The Titanic sails at dawn - politics, economics & culture
The most pronounced development in banking today is that executives have become bolder as their business has gotten worse.
The economy is clearly weaker than expected, and housing prices are falling throughout the land, eroding bank asset values. Yet regulators are on their heels in Washington as bankers and their lobbyists push back against the postcrisis regulations, even publicly condemning the new rules.
In a well-covered exchange, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, challenged Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, about the costs and benefits of the Dodd-Frank rules. More attention has been paid to the banker’s audacity, but the response of the world’s most powerful banking regulator was more troubling. Mr. Bernanke scraped and bowed in apology without mentioning the staggering costs of the crisis the banks led us into.
So this is a good occasion to step way back to understand just how good the banks have it today.
The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today. And that makes Mr. Dimon no capitalist colossus astride the Isle of Manhattan, but one of the great welfare queens in America.
In the ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling, one option has not had much prominence: whether the Obama administration could ignore it altogether, and just spend the money it owes anyway. Would that be legal?
Matthew Zeitlin at The New Republic spoke with a few political scientists, budget wonks and constitutional scholars who argue that it would be. An excerpt:
At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn't a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It's a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.
Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate "suites." A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.
A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as "shell" companies, paper entities able to hide assets.
Debt Limit Stakes
So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions: Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about
a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.And Republicans walked out.
Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.
What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency.
Does underscoring the sense of urgency simply give strength to dark forces who are trying to leverage the threat of default for their political gains? Perhaps so, but the other way lies madness.
We’ve got to talk truth about the stakes here because they’re so high...
(W)hy do interest rates remain low? Why are investors in ten-year US treasury bonds accepting 2.93% interest today instead of insisting on a big rate premium the way bond investors in, oh, I don’t know…GREECE are??
Because they assume we’ll get our act together and raise the debt ceiling well in advance of Aug 2. That’s the date when the Treasury will have exhausted their ability to move money around to cover their obligations while staying under the debt limit.
But what if that assumption should weaken?
It’s important, yes, and must be addressed. But by a wide margin, it’s not the nation’s most pressing economic problem. That would be the widespread and persistent joblessness that has plagued the labor market since the Great Recession began in 2008.
Almost 14 million people — 9.1 percent of the labor force — were officially counted as unemployed last month. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There were almost 9 million part-time workers who wanted, but couldn’t find, full-time jobs; 28 million in jobs they would have quit under normal conditions; and an additional 2.2 million who wanted work but couldn’t find any and dropped out of the labor force.
If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire.
(Republicans) are willing to risk the good faith and credit of the federal government, rather than accept so much as a single penny of tax increases as part of a deal.
Given all that, it seems almost redundant to mention that federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are near a historic low:
Federal receipts as % of GDP(T)he GOP never cared about the deficit — not a bit. It has always been nothing but a club with which to beat down opposition to an ideological goal, namely the dissolution of the welfare state. They’re not interested, at all, in a genuine deficit-reduction deal if it does not serve that goal.
Deficits can impede economic growth. No borrower is safer than the government. So when the government wants to borrow a lot of money and investors start charging it a high interest rate, the borrowing costs for everyone else go up. This “crowds out” lots of potentially useful economic activity. A business expansion that’s profitable at a 5 percent interest rate may be far too risky to invest in at a 7 percent interest rate. But as you can see here on the right, the interests rates being charged by the market to lend money to the US government are low and falling...So why is there a "deficit panic" when the impact of deficits on federal borrowing vs. availability of low-interest investment capital is nil? And how does cutting the deficit - especially with an emphasis on cutting spending to balance the budget - produce economic growth and jobs ? Of course it doesn't.
Note that 10-year interest rates were never below 3 percent at any point during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or W. Bush administrations. So why is this on the agenda now?
"(Attacking deficits and cutting spending) wouldn't square with the way we normally think about economic activity in a depressed economy," (according to) Andrew Samwick, a former chief economist on President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers... When the economy suffers from a lack of demand, as it does now, Samwick explained, most economists think increasing spending is the more effective way to generate that demand and get things moving again.
"BoehnerCare"
Why has the opposite view begun to take hold?
If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which (the Congressional Budget Office) calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable.
If Congress passes laws extending the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out of control:
"The Myth of Job-Killing Spending" ... House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." ... Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.
Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "kill jobs"? ...
 |
| Woody Guthrie: "Some men rob you with a fountain pen..." |
 |
| Brooks, who has read a lot of books. |
With all the talk of a possible double-dip recession in the U.S. economy—here’s my own little contribution—it’s surprising (and somewhat scandalous) that more attention isn’t being paid to what is happening in Britain, where a second economic downturn began last fall and shows few signs of relenting.
About a year ago, with the British economy seemingly recovering fairly well from the financial crisis of 2008, David Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal coalition embarked on a vigorous policy of deficit reduction, raising taxes and cutting government spending in an effort to balance the budget by 2015. How this experiment in pre-Keynesian economic policy turns out obviously has important implications for the fiscal debate on this side of the Atlantic.
So far, the results aren’t looking very favorable.
 |
| A long primary season begins in ToonTown. |
 |
| Please don't "compromise" on a machete... |
We’re in a vicious cycle in which lower wages and net job losses and high debt are causing consumers to cut their spending — which is causing businesses to cut back on hiring and reduce pay. There’s no way out of this morass without bold leadership from Washington to rekindle consumer demand.
If the Democrats remain silent, the vacuum will be filled by the Republican snake oil of federal spending cuts and cut taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. Democrats — starting with the President — must have the courage and conviction to tell the nation the recovery is stalling, and what must be done.
 |
| Econ-advisor-in-chief in 2009 -"Sssshhhh!" |
Republicans have no interest in moving the nation’s debate toward investments in job creation because they gain twice over from keeping Washington mired in discussions on the deficit. It’s a brute fact that Republicans benefit if the economy stays sluggish. And despite their role in ballooning the deficit during the Bush years, they will always outbid Democrats on spending cuts.
So is there any way out for those looking to Washington? The recent disappointing jobs numbers have at least had the salutary effect of reminding Democrats that they cannot agree to anything that further slows the recovery. “The first principle has to be ‘do no harm,’ ” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a key House Democratic negotiator in the deficit talks. “There is a danger of making things worse if you adopt very deep cuts in the short term.”...
But there is another player in all this. The broad feeling among congressional Democrats — a sentiment that moves toward impatience when it’s expressed off the record — is that President Obama needs to engineer a turn in the national conversation. Brown, for example, strongly defends Obama’s auto rescue and is happy the president is talking more about manufacturing lately. Yet he adds: “The president has got to get this discussion more on jobs and less on the budget.”
Ezra Klein at WaPo's "Wonkbook," on controlling health care costs:
(T)he reality is that Democrats have a plan and Ryan doesn’t. But the perception, at this point, is just the opposite.
At the heart of Ryan’s budget are policies tying the federal government’s contribution to Medicare and Medicaid to the rate of inflation — which is far, far slower than costs in the health-care sector typically grow. He achieves those caps through cost shifting. For Medicaid, the states have to figure out how to save the money, and for Medicare, seniors will now be purchasing their own insurance plans and, in their new role as consumers, have to figure out how to save the money. It won’t work, and because it won’t work, Ryan’s savings will not materialize.
Medicare actually does a better job of controlling costs than private insurers — not remotely good enough, but better.
If you look at Medicare in isolation, the cost rise looks terrible, because it is:
Source.
But it looks a bit different if you look at private insurance, too:
If Medicare costs had risen as fast as private insurance premiums, it would cost around 40 percent more than it does. If private insurers had done as well as Medicare at controlling costs, insurance would be a lot cheaper.
It’s a mystery why anyone claims that shifting more people into private insurance is a good idea. Actually, no, it isn’t a mystery; it’s an outrage.The most significant fact about Medicare is not that it's too costly, but that it saves Americans a lot of money.
Sometimes, it can be fun to get inside a crazy worldview to ask how it deals with contradictory evidence. For example, how do creationists reconcile their view that all plants and animals were created in their current form around 10,000 years ago, with fossil evidence of life forms dating back hundreds of millions of years?
In this vein, it's worth asking how the proponents of deficit reduction think that lower deficits will lead to increased growth and job creation in an economy mired in a severe slump? There is not an easy answer.
There is a standard "econ 101" story about how reducing deficits can boost the economy. The theory goes that if the government reduces its deficit, and therefore borrows less, it will reduce interest rates. Lower interest rates will, in turn, give firms incentive to invest more.
Lower interest rates should also cause the dollar to decline, since it will make US government bonds and other dollar assets less attractive to foreign investors. If the dollar falls in value, then our goods will be more competitive on world markets. This will cause us to import less and export more, thereby creating jobs.
However, is this what the deficit hawks believe will happen now? The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is already down to 3.0%. Assuming a 2% inflation rate, this translates into a real rate of about 1%. How much lower do the deficit hawks think interest rates will fall if we were to sharply cut the deficit? Furthermore, how much more investment do they think we can induce even if we got a large reduction (for example, 0.5 percentage point) in real interest rates?
Do they think that this sort of decline in interest rates will send the dollar tumbling and thereby improve our trade balance? Against which currencies will a lower interest rate cause the dollar to fall sharply?
