Lots of action going on in the government at the moment. Lots of projects, lots of experiments. I'm not educated enough on the items at hand to really have a serious opinion about the details of these plans, so I won't jump at a guess.
Doing nothing will likely result in the markets correcting themselves, likely at a great cost to many who had nothing to do with this situation. Possibly, if things were actually as bad as some thought 6 months ago, at the cost of the modern economy itself. Some form of Keynesian government spending seems to be a good idea - investment which will pay for itself down the line is 100% a good idea.
However, many people, Germany in particular, are very concerned about hyper inflation from the Fed printing money to pay for this work; and given Germany's experience between the world wars, they have every right to be concerned. They know the dangers of trying to simply print your way out of debt.
The US Dollar may be entrenched enough to survive a massive increase in available notes through sheer inertia, but if too much money is printed, the US dollar can plummet in value just like any other currency.
So, while I still support demand-side stimulus, I am going to be patient to see how this all plays out. Hopefully, there will be caution along with the action.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama Begins the Process of Fixing Gov't Accounting
At the cost of looking like he is increasing the deficit by an additional $70 million dollars, President Obama has banned certain accounting tricks, started by the Carter Administration but brought to an art form during the last Bush presidency. In particular, the AMT is going to see an overhaul, bringing its account in line with its reality.
This is a great step forward in fixing our overall economic crisis: properly recognizing our debts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
This is a great step forward in fixing our overall economic crisis: properly recognizing our debts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Congressional Budget Office sees Overall Growth due to Stimulus
From the Feb 11 Congressional Budget Office, an independent group the oversees gov't actions and proposals:
"Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the
legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of
between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1). Beyond 2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent....
Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3
million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run. The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will be less productive because the capital stock is smaller."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9987/Gregg_Year-by-Year_Stimulus.pdf
The last sentence of each paragraph is critical, and is what is being taken out of context all over the place. In both cases, the CBO is saying that in the long-term, the effects of the stimulus will taper off to eventually be effectively unnoticeable; that in the long-run, the economy will recover from this downturn on its own.
Assuming that we are not actually facing the leading edge of a complete failure of western society right now, that should be a given.
The GDP numbers do suggest that in the mid-term, we may actually see a 0.0 to 0.2 percent decrease in annual GDP (which, according to other sources, would even out by 2019), but they are *not* saying that the stimulus will "cause a reduction in our economy" as a whole, despite what some senators and journalists are currently claiming.
In the end, the report suggests that in exchange for a combined 2.9 - 8.4% GDP increase over the baseline forecast for the next 3 years along with increased employment in the millions, we may see a <1% decrease in total GDP spread over the years between 2014 and 2019.
"Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the
legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of
between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1). Beyond 2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent....
Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3
million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run. The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will be less productive because the capital stock is smaller."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9987/Gregg_Year-by-Year_Stimulus.pdf
The last sentence of each paragraph is critical, and is what is being taken out of context all over the place. In both cases, the CBO is saying that in the long-term, the effects of the stimulus will taper off to eventually be effectively unnoticeable; that in the long-run, the economy will recover from this downturn on its own.
Assuming that we are not actually facing the leading edge of a complete failure of western society right now, that should be a given.
The GDP numbers do suggest that in the mid-term, we may actually see a 0.0 to 0.2 percent decrease in annual GDP (which, according to other sources, would even out by 2019), but they are *not* saying that the stimulus will "cause a reduction in our economy" as a whole, despite what some senators and journalists are currently claiming.
In the end, the report suggests that in exchange for a combined 2.9 - 8.4% GDP increase over the baseline forecast for the next 3 years along with increased employment in the millions, we may see a <1% decrease in total GDP spread over the years between 2014 and 2019.
Attendence to Religious Service, not deviotion to faith, predicts suicide bombing
Adding more evidence to the idea that regular organized religious attendance - at a church, synagogue, mosque or temple - is as much about social unity than anything else, a three-pronged study shows a strong correlation between suicide bombing and attendance to religious services; no correlation found between suicide bombing and religious devotion, as measured by daily (personal) prayer.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/attendance_at_religious_services_but_not_religious_devotion.php
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/attendance_at_religious_services_but_not_religious_devotion.php
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Mother of all Bailouts?
Start with this post sent to me via the Populist America newsletter:
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_mother_of_all_bailouts
My response to the author can be found in the comments; I've reproduced it here. His questions are in bold, my responses are in normal font.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, if not having enough dollars is the problem, why not have the government give each person a million bucks? Would that fix everything?
No, because by simply increasing the number of dollars, you decrease the inherent value of each individual dollar. The dollar is not wealth, it is a tool for moving wealth. *Work* creates new wealth.
If increasing spending fixes an economy, how about if we all stand in a long line, and everyone hand $20 to the person next to them? How about $1,000? Would that fix everything? (Or, if gifts aren’t good enough, everyone could buy his neighbor’s shoes for $1,000. Wouldn’t all that “spending” save the day?)
