Recession Buzz: September 2009

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Monday, September 28, 2009

The Future of Universal Health Care, as of Now

Every day that goes by without a vote in the House or Senate on universal health care makes it less likely that major reform will occur, because (1) opponents have more time to stir up public anxieties about it; (2) Democrats up for reelection next year come ever closer to the gravitational pull of the midterms, and grow increasingly worried about voting for a bill that could be a political liability in a year when unemployment may well reach double digits and the electorate is restless and unhappy; and (3), as a result of the first two, proponents increasingly have to rely for support and cover on industries like Big Pharma and insurance, as well as physician specialists and equipment suppliers, none of whom have any interest in fundamental reform but all of whom see possibilities for making more money out of whatever bill emerges.

In other words, next fall we get something called "universal health insurance" that still leaves millions of Americans uninsured and doesn't substantially slow the meteoric rise of health-care costs. That would be a tragedy.

What should be done now to avoid this?

First, the House must enact a bill before August recess even if the Senate is unable to -- and the House bill should include the four key elements that have already emerged from House committees: (1) a public plan option, (2) a mandate on all but the smallest employers to provide their employees with health insurance or else pay a tax or fee (so-called "pay or play"), (3) a requirement that every individual and family buy health insurance, coupled with subsidies for families up to 300 or 400 times the poverty level in order to make sure it's affordable to them; and (4) a small surtax on the top 1 percent of earners or families to help pay for this subsidy ("tax the wealthy so all Americans can stay healthy.")

Second, the President must tell Congress in no uncertain terms that all four elements are necessary. I believe he should also signal his openness to capping the amount of tax-free health care that individuals or families may receive from employers -- so long as the cap does not erode the tax-free benefits of individuals or families in the bottom 80 percent of the earnings distribution. This is the only funding mechanism that may be able to garner sixty votes in the Senate, and the only one that the Congressional Budget Office has so far said would temper the rise in long-term healthcare costs.

Third, the President should make clear to Big Pharma, private insurers, and other interest groups now supporting the effort that the final bill must contain mechanisms for forcing them to come up with the cost savings each has promised. Otherwise, those savings cannot be assumed -- and they won't be "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office -- thereby making it difficult for waivering members of Congress to vote for the bill.

Fourth, the President should commit to visiting, during the recess, all states of waivering Senate Democrats and even a few moderate Republicans (read Maine), in order to take the case for universal health care directly to their constituents. He or the Vice President and cabinet members should do the same in the congressional districts of all Blue Dog Democrats and other waivering House Democrats.

Finally, you, dear reader, must contact your senators and representatives and explain why you want genuine reform -- incorporating the four elements listed above. Mobilize and energize others to do the same, especially residents of Blue Dog states, including Montana where Senate Finance Chief Max Baucus resides. And if you're able and willing I'd urge you to descend on Washington the moment Congress returns from recess. There is nothing quite as persuasive to a member of Congress as real live constituent demanding real reform.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Saturday, September 26, 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)

Friday, September 25, 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.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Wall Street Rally: Watch Your Wallets

Been Down So Long It Seems Like Up To Me, the precocious 1966 novel by the late Richard Farina, defined the late 1960s counterculture. The stock market rally that's pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average back above 9000 for the first time since early January could be given the same title, and it might well come to define the much-wished-for financial recovery.

What's pushing the stock market upward? Mainly, unexpectedly positive second-quarter corporate profits. But those profits aren't being powered by consumers who have suddenly found themselves with a lot more money in their pockets. The profits are coming from dramatic cost-cutting -- including, most notably, payroll cuts. If a firm cuts its costs enough, it can show a profit even if its sales are still in the basement.

The problem here is twofold. First, such profits can't be maintained. There's a limit to how much can be cut without a business eventually disappearing -- becoming, in effect, a balance sheet in space. Secondly, when businesses slash payrolls to show profits, consumers end up with even less money in their pockets to buy the things businesses produce. Even if they hold on to their jobs, they're likely to fear that they won't have the jobs for long, which causes them to retreat even further from the malls.

Most companies that have reported earnings so far have surpassed analyst's estimates, but that only means that earnings have been less bad than analysts had feared. According to the chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management, if the companies that haven't yet reported earnings show the same pattern a the companies that have reported so far, overall corporate earnings will have dropped 25 percent over the past year. That may not be as much of a drop as analysts had expected, but it's still awful. Operating income for companies in the S&P 500 that have reported so far has been almost 29 percent lower than last year, more than 80 percent lower than 2007, according to Standard and Poors. Ouch.

"Better-than-expected" is Wall Street's euphemism these days for "we're happier than we thought we'd be." But Wall Street is in the business of cheer leading, even when there's really nothing to cheer about. It wants investors to think positively, on the assumption that positive thinking can be a self-fulfilling prophesy: If investors begin putting more money into the market, then the market will automatically rise, leading more investors to put in more money -- until, that is, the rally ends because nothing has fundamentally changed in the real economy.

Keep your eye on the real economy, where unemployment and underemployment keep rising. It's not as much fun as cheering and investing right now, but it's far safer.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

EZer taxes

Imagine if you didn’t have to file a tax return. Imagine if, come T-day, the only thing you needed to do to comply with your tax obligations was to sign a form and mail it. And imagine if this could be done without changing a comma of the tax code. This is not a pipe dream—millions of citizens in different parts of the world already do it.