Neither of these stories really passes the laugh test. At best, we may hope to see modestly lower interest rates if cutting the budget deficit slows growth further. But there is no reason to expect any future decline to have any more impact than the recent decline in the 10-year Treasury rate from 3.6% in the winter to near 3.0% present this month.
There is another story that the deficit hawks occasionally push. This one says that if we lay off workers in the public sector, that will increase employment in the private sector. The story here is, presumably, that mass layoffs of public sector workers will depress the wages of workers further, thereby making it more profitable for employers to hire them. There's a simple problem in this picture. In order for wages to actually fall, the additional employment in the private sector must not be as large as the job loss in the public sector.
THE origins of the current economic crisis can be traced to a particular kind of social epidemic: a speculative bubble that generated pervasive optimism and complacency. That epidemic has run its course. But we are now living with the malaise it caused.
News accounts of the economic crisis rarely put it in these terms. They tend to focus on distinct short-term developments or on the roles of prominent people like Federal Reserve governors, members of Congress or Wall Street financiers. These stories grab attention and may be supported by some of the economic statistics that the government and private institutions collect.
But the economic situation is primarily driven by hard-to-quantify sociological factors that play out over many years.
The uptick in the unemployment rate, to 9.1 percent from 8.8 percent two months earlier and the drop in stock prices over the last month have attracted notice, yet in a sense they are symptoms of a deeper economic sickness.
So we're getting a version of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" mantra on steroids. Paul Krugman, NYT's columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist at Princeton, looks at Pawlenty's "plan" and the promise - 5% economic growth driven by massive reductions in taxes:Pawlenty’s $11.6 trillion tax-cut plan, which reduces rates on income, capital gains, interest, estates and dividends, is almost three times larger than the proposals endorsed by House Republicans...Almost half of the benefits would flow to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income distribution, or those earning more than $593,011 in 2013...
Pawlenty...said 5 percent annual average economic growth would help make up the revenue gap... (S)uch growth would be driven by the tax plan as well as by spending cuts, regulatory overhaul and monetary policy changes that Pawlenty is proposing.
Tim Pawlenty — who has turned out to be a much bigger fool than I or, I think, anyone imagined — replies to criticism of his claim that he can get 10 years of GDP growth at 5 percent:
Obama’s economic team doesn’t have a plan, so their spokespeople attack ours. The idea that they don’t believe in the American people enough to say that we can grow the economy at 5% GDP really says everything. You have to wonder if in fact Obama’s grand plan is that we don’t grow at all — and if so — he and the central planners are doing a great job of that.Well, here are 10-year growth rates starting with 1929-39:
Bureau of Economic Analysis Data here.Except for the big jump from the depths of the Great Depression to the height of World War II, we have never had a decade of growth at 5%.
At least we can thank Pawlenty for erasing any doubts that he's one of the biggest fools out there - even by GOP presidential aspirant standards (or lack of them.)What’s also notable in this figure is the invisibility of all the supposed economic miracles we hear about. Saint Reagan was supposed to have revitalized the economy; can’t see it here. All you can really see is that the 60s were very good, and the recent slump has been very, very bad.
One way of thinking of health-care reform is, as David Brooks put it in his Tuesday column, that it presents “a basic philosophical choice.” I disagree. I think it’s a policy question.
Various models present us with substantial evidence of the benefits and drawbacks to the different choices we can make. Unfortunately, those models don’t present us with substantial evidence as to the benefits of the choices we would like to make. And that’s when we get philosophical.Brooks gets "philosophical" in discussing health care reform because the empirical evidence doesn't back up his private market biases. That's largely where the GOP is coming from these days. Ideology and wishful thinking trumps reality-based problem solving.
Tea Party true believers may be salivating at the prospect of the coming Battle of the Debt Ceiling, but the GOP’s leaders are dreading it. Shutting down the government is a button they dare not press – not if they retain the least grip on reality. They did it once before, during the Clinton administration, and were slammed: the shutdown rescued the Clinton presidency. To do it in 2011, with the economy laid low and financial markets still twitchy, would be the limit of irresponsibility. It would be betting the recovery to make a point. This time, political annihilation might follow, and the party would deserve it.
The basic flaw is that Ryan and his video pretend that the R’s Medicare plan gives consumers the power to negotiate directly with health care providers, who can thus use their voucher-driven bargaining clout to hold down prices. But, in fact, that’s not how his plan works at all. Under his plan, seniors get to negotiate with insurance companies, not service providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.).
(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.
Mission Accomplished -June 7, 2001
That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.
"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.
Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.
Republicans point out that Medicare has tried to control costs centrally for decades with terrible results. They argue that a decentralized process of trial and error will work better, as long as the underlying incentives are right. They suggest replacing the fee-for-service with a premium support system. Seniors would select from a menu of insurance plans. Their consumer choices would drive a continual, bottom-up process of innovation. Providers could use local knowledge to meet specific circumstances.
(W)e’re not having a balanced argument over the deficit. We’re having an asymmetric argument over deficit reduction. Republicans see the deficit as an opportunity to push for dramatic and permanent changes to the state — including some that would technically increase the deficit...
As for the Obama administration, they’re proposing a much more modest package that doesn’t use the deficit to push for long-term priorities, and in fact looks like a slightly more conservative version of the Simpson-Bowles report. It’s fallen to liberal think tanks to promote plans that see the deficit as an opportunity to push for major progressive policy changes. But without the support of the White House, those plans aren’t going to get very far...
In the end, Ryan’s plan has made a deal a lot harder than it would’ve been if the two parties had decided to do negotiations first and come out with a final plan together. But from the perspective of Republicans, it’s probably made a good deal a lot likelier."A slightly more conservative version of the Simpson-Bowles report" is being negotiated versus GOP Budget Czar Ryan's anti-government radicalism. The Republicans - despite the deep unpopularity of their "plan" that includes killing Medicare - couldn't ask for a playing field tilted much farther to the right. Whatever compromise comes of this can't be good. Except, as Klein notes, "from the perspective of the Republicans."
Elizabeth Warren may well be the most popular person in Washington.
When she was head of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP, her willingness to go after Wall Street, the Treasury Department, and the Fed made her a liberal icon. And her folksy, Midwestern air and her ability to express complex financial issues in simple language turned her into an unlikely media superstar.
Warren is now working to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new government agency inspired by her own work on consumer credit, and in the past couple of weeks almost a quarter of a million people have signed an online petition asking President Obama to nominate her as the official boss of the agency.
Yet Warren may also be the most hated person in Washington.
 |
| Grover Norquist and John Boehner |
(E)ven though tax increases may be justified economically, they are never justified politically if you’re a Republican...it’s been Republican dogma that deficits don’t matter and the only thing that matters for the economy is cutting taxes.
(W)hat the economy needs to fully recover is a massive -- and I mean massive -- infrastructure and jobs program financed by surtaxes on wealthy individuals and on windfall financial-sector profits, including taxes on profits from short-term financial trades. We could also get upwards of $200 billion a year from tax enforcement, mainly on trans-national evasion used by America's wealthiest. Some of the funds for this program could also come from winding down the gratuitous wars we're currently engaged in. And some could even come from a modest increase in short-term deficits.
Winning the Future! Are we?
The order of magnitude of the public investment program should be at least half a trillion dollars a year, for at least five years, and more if that doesn't solve the problem. We would not hesitate to spend this kind of money and levy surtaxes if America found itself in a serious war. It was the economic side-effects of the massive WWII program of tax, borrow, and invest that finally pulled America out of the Great Depression -- and powered the postwar boom.
In his Friday New York Times column entitled “The Mistake of 2010,” Paul Krugman cogently explained how the conservatives’ obsession with invisible bond vigilantes, fearmongering about non-existent inflation, and overwrought sky-is-falling rhetoric about deficits are serving to distract us from the real problems facing our country – joblessness and poor economic growth.
Professor Krugman described how the conservatives’ focus is wrongheaded and threatens to repeat in 2011 the mistake of 1937, when President Roosevelt temporarily sidetracked the recovery from the Great Depression by instituting austerity measures designed to curb inflation, rather than continuing to use government spending to create jobs:
As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.So (in 2010) we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment.Yet worse things may soon happen.
The Hill reports the House Republican response to Friday morning's distressing jobs report.
How many blatant untruths can a Republican speaker of the House stuff into one sentence? Quite a few!House Republicans pinned the blame for Friday's disappointing jobs report squarely on the White House, saying the Obama administration's "over-taxing, over-regulating and over-spending" has stifled economic growth.
"One look at the jobs report should be enough to show the White House it's time to get serious about cutting spending and dealing with our ailing economy," Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
The battle over whether it’s true that the Republican plan (to replace single-payer medical insurance for seniors with capped vouchers in the private market) would “end Medicare” is about to play out in a critical way in New Hampshire.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which oversees House races for the GOP, has written a sharply-worded letter demanding that a New Hampshire TV station yank an ad making that claim.
Whether the ad gets taken down could help set a precedent for whether other stations will air Dem TV ads making this argument, which is expected to be a central message for Dems in the 2012 elections.Atrios:
When We Replace The Marines With A Pizza, We Will Call The Pizza The Marines.
