Recession Buzz: July 2009

Friday, July 31, 2009

Recession Fears Grow

Reuters reports that "Unsold goods are piling up in warehouses as the housing meltdown and soaring oil prices strain consumers, raising fears that already glum fourth-quarter growth prospects may tip toward recession."

"The sluggishness is apparent in the retail sector, where 70 percent of chain stores posted weaker-than-expected October sales results, according to research firm Retail Metrics.

"We expect the challenging retail environment to continue for the foreseeable future," Mike Ullman, chairman and chief executive officer of department store chain J.C. Penney (JCP.N: Quote, Profile, Research), said last week. He added that the company would keep inventory levels tight through 2008."

Respected economist Nouriel Roubini writes "Any recession call for the U.S. is clearly dependent on US consumption faltering. Since residential investment is only 5% of even a worsening housing recession cannot – by itself – trigger an economy-wide recession. Rather, since private consumption is over 70% of aggregate demand a sharp and persistent slowdown in consumption growth – below 1% or even negative - is necessary to trigger a full blown recession

Thursday, July 30, 2009

The Only Sure Way to Fund Universal Health Care

During the presidential campaign, I thought Obama made only one big policy mistake. He criticized John McCain for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. McCain’s overall health plan was regressive – he would have turned the savings into tax credits for purchasing health care – but he was right about where the revenues should come from. I worried that Obama would come to regret the position he took.

Half a year later, it appears that the President will need to tax employer provided health benefits in order to finance universal health care. Or at least the tax-free benefits now enjoyed by higher-income employees. Many in Congress and in the White House are convinced it’s the only good option. Max Baucus, chair of Senate Finance, expliticly put it on the table last week. Peter Orszag, the President’s budget director, has told Congress the option should remain on the table.

The White House is in a revenue bind. The President had intended to raise money for health care by limiting the income tax deductions that wealthy taxpayers can claim. This would have generated some $318 billion over ten years, about half of Obama’s proposed “health care reserve fund.” But the proposal ran into a buzz saw of opposition from congressional Democrats. Not only did Baucus balk but so did Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

With deficit vultures already circling, Obama has to come up with a far more reliable way to fund health care. That’s where employee health benefits come in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxing all employee health benefits would yield a whopping $246 billion every year. Even limiting the tax to higher-income employees would go a long way to funding universal health care. Employer-provided health insurance is the biggest tax break in the whole federal income tax system.

Tax-free employer-provided health care is also, in effect, the government-backed health insurance system we now have. It now covers three-fifths of the American population under 65. Seventy percent of the 253 million Americans with health insurance receive at least some of it through their employers

Which is exactly the problem. Most middle class American families rely on it and won’t want to give it up even if a new universal system becomes available. Organized labor rightly considers these benefits among the union movement’s proudest achievements.

But, face it, it’s become a crazy system. You’re not eligible for these benefits when you and your family are likely to need them most – when you lose your job and your income plummets. And these days, as we’re witnessing, no job is safe. The system also distorts the labor market. It prevents lots of people from changing jobs for fear they’ll lose their health insurance, or won’t get the benefits they do now. And it invites employers to game the system by seeking young, healthy employees who pose low risks of ill health and will therefore keep insurance costs low, while rejecting older ones who are likely to have more costly health needs. The system also encourages employers to try to push married employees onto their spouses’s health insurance plan so that the spouse’s employer bears the cost.

It’s also an upside-down system. The biggest share of the $246 billion goes to upper-income people. The lower your pay, the less coverage you’re likely to have. Workers in lowest paying jobs don’t generally get any health insurance from their employers. Few people collecting $12 an hour at fast-food restaurants or big-box retailers see any part of the $246 billion. The higher your pay, the more health coverage you receive, and the bigger chunk of the $246 billion you get. Top executives and their families get gold-plated plans guaranteeing top-notch medical attention for just about every risk imaginable, along with extra coverage in retirement.

The good news is that a program providing universal health care doesn’t need the full $246 billion a year generated if every employee now receiving tax-free health benefits had to start paying taxes on them. Obama’s health care reserve fund needs around $650 billion over ten years. So a sensible and politically feasible alternative is to limit tax-free employer-provided health benefits to workers whose incomes are under, say, $100,000 a year, and subject those with higher incomes to progressively higher taxes on them.

