TheCenterLane.com

Inviting Blowback

John Burke — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:17:00 GMT

Is it just a coincidence that “Turbo” Tim Geithner was the subject of back-to-back feature stories in The New Yorker and The Atlantic ? A number of commentators don’t think so.

The March 10 issue of The New Yorker ran an article by John Cassidy entitled, “No Credit”. The title is meant to imply that Getithner’s efforts to save America’s financial system are working but he’s not getting any credit for this achievement. From the very outset, this piece was obviously an attempt to reconstruct Geithner’s controversial public image – because he has been widely criticized as a tool of Wall Street.

The article by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morganson in the April 26, 2009 issue of The New York Times helped clarify the record on Geithner’s loyalty to the big banks at the public’s expense, during his tenure as president of the Federal Reserve of New York. That piece began with a brainstorming session convened by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in June of 2008, at which point Paulson asked for suggestions as to what emergency powers the government should have at its disposal to confront the burgeoning financial crisis:

Timothy F. Geithner, who as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank oversaw many of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions, stunned the group with the audacity of his answer. He proposed asking Congress to give the president broad power to guarantee all the debt in the banking system, according to two participants, including Michele Davis, then an assistant Treasury secretary.

The proposal quickly died amid protests that it was politically untenable because it could put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars.

“People thought, ‘Wow, that’s kind of out there,’” said John C. Dugan, the comptroller of the currency, who heard about the idea afterward. Mr. Geithner says, “I don’t remember a serious discussion on that proposal then.”

But in the 10 months since then, the government has in many ways embraced his blue-sky prescription.

The recent article in The New Yorker defends Geithner’s bank bailouts, with a bit of historical revisionism that conveniently avoids a small matter referred to as Maiden Lane III:

During the past ten months, U.S. banks have raised more than a hundred and forty billion dollars from investors and increased the reserves they hold to cover unforeseen losses. While many small banks are still in peril, their larger brethren, such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs, are more strongly capitalized than many of their international competitors, and they have repaid virtually all the money they received from taxpayers. Looking ahead, the Treasury Department estimates the ultimate cost of the financial-rescue package at just a hundred and seventeen billion dollars -- and much of that related to propping up General Motors and Chrysler.

Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns dismissed the NewYorker article as “an out and out puff piece” that Geithner himself could have written:

Don’t be fooled; this is a clear plant to help bolster public opinion for a bailout and transfer of wealth, which was both unnecessary and politically damaging.

The article on Geithner, appearing in the April issue of The Atlantic, was described by Mr. Harrison as “fairly even-handed” although worthy of extensive criticism. Nevertheless, after reading the following passage from the first page of the essay, I found it difficult to avoid using the terms “fawning and sycophantic” to describe it:

In the course of many interviews about Geithner, two qualities came up again and again. The first was his extraordinary quickness of mind and talent for elucidating whatever issue was the preoccupying concern of the moment. Second was his athleticism. Unprompted by me, friends and colleagues extolled his skill and grace at windsurfing, tennis, basketball, running, snowboarding, and softball (specifying his prowess at shortstop and in center field, as well as at the plate). He inspires an adolescent awe in male colleagues.

Gawd! Yeech!

The reaction to the New Yorker and Atlantic articles, articulated by Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, is an absolutely fantastic “must read” piece. Ms. Smith goes beyond the subject of Geithner. Her essay is a tour de force, describing how President Obama sold out the American public in the service of his patrons on Wall Street. The final two paragraphs portray the administration’s antics with a long-overdue measure of pugilism:

But the Obama administration miscalculated badly. First, it bought the financiers’ false promise that massive subsidies to them would kick start the economy. But economists are now estimating that it is likely to take five years to return to pre-crisis levels of unemployment. Obama took his eye off the ball. A Democratic President’s most important responsibility is job creation. It is simply unacceptable to most Americans for Wall Street to be reaping record profits and bonuses while the rest of the country is suffering. Second, it assumed finance was too complicated to hold the attention of most citizens, and so the (non) initiatives under way now would attract comparatively little scrutiny. But as public ire remains high, the press coverage has become almost schizophrenic. Obvious public relations plants, like Ben Bernanke’s designation as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year (precisely when his confirmation is running into unexpected opposition) and stories in the New York Times that incorrectly reported some Goldman executive bonus cosmetics as meaningful concessions have co-existed with reports on the abject failure of Geithner’s mortgage modification program. While mainstream press coverage is still largely flattering, the desperation of the recent PR moves versus the continued public ire and recognition of where the Administration’s priorities truly lie means the fissures are becoming a gaping chasm.