This is a misleading question. The economy *is* spending, by definition; but more importantly, it is spending on new effort that creates. By simply trading money for no work, we gain nothing – again, the dollar is a tool for trading, not wealth itself. If we all give each other $20, we waste everyone’s time. If we all make *new* shoes, and *then* pass around $20 in exchange for them, we have an economy.
If it helps the economy to redistribute wealth, how about if the government takes away all existing wealth and divides it up equally, 300,000,000 ways? Would that fix everything?
Also a misleading question. Redistributing wealth is not inherently beneficial to a society, especially when that redistribution is not in line with individual effort. However, reducing the overall income gap *is* beneficial to society. The more top-heavy a society gets, with the upper-upper class holding more and more of the money, the more unstable it gets.
A healthy middle class is a healthy and stable nation, a large economy, and an improved quality of life for the nation as a whole. A weak or non-existent middle class results in a smaller economy, a lowered quality of life for the nation as a whole, and subsequently results in an unstable nation.
Effectively, what it comes down to is this: Money in circulation for trade of goods and services is a stabilizing force for society. Money held out of circulation is a destabilizing force, as is is not doing any work other than to foment jealousy.
If the problem is lack of jobs, how about if the government gives a job to anyone who wants one, paying them $50 an hour to carry empty boxes around in circles? Would that fix everything?
Again, this is misleading; suggesting that the only solutions being put forward are communist. Money is not wealth. If we want to pay people to do work, there is lots of *actual* work that needs to be done. There is no reason to start paying for box-carrying when we have infrastructure, medicine, farming, research, etc that needs doing.
If a lack of credit is the problem, how about if the government gives everyone a new, federal credit card with a $1,000,000 line of credit? Would that fix everything?
No. We have too much debt in general; and we’re going to have a rough time over the next few months as we reduce the debt in circulation to come closer to a safe ratio to the actual money in existence. I’m not much of a fan of 1:11 lending; 1:33 lending was insane, and we’re paying the price for it.
If “corporate greed” is the problem, how about if government outlaws making profits, forcing companies to sell things at prices that would just make them break even? Would that fix everything?
This is a specious argument; there is a vast gap between “lax regulation” and “outlaw all business”. Smart regulation is a necessary part of any market; or do you think that monopoly laws should be eliminated? What about workplace safety regulations? Food quality control?
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_mother_of_all_bailouts
My response to the author can be found in the comments; I've reproduced it here. His questions are in bold, my responses are in normal font.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, if not having enough dollars is the problem, why not have the government give each person a million bucks? Would that fix everything?
No, because by simply increasing the number of dollars, you decrease the inherent value of each individual dollar. The dollar is not wealth, it is a tool for moving wealth. *Work* creates new wealth.
If increasing spending fixes an economy, how about if we all stand in a long line, and everyone hand $20 to the person next to them? How about $1,000? Would that fix everything? (Or, if gifts aren’t good enough, everyone could buy his neighbor’s shoes for $1,000. Wouldn’t all that “spending” save the day?)
This is a misleading question. The economy *is* spending, by definition; but more importantly, it is spending on new effort that creates. By simply trading money for no work, we gain nothing – again, the dollar is a tool for trading, not wealth itself. If we all give each other $20, we waste everyone’s time. If we all make *new* shoes, and *then* pass around $20 in exchange for them, we have an economy.
If it helps the economy to redistribute wealth, how about if the government takes away all existing wealth and divides it up equally, 300,000,000 ways? Would that fix everything?
Also a misleading question. Redistributing wealth is not inherently beneficial to a society, especially when that redistribution is not in line with individual effort. However, reducing the overall income gap *is* beneficial to society. The more top-heavy a society gets, with the upper-upper class holding more and more of the money, the more unstable it gets.
A healthy middle class is a healthy and stable nation, a large economy, and an improved quality of life for the nation as a whole. A weak or non-existent middle class results in a smaller economy, a lowered quality of life for the nation as a whole, and subsequently results in an unstable nation.
Effectively, what it comes down to is this: Money in circulation for trade of goods and services is a stabilizing force for society. Money held out of circulation is a destabilizing force, as is is not doing any work other than to foment jealousy.
If the problem is lack of jobs, how about if the government gives a job to anyone who wants one, paying them $50 an hour to carry empty boxes around in circles? Would that fix everything?
Again, this is misleading; suggesting that the only solutions being put forward are communist. Money is not wealth. If we want to pay people to do work, there is lots of *actual* work that needs to be done. There is no reason to start paying for box-carrying when we have infrastructure, medicine, farming, research, etc that needs doing.
If a lack of credit is the problem, how about if the government gives everyone a new, federal credit card with a $1,000,000 line of credit? Would that fix everything?