It’s still not the position Obama took in the campaign. But, hey, circumstances change.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

There Was a Reason They Called It... The Casino Economy

by Thomas Croft

02 Jul 03

In the last three years, a 'perfect storm' of rising energy costs, record consumer and corporate debt and massive trade and current account deficits joined with unsustainable investment practices, and resulted in an economic collapse. The first recession since 1929 to be primarily caused by over-investment, these 'collateral damage' investing schemes-in overseas boondoggles and sweatshops, extreme mergers, absurd dot-coms and derivative scams-all came home to roost. Enron used all of these investment tricks and more. The corruption scandals of 2001-2 completed the melt-down. Now, the world is probably in a double-dip recession, thanks partly to the scandal and continuing international disruptions.

The problem with casino bets and Russian Roulette is that somebody always loses. [CounterPunch]

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

On inflation expectations

With Federal Reserve and government doing their best to stimulate demand, people have started looking at inflation. The worry is that the economy is not as sick as our policymakers think, and so the fiscal and monetary medicines are excessive. Markets disagree.

Expected inflation is an important determinant of future inflation. If the public expects higher inflation, workers demand higher wages, prompting employers to raise the price of their goods, which results in higher actual inflation.

Markets in fixed-income securities provide timely information about inflation expectations. Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) deliver interest and principal payments that are tied to inflation. Payments from regular Treasury notes, on the other hand, are not indexed to inflation. The difference between the yield rates of the two types of securities must be equal to the inflation rate expected by the markets—otherwise there would be an arbitrage opportunity. In practice, because of technical issues, the yield spread is only an approximation to expected inflation, and people call it the break-even inflation (BEI) instead. (More on this below.) From here on I use BEI and “expected inflation” interchangeably.

Because the Treasury has created notes with different maturities, we can use the spread between nominal and TIPS securities to gauge inflation expectations for different horizons. For example, today’s difference between the yield of five-year TIPS and that of five-year nominal notes is approximately equal to the inflation rate expected over the five years starting now (2008-2012).

The Fed is interested in long-term inflation expectations, because in the short term prices are affected by transitory or volatile factors, such as commodity prices. One measure of long-term expectations, which we can also derive from yields, is the five-year, five-year forward rate. That is an approximation to the rate of inflation expected for the five years starting five years from now. Today, that would be the period from 2013 through 2017.

* * *

Chart 1 (click to enlarge)

Monday, July 27, 2009

Housing Bubble Sites

National Sites

Regional Sites

Sunday, July 26, 2009

A Modest Plan For Paying College Costs

I'm just about to head off to a commencement here at U Cal Berkeley. The news that keeps banging around in my head is that the state has just announced a whopping 9 percent increase in fees for next academic year, the third fee increase in three years.

The average young person now graduating from college anywhere in America has to repay almost $22,000 of student loans. That's a record, partly because college costs have continued to rise even during the downturn, because states are cutting their support for public universities, and because other sources of college funding have taken big hits -- like home equity loans and 529 plans that allowed families to sock money away for college.

But how can a young people repay this much money when the job market is so bad? The law doesn't allow college loans to be discharged in personal bankruptcy.

Even when they do find jobs, college grads have no choice but to take the job that pays the most. They can't afford to do what they might really want to do -- become, say, a social worker or writer or legal services attorney.

This problem won't go away when the economy recovers. College debt burdens have been rising for years, and the career choices of many newly-minted graduates are narrowing to those that help repay college loans. We need a new system. So here's my proposal: Any college student can get full funding from the government, with only one string attached. Once they've graduated and are in the work force, they pay 10 percent of their incomes for the first 10 years of full-time work into the same government fund they drew on to finance their college education.

Now maybe that formula will need to be adjusted up or down to cover all the costs. And surely some people will game the system as they do every other one. But the essential idea is that linking the costs of college to subsequent wages makes college affordable to everyone.

And linking repayment to a fixed percent of subsequent wages for a limited number of years enables all graduates to follow their dreams into whatever work they want, without worrying about earning enough to repay a loan. Those who end up in relatively high-paying jobs subsidize those who end up in relatively low-paying ones.

It's fair, it's simple, and good for society as well as the individual.

For those who are getting their degrees: Happy graduation.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Friday, July 24, 2009

Recession buzz

Chart 1 (click to enlarge)

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Googling "recession" from United States has Tripled in the Past Year

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Health Care Cave-In

"Don't make the perfect the enemy of the better" is a favorite slogan in Washington because compromise is necessary to get anything done. But the way things are going with health care, a better admonition would be: "Don't give away the store."

Many experts have long agreed that a so-called "single-payer" plan is the ideal, because competition among private insurers who pay health-care bills inevitably causes them to spend big bucks trying to find and market policies to healthy and younger people at relatively low risk of health problems while avoiding sicker and older people with higher risks (and rejecting those with pre-existing conditions altogether), and also contesting and litigating many claims. A single payer saves all this money and focuses on caring for sick people and preventing the healthy from becoming sick. The other advantage of a single payer is it can use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower prices from pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and suppliers.

Not surprisingly, insurance and drug companies have been dead-set against a single payer for years. And they've so frightened the public into thinking that "single payer" means loss of choice of doctor (that's wrong -- many single payer plans in other nations allow choices of medical deliverers) that politicians no longer even mention it.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama pushed a compromise -- a universal health plan that would include a "public insurance option" resembling Medicare, which individual members of the public and their families could choose if they wished. This Medicare-like option would at least be able to negotiate low rates and impose some discipline on private insurers.

But now the Medicare-like option is being taken off the table. Insurance and drug companies have thrown their weight around the Senate. And, sadly, the White House -- eager to get a bill enacted in 2009 rather than risk it during the mid-term election year of 2010 -- is signaling it's open to other approaches. What other approaches? One would create a public insurance plan run by multiple regional third-party administrators. In other words, the putative "public plan" would be broken into little pieces, none of which could exert much bargaining leverage on Big Pharma and Big Insurance. These pieces would also be so decentralized that the drug companies and private insurers could easily bully (or bribe) regional third-party administrators.

Another approach now being considered in the Senate would have states create their own insurance plans. That's even worse: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are used to buying off state legislators and officials. They'd just continue their current practices.

A third option is to create a public plan that pays for itself and, according to the office of Senator Charles Schumer, who came up with it, "adheres to private-insurance rules." But adhering to private insurance rules is exactly what the public plan is not supposed to do. How can it possibly discipline private insurers and get good deals from drug companies and medical providers if it adheres to the same rules that private insurers have wangled?

It's still possible that the House could come up with a real Medicare-like public option and that Senate Dems could pass it under a reconciliation bill needing just 51 votes. But it won't happen without a great deal of pressure from the White House and the public. Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and the rest of Big Med are pushing hard in the opposite direction. And Democrats are now giving away the store. As things are now going, we'll end up with a universal health-care bill this year that politicians, including our President, will claim as a big step forward when it's really a step sideways.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Monday, July 20, 2009

On college endowments

According to a study released yesterday by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), the endowment fund of Harvard University is worth $34.6 billion, a 19.8% percent higher than a year ago. 76 colleges and universities sit on endowments over $1b. Even more impressively, almost every one of the 733 institutions analyzed reports a double-digit increase in the value of its fund. (Look up the endowment of your alma mater here.)

Chart 1 (click to enlarge)

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Nouriel Roubini: "clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months."

Nouriel Roubini, a leading economist at New York University, is now saying that a US Recession is almost here:

"It is increasingly clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months. Those of us who warned for the last 12 months about a combination of a worsening housing recession, a severe credit crunch and financial meltdown, high oil prices and a saving-less and debt-burdened consumers being on the ropes causing an economy-wide recession were repeatedly rebuffed the consensus view about a soft landing given the presumed resilience of the US consumer."

"But the evidence is now building that an ugly recession is inevitable."

Roubini is a smart economist who often goes against the consensus view.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Truth Behind the Social Security and Medicare Alarm Bells

What are we to make of yesterday's report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds that Social Security will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than previously forecast, and Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago?