Austan Goolsbee, professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and head economic adviser to Barack Obama, is proposing to let the Internal Revenue Service, America’s tax man, put together drafts of individual tax returns and mail them to taxpayers. Experts know the system as “Tax Agency Reconciliation” (TAR). Goolsbee has had the good sense to re-baptize as “Simple Return.”

Tax collection agencies receive all the information they need to fill out the returns of many taxpayers. By law, employers and financial institutions send the data to them. The time spent by filers collecting statements, putting the numbers in the right boxes of the tax form, figuring out the standard deductions and exemptions, and calculating the tax bill--not to mention the fees paid to tax prepapers--are thus a waste.

Sweden and Denmark use the system. In Spain, with seven years of TAR experience, some filers can even request and confirm their pre-filled tax returns by sending a text message. Some Spaniards don’t even have to sacrifice precious TV time: they can do their taxes through their interactive, digital TV sets. (I encourage readers who know of other countries in the EZer Club to let me know in the comments or by e-mail. I’d like to make a list. If you respond, please specify whether the country does TAR or exact withholding.)

Monday, September 21, 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.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Obamacare Is At War With Itself Over Future Costs

Right now, Obamacare is at war with itself. Political efforts to buy off Big Pharma, private insurers, and the AMA are all pushing up long-term costs -- one reason why Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, told Congress late last week that "the cost curve is being raised." But this is setting off alarms among Blue Dog Democrats worried about future deficits -- and their votes are critical.

Big Pharma, for example, is in line to get just what it wants. The Senate health panel’s bill protects biotech companies from generic competition for 12 years after their drugs go to market, which is guaranteed to keep prices sky high. Meanwhile, legislation expected from the Senate Finance committee won't allow cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada and won't give the federal government the right to negotiate Medicare drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Last month Big Pharma agreed to what the White House touted as $80 billion in givebacks to help pay for expanded health insurance, but so far there's been no mechanism to force the industry to keep its promise. No wonder Big Pharma is now running "Harry and Louise" ads -- the same couple who fifteen years ago scared Americans into thinking the Clinton plan would take away their choice of doctor -- now supportive of Obamacare.

Private insurers, for their part, have become convinced they'll make more money with a universal mandate accompanied by generous subsidies for families with earnings up to 400 percent of poverty (in excess of $80,000 of income) than they might stand to lose. Although still strongly opposed to a public option, the insurance industry is lining up behind much of the legislation. The biggest surprise is the AMA, which has also now come out in favor -- but only after being assurred that Medicare reimbursements won't be cut nearly as much as doctors first feared.

But all these industry giveaways are obviously causing the healthcare tab to grow. And as these long-term costs rise, the locus of opposition to universal health care is shifting away from industry and toward Blue Dog and moderate Democrats who are increasingly worried about future deficits. My sources on the Hill tell me there aren't enough votes in the House to get either major bill through, even with a provision that would pay for it with a surcharge on the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. House members don't want to vote for a tax increase before their Senate counterparts commit to one. Yet the Senate continues to be in suspended animation because Max Baucus and his Senate Finance Committee still haven't come up with a credible way of paying for health care. In his testimony last week, Elmendorf favored limiting tax-free employer-provided health benefits, but organized labor remains strongly opposed.

Obama has less than three weeks before August recess. Chances are dimming that he can get some form of universal health care passed in both Houses before the clock runs out. The Democratic National Committee is running ads favoring passage in Blue Dog states and districts, but that won't be enough. Now is the time for the President to begin twisting arms and knocking heads. To control long-term costs, he'll also have to take away some of the goodies that have been promised to the health-industrial complex, and maybe even cross Big Labor. He also needs to come out clearly and forcefully in favor of a way to pay for the whole thing -- ideally, in my view, a surtax on the top.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Friday, September 18, 2009

Income mobility and education

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Economist: America's Vulnerable Economy

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Goldman and JPMorgan -- The Two Winners When The Rest of America is Losing

Besides Goldman Sachs, the Street's other surviving behemoth is JPMorgan. Today it posted second-quarter earnings up a stunning 36 percent from the first quarter, to $2.7 billion.

The resurgence of JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs gives both banks more financial clout than any other players on the Street -- allowing both firms to lure talent from everywhere else on the Street with multi-million pay packages, giving both firms enough economic power to charge clients whopping fees, and bestowing on both firms even more political heft in Washington.

Where are the antitrusters when we need them? Alternatively, why isn't the government charging Goldman and JPMorgan a large insurance fee for classifying both firms as "too big to fail" and therefore automatically bailed out if the risks they take turn sour? Instead, we've ended up with two giants that now have most of the casino to themselves, are playing with poker chips backed by taxpayers, and have a big say in what the rules of the game are to be.

When JP Morgan repaid its federal bailout of $25 billion last month it was, like Goldman, freed from stricter government oversight. The freedom has also allowed JP, like Goldman, to take tougher and more vocal stands in Washington against proposed financial regulations they dislike.

JP is mounting a furious lobbying campaign against regulations that would funnel derivatives trading through exchanges where regulators can monitor them, and thereby crimp JP's profits. Now the Street's biggest derivatives player, JