large lending program. In this sense the Obama program while admirable and helpful to stabilize things a bit, is only part effective, and can never really restore confidence or a serious measure of economic stability because of the three pillars of progress in this situation, it can impact only two directly- foreclosure prevention, and business plus consumer lending. The third consumption is something it can only indirectly control through foreclosure prevention and lending, but which is headed down as Americans convert to a frugal lifestyle. And in these two areas of foreclosure prevention and business lending the government is failing. The fourth pillar of progress in the recovery is employment, and this is also an area the government can only indirectly control through stimulus spending on infrastructure, education and energy, but is largely influenced by foreclosure prevention- which keeps home prices from falling rapidly and overshooting and reduces household wealth- and business/consumer lending. These are ER (f) FPL (CE). Economic Recovery as a function of Foreclosure Prevention and Lending, and Consumption and Employment, where indirect control is shown by ( ). With not much in place for FPL- the only two variables government can directly control if it takes strong and immediate action before its influence on these two variables begins to diminish over time- Obama's inexperience and learning curve and failure to take bold action to get serious results on FPL, may result in admirable demeanor and rhetoric but medicore results and a struggling economy for years to come. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted in September 2010 shows a big change in public opinion in the US towards outsourcing of production and on free trade agreements. Poll respondents were asked "Do you think free-trade agreements have helped or hurt the US?" The response in 1999 was close to 30% for those who said hurt and those saying helped. By 2005 the curves diverged seriously with more people saying that it hurt and fewer saying it helped. In 2010 this swing is sharp with about 50% saying it hurts the US and only about 10% saying it helps. When asked "Do you agree or disagree that outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people are not being hired?" the response is overwhelmingly agreeing that this is bad for the U.S. job situation. The answers are the same across party affiliation, in fact higher for Republicans than Democrats 90% to 84%, higher by income level with 93% for those making over $75,000 agreeing and 86% for those making less than 75,000 agreeing, 93% of professionals and managers agree compared to 89% white collar and 83% blue collar agreeing. This shows all segments of society agree that that the manner in which free trade and outsourcing of production is taking place is not helping the U.S., and this time the highly educated segments are leading the way. Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who helped do the survey points to the big change in the way well educated and upper income people perceive free trade agreements. In 1999 only 24% of this group making over $75,000 said free trade hurt the U.S., now 50% of this group says it hurts the US. This is sure to lead to big changes in U.S. trade and currency issues with China and other countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Mulally talks to Charlie Rose about cost competitiveness, negotiations with the UAW, creating jobs, and the repayment of $20 billion of the $23.5 billion borrowed in 2006. Mullaly points out that 70% of R&D is connected with design and manufacturing- all the technology that goes into designing and building and the associated R&D.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mike McNamara, CEO of Flextronics, on the increasing competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and the return of manufacturing jobs to the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
There are similarities in the Republican and Democratic party platforms in 2016. One area of agreement is in the reinstatement of Glass Steagall Act. That legislation made in the Depression period to separate commercial banking from investment banking was changed  when president Clinton made changes in a deal with Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Leach in 1999. The too big to fail problems of banks and the problems of investment banks during the 2008 financial crisis are attributed to the lack of Glass Steagall protections for financial stability and safety. The result is that in the post 2016 environment banks can expect a tougher regulatory environment. Another are is in trade where both parties are expected to take tougher positions to protect U.S. interests. The Republican platform calls for "better negotiated trade agreemets that put America first."

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's 2017 budget is an effort to reshape spending priorities by the Republican party. Apart from Medicare and Social Security all other entitlement programs from the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are subject to cuts. Deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, including introducing work requirements. The philosophy behind it is that compassion will now be measured not by how large these programs are but by how much the government can get people "off these programs and back in charge of their lives,"  according to Budget Director Mulvaney.  The cuts are $616 billion to Medicaid and Children's Health programs, $193 billion in cuts to Food Stamps, $143 billion in student loans, $72 billion in disability programs. The overhaul of the Affordable Health Care Act is part of this change. The reallocation would put more money into infrastructure for $200 billion, and in tax cuts, $19 billion in a parental leave program and $29 billion for veterans programs, plus added spending on the military. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Republican who worked on budget issues says it will be politically difficult as the cuts to lower income groups come with tax cuts for small businesses and higher income individuals.  Beyond the policy priorities there is an area where both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical of the budget. This is how it impacts the U.S. debt. Under Congressional Budget Office estimates the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP which rose to about 75% after the Great Recession starting in 2008, is projected to grow to about 85%. In sharp contrast the Trump administration estimates of the Office of Management and Budget are for it to drop to 65% based on rosier estimates of 2% inflation, 3% growth for the decade ahead. Experts say this is unlikely once the Fed raises interest rates and the unemployment rate currently at 4.4% leads to rising inflation, undercutting growth which has remained below 2% for a long period. These concerns are also voiced by Hilsenrath in the WSJ based on the experience of other countries such a Britain that cut corporate taxes without seeing an uptick in economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A transcript of remarks by Ben Benrnake as Fed Governor on Dec. 9, 2003, at meeting of the Federal Open Market Comittee which makes monetary policy in the USA. Bernanke is teling his colleagues here that it would be amistake to choke off growth unnecessarily by raising rates, that critics who say inflation is a threat are not well informed, and that the Open Market Comittee should remain patient. Here he points out that the large decline in the share of the population that is working -with one survey showing household employment at 2.9 million jobs below normal at that time- suggesting that employment could rise significantly before seeing pressure on wages and unit labor costs. With the underutilization of labor, the withdrawal of people from the full time labor force, and increase in parttime employment, there are todfay anumber of changes ocurring in the labor markets that build additional slack into the system from what the unemployment rate of 9% today would suggest. A similiar case could be made today with factory capacity utilization at 68% and dropping, and manufacturing hard hit and seeing a permanent downsizing in industries like automobiles. What about raw materials prices? Bernanke shows agraph of historical data, that suggest convincingly he says, even very large movements of raw materials prices appear to have muted effects on intermediate goods prices and no discernible effects on final goods inflation. The reason for this is that raw materials prices are only asmall portion oftotal costs, and unit labor costs are a far larger factor in inflation determination that raw materials prices. And at that time as is happening today wage growth is slow or negative. What about the dollar falling in value making imports more expensive, which we face today? Here Bernanke says that asimilar anlysis applies to the dollar. Large movements of the dollar he says, translate into smaller movements against the U.S. trade-weighted basket of currencies, and into smaller effects on import prices because of imperfect pass-throughs. And he goes on to say that the nonoil import prices, in turn, are are a relatively modest part of the overall price index, making the ultimate effects quite small. This analysis by Bernanke of the impact of rising raw materials prices and falling dollar having a muted effect, and the important role slack and underutilization of labor in the labor markets play in inflation, helps respond to critics like Laffer and others who say inflation is a threat and call for changes in the policy course the Fed has set....

