LyrArc Article Gist
The title says it all. The Jobs bank the United Autoworkers trade union in the US setup in GM in 1984 threatened American automaker GM's very survival in 2006. It put workers who were not needed at GM in a jobs bank. It basically meant the idled workers -many of them close to retirement -would stay there till they retired doing nothing collecting full salary. As Mohandas Gandhi had done for India in Hind Swaraj in 1910, the American labor movement needs to look at itself in the mirror if labor is to find its way into a world of dignity and fairness in wages that Mr.Biden truly seeks for American workers.   It was setup when GM had 45% of the US market and 415,000 workers. By 2006 113,000 workers were not needed with GM having lost marketshare to Japanese makers and the Jobs bank was costing GM about $10 million a week, half a billion a year threatening its survival. The Labor movement and the UAW union did nothing to fight its own membership and set it on the right course in union with management, putting at risk the very foundation that labor had put in place since Wilson, FDR and Truman for  fairness in wages and working conditions. Jeremy Peters tells the story in the NYT. That it was recent as 2006 and shows how much had gone wrong with the labor movement and the failure of its leaders to do the right thing. The Jobs Bank says NYT was intended to prevent manufacturers from shifting manufacturing overseas, instead it did just that by undermining confidence in unions and the American labor movement, and in American workers. Two crippling wars initiated by Republicans Bush and continued by Democrat Obama, disinvestment in American manufacturing, companies like Apple shifting their entire manufacturing through outshoring to Taiwan and China, the 2009 crisis from deregulation of American banks, led to the loss of not one, but two decades for America. In today's news a modest $2 in minimum wage increase from $15 to $17 over 3 years is all that New York governor Kathy Hochul could get- even though Assembly Democrats were asking for more- to give American workers and families a fair wage to meet the cost of living crisis.  ...

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
Anat Admati, is a professor of finance and economics at Stanford University School of Business. He says banks should depend on generating 30% of their assets from equity, something the banking industry of today in the U.S. and Europe considers heretical. More of the bank's assets should come from equity and much less from borrowed funds. Outside of banking healthy corporations in the U.S. carry debt at about 70% of assets and there is no reason banks should not do the same. In 2013 says Admati, the situation is not much different from that after the 2008 global financial crisis- large banks carry liabilities and debt at over 90% of their assets. The $2.2 trillion in debt at JP Morgan Chase bank is about 91% of assets of $2.4 trillion. Basel III regulations allow banks to borrow upto 95% of assets, and proposed banking regulations in the U.S. put this at 95%, with the way this is measured still being debated. At such high levels of debt the margin of error is small, and systemic risk which is high in a globally interconnected banking system means the whole banking system can freeze from one large bank going into failure such as Lehman Brothers. This happened in 2008 and the margin of error is still small, which is why global banking is such a high wire act with the U.S. Federal Reserve, the ECB and other central banks issuing regular warnings and regulators faced with the task of keeping the banking system in check through vigilance and investigations of banks violating laws. How much difference has Dodd-Frank legislation in the U.S. made after 2008? Jason from Atlanta says in response to Admati's article, that the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was 37 pages and the banking system did not freeze up in the way it did in 2008 for the rest of the twentieth century until its repeal. The 879 page Dodd-Frank legislation of 2011 is overly voluminous and still leaves 243 rules to be written by regulators in consultation with the financial industry. Banks are larger now than they were in 2008 and have an outsized influence in shaping the rules, leaving the U.S. Federal Reserve's supervisory committee and Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo with the job of somehow keeping banks out of trouble. JP Morgan Chase, Admati reminds readers, has $2.4 trillion in assets as of June 30, 2013, and debts of $2.2 trillion, with $1.2 trillon in deposits and $ 1 trillion in other debt owed to money market funds, other banks, bondholders and the like. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, was appointed chief economist at the IMF in 2003. He presented a paper, titled "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier," at the annual Jackson Hole meeting of economists and central bankers for 2005. Rajan says he had planned to write about how financial developments during Greenspan's 18 year old tenure had made things safer, but the more he looked the more evidence came up that the risk reward relationships in a normal functioning financial market had been terribly distorted. Market participants were being rewarded for wins but were not being asked to take on commensurate risks and impacts on their bonuses and rewards. He also cautioned about the use of credit default swaps which acted as insurance against bond defaults, and said insurers were generating big returns on this but with the appearance of little risk- even though the pain could be immense in a default. Banks were carrying credit securties on their books that posed risks to the whole financial system if things went wrong with the credit securities. Reaction from the gathering was unfavorable. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury Secretary said, "the basic, slightly lead eyed premise of the paper was misguided."...