LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein on the U.S. economy in 2014 and the risks of the U.S. Federal Reserve tackling the economy on its own with monetary policy, without Congress taking on the task of policies to promote economic growth. Feldstein points out the 3.6% GDP growth estimate for the third quarter 2013 does not look that good considering that half of this is from buildup of inventory. GDP growth is about 2% as net result. With paralysis of Congress and the Executive branch the Fed's policy of huge buildup of long term bonds to reduce short term interest rates to zero and stimulate stock and home prices, he describes as the only game in town. The problem is that the size of the effect of increase in consumer spending from this increase in household wealth is small and not enough to contribute to significant GDP growth. The risks of this approach are that it contributes to destabilizing the economy as investors buy risky securities and bid up prices. He suggests a five year $1 trillion infrastructure development program, including defense, as a stimulus Congress should consider. Not the kind of stimulus that happened after the 2008 crisis. If not enough investment ready projects are available as in 2008 that will contribute to future growth, Congress should take another one year to prepare for this before moving forward. Debt reduction is key, and debt as a percentage of GDP should be reduced and set on a path to go where it was before 2008 to about 40%, deficits to below 2% of GDP. This should be done by slowing growth of Social Security and Medicare, and increasing revenues by limiting subsidies in the tax code that Feldstein as pushed for since 2010....

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Cote, CEO of Honeywell International, says U.S. corporations have $1 trillion sitting on the sidelines ready to be invested if business can be provided with more certainty about U.S. finances through successful deficit reducion negotiations. He is the most active CEO behind the Fix the Debt organization and is respected by both sides. In the fiscal cliff negotiations he has taken messages in both directions from Democrats and Republicans. Cote is a former executive of General Electric, who has led a turnaround at Honeywell. Large business stayed out of the deficit negotiations in 2011 which brough on the fiscal cliff arrangement of deep cuts in defense and automatic tax increases if no agreement is reached by Jan. 1, 2013. Cote and CEO's behind Fix the Debt have decided to engage with both political parties in the negotiations in 2011-2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure spending plan is being compared to the New Deal infrastructure plans of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930's. FDR was preceded by Republican administrations under Hoover and other presidents who followed policies that can be compared to the Reagan administration policies when public sector spending was not seen to be as efficient as private sector spending. By the time of the economic collapse in the 1930's it had become clear that only the federal government could save the country in the depression. During the pandemic and collapse of the health systems it was clear that only the federal government could save the country. It is now also evident that infrastructure building led by the government can rebuild America. In the 1930's and during other periods in American history such as the building of the Erie Canal and other public sector infrastructure projects in the 19th century it was the federal government that led the way to building America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Wholesale inflation calculated weekly is at 7% in India. And the country's Finance Minister Chidambaram says he is more concerned about inflation than a growth that slows a bit. Experts forecast growth slowing down from 9% to 7% in the next 2 years as the global slowdown affects India. For the US India has been a good export market with sales growing at the rate of 75% a year according to the USA Commerce Department. But a look at the charts shows that China also had periods of a couple of years when growth slowed to 7% in recent years before it gradually went back up to over 10%. And China's growth will also be affected by the global slowdown and fall weel below 10%. And this may be a health y thing for China as it decides what kind of growth it wants to see that is better than the haphazard growth of the last few years with its huge environmental costs and lax regulation and the imbalances in growth between urban and rural as well as wages and benefits without labor law protections to create domestic consumption by a middle class. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial on the sliding scale with lower capital gains taxes for investments held for a longer time frame proposed by Hillary Clinton, says there is no economic theory that shows one or two year investments are worse than longer term investments, and says investors who invest in startups and cash in after a year or two can then invest in other startups increasing investment capital. It points out that new startups are fostered better in an environment where capital gains taxes do not promote holding investments for a longer term. Hillary Clinton is calling for higher capital gains taxes on shorter term investments. The current rate is similiar to the 20% rate under Bill Clinton. George Bush lowered it to 15%, and president Obama increased this to 20% for couples earning more than $484,851 a year, and added a surcharge of 3.8%. Under Reagan it was initally 20% in 1981 and in 1987 as part of tax reform cutting the top income tax rate to 28%, it was 28%. Hillary Clinton's plan is for it to be based on how long investors hold their investment discouraging 1-3 year investment horizons- Year 2- 43.4%, Year 3- 39.8%, Year 4- 35.8%, Year 6- 23.8% or the current rate for the highest income bracket. Investments in infrastructure and long term research projects leading to new technologies and products require a longer horizon encouraging such investments. The Clinton plan appears to be a response to the tech bubble with investments in small tech changes and software improvements that have led to surging investment in startups in social media and other areas which have not yielded the productivity gains needed to support increase in wages- resulting in low productivity and low wage gains in the last decade....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Bernanke Fed's low interest rates are hurting seniors and savers who are earning very little on their savings. This is taking money away from millions of savers and reducing consumption spending by seniors and savers. According to the Labor Department average annual investment income for 24.6 million American households headed by seniors over the age of 65 was $2,564 in 2009. This is down significantly from prior years. A survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that one in three retirees have had to dig deeper into their savings to cover basic necessities in 2010. With inflation at an annualized rate of 5.6% in the first quarter 2011, interest rates of 0.24% on savings accounts do little to cover inflation. There is a sense that this is hurting retirees who have lived prudently and worked hard and on savers of different ages. This actually discourages healthy savings that would protect Americans from job losses and build a safer future. American contributions to bank and 401 (k) accounts is only 4% of disposable income in 2010, according to the Fed. Another danger is that the smaller 401 (k) accounts of the average American family after losses in earlier stock market declines, will again be exposed to the fluctuations and risk in the stock market. This could happen as money is shifted to the stock market in the hope of earning better returns. Seniors are an active voting group, and voting patterns show a shift to Congressional candidates who question Fed policy....

LyrArc Article Gist
GDP per capita levels in the U.S. expected to return to pre recession levels in 2007 by the end of 2013. Gradual recovery in housing and consumer spending expected in 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
Economists at the IMF estimate that the public debt of the leading 10 industrialized countries would reach 114% of GDP by 2014, from 78% today. The governments then owe about $50,000 for each person in the country. Unlike World War II this situation is not temporary, because of the pension and health care costs of a population that is getting older. So what is to be done? Without the stimulus, the deep and prolonged recession would lead to greater damage to the finances of these countries. But continued in this manner the government would crowd out private investment and lead to lower economic growth. In some countries, Greece, Ireland, Italy Portugal and Spain it might lead to default, in other countries the real cost of the debt may be reduced through inflation. In the USA yields on 10 year Treasuries reached about 4% on June 10th, in December it was about 2%, a consequence of the economic recovery. If interest rates are allowed to rise too fast, it might abort the economic recovery. A rise in taxes is also not the answer, because in Europe the taxes are already at 40%, in America they are around 30%. But raising consumption taxes at the time when the economy was fragile, aborted a recovery in Japan during Japan's earlier crisis decade. A caution signal that says fiscal tightening can backfire, especially some years after a banking crisis when things are still in a weak condition. Some steps that can be taken are raising the retirement age, which would cut pension costs as people work longer and would boost tax revenues, and eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage payments in the US. Its important to build credibility that the government and the legislative bodies are serious about controlling the finances and acting with prudence. In America wasteful health care spending is a priority, as this would reduce the burden on public finances considerably , and should be as much of a priority for the new Obama administration, as providing universal health care. With today's finances its not something that can be put off....

LyrArc Article Gist
Oil prices in the U.S. drop to $55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and $65 a barrel for Brent crude price. Earlier expectation of the impact of reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil shrinking global oil supplies have been reversed with increased production from Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S.

Another new development that caused this reversal in sentiment is that the Trump administration granted waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude oil. The U.S. trade dispute with China has also added to this with lower growth forecasts. Unlike in previous years OPEC or Saudi Arabia cannot by itself shrink global supplies with production cuts. The U.S. and Russian output also plays a significant part.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein says the major news stories of today all are about the same theme- of how the US was encouraged to live beyond its means by trading partners who prospered as this went on, with the tacit agreement of financial and political leadership in the US who raised no alarm about this. These stories are: the G-20 meeting in South Korea with the goal of rebalancing the world economy, the President's Deficit Commission Report recommending bold steps in changing the tax and spending policies of the US, the criticism of the Fed's decision on $600 billion of quantitative easing, and the renewed concerns about Ireland where severe cuts in public spending have failed to reverse a downward slide.These trading partners prospered by lending Americans the money to consume more than they produce. It was he says a wonderful arrangement while it lasted, because it helped bring millions out of poverty in Asia, while letting Americans enjoy a transitory period of a higher standard of living. This unsustainable arrangement converted the US from world's biggest creditor nation after World War II to the world's bigggest debtor nation. He credits Geithner for coming up with a more convincing and less confrontational way to correct the imbalances by setting limits on the deficits and surpluses of trading nations. He points out that the Chinese have barely budged on the issue of an undervalued currency, the world be damned. And the German and Chinese criticism rings hollow he says, as both countries are the main beneficiaries of the current system. The normal mechanism of correcting imbalances with a floating rate exchange system is hardly relevant, as it is incompatible with state run economy and strategy of export growth of China. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have presented he says a bold deficit reduction plan that is credible, fair, economically sound. Even though it was received with the usual complacency and lack of awareness both in the media and in Congress. The simple reality after all the awfully complicated details and the painful implications is this: Americans have to consume less and produce more, and trading partners have to consume more and produce less. And this shift cannot be pushed into the future as our trading partners would like....

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt says that there is little reason to think that the flatter rates are better always. With the need to finance Medicare and health care for all, the government can use the extra dollars from taxing the very wealthy, the very rich in different tax brackets. The top bracket in 2008 started at 357,000, and you paid 35% whether you made 400,000, or $4 million, or $40 million. So basically the upper middle class was lumped in with the extremely wealthy. And considering the cost of college tutions for 2 or 3 kids, the upper middle class is only middle class. It makes sense not to lump the two together. Considering that there has been a lot of wealth accumulated at the the very high end, it would also reduce inequality, generate tax revenues for health care, and not have much effect in the incentives for generating economic growth. It is something he says the Obama adminisstration may and should consider.

LyrArc Article Gist
The contrarians not just then, but still today, as many economists shrug off facts about the new savings rate and predict a bounce back in 2009. Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Boston money mangement shop GMO LLC, got the date right, predicting real risk to the financial system in October 2008. He pointed out for years since 2000 that the Fed's moves and the government's fiscal actions (including 2 costly wars) after the 2001 terrorist attacks, had simply postponed "a sensational bust". Its useful to see how these three, Peter Schiff, President of EuroPacific Capital, Bob Rodriguez of the FPA New Income Fund, and Jeremy Grantham agree and where even they disagree, and where the common thread of logic runs. Currency valuations including the US dollar, are the hardest to predict, and the predictions in this regard are also hardest to state for their timing. When separated from the rest of the picture, they give a better sense of what this common thread of logic in most of the crisis picture is. Grantham saw this crisis coming, but its not clear that he sees this running for a long period of a decade. He agrees with Rodriguez and Schiff about another 30% fall in the S&P 500 stock index, but at the same time he predicts over the next 7 years returns in the US stock markets will be 7.5% annually. Rodriguez sees this going on far beyond periods 1 and 2 to periods 3 to 10. And he sees government efforts to jump start the economy leading to some progress and then sputtering out because consumers are turning frugal. The savings rate will grow eventually going up to 10% by 2010. What this means is that as 70% of the US economy depends on consumption spending, and consumption spending has been too deeply damaged to recover in a few years, the downturn will only deepen in 2009 and 2010. This is his central point, and the analysis free of clutter and controversy. Basically he says the policy makers do not fully grasp that the US consumer has turned into a saver, and while the Obama administration puts one foot on the accelerator to stimulate spending, consumers will be pushing on the brakes. Schiff sees difficulties in financing the debt leading to higher interest rates and a serious drop in the value of the dollar. The views on the dollar face a lot of uncertainty as to timing, the relative strength of currencies in countries in Europe which have weak economies (UK, Ireland and Spain), and the rapidly weakening Chinese economy. But the common thread of logic runs through Rodriguez's argument about the savings rate and consumption spending, with debt and the overstretched consumer in the US running through every discussion about a weakening economy. Something much like what is happening to the auto industry because of its extraordinary degree of oversupply (with capacity reaching 94 million vehicles worldwide and demand inflated by the boom years and easy money now deflating) playing out in a few quarters, is likely to happen across the whole economy. In a gradual pattern playing out over a few years, as consumers postpone purchases of retail goods. Already this is showing up in the inventories of electronic goods that is building up. See links. Kelly Evans in the WSJ front page on January 6, 2009, confirms the signs of a seriously frugal American consumer....

LyrArc Article Gist
Rising wages and rising production costs for Chinese exports of low tech products like shoes, clothing, toys, clothing, furniture, means a lot of these factories will shut down and move to lower wage countries like Vietnam and India or elsewhere. Elimination of rebates on more than 2000 export items raises cost of manufacturing 14-17% according to Guangzhou based American Chamber of Commerce in South China. And the the tough new labor law enforcing worker rights would increase manufacturing costs by 40% according to the Textile Council of Hong Kong. Additional costs would be incurred to meet tougher environmental controls and anti pollution laws and stricter enforcement. As a result of this Adidas wants its suppliers like Taiwan based Apache Footwear with 18000 employees in Guangdong to move as fast as they can to India where it opened a second factory. This process will unfold over several years till India and Vietnam bercome the new sources of cheaper goods because of the large supply of manufacturing labor for lower value added products, as it will take years to build the logistics and infrastructure for these plants in these countries. But because wages will also rise in India and the laws in India are more likely to be enforced than they were in the atmosphere in China where the Communist led government may have turned a blind eye to enforcement and worker rights in the interests of growth, the export of deflation to the west in the way of cheap Chinese products may be a thing of the past. China is doing this as a planned move it appears. Why? On the surface it makes sense that the heavily polluting factories making lower value added products like shoes, clothing, toys, furniture, would not receive rebates from te state and to improve living conditions and promote consumption at home the government woud pass tough new laws to ensure employee benefits and collective bargaining rights, and employee job security. It also reduces trde tensions at a time when the US economy will be in poor shape and jobs lost become a political issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. But there may bigger pressing concern and urgency in these moves after so many years of this being discussed and this may be that China finally may be at a moment when it is confronted with a sober fact that the US consumer is heavily in debt and may not support China's export growth model much longer and with it China faces a really significant slowdown in its growth rate from 11% to maybe half that if China does not develop its own domestic markets for growth. The old foreign investment model may not work anymore. See the link to Ireland where growth is falling off quickly. Higher wages and longer term jobs with benefits would enable a large middle class to develop from this huge manufacturing worker base especially as China moves to more value added products where even higher wages would be paid. This in turn creates a domestic market over time that would insulate China to some extent from the winds that would be blowing from a US economy suffering from a deep recession that may last several years. This may be evident in the words of the Governor of Guangdong when he says that the government is not abandoning the exporters but that selling domestically is good for the country and good for the people. Something deeper is at work here and one would expect an about turn in policy where instead of workers not receiving back wages and lax enforcement that went on freely in the last decade we would see an effort to build the kind of middle class that would provide the market for Chinese goods that would sustain growth at a more modest but sustainable pace. Which means in the short term all those workers at factories that make toys, shoes, clothing and furniture in provinces like Guangdong would be jobless. Some of these factories may move to provinces in the interior like Sichuan and Hunan provinces which may pickup employment. A report by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai written by Booz Allen says that a fifth of the companies surveyed are considering relocating outside China, and that over half of foreign manufacturers surveyed think that mainland China is losing its competitive advantage to places like Vietnam and India....