So with Obama’s popularity falling sharply, it should be no surprise that the Administration is resorting to more concerted propaganda efforts. It may have no choice. Having ceded so much ground to the financiers, it has lost control of the battlefield. The banking lobbyists have perfected their tactics for blocking reform over the last two decades. Team Obama naively cast its lot with an industry that is vastly more skilled in the dark art of the manufacture of consent than it is.

Congratulations to Yves Smith for writing a fantastic critique of the Obama administration’s combination of nonfeasance and misfeasance in responding to both the financial and economic crises.

thecenterlane.com

The Employment Outlook Debate

John Burke — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:02:00 GMT

The February non-farm payrolls report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics boosted the optimism of many commentators who follow the unemployment crisis. Nevertheless, predictions about the employment outlook for the remainder of 2010 are extremely conflicting. Surfing around the web will give you completely divergent prognostications, usually depending on the locale. Here are some examples: Los Angeles job outlook expected to improve (Los Angeles Times); Atlanta employers expect to hold payrolls steady -- neither hiring nor firing (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) Boston employers expected to add jobs (The Boston Globe -- quoting a Manpower report); Employers still skittish on hiring (CNNMoney.com); Columbus hiring prospects for upcoming quarter weaken slightly (ledger-inquirer.com).

In an essay for the istockanalyst.com website, Ockham Research began by pointing out that 8.4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December of 2007. The fact that the S&P 500 has advanced 70% during this time has encouraged pundits to believe in a jobless recovery. After noting Senator Harry Reid’s odd reaction to the February non-farm payrolls report: “Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good” -- the piece continued:

After that blunder, the report on Bloomberg.com struck us in just how optimistic it is towards March’s employment data, thanks in part to temporary hiring for census workers which could add more than 100,000 jobs this month. However, a strategist for Goldman Sachs (GS) estimated 275,000 job gains; another economist predicted “easily” reaching 300,000. Chief US economist at Deutsche Bank (DB) took the prize though, saying that a gain of 450,000 “can’t be ruled out.”

The Ockham Research piece again emphasized that many of the optimistic views are based on the addition of census workers to the rolls of the employed, despite the fact that these are temporary positions, eventually disappearing in mid-summer. Ockham Research was also dismissive of the inclusion of workers added to payrolls simply because of summertime seasonal employment opportunities. They concluded on this note:

Of course, no one can predict the future and predictions about macroeconomic data points are extremely thorny. As much as we would like to believe they are correct and job growth will return in robust fashion, we are a bit skeptical. They have raised the bar for expectations, so it will be extremely interesting to see the market’s reaction when the data comes in.

The Seeking Alpha website featured a posting by David Goldman which began with these remarks:

. . . it would be hard to envision significant declines in payroll employment from already miserable levels. But the sort of things that generate jobs -- venture capital investments, small business expansion, and so forth -- are as dead as the Monty Python parrot.

Mr. Goldman focused on the February Small Business Confidence report by Discover Card, which revealed that America’s small business owners remained cautious about the economy during February as they expected economic conditions to stay largely the same during the coming months. At the close of the piece, we are reminded of its title, “Where Will the Jobs Come From?” --

With the continuing catastrophe in both the residential and commercial real estate markets, small business capital has imploded. And small business surely isn’t getting help from the banking system, where loans still are contracting at the fastest pace on record.

Two economists for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mary Daly and Bart Hobijn, recently published a research paper addressing the surprisingly high unemployment rate for 2009, based on a principle known as Okun’s Law. They explained it this way:

Okun’s law tells us that, for every 2% that real GDP falls below its trend, we will see a 1% increase in the unemployment rate. Since real GDP was almost flat in 2009 while its trend level increased by 3%, the unemployment rate under Okun’s law should have increased by 1.5 percentage points. Instead it rose by 3 percentage points, more than twice the predicted increase.

I will now fast-forward to their conclusion:

The data presented here consistently point to unusually strong productivity growth as the main driver of the departure from Okun’s law in 2009. A key question that remains unanswered by this analysis is whether this pattern will continue in 2010. Most forecasters assume that the economy will return to its historical path this year, following Okun’s two-to-one ratio of changes in GDP and changes in unemployment. Under this scenario, unemployment would begin to edge down this year as the economy recovers and gains momentum. But there are clearly risks to this view. . . .
Anecdotal evidence suggests that efforts to contain costs and remain nimble in the face of uncertainty have become a fixture in business strategy. If productivity keeps on growing at an above-average pace, then unemployment forecasts based on Okun’s law could continue to be overly optimistic.

So there you have it. Pick your favorite prediction and run with it. The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey seems to have a reasonable take on expectations for the second quarter of 2010:

“U.S. hiring activity is still in neutral, but revving toward first gear,” said Jonas Prising, Manpower president of the Americas. “It’s moving in the right direction, but it will take some time, with no major speed bumps, before it can accelerate.”

Let’s just hope the road ahead doesn’t have any sinkholes.

thecenterlane.com

Seeing Reality With Gold Glasses

John Burke — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:32:00 GMT

The most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics concerning non-farm payrolls for the month of February has surprised most people and it has left a number of commentators feeling upbeat. Reuters had reported that “The median forecast from the ten most accurate forecasters is for payrolls to fall by 70,000.” Nevertheless, the BLS report disclosed a figure of approximately half that much. Only 36,000 jobs had been lost and unemployment was holding at 9.7%. One enthusiastic reaction to that news came from the Mad Hedge Fund Trader:

While the employment rate for those with no high school diploma is 16%, the kind of worker who lost their manufacturing jobs to China, the jobless rate for those with college degrees is only 4.5%. This is proof that the dying sectors of the US economy are delivering the highest unemployment rates, and that America is clawing its way up the value chain in the global race for economic supremacy. It is what America does best, creative destruction with a turbocharger. There is a third influence here, which could be huge. The BLS only contacts existing businesses for its survey.
* * *
The bottom line is that payroll figures are much better than they appear at first glance.

Prior to the release of that report, many commentators had been expressing their disappointment concerning the most recent economic indicators. I discussed that subject on March 1. On the following day, John Crudele of The New York Post focused on the dramatic drop in the Consumer Confidence Index, released by The Conference Board -- a drop to 46 in February from January’s 56.5. Here is the conclusion Mr. Crudele reached in assessing what most middle-class Americans understand about our current economic state:

Even with the stock market still bubbling and media trying its damnedest to convince us at least a million times a day that there’s an economic recovery, the American public isn’t buying it.
* * *
The economy has stabilized since then, helped greatly by the fact that some wealthy people feel wealthier because of an unbelievable snap back by the stock market during 2009. (And by unbelievable in this context I mean that what happened shouldn’t be believed as either legitimate or sustainable.)

Don Luskin of The Wall Street Journal’s Smart Money blog articulated his dissatisfaction with the most recent economic indicators on February 26. One week later, Luskin presented us with a very informative analysis for understanding the true value of one’s investments. Luskin spelled it out this way:

Consider stocks priced not in money, but in gold. In other words, instead of thinking of stocks as investments you make in order to increase your wealth in dollars, think of them as something to increase your wealth in gold. After all, you don’t want to make money for its own sake -- you want the money for what you can buy with it. Gold is a symbol for all the things you might want to buy.
* * *
It’s easy to track stocks priced in gold because the price of the S&P 500 and the price of an ounce of gold vary closely with one another. As of Thursday’s close, they were only about $10 apart, with the S&P 500 at 1123, and gold at about 1133.

How about a year ago, on the day of the bottom for stocks on March 9? That day the S&P 500 closed at 676.53. Gold closed at 920.85. That means that one “unit” of the S&P could have bought 73% of an ounce of gold.

Today, with stocks and gold each having risen over the last year -- but with stocks rising more -- one “unit” of the S&P can buy 99% of an ounce of gold. All we have to do is compare 73% a year ago to 99% now, and we can see that stocks, priced in gold, have risen 34.9%.

A 34.9% gain for stocks priced in gold is pretty good for a year’s work. But it’s a far cry from the 69.1% that stocks have gained when they are priced in dollars. Do you see what has happened here? Stocks have made you lots of dollars. But the dollar itself has fallen in value compared to the real and eternal value represented by gold.