No. We have too much debt in general; and we’re going to have a rough time over the next few months as we reduce the debt in circulation to come closer to a safe ratio to the actual money in existence. I’m not much of a fan of 1:11 lending; 1:33 lending was insane, and we’re paying the price for it.
If “corporate greed” is the problem, how about if government outlaws making profits, forcing companies to sell things at prices that would just make them break even? Would that fix everything?
This is a specious argument; there is a vast gap between “lax regulation” and “outlaw all business”. Smart regulation is a necessary part of any market; or do you think that monopoly laws should be eliminated? What about workplace safety regulations? Food quality control?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
CRA not the cause of Subprime meltdown.
"As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt."
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641
The CRA, Community Reorganization Act, helped create the less-so but still-profitable subprime lending market to minorities in 1977. It remained stable for nearly 20 years. In 1995, Clinton altered the act to allow for slightly riskier loans – Bear Sterns (note, not covered by CRA regulations anyway) lead the way in using this law change to aggressively enter this market. From 1997 to 2002, the subprime rate rose to and stabilized at about 10% of the overall market. In 2000 Phil Gramm, one of the John McCain’s chief economic advisers wrote the Securities Modernization Act, which introduced Default Credit Swaps – insurance on loans that wasn’t called insurance so that it wouldn’t be regulated, and responsible for trillions of dollars of the current problem. In 2002, Clinton’s changes were up for review, but Bush did not review them. From what I can find, he didn’t act on the review period at all.
In 2003, Bush noted that Fannie and Freddie’s subprime loans were getting to be too large of their overall holdings, and tried to get oversight of the two entities moved from congress to the Treasury Department. This action failed, no doubt because handing over more power to the Executive branch in 2003 was not likely to happen. This action did not do anything about the public mortgage marketplace, just the FM’s.
In 2005 the Bush administration, via the Office of Comptroller of Currency enforced for the first time, a 1860’s law which allows federal oversight of banks to supersede state-level regulation. All 50 state AG’s and all 50 state Banking Commissioners objected to this action, which prevented state-level regulations from being enforced. Also, the CRA was amended to only apply as it had previously to banks with assets >$1B, instead of all banks with assets greater than $250M as it had previously, and allowed mortgage banks to leverage themselves beyond the 10% threshold that had previously been in place (Lehman Bros was at 33/1 when it fell over). At this point, subprime lending increased from ~10% of the mortgage market to ~25% as of the beginning of this year.
More than half of subprime mortgages were made by institutions either not covered by the CRA (independent mortgage brokers) or only partially covered (bank subsidiaries), and 40% of all home purchases in 2006 were not primary residences – a record number.
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641
The CRA, Community Reorganization Act, helped create the less-so but still-profitable subprime lending market to minorities in 1977. It remained stable for nearly 20 years. In 1995, Clinton altered the act to allow for slightly riskier loans – Bear Sterns (note, not covered by CRA regulations anyway) lead the way in using this law change to aggressively enter this market. From 1997 to 2002, the subprime rate rose to and stabilized at about 10% of the overall market. In 2000 Phil Gramm, one of the John McCain’s chief economic advisers wrote the Securities Modernization Act, which introduced Default Credit Swaps – insurance on loans that wasn’t called insurance so that it wouldn’t be regulated, and responsible for trillions of dollars of the current problem. In 2002, Clinton’s changes were up for review, but Bush did not review them. From what I can find, he didn’t act on the review period at all.
In 2003, Bush noted that Fannie and Freddie’s subprime loans were getting to be too large of their overall holdings, and tried to get oversight of the two entities moved from congress to the Treasury Department. This action failed, no doubt because handing over more power to the Executive branch in 2003 was not likely to happen. This action did not do anything about the public mortgage marketplace, just the FM’s.
In 2005 the Bush administration, via the Office of Comptroller of Currency enforced for the first time, a 1860’s law which allows federal oversight of banks to supersede state-level regulation. All 50 state AG’s and all 50 state Banking Commissioners objected to this action, which prevented state-level regulations from being enforced. Also, the CRA was amended to only apply as it had previously to banks with assets >$1B, instead of all banks with assets greater than $250M as it had previously, and allowed mortgage banks to leverage themselves beyond the 10% threshold that had previously been in place (Lehman Bros was at 33/1 when it fell over). At this point, subprime lending increased from ~10% of the mortgage market to ~25% as of the beginning of this year.
More than half of subprime mortgages were made by institutions either not covered by the CRA (independent mortgage brokers) or only partially covered (bank subsidiaries), and 40% of all home purchases in 2006 were not primary residences – a record number.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Large Majority of Economists Support Obama's Economic Plan
In a follow-up to the previous post, The Economist reports significant favor for Obama's plan among respondents to a poll of economists nationwide.
This graph says it all:
From The Economist:
"Examining America's Presidential Candidates
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
This graph says it all:
From The Economist:
"Examining America's Presidential Candidates
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)