LyrArc Article Gist
Jurgen Kroger, is the chief negotiator for the European Commission, and Poul Thomsen, heads the IMF negotiating team, for the 78 billion euros in loans extended to Portugal under a bailout agreement. Kroger offered his views on the agreement in Lisbon. Kroger said he was convinced that the program gives Portugal the means to boost growth and jobs, as it builds a sustainable and competitive economy. Two thirds of the loans come from the EU at an interest rate that is yet to be set. The yield on Portugal's 10 year bonds keeps rising and is now at 10.20%. The IMF will provide one third of the funds. The IMF's Thomsen said the issue of interest rates was addressed by arranging for two thirds of the loan package money coming in the first of the three years of the program. What this does is to take Portugal out of the markets for medium and long term debt for a "little over two years" he said and gives Portugal the "breathing space" it needs to restore credibility before going to the financial markets. The fear expressed by analysts is that the tough austerity measures in the programs of the EU and IMF can cause the economies of these countries to worsen, making it even harder to repay the much larger debts when the loan package money is added to the original debt. The IMF and the EU negotiators had to create a credible program for recovery in the light of these facts. Already Portugal's finance minister is predicting a contraction in the Portuguese economy of 2% in 2011, and 2% in 2012. The negotiators appear to have taken this into account in setting interest rates. Portugal will pay the IMF an interest rate of 3.25% for the first 3 years, with the rate going to 4.25 in the fourth year. By comparison Greece's loans are for seven years with an average interest rate of 4.2%. Ireland's seven year loans carry an interest rate of 5.8%, which it is working to renegotiate. To give Portugal more breathing space the terms of the loans set a slower reduction in the budget deficit than originally planned. Portugal gets to cut its budget deficit to 5.9% of GDP in 2011, and 4.5% of GDP in 2012. The 3% target is set for 2013, one year later. Economists such as Carl Weinberg of High Frequency Economics, say the loan package will only increase Portugal's debt and lead to a larger default later on when the debt amount owed is larger. The debt restructuring solution is being actively debated in the EU, including the risks that European banks would take large hits. Negotiators are also mindful of keeping any negative impact on Spain as low as possible. As Portugal's financing costs have risen, Spain's have risen also. Spain offered higher rates to sell 3.4 billion euros of five year bonds on May 5, with the average yield on Spain's bond sale rising to 4.55%, up from 4.39% on March 3. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union Commission says Ireland must recover 13 billion euros in back taxes for giving tax preferences to Apple that are against EU rules. The EU Commission says Ireland allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, and .005% in 2014. The EU Commissioner says the use of Ireland as the place where Apple pays taxes on operations in Europe has no base in reality, as most profits are earned in other countries outside Ireland. Taxable profits of Apple "did not correspond to economic reality," according to Ms. Vestager, the EU Commissioner.  In the current environment where political upheaval is unsettling the democratic process in the U.S., Britain, Spain, France and Italy, as well as in Brazil and other countries in the developing world- because of deep recessions, and efforts to cut the deficits with deep cuts in state spending including in education and healthcare, basic services- the moves by companies to reduce taxes to these absurdly low levels such as .005% when other companies in the EU are paying 12.5%, is becoming increasingly unpopular. As pointed out in this BBC News article this sounds like the way Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt operated during the late 19th century, and were seen as operating in a manner that was above the law. Janet Yellen pointed out at a Boston Fed Conference on inequality in Oct 2014 that the bottom half of the distribution or 62 million households in the U.S. in 2013, had a net worth of about $10,000, One quarter of these households had a net worth of zero dollars. The working class and blue collar workers in the U.S. provide much of the support at Trump rallies. Younger college educated people support Sanders, because of the situation of the working and middle class in the U.S., and a similar situation exists in Europe. It is for the sake of the democratic process and delivering services in education, healthcare, and other basic areas to all, that companies small and large need to pay their fair share of taxes, regardless of size, influence, or technological advantages. Today this is is seen by most leaders who draw public support as the right way forward for the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asian countries, including proper allocation of resources to best serve the needs of working people. For example the 13 billion euros is equal to all of Ireland's healthcare budget, and 66% of its social welfare budget.    ...