Tag: Monday Business Edition

Jan 03 2011

What is Science?

Monday Business Edition

I have a Liberal Arts background, a History Major (also Methodist) like George Walker Bush.

And shucks, my discipline has no predictive nature at all-

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience. – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

The hard sciences tend to rely on replicable independent observations supporting a predictive theory that can be tested by experiment.

You know, facts.

The social sciences have the luxury of being mostly observational.  If you’re honest.

Economics pretends to be a hard science, but it’s really just a bunch of assumptions represented symbolically so it can be disguised as Math.  It’s really as fuzzy as Philosophy.

Not so much a science as an argument.

Which brings me to this recent piece-

Academic Economists to Consider Ethics Code

By SEWELL CHAN, The New York Times

Published: December 30, 2010

Academic economists, particularly those active in policy debates in Washington and Wall Street, are facing greater scrutiny of their outside activities these days. Faced with a run of criticism, including a popular movie, leaders of the American Economic Association, the world’s largest professional society for economists, founded in 1885, are considering a step that most other professions took a long time ago – adopting a code of ethical standards.

The proposal, which has not been announced to the public or to the association’s 17,000 members, is partly a response to “Inside Job,” a documentary film released in October that excoriates leading academic economists for their ties to Wall Street as consultants, advisers or corporate directors.

…

Mr. Lucas added: “What disciplines economics, like any science, is whether your work can be replicated. It either stands up or it doesn’t. Your motivations and whatnot are secondary.”

Since economics emerged as a modern discipline in the late 19th century, its practitioners have resisted formal ethical codes, said George F. DeMartino, an economist at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

…

A recent paper (.pdf) by Gerald Epstein and Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found that many financial economists who weighed in on the Wall Street overhaul signed into law in July did not prominently disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Frauds and charletans.  Confidence men and bunco artists.

When will we replicate the results enough?

Business News below.

Dec 27 2010

Monday Business Edition

Brilliant original economic insight (not that I ever have any) is in short supply this morning, but perhaps there will be some later if I collect my thoughts.  In the mean time here are the Business News headlines and TheMomCat has a very good interview with Roubini which will follow soon.

From Yahoo News Business

1 Chinese web users sceptical on inflation-busting moves

by Susan Stumme, AFP

Mon Dec 27, 2:34 am ET

BEIJING (AFP) – Chinese web users on Monday expressed their anxiety about soaring consumer prices, despite a weekend interest rate hike and reassurances on live radio from the premier that inflation can be curbed.

On Saturday, the central bank raised interest rates for the second time in less than three months as authorities ramp up efforts to curb rampant bank lending, rein in property prices and tame soaring inflation.

In a sign of Beijing’s awareness of mounting public concerns, Premier Wen Jiabao addressed the nation via live radio broadcast on Sunday, acknowledging the hardships for everyday citizens but insisting prices could be contained.

Dec 20 2010

Just Plain Wrong

Monday Business Edition

As Krugman points out–

When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything – yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.

…

(T)he fact is that the Obama stimulus – which itself was almost 40 percent tax cuts – was far too cautious to turn the economy around. And that’s not 20-20 hindsight: many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning that the plan was grossly inadequate. Put it this way: A policy under which government employment actually fell, under which government spending on goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly constitutes a test of Keynesian economics.

…

(E)verything the right said about why Obamanomics would fail was wrong. For two years we’ve been warned that government borrowing would send interest rates sky-high; in fact, rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about recovery, but stayed consistently low by historical standards. For two years we’ve been warned that inflation, even hyperinflation, was just around the corner; instead, disinflation has continued, with core inflation – which excludes volatile food and energy prices – now at a half-century low.

And while it is true that Republicans are trying to write certain false narratives–

(T)he modern Republican Party is utterly dedicated to the Reaganite slogan that government is always the problem, never the solution. And, therefore, we should have realized that party loyalists, confronted with facts that don’t fit the slogan, would adjust the facts.

…

It’s not as if the story of the crisis is particularly obscure. First, there was a widely spread housing bubble, not just in the United States, but in Ireland, Spain, and other countries as well. This bubble was inflated by irresponsible lending, made possible both by bank deregulation and the failure to extend regulation to “shadow banks,” which weren’t covered by traditional regulation but nonetheless engaged in banking activities and created bank-type risks.