Here’s the most troubling part. The entire 34.9% gain made by stocks -- priced in gold, that is -- was achieved in just the first five weeks of rallying from the March 2009 bottom. That means for most of the last year, since mid-April, while it has appeared that stocks have been furiously rallying, in reality they’ve just been sitting there. All risk, no reward.
* * *
So why, then, did stocks -- priced in dollars, not gold -- continue so much higher? Simple: We experienced inflation-induced growth. Throw enough stimulus money, an “extended period” of zero interest rates from the Fed, and a big dose of government debt at the economy, and you will get some growth -- and, eventually, lots of inflation.

Luskin concluded the piece by explaining that if stocks move higher while gold moves lower, we will be seeing evidence of real growth. On the other hand, if gold increases in value while stocks go down or simply get stuck where they are, there is no economic growth.

Luskin’s approach allows us to see through all that money-printing and excess liquidity Ben Bernanke has brought to the stock market, creating an illusion of increased value.

Everyone is hoping to see evidence of economic recovery as soon as possible. Don Luskin has provided us with the “x-ray specs” for seeing through the hype to determine whether some of that evidence is real.

thecenterlane.com

Elizabeth Warren To The Rescue

John Burke — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:34:00 GMT

We reached the point where serious financial reform began to look like a lost cause. Nothing has been done to address the problems that caused the financial crisis. Economists have been warning that we could be facing another financial crisis, requiring another round of bank bailouts. The watered-down financial reform bill passed by the House of Representatives, HR 4173, is about to become completely defanged by the Senate.

The most hotly-contested aspect of the proposed financial reform bill -- the establishment of an independent, stand-alone, Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- is now in the hands of “Countrywide Chris” Dodd, who is being forced into retirement because the people of Connecticut are fed up with him. As a result, this is his last chance to get some more “perks” from his position as Senate Banking Committee chairman. Back on January 18, Elizabeth Warren (Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel and the person likely to be appointed to head the CFPA) explained to Reuters that banking lobbyists might succeed in “gutting” the proposed agency:

“The CFPA is the best indicator of whether Congress will reform Wall Street or whether it will continue to give Wall Street whatever it wants,” she told Reuters in an interview.
* * *
Consumer protection is relatively simple and could easily be fixed, she said. The statutes, for the most part, already exist, but enforcement is in the hands of the wrong people, such as the Federal Reserve, which does not consider it central to its main task of maintaining economic stability, she said.

The latest effort to sabotage the proposed CFPA involves placing it under the control of the Federal Reserve. As Craig Torres and Yalman Onaran explained for Bloomberg News:

Putting it inside the Fed, instead of creating a standalone bureau, was a compromise proposed by Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.
* * *
Banking lobbyists say the Fed’s knowledge of the banking system makes it well-suited to coordinate rules on credit cards and other consumer financial products.
* * *
The financial-services industry has lobbied lawmakers to defeat the plan for a consumer agency. JP Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called the agency “just a whole new bureaucracy” on a December conference call with analysts.

Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation, recently discussed the importance of having an independent CFPA:

Currently, there are several proposals floating around to change the basic concept of a consumer protection agency. For the most part, these proposals are meaningless, watered down foolishness, bordering on idiotic. Let the Fed do it? They were already charged with doing this, and under Greenspan, committed Nonfeasance -- they failed to do their duty.

The Fed is the wrong agency for this.

In an interview with Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post, Congressman Barney Frank expressed a noteworthy reaction to the idea:

“It’s like making me the chief judge of the Miss America contest,” Frank said.

On Tuesday, March 2, Elizabeth Warren spent the day on the phone with reform advocates, members of Congress and administration officials, as she explained in an interview with Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post. The key point she stressed in that interview was the message: “Pass a strong bill or nothing at all.” It sounds as though she is afraid that the financial reform bill could suffer the same fate as the healthcare reform bill. That notion was reinforced by the following comments:

My first choice is a strong consumer agency . . . My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.
* * *
“The lobbyists would like nothing better than for the story to be the [proposed] agency has died and everyone has given up,” Warren said. “The lobbyists’ closest friends in the Senate would like nothing better than passing an agency that has a good name but no real impact so they have something good to say to the voters -- and something even better to say to the lobbyists.”

Congratulations, Professor Warren! At last, someone with some cajones is taking charge of this fight!

On Wednesday, March 3, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration was getting involved in the financial reform negotiations, with Treasury Secretary Geithner leading the charge for an independent Consumer Financial Protection agency. I suspect that President Obama must have seen the “Ex-Presidents” sketch from the FunnyOrDie.com website, featuring the actors from Saturday Night Live portraying former Presidents (and ghosts of ex-Presidents) in a joint effort toward motivating Obama to make sure the CFPA becomes a reality. When Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase reunited, joining Dana Carvey, Will Ferrell and Darryl Hammond in promoting this cause, Obama could not have turned them down.

thecenterlane.com

A Wary Eye On The Indicators

John Burke — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:54:00 GMT

The past few days brought us some observations by a number of financial commentators, who expressed concern about how our economic recovery is coming along. Although none of the following three are ready to start sounding alarms, they all seem to share a similar tone of discouragement.

Don Luskin of The Wall Street Journal ’s Smart Money blog began his February 26 piece with an explanation of how proud he used to be about the accuracy of his May, 2009 declaration that the recession had ended. Although he still believes that he made the right call back then, the most recent economic indicators have muddied the picture:

I made my recession end call in May because of an entirely different set of statistics, designed to be predictive rather than merely to recognize what has already happened. What worries me is that these statistics have all started to get a little worse recently.

Luskin explained that although initial unemployment claims reached their peak in early April, the four-week moving average has risen 7 percent from where it was a few weeks ago.

Over history, upticks like that have no predictive value. There have been many of them, and very few have led to recessions. Still, 7% is a big reversal. In May when I got excited about the drop in claims, that drop was only about 4%!

Luskin found another disappointing trend in the fact that earnings expectations for the S&P 500 are now growing at a much slower pace than they were in April. Two other trends concerned him as well. The fact that the dollar has rallied ten percent in the last couple of months raises the question whether “the fear that gripped world markets in 2008 and 2009” could be returning. Finally, the fact that the credit spread between Treasuries and “junk bonds” is now at six percent after having been below 5%, brings a little discomfort simply because of a move in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, Luskin is still optimistic, although his perspective is tempered with realism:

So is the economic recovery over? I don’t think so. I think it’s just being tested. None of the indicators I use to detect the onset of recession are giving signals. But it’s haunting, nevertheless. After the horrific global recession we went through, you’d think we ought to come roaring back. We’re back, but we’re not exactly roaring.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Frank Ahrens wrote an article discussing three indicators that “spell trouble for the recovery”. Here’s how he explained them:

-- On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that January new-home sales dropped 11.2 percent from December, plunging to their lowest level in nearly 50 years.

-- On Tuesday, the Conference Board reported that February consumer confidence fell sharply from January, driven down by the survey’s “present situation index” -- how confident consumers feel right now -- which hit its lowest mark since the 1983 recession. On Friday, the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey also showed a falloff from January to February.

-- On Thursday, the government’s report on new jobless claims filed during the previous week shot up 22,000, which was exactly opposite of what economists predicted. Forecasters expected new jobless claims to drop by about 20,000.

Taken together, what do these reports tell us?

We’ve got a long way to go to get out of this economic mess, and we may be actually losing a little ground.

At the conclusion of that piece, Mr. Ahrens added that another factor holding back recovery is the current state of activity in the stock market. Investors seem to be exhibiting caution, uncertainty and “a hard-to-shake sense that we haven’t hit bottom yet”.

As I frequently point out, one of my favorite financial gurus is Jeremy Grantham of GMO. The February 26 issue of Bloomberg Business Week featured an article by Charles Stein concerning Grantham’s career. In the section of the piece discussing Grantham’s current outlook, we see yet another view toward a very lean, slow recovery process:

Grantham’s favorite asset class today is high-quality U.S.stocks, companies defined by high, stable returns and low debt. The allocation fund had 31 percent of its money in that category at year-end, sometimes called blue chips, according to the GMO Web site. In the interview, he said he expects such stocks to return an average of 6.8 percent a year over the next seven years, compared with 1.3 percent for all large-cap U.S.stocks.

Emerging-market stocks may rise about 4 percent annually in the next seven years, as investor enthusiasm for economic growth in developing countries carries the stocks to unsustainable levels, Grantham said.

“Why not go along for the ride?” he said. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index returned an average of 22 percent in the past seven years, compared with a gain of 5.5 percent by the S&P 500 index.
U.S.government bonds will return 1.1 percent a year over the seven-year period, according to the latest GMO forecast. The Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasury Master Index rose 4.3 percent from 2003 through 2009.

Grantham said he expects a difficult, not disastrous, period for the economy and investments.

“It will feel like the 1970s,” he said. “One step forward, one step back.”

None of the three gentlemen whom I have quoted here are seeing visions of rainbows and unicorns in our economic future -- at least not for the next few years. Be sure to keep the opinions of these experts in mind if the cheerleading by some perma-bull, TV pundit motivates you to “get in on the ground floor of the next stock market rally”. You could save yourself a lot of money and even more pain.

thecenterlane.com

Three New Books For March

John Burke — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:41:00 GMT

The month of March brings us three new books about the financial crisis. The authors are not out to make apologies for anyone. To the contrary, they point directly at the villains and expose the systemic flaws that were exploited by those who still may yet destroy the world economy. All three of these books are available at the Amazon widget on the sidebar at the left side of this page.

Regular fans of the Naked Capitalism blog have been following the progress of Yves Smith on her new book, ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism. It will be released on March 2. Here is some information about the book from the product description at the Amazon website:

ECONned is the first book to examine the unquestioned role of economists as policy-makers, and how they helped create an unmitigated economic disaster.

Here, Yves Smith looks at how economists in key policy positions put doctrine before hard evidence, ignoring the deteriorating conditions and rising dangers that eventually led them, and us, off the cliff and into financial meltdown. Intelligently written for the layman, Smith takes us on a terrifying investigation of the financial realm over the last twenty-five years of misrepresentations, naive interpretations of economic conditions, rationalizations of bad outcomes, and rejection of clear signs of growing instability.

In eConned (sic), author Yves Smith reveals:
--why the measures taken by the Obama Administration are mere palliatives and are unlikely to pave the way for a solid recovery
--how economists have come to play a profoundly anti-democratic role in policy
--how financial models and concepts that were discredited more than thirty years ago are still widely used by banks, regulators, and investors
--how management and employees of major financial firms looted them, enriching themselves and leaving the mess to taxpayers
--how financial regulation enabled predatory behavior by Wall Street towards investors
--how economics has no theory of financial systems, yet economists fearlessly prescribe how to manage them

Michael Lewis is the author of the wildly-popular book, Liar’s Poker, based on his experience as a bond trader for Solomon Brothers in the mid-80s. His new book, The BigShort: Inside the Doomsday Machine, will be released on March 15. Here is some of what Amazon’s product description says about it:

A brilliant account -- character-rich and darkly humorous -- of how the U.S. economy was driven over the cliff.
* * *
Michael Lewis’s splendid cast of characters includes villains, a few heroes, and a lot of people who look very, very foolish: high government officials, including the watchdogs; heads of major investment banks (some overlap here with previous category); perhaps even the face in your mirror. In this trenchant, raucous, irresistible narrative, Lewis writes of the goats and of the few who saw what the emperor was wearing, and gives them, most memorably, what they deserve. He proves yet again that he is the finest and funniest chronicler of our times.

Our third author, Simon Johnson, recently co-authored an article for CenterPiece with Peter Boone entitled, “The Doomsday Cycle” which explains how “we have let a ‘doomsday cycle’ infiltrate our economic system”. The essay contains a number of proposals for correcting this problem. Here is one of them:

We believe that the best route to creating a safer system is to have very large and robust capital requirements, which are legislated and difficult to circumvent or revise. If we triple core capital at major banks to15-25% of assets, and err on the side of requiring too much capital for derivatives and other complicated financial structures, we will create a much safer system with less scope for “gaming” the rules.

Simon Johnson is a professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. From 2007-2008, he was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. With James Kwak, he is the co-publisher of The Baseline Scenario website. Johnson and Kwak have written a new book entitled, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Although this book won't be released until March 30, the Amazon website has already quoted from reviews by the following people: Bill Bradley, Robert Reich, Arianna Huffington, Bill Moyers, Alan Grayson, Brad Miller, Elizabeth Warren and others. Professor Warren must be a Democrat, based on the affiliation of nearly everyone else who reviewed the book.

Here is some of what can be found in Amazon’s product description:

. . . a wide-ranging, meticulous, and bracing account of recent U.S. financial history within the context of previous showdowns between American democracy and Big Finance: from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson, from Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They convincingly show why our future is imperiled by the ideology of finance (finance is good, unregulated finance is better, unfettered finance run amok is best) and by Wall Street’s political control of government policy pertaining to it.

As these authors make the talk show circuit to promote their books during the coming weeks, the American public will hearing repeated pleas to demand that our elected officials take action to stop the mercenary financial behemoths from destroying the world. Perhaps the message will finally hit home.

If you are interested in any of these three books, they’re available on the left side of this page.

Rethinking The Stimulus

John Burke — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:49:00 GMT

On the anniversary of the stimulus law (a/k/a the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- Public Law 111-5) there has been quite a bit of debate concerning the number of jobs actually created by the stimulus as opposed to the claims made by Democratic politicians. For their part, the Democrats take pride in the fact that John Makin of the conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, recently published this statement at the AEI website:

Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S.growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

A few months ago, I had a discussion with an old friend and the subject of the stimulus came up. My beefs about the stimulus were that it did not offer the necessary degree of immediate relief and that a good chunk of it should have gone directly into the hands of the taxpayers.

I recently read a blog posting by Keith Hennessey, the former director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush, which shared some opinions similar to my own on what the stimulus should have offered. Although Mr. Hennessey preferred the traditional panacea of tax cuts as the primary means for economic stimulus, he made a number of other important points. With so much fear being expressed about the possibility of a “double-dip” recession, our government could find itself in the uncomfortable position of considering another stimulus bill. If that day comes, we have all the more reason to look back at what was right and what was wrong with the 2009 stimulus.

Keith Hennessy began with this statement:

Unlike many critics of the stimulus law, I think that fiscal policy can increase short-term economic growth, especially when the economy is in a deep recession. In other words, I think that fiscal stimulus is a valid concept. This does not mean that I think that every increase in government spending, or every tax cut, (a) increases short-term economic growth or (b) is good policy.

At the end of his second paragraph, he got to the part that was music to my ears:

If the Administration had instead put $862 B directly into people’s hands, you would have seen more immediate spending and economic growth than we did, even if people had saved most of it.

In contrast, government spending is powerful but painfully slow. If the government spends $1 on building a road, eventually that entire $1 will enter the economy and increase GDP growth. Your bang-for-the-deficit-buck is extremely high. The problem is that bang-for-the-buck doesn’t help us if that bang occurs two or three or four years from now.
* * *
I would instead prefer that people be allowed to spend and save the money how they best see fit. My preferred path also has less waste and bureaucracy.

A bit later in the piece, Hennessey said some things that probably caused a good number of the CPAC conventioneers reach for the Tums:

I agree with the Administration that last year’s stimulus law increased economic growth above what it otherwise would have been. I agree that employment is higher than it would have been without a stimulus.

Of course, Hennessey complained that “The law was poorly designed and inefficient” -- in part because the money was funneled through federal and state bureaucracies -- another valid point. Then, he got to the important issue:

Given a decision last year to do a big fiscal stimulus, I would have preferred, in this order:
1. putting all the money into a permanent reduction in income and capital taxes;
2. putting all the money into a temporary reduction in income and capital taxes;
3. putting all the money into transfer payments;
4. what Congress and the President did.

Given the policy preferences of the President, his team’s big policy mistake last year was to let Congress turn a reasonable macroeconomic fiscal policy goal into a Congressional spending toga party. Given his policy preferences, the President should have insisted that Congress put all the money into (2) and (3) above. He would have had a bigger macro stimulus bang earlier.

In case you’re wondering what “transfer payments” are -- you need to think in terms of “wealth transfer”. In this case, it concerns situations where the government gives away money to people who aren’t rich. A good example of this was the stimulus program that took place under President Bush. Individuals with incomes of less than $75,000 received a $300 “stimulus check” and households with joint incomes under $150,000 got $600.

My own stimulus idea would involve a “tax rebate” program, wherein the taxpayers receive a number of $50 vouchers based on the amount of income tax they paid the previous year. The recipients would then be instructed to go out and buy stuff with the vouchers. So what if they spent it on imported merchandise? The American retailers and shipping companies would still make money, finding it necessary to hire people. The vouchers would display the person’s name and address. In order to use the vouchers, identification would be needed, so as to prevent resale. The maximum amount of cash change one could get back from a voucher-funded purchase would be $10.

Hopefully, we won’t need another stimulus program. However, if we do, I suggest that the government simply give us vouchers and send us shopping.

thecenterlane.com