Reports of these two funds' demise are not new. Fifteen years ago, when I was a trustee of the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds (which meant, essentially, that I and a few others met periodically with the official actuary of the funds, received his report, asked a few questions, and signed some papers) both funds were supposedly in trouble. But as I learned, the timing and magnitude of the trouble depended a great deal on what assumptions the actuary used in his models. As I recall, he then assumed that the economy would grow by about 2.6 percent a year over the next seventy-five years. But go back into American history all the way to the Civil War -- including the Great Depression and the severe depressions of the late 19th century -- and the economy's average annual growth is closer to 3 percent. Use a 3 percent assumption and Social Security is flush for the next seventy-five years.

Yes, I know, the post-war Baby Boom is moving through the population like a pig through a python. The number of retirees eligible for benefits will almost double to 79.5 million in 2045 from 40.5 million this year. But we knew that the Boomers were coming then, too. What we didn't know then was the surge in immigration. Yet immigrants are mostly young. Rather than being a drain on Social Security when the Boomers need it, most immigrants will be contributing to the system during these years, which should take more of the pressure off.

Even if you assume Social Security is a problem, it's not a big problem. Raise the ceiling slightly on yearly wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes (now a bit over $100,000), and the problem vanishes under harsher assumptions than I'd use about the future. President Obama suggested this in the campaign and stirred up a hornet's nest because this solution apparently dips too deeply into the middle class, which made him backtrack and begin talking about raising additional Social Security payroll taxes on people earning over $250,000. Social Security would also be in safe shape if it were slightly more means tested, or if the retirement age were raised just a bit. The main point is that Social Security is a tiny problem, as these things go.

Medicare is entirely different. It's a monster. But fixing it has everything to do with slowing the rate of growth of medical costs -- including, let's not forget, having a public option when it comes to choosing insurance plans under the emerging universal health insurance bill. With a public option, the government can use its bargaining power with drug companies and suppliers of medical services to reduce prices. And, as I've noted, keep pressure on private insurers to trim costs yet provide effective medical outcomes.

Don't be confused by these alarms from the Social Security and Medicare trustees. Social Security is a tiny problem. Medicare is a terrible one, but the problem is not really Medicare; it's quickly rising health-care costs. Look more closely and the real problem isn't even health-care costs; it's a system that pushes up costs by rewarding inefficiency, causing unbelievable waste, pushing over-medication, providing inadequate prevention, over-using emergency rooms because many uninsured people can't afford regular doctor checkups, and spending billions on advertising and marketing seeking to enroll healthy people and avoid sick ones.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Income mobility and education

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Economist: America's Vulnerable Economy

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Obama on Health Reform: The Dog That Didn't Bark

The only troubling thing about the President's statements today concerning health care reform was what he did not say: that he wanted a any health plan that emerges from Congress to include a public insurance option for Americans who do not want to buy private insurance. But without this option, there will be no pressure on private insurers to adopt all the other reforms to control costs or give all Americans access to affordable care.

Every other reform proposal announced to date -- electronic medical records, comparative effectiveness research, prevention of chronic disease, payments for services rather than for outcomes, and so on -- has been talked about for years. The reason none have been adopted is health providers and insurers can make more money without them. Only with a government plan that competes with private insurers, and offers Americans lower costs if the providers and insurers fail to reform themselves, will the system be genuinely reformed.

Hopefully, the President's failure to mention a public insurance option today was not intended to signal to Congress that the White House is no longer especially interested in it. The Administration should quickly inform policymakers how important this option is as a spur to real change.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Personal bankruptcy and consumption smoothing

The welfare effects of bankruptcy legislation are not correctly understood. Policymakers and the general public think, for the most part, that laws that protect borrowers in the event of default are beneficial to consumers. In practice, however, those laws have negative effects on the households that need credit most — and, ironically, those whom the legislation was intended to protect.

Traditionally, Chapter 7 has been the most popular type of bankruptcy filing. Under that section of the Bankruptcy Code, a filer relinquishes her assets, minus a certain exempted amount, and in return is discharged from her unsecured debt (credit card debt, personal loans, student loans, etc.).