Then the bubble burst, with hugely disruptive consequences. It turned out that Wall Street had created a web of interconnection nobody understood, so that the failure of Lehman Brothers, a medium-size investment bank, could threaten to take down the whole world financial system.

It’s a straightforward story, but a story that the Republican members of the commission don’t want told. Literally.

Last week, reports Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post, all four Republicans on the commission voted to exclude the following terms from the report: “deregulation,” “shadow banking,” “interconnection,” and, yes, “Wall Street.”

…

That report is all of nine pages long, with few facts and hardly any numbers. Beyond that, it tells a story that has been widely and repeatedly debunked – without responding at all to the debunkers.

In the world according to the G.O.P. commissioners, it’s all the fault of government do-gooders, who used various levers – especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored loan-guarantee agencies – to promote loans to low-income borrowers. Wall Street – I mean, the private sector – erred only to the extent that it got suckered into going along with this government-created bubble.

Shahien Nasiripour–

During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases “Wall Street” and “shadow banking” and the words “interconnection” and “deregulation” from the panel’s final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.

…

The shadow banking system refers to the part of the financial system in which investors and other nonbanks like hedge funds and investment firms provide credit to borrowers, as opposed to more traditional banks. Interconnection refers to the links that bind financial institutions to one another, like derivatives, borrowings, and investments.

They’re not the only ones.

Neo-Liberal economics, especially of the Trickle Down Voodoo Variety (call a spade a spade Paul) is a complete, abject failure.

Coming from Republicans or Democrats.

It’s hard for me to fathom how these people can claim Economics is even a “Social” Science when their theories so blatantly violate the first law of Scientific Inquiry- Your Results Shall Be Testable AND Duplicatable.

The Stimulus That Isn’t

By Robert Kuttner, The Huffington Post

Posted: December 19, 2010 07:41 PM

It is astonishing how the Beltway echo-chamber, most egregiously the editorial page and news columns of the Washington Post (hard to tell the difference), thinks this deal is good for the Republic. The Post has become a cheerleader for policies that fail to cure the economy and show off Obama as a weakling waiting to be rolled again.

The tax deal, re-branded as a stimulus program, is paltry and ineffective as economic tonic. What hardly anyone seems to have grasped is that the deal basically continues the status quo with almost no stimulus.

If the tax rates on the books in 2010 did not produce a recovery, why should we expect that the very same rates will change the economy in 2011?

Business News below.

Dec 13 2010

What I hate about blogging.

Monday Business Edition

I hate repeating myself, and yet I feel people need to be reminded about… well… facts.

Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.

I woke up this morning convinced that someone, somewhere would be picking up on the fact that this “Tax Cut Stimulus Deal” is actually a A TAX HIKE for any Household in America making less than $40,000 a year (WHICH IS JUST ABOUT 50% OF THEM!) so your average Millionaire can pocket $70,000 a year.

And there’s the totally non-stimulative nature of continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for the Weathiest 2% to begin with.  Over 10 years it hasn’t contributed a single job AND people already have that money, they’re not going to be doing anything new with it.  Washington/Wall Street Economics just doesn’t add up in the ways (DID I MENTION A TAX HIKE ON 50% OF HOUSEHOLDS?) people understand.

And now Obama weighs effort to overhaul tax code.

I suppose I’m not surprised so much as appalled.

Tax Cuts don’t work.  Supply Side Trickle Down Voodoo Economics is a fraud.

But if you’re going to buy into that and get past your hefting bigotry and prejudice, then Mitt Romney is your boy and he’ll kick Obama’s ass.

Bloomberg denies interest, Dean and Feingold also, but blood is in the water.

One Term?  He’ll be lucky to make it to ’12 because he’ll be impeached over his corrupt deals on the Health Insurance Companies Welfare Mandate.

Can’t say I disagree.

The Why-Should-I-Get-Out-Of-My-Chair Gap in 2012

Robert Reich

Sunday, December 12, 2010

In the 2010 midterm elections Democrats suffered from a so-called “enthusiasm gap.”

If Dems agree to the tax plan just negotiated by the White House with Republican leaders, they’ll face a “why-should-I-get-up-out-of-my-chair” gap that will make 2010’s Dem enthusiasm seem like a pep rally by comparison.

It’s a $70,000 gift for every millionaire, financed by a gigantic hole in the federal budget that will put on the cutting board education, infrastructure, and everything else most other Americans need and want.

Business News below.

Dec 06 2010

YAB: Yet Another Betrayal

Monday Business Edition

While most commentators are focusing on Obama’s sell-out on Tax Cuts for Billionaires, in the background he’s also sold out on his campaign promise to Rust Belt Independents for no more NAFTAs.

Firedog Lake is practically the only site providing coverage-

Update:

Trade Does Not Equal Jobs

Paul Krugman, The New York Times

December 6, 2010, 9:43 am

One thing I’m hearing, now that all hope of useful fiscal policy is gone, is the idea that trade can be a driver of recovery – that stuff like the South Korea trade agreement can serve as a form of macro policy.

Um, no.

Our macro problem is insufficient spending on U.S.-produced goods and services; this spending is defined by

Y = C + I + G + X – M

where C is consumer spending, I investment spending, G government purchases of goods and services, X is exports, and M is imports. Trade agreements raise X – but they also lead to higher M. On average, they’re a wash.

This, by the way, is why claims that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression are nonsense. Yes, protectionism reduced world exports; it also reduced world imports, by the same amount.

There is a case for freer trade – it may make the world economy more efficient. But it does nothing to increase demand.

Business News below.

Nov 29 2010

Nothing Left To Steal

Monday Business Edition

The World is running out of money to insure the fictional assets of ‘senior creditors’ and banksters.

The problem is fundamentally leverage, the intellectual market laziness that makes financial institutions think they are entitled to make unlimited bets on 36:1 payouts every time.

When things get even a little difficult they whine and whine about how badly they are mistreated, but the fact of the matter is that there’s going to be a haircut taken and the obvious target is the biggest one.  Spain is the next to go and Italy after that.  Euros were such a good bet.

And if you were smart and doubled down every chance you could get, you’d build up quite a pile of chips.

Not the kind you can eat.

So what are they worth?  Whatever Rick will pay for them in some medium of exchange that’s good outside the casino.  Unless you want to barter, I have two passes out of Casablanca.

We’ve talked about Ireland and Iceland, but I wonder how many people are familiar with Dubai?

Today, Dubai has emerged as a global city and a business hub. Although Dubai’s economy was built on the oil industry, currently the emirate’s model of business, similar to that of Western countries, drives its economy, with the effect that its main revenues are now from tourism, real estate, and financial services.

I like this one because it has lots of numbers-

Dubai mulls sale of corporate champions

By Simeon Kerr in Dubai, Financial Times

Published: November 28 2010 18:42

Dubai is mulling the privatisation of home-grown corporate champions as a means to start paying down its estimated $110bn in debts, senior officials said.

Let’s just stop right there and recognize that we’re talking about an Ireland.  The proposal is to sell minority stakes in State Owned and Sovereign Wealth Fund Owned industries like their National Airline.

Mr Shaibani was speaking at an open forum held on Sunday, a rare moment of media engagement in an emirate that has faced a deluge of negative press since shocking markets with its standstill request a year ago, which ended with the restructuring of $25bn in debts at troubled conglomerate Dubai World.

Yup, that Dubai World, the one we were going to sell our ports to.  Now Dubai has already had a bailout from the UAE to the tune of $10 Billion in February of 2009 and assures us with the utmost gravity and reliability, just like Spain and Portugal, that they don’t need any bailouts thank you very much.

We are rapidly reaching the point where negative outcomes for the bankster class are inevitable due to the sheer volume of their theft.

Business News below.

Nov 22 2010

Conflicting Interests

Monday Business Edition

This is not an easy story to tell in other’s words, so you’ll have to rely on mine.  I’m not an economist.

You’ll read today that Ireland has accepted a bailout.  They’ll get from 30 to 100 Billion Euros from the European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund (which includes the U.S), Sweden, and Britain (with minor chunks from others).  In return for that they’re accepting an austerity plan that includes things like-

Middle class Irish families face the loss of tax credits and low paid workers, totalling 50 per cent of the labour force, will start to pay taxes for the first time.

Ireland’s minimum wage is to be cut 13 per cent and all Irish households face a new £257 property tax from 2012. Welfare payments, including jobseekers allowance and child benefit, will be cut five per cent.

As well as the steep tax increases, the EU has demanded extra public sector job cuts with a demand to cut the Irish civil service by 28,000 between 2011 and 2014.

The job cuts are double the level the Irish has agreed with trade unions and are expected to fuel protests and strikes. A trade union demonstration, predicted to be the biggest in decades, will take place in Dublin on Saturday.

As you might imagine, this is not very popular with the voters on whom politicians depend for their phony baloney jobs-

Irish ministers are so concerned over protests that austerity plans to cut chauffeur driven cars and police outriders have been shelved to protect the government amid heightened post-EU bail-out security.

Support for Fianna Fail, Ireland’s ruling party, has collapsed to 17 per cent the lowest level in 88-year history of the Irish Republic as pressure to hold a general election builds, threatening to plunge the country into more chaos.

What’s not changing, yet?  Corporate Tax Rates.

Corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5 per cent, compared to 34 per cent in France, 30 per cent in Germany and 28 per cent in Britain and the policy is credited with attracting over 1,000 multinational companies such as Google and Pfizer to Ireland.

Now, why is a bailout of Ireland ‘necessary’ at all?  Well, to prevent senior ‘secured’ creditors from having to take a haircut in the form of simply defaulting on the debt or alternatively converting it to equity and then having its market value drop to zero.  In this case senior ‘secured’ creditors means the ECB (European Central Bank) and the Central Banks of France and Germany (British banks also have major exposure).

In fact the total exposure of France, Germany, and the other members of the ‘Eurozone’ to the failed and insolvent banks of Portugal, Spain, and Italy (the next dominoes in the inevitable demise of the Euro) makes them insolvent should they have to mark their assets to market instead of the delusional values they’re now claiming on their books.  This has major political ramifications for the Very Serious People who have guided State Policy in the direction of a European Common Currency and a European Political Union for over 50 years now.

It exposes them as idiots.

What are the lessons to be taken away?  For one thing I invite comparison to the recommendations of the Catfood Commission, especially their insistence on imposing additional burdens on the middle class and the poor while cutting taxes on Corporations and the rich.

Trickle Down Supply Side Economics is a failure.  There is absolutely no evidence at all that it works.  Deregulation is equally a failure, Ireland was the Texas of Europe- a wild wild west.  As it turns out Texas was the biggest failure of Ronald Wilson Reagan’s Savings and Loan bubble, followed closely by other ‘Red’ states like Oklahoma that are smaller but experienced higher per capita losses.

Politicians, particularly Democrats, who support these policies are going to lose their phony baloney jobs.  This includes Barack Hussein Obama.  Street protests like you’ve seen in Europe are not our style, but as we saw in 2010 we voted for change and we’ll keep voting until we get it.

Republicans realize this which is why their goal is to block economic progress and hope that the disaffected vote either goes their way or stays home.  There is no reason to vote for a Democrat to enact Republican policies.

If Bloomberg runs in 2012 he’ll be much more successful than Ross Perot.

Business News below.

Nov 15 2010

The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent

Monday Business Edition

One of the emergent stories this weekend has been the question of whether Ireland is going to accept a bailout from the EU or the IMF.  The proximate problem is that interest rates on Irish debt (bonds) and the price of insuring it against defaults (Credit Default Swaps) rose quite sharply on Thursday and Friday.

No holding back the tide

By David Clerkin, Markets Correspondent, The Sunday Business Post

14 November 2010

The rate attached to Irish ten-year bonds, which days earlier had touched the already eye-watering level of 7.8 per cent, quickly eclipsed 8 per cent on Monday and smashed through 9 per cent on Thursday.

…

To put this spiral into context, it is worth noting that the rate stood at 6.8 per cent less than two weeks ago. It was 6.5 per cent a month ago. It was 4.7 per cent a year ago.

…

Some bond traders zeroed in on the market for credit default swaps (CDSs) – the insurance policies on offer to protect investors from a borrower becoming unable to repay their money. The CDS market, though thinner than the market in government bonds, exhibited equally grim characteristics last week. The CDS premiums on AIB debt – insurance against AIB defaulting – exceeded 10 per cent, and those on debt issued by other Irish banks continued their unwelcome rise.

As the market fate of the Irish government has been intertwined with those of the banks it guaranteed since September 2008, some traders spoke of a vicious circle. As Irish banks fell increasingly out of favour, fears over the Irish government’s creditworthiness intensified.

Andrea Merkel made some remarks at the G20 Summit (which was so unproductive for Obama, but that’s another story) about using the European Financial Stability Fund for another bailout that the Irish government is objecting to strenuously.

The Irish people?  Maybe not so much.

German solution seems irresistible to Irish people but not to the State

JOHN McMANUS, The Irish Times

Monday, November 15, 2010

Why is the Government against accessing the European Financial Stability Fund?

(Ireland, we) are led to believe, is a source of endless fascination, no little bafflement and some affection for the Germans. Right now they must be wondering why their chancellor, Angela Merkel, is being blamed for our latest crisis by the Taoiseach when she appears far more in tune with the Irish national mood than he does.

At a very fundamental level, all the German chancellor wants to do is change the rules of global finance so that the investors who lend money to feckless governments and banks must share the cost when things go wrong and thus be incentivised to act more responsibly. It’s a sentiment that pretty much everyone in Ireland would support.

Her proposals have an added populist attraction in Ireland as, inter alia, they would involve the burning of bank bondholders, the cause célèbre of much of the economic commentariat. This is because it is hard to see how Ireland could restructure its own debt – the nub of Merkel’s plan – without also restructuring the debts of the almost completely nationalised banking system.

…

From this point of view, the European Financial Stability Fund is starting to look irresistible. Not only do you get to burn the bond holders, you may even be able to help people out of negative equity! “What’s not for these Irish to like?” Merkel can legitimately ask. “Nothing” is the answer most of us would give.

So why is it then that we have a situation where the German chancellor and most Irish people seem to want one thing and our Government and the financial establishment want the other?

The answer is that, unfortunately, we must live with the immediate consequences of what is a laudable effort to reverse the balance of power between the financial system and sovereign governments. It is admirable – and indeed necessary – because the overriding lesson of the global financial crisis has been that governments have found themselves servants of the financial markets rather than the other way around. But while we would all like to get to the sun-lit uplands envisioned by Merkel, Ireland unfortunately might not survive the journey.

What does Merkel get out of it?  The Euro is teetering on the brink and a lot of people are heavily invested in it, financially and politically.

Ireland and Greece should ditch the euro

By Peter Oborne, The Daily Telegraph

November 15th, 2010

This is what the Spanish prime minister, Jose Zapetero, declared in an interview with the Wall Street Journal as recently as September 22: “I believe that the debt crisis affecting Spain, and the eurozone in general, has passed.”

Or let’s listen to Patrick Honohan , governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, who soberly informed the markets last week that surging yields on Irish government debt would soon be back to normal levels. Both men are deluding themselves – and us. From time to time, events take a turn which is too grave, unsettling and unfathomable for politicians to cope with. They enter a state of denial. We are now living through one of those times.

The European Single Currency cannot be saved. Yet the euro elite are unable to bring themselves to acknowledge the magnitude of this disaster. They have convinced themselves that all is well. The pattern is familiar and indeed we in Britain experienced something very similar in the months leading up to Black Wednesday and the eviction of sterling from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992.

…

The euro elite is utterly ruthless. In its mission to save the euro, it is ready to throw tens of millions out of work and in the process destroy businesses, lives and whole economies. Consider the terrifying facts. The Irish economy has gone through recession and entered what economists call a depression. Its output contracted by an extraordinary 10 per cent last year, and may well do so again over the next 12 months.

In Spain, unemployment stands at 20 per cent, and youth unemployment a horrifying and tragic 40 per cent. The depths of misery lying behind these statistics cannot be exaggerated. A friend of mine who lives in the Spanish province of Andalusia tells me that some children in his village cannot go to school. This is because their parents cannot afford to buy them shoes. Effectively large parts of Europe are de-industrialising. In Greece, the economy may contract by 15 per cent over the next two years as a result of massive cuts in state spending.

For Greece and Ireland, there is an absurdly easy way back to economic growth: return to the drachma and the punt. Such a move would enable national currencies to fall back to levels where they can be internationally competitive – which in the case of hapless Greece would be approximately one third of where it stands today.

Assertions by the big bankers and eurocrats that such a move is technically impossible are self-serving and false. It would of course be very messy in the short term, but there are many examples of countries pulling out of currency unions with no lasting ill-effect.

The peripheral eurozone nations are being prevented from taking this sensible move by a cynical alliance between the big banks and the Brussels elite. The banks cannot countenance any contraction of the eurozone because once Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain pull out, they will have no choice but to default on their debts. Such a move would bankrupt almost all European banks. Between them these four countries have a combined sovereign debt of well over £1 trillion. A very large part of this debt is owned by the major European banks. The Bank of International Settlements estimates, for example, that French financial institutions have lent the equivalent of 37 per cent of total French GDP to these failing countries.

However there are also hugely powerful political considerations. The collapse of the euro project will come as a shattering blow from which the European project cannot recover. That is why key members of the Euro elite are so determined to use this moment to press forward with their plans for political and economic integration.

More about Ireland-

Business News below.  Now with 51 Stories.

Nov 08 2010

Inflation is Good!

Monday Business Edition

Following the economic story is a trifle confusing because there are at least 2 threads to it.  One of those threads is the failure of our financial institutions and their systematic culture of fraud.

But another thread is the failure of academic economists and Washington policy makers to correctly diagnose and take action on our National economic problems.

Let me start by saying that what we are seeing in the United States macro economy is a textbook example of the complete and utter failure of Monetary Policy from Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan.  What ails us is overcapacity and a lack of aggregate demand.  Businesses are making everything that anyone will pay for and could easily make much, much more at little marginal cost.

They are sitting on piles of cash which they are currently using to buy sort term treasuries at 0% interest (a safe way of parking it not investing it), stock repurchases, mergers and acquisitions, expanding overseas operations, and other non productive pursuits; non productive in this case meaning- Not Increasing U.S. Aggregate Demand.

Now the textbook response to a situation like this is for the Government to step in as a purchaser of last resort- Dig Holes.  Fill them up.  At least you’re putting money in people’s pockets and because of the Multiplier Effect Aggregate Demand will rise and your National economy will pick up.  Tested and proven.

Indeed, this is exactly the argument David Broder uses for advocating War with Iran!

Umm… aggressive warfare for economic gain is pretty specifically a war crime Dave.

But it does validate the idea of Government fiscal policy as a tool for jump starting the economy.

Instead of that we are pursuing a policy of pushing on a string.  The object of Bernake’s $600 Billion repurchase is to create negative interest rates in the hopes that losing money by keeping it parked in T-Bills will spur investment.

A thin hope at best and as Krugman points out, by foregoing the chance to create increased expectations of inflation in general we are reducing that incentive.

Doing It Again

By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times

Published: November 7, 2010

Eight years ago Ben Bernanke, already a governor at the Federal Reserve although not yet chairman, spoke at a conference honoring Milton Friedman. He closed his talk by addressing Friedman’s famous claim that the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression, because it failed to do what was necessary to save the economy.

“You’re right,” said Mr. Bernanke, “we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

…

For the big concern about quantitative easing isn’t that it will do too much; it is that it will accomplish too little. Reasonable estimates suggest that the Fed’s new policy is unlikely to reduce interest rates enough to make more than a modest dent in unemployment. The only way the Fed might accomplish more is by changing expectations – specifically, by leading people to believe that we will have somewhat above-normal inflation over the next few years, which would reduce the incentive to sit on cash.

The idea that higher inflation might help isn’t outlandish; it has been raised by many economists, some regional Fed presidents and the International Monetary Fund. But in the same remarks in which he defended his new policy, Mr. Bernanke – clearly trying to appease the inflationistas – vowed not to change the Fed’s price target: “I have rejected any notion that we are going to try to raise inflation to a super-normal level in order to have effects on the economy.”

And there goes the best hope that the Fed’s plan might actually work.

Think of it this way: Mr. Bernanke is getting the Obama treatment, and making the Obama response. He’s facing intense, knee-jerk opposition to his efforts to rescue the economy. In an effort to mute that criticism, he’s scaling back his plans in such a way as to guarantee that they’ll fail.

Business News below-

Nov 01 2010

The Morality of the Market

Monday Business Edition

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman quotes with approval a comment from this post on Irish austerity-

Most people don’t realize that “the markets” are in reality 22-27 year old business school graduates, furiously concocting chaotic trading strategies on excel sheets and reporting to bosses perhaps 5 years senior to them. In addition, they generally possess the mentality and probably intelligence of junior cycle secondary school students. Without knowladge of these basic facts, nothing about the markets makes any sense- and with knowladge, everything does.

How the Banks Put the Economy Underwater

By YVES SMITH, The New York Times

Published: October 30, 2010

The banks and other players in the securitization industry now seem to be looking to Congress to snap its fingers to make the whole problem go away, preferably with a law that relieves them of liability for their bad behavior. But any such legislative fiat would bulldoze regions of state laws on real estate and trusts, not to mention the Uniform Commercial Code. A challenge on constitutional grounds would be inevitable.

Asking for Congress’s help would also require the banks to tacitly admit that they routinely broke their own contracts and made misrepresentations to investors in their Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Would Congress dare shield them from well-deserved litigation when the banks themselves use every minor customer deviation from incomprehensible contracts as an excuse to charge a fee?

…

The large banks, no doubt, would resist; they would be forced to write down the mortgage exposures they carry on their books, which some banking experts contend would force them back into the Troubled Asset Relief Program. However, allowing significant principal modifications would stem the flood of foreclosures and reduce uncertainty about the housing market and mortgage securities, giving the authorities time to devise approaches to the messy problems of clouded titles and faulty loan conveyance.

The people who so carefully designed the mortgage securitization process unwittingly devised a costly trap for people who ran roughshod over their handiwork. The trap has closed – and unless the mortgage finance industry agrees to a sensible way out of it, the entire economy will be the victim.

(Nobel Prize Winning) Economist Stiglitz: We need stimulus, not quantitative easing

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 30, 2010; 9:07 PM

The Fed, and the Fed’s advocates, are falling into the same trap that led us into the crisis in the first place. Their view is that the major lever for economic policy is the interest rate and if we just get it right, we can steer this. That didn’t work. It forgot about financial fragility and how the banking system operates. They’re thinking the interest rate is a dial you can set and by setting that dial, you can regulate the economy. In fact, it operates primarily through the banking system, and the banking system is not functioning well. All the literature about how monetary policy operates in normal times is pretty irrelevant to this situation.

…

(T)he reason the private market for mortgages has dried up is that everybody knows the moment the government withdraws from the mortgage market, the effect will be that there will be a capital loss on the mortgages – and the same thing goes for our long-term bonds. Now we don’t use mark-to-market accounting, so we’ll pretend they don’t occur, but they will have occurred. We’ll have experienced a loss. The third point is that to avoid recognizing the loss, the Fed is likely to do silly things, like rather than buying and selling government bonds, they’ll pay interest on deposits banks make to the Federal Reserve in order to absorb the liquidity.

There are two problems with this. First, it’s costly, as we’re now paying interest when we didn’t before. Second, we don’t know how well this will work. And because it’s uncertain, you might say that the financial markets, recognizing we’re going into uncharted territory, will request a risk premium. That’ll hurt the U.S. Treasury and would be bad for the economy. So this is not costless. If it were the only instrument, you might say we have no choice. But it’s not. Fiscal policy is a choice, or it should be a choice. By putting fiscal policy off the table, we’re moving down the cost-benefit curve to something much riskier and much less cost-effective.

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times

Published: October 31, 2010

So what should we be doing? First, governments should be spending while the private sector won’t, so that debtors can pay down their debts without perpetuating a global slump. Second, governments should be promoting widespread debt relief: reducing obligations to levels the debtors can handle is the fastest way to eliminate that debt overhang.

But the moralizers will have none of it. They denounce deficit spending, declaring that you can’t solve debt problems with more debt. They denounce debt relief, calling it a reward for the undeserving.

And if you point out that their arguments don’t add up, they fly into a rage. Try to explain that when debtors spend less, the economy will be depressed unless somebody else spends more, and they call you a socialist. Try to explain why mortgage relief is better for America than foreclosing on homes that must be sold at a huge loss, and they start ranting like Mr. Santelli. No question about it: the moralizers are filled with a passionate intensity.

And those who should know better lack all conviction.

John Boehner, the House minority leader, was widely mocked last year when he declared that “It’s time for government to tighten their belts” – in the face of depressed private spending, the government should spend more, not less. But since then President Obama has repeatedly used the same metaphor, promising to match private belt-tightening with public belt-tightening. Does he lack the courage to challenge popular misconceptions, or is this just intellectual laziness? Either way, if the president won’t defend the logic of his own policies, who will?

Business News below.

Load more