State law sets those exempted amounts. In Illinois, for instance, exemptions are: $7,500 for home equity, $1,200 for motor vehicles, $750 for tools of the trade, and $2,000 for any other generic property. So suppose that you file for bankruptcy in the “Land of Lincoln,” and that you have $20,000 worth of home equity, and a car with a market value of $600. Then you can sell the house and keep $7,500 of the proceeds, and sell your car and keep the $600 (since that’s below the $1,200 limit).

Since 1978, with the passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act (BRA), there’s also a federal exemption. Some states allow filers to choose between the state and the federal amounts. Obviously, if given the opportunity, filers use whichever is highest.

There is an enormous disparity of bankruptcy exemptions across states, even after accounting for the existence of the federal limits. For example, in 2006 the states of Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia, all allowed for an unlimited homestead exemption. In the states of Ohio and Virginia, at the other extreme, the limit is set at $5,000 (and those states don’t allow for the application of the federal exemption). The map below shows the maximum exemption that a married homeowner could claim in 2003, after combining homestead and non-homestead amounts, and taking the highest of the state and federal limit (where the federal limit is available). The limits also vary over time, although high-exemption states tend to remain the same over the years.

Bankruptcy exemptions under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code
(in 2003, for a home owner)
Click to enlarge

Friday, July 10, 2009

More Americans Expecting Recession in The Next Year

More Americans are expecting a recession in the next year. Consumers are waking up to the reality that the economy has a significant chance of recession next year.

The economic mood took a sharp turn for the worse over the past month, with 40 percent of Americans expecting a recession in the next year, according to a Reuters / Zogby poll released Wednesday.

That was a big rise from a month earlier, when 31 percent of the likely voters polled predicted a recession. The darker mood came as mounting concerns about housing and credit markets pounded Wall Street, and oil prices approached $100 per barrel.

That was a big rise from a month earlier, when 31 percent of the likely voters polled predicted a recession. The darker mood came as mounting concerns about housing and credit markets pounded Wall Street, and oil prices approached $100 per barrel. (CNBC 1/21/07)

Recession times are increasingly being expected. The coming holiday spending season will likely provide important clues to where consumer spending is headed. Consumer spending is about 70% of the US's GDP. Consumer spending is a key factor in a forecasting a recession.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

What Will Happen to Banks that Fail the Stress Test, When You and I Own Wall Street

The outcome of the "stress tests" will be that the banks needing extra capital will get it from the Treasury. But where will the money come from, now that the TARP fund is almost exhausted and Congress is dead set against providing more bank bailout money? The Treasury will simply swap debt for equity – turning what the banks owe the government into shares of stock in the banks. Presto. Ailing banks will get more capital, and Tim Geithner won’t have to go back to Congress to ask for it.

But by this sleight-of-hand, the public takes on more risk. Much of the money we originally gave Wall Street took the form of senior debt. We were preferred creditors, meaning that in the event of bankruptcy (or some form of it) we’d get repaid first. But as shareholders, we’d get nothing. As we’ve seen time and again during this economic crisis, shareholders lose big.

It’s possible, of course, that this is the perfect time to get shares in major Wall Street banks, because the economy is poised for recovery. But it’s just as possible this is the worst time – especially in banks judged by the Treasury to be inadequately capitalized – because nonperforming loans keep mounting. They won’t be repaid because so many people continue to lose their jobs, even though the pace of job losses may be slowing. And because they’re losing their jobs, they can’t pay their mortgages or credit card balances, or even shop at stores that are closing on Main Street, thereby threatening commercial real estate as well.

There’s a second problem with the debt-for-equity swaps. We the public become controlling shareholders in several large Wall Street banks. Should we be active shareholders – using our clout to get management to do things management might not otherwise do? Or passive shareholders, relying on the remaining private shareholders to police management? I’d say we should be active. But that only raises a whole host of questions. First, who represents us?

More importantly, if we’re active shareholders, is our main objective to make sure the banks become profitable and our we get repaid? Or should we push management to take actions that are in the public interest but not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder returns in the foreseeable future – such as limiting executive compensation, limiting the payout of dividends, and pushing the banks to make more loans to Main Street? I’d say we should do the latter. Otherwise, why bother bailing out the banks to begin with?

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Who's Paying For Your Fix?

by Kate Duncan

May/Jun 2003 Issue

Unless your morning latte was a fair trade blend, it probably cost more than what the farmer who picked the beans earns in a day.

Conventional coffee prices are at their lowest in a century, even below the cost of production. Farmers have been leaving the fruit to rot on the tree, pulling the kids out of school, abandoning the family land and pouring into the cities to find non-existent work. That’s why, as the most heavily traded commodity after oil, and the most common beverage after water, coffee is a major focus of the fair trade movement.

If your morning latte was a fair trade brew, it means the person who farmed the beans is earning enough to support his family. This is all well and good, but the way fair trade is usually explained - with prices, numbers and statistics - ignores it’s lasting benefits. The true point of fair trade is the cultural, communal, and environmental stability it bolsters.

A farmer who sells through fair trade is a member of a cooperative that is a vehicle for community empowerment. And not just a neighborhood watch: The people typically organized via fair trade are those whom the free market has filtered to the lowest economic stratum. Rather than maneuvering them into a position where they’re forced to take what they can get, fair trade recognizes farmers as equal partners, a platform from which they can command more control over their business and lives.

'Fair trade is a different kind of business relationship between the producer and buyer, which has been an inspiration to help these communities pull together instead of caving to the pressure of all the things trying to blow them apart,' says Monika Firl. Monika heads up producer relations for Cooperative Coffees, and as such, led half a dozen coffee roasters and me (as a grateful representative of Idyll Development Foundation, one of Cooperative Coffee’s funders) on a buying trip to farmers’ co-ops in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico in February, where we were able to see the effect for ourselves. [Clamor]

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

A bash for confidence indexes

Every month the University of Michigan and the Conference Board conduct a survey of households’ confidence on the state of the economy. Each pollster asks several questions and summarizes the results with an index, which is closely watched for signs of consumer distress. Last November, the Michigan index fell by 4.8 points from October; the Conference Board Index dipped by 7.9 points. Supposedly this is bad news because worried consumers are thrifty consumers. Don’t let the surveys fool you: they are almost complete rubbish — unless you know how to use them.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Economy Slowing Says Calculated Risk

Great Blogger, Calculated Risk "Clearly the economy is slowing sharply"

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Obama and Pragmatism: Thinking Through Values

I keep hearing the White House staff describe the President as a pragmatist. David Axelrod, one of his chief advisors whom I admire enormously, recently called him a "ruthless pragmatist." Soon, I expect, he’ll be called a "take-no-prisoners pragmatist," or perhaps a "remorseless, merciless, and unrelenting pragmatist."

I’m relieved the President is a pragmatist, but that doesn’t let him or anyone around him off the hook for describing what he wants to achieve and why. Being a pragmatist is a statement about means, not ends. It describes someone who chooses the most practical way of achieving a certain goal but it does not explain why he chooses one goal over another.

The President seems to me especially thoughtful and passionate about one of the great moral questions of domestic policy today: widening inequality of income and wealth, and therefore of opportunity and political power. As I’ve noted before, as recently as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans took home about 9 percent of total national income. But since then, income has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By 2007, the richest 1 percent took home 22 percent of total national income.

This trend cannot be sustained, either morally, economically, or politically. That’s why, I believe, the President in recent weeks has criticized the heads of Wall Street banks who continue to take home seven figure incomes even as taxpayers bail them out; giant companies that shelter their income in places like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands; the rich who say they need huge tax deductions in order to continue to make charitable contributions; and other forms of unwarranted privilege in our society, especially at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes.

To call his stance "pragmatic" is to rob it of its moral authority.

To be sure, all Presidents want to be seen as political centrists. They dare not proclaim themselves "Right" or "Left," or even "conservative" or "liberal," on an ideological spectrum that’s become ever more highly polarized. It is politically safer – yes, even pragmatic – to describe one’s values as "commonsensical" or "middle of the road." But even this description minimizes and distorts a president’s capacity for leadership. A true leader does not take the public to where the public happens to be, because the public is already there. A leader takes the public to where the public should be, according to that leader’s view of the society’s highest ideals – ideals that the public shares but which have not yet been realized.

Obama did this several times during the presidential campaign, most notably in his courageous speech on race. He took America to a higher place by explaining what we all knew and felt but giving it a larger and nobler frame. He educated us in the best sense of the word. Doing so may have been politically pragmatic but his goal was not solely to get elected. Nor was it simply to demonstrate to us the leadership of which he is capable, although the speech did that. His goal was also to make us more aware about how race is used divisively. In doing so he drew on what in retrospect seem "commonsensical" positions and "middle of the road" values. But that’s not how the speech struck most of us then. We were transformed by the power of his thinking and the values that underlay it – values that we share but had not thought through.

President Obama can afford to do the same with regard to the overriding issue of widening inequality in American society. He can connect the dots for us, allowing us to understand why inequality is widening without deriding the rich or castigating the fortunate. Doing so would allow us to understand what he is seeking to do and why, and empower us to seek and do the same.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Friday, July 3, 2009

In Spain, mortgage funding is different

Spain is different. The slogan, which the tourism industry used in the 1950s to celebrate the country’s identity and culture, is nowadays something of a joke. Among Spaniards, the old line is an expression of self-deprecation, of a sentiment of quirkiness and inferiority, which constitutes a fundamental part of the Spanish ethos. When it comes to funding mortgages, however, Spain is different in a good way.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Risk Factors For A 2008 Recession

Here are the top risk factors for 2008 US Recession:

Continuing Housing Bust
High Oil Prices
Security Issues
Credit Crunch
High Consumer Debt
Large Trade Deficit
Consumer Spending is slowing (it makes up 70% of the US GDP)
Commercial Construction decline

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Why Obama is Taking on Corporate Tax Havens

Why, one may ask, is Obama taking on yet another huge fight by taking aim at foreign tax havens? Yes, it's unfair that multinationals pay an average tax rate of only 2 percent on their foreign revenues, and it's unfair that some wealthy Americans are avoiding taxes altogether by parking their fortunes abroad. But, hey, these have been true for decades. So why take them on now, when the President is also taking on universal health insurance and global warming, and trying to get the economy going again?

The White House says that some jobs go abroad because American companies are lured there by tax loopholes which, if closed, would bring the jobs home. True. But a crackdown on tax havens might also cost American jobs if companies decided that a higher tax burden here required them to cut payrolls in order to stay competitive or to simply leave the United States altogether.

Another possible explanation is that it was a campaign promise. Obama frequently criticized the tax code for allowing American companies with overseas operations to defer paying taxes on corporate profits if they placed the money back into their foreign subsidiaries. But this can't be it, either. He criticized several other things as well -- such as the North American Free Trade Agreement -- which he now seems comfortable with.

So again: why this, and why now?

Two reasons, both strategic. The President needs the cooperation of many big corporations if he's going to get universal health insurance enacted this year. Many of these companies would benefit from lower health costs but they're reluctant to take on Big Pharma, big health insurance companies, and major health providers, all of whom are dead set against a provision in the emerging health insurance proposal that would allow the public to opt for a government health plan. How does it help for him to take on corporate tax havens? Because the President needs as many bargaining chips with the rest of corporate America as possible. The proposed crackdown on foreign tax avoidance is one such chip. He might be willing to take it off the table if big corporations lend him active support on health insurance.

The second reason has to do with revenues. Originally the White House had planned to pay for universal health insurance by limiting tax deductions for wealthier Americans. But the Democratic leadership nixed that source. The rich Americans who take the deductions, and the groups benefiting from the wealthy's tax-deductible expenditures on them, had enough political leverage to make it a non-starter. That means the White House has to find other sources of money.

By some measures, $700 billion or more in U.S. corporate earnings is now sitting in overseas accounts. A portion of that might be made available to help pay for universal health insurance. The Administration figures it could raise over $100 billion over ten years by preventing companies from taking immediate deductions for overseas expenses while deferring tax payments on profits there, and claiming inflated credit against American taxes for foreign taxes paid. It could raise another $95 billion by making it harder for individuals to hide their income in offshore accounts, and harder for companies to shift income from one foreign subsidiary to another in search of the lowest-tax jurisdiction.

The White House is preparing to release a more detailed budget blueprint later this week. That blueprint has to contain some credible ways to pay for universal health insurance. Otherwise the measure could become vulnerable to deficit hawks who, like vultures over road kill, continue to circle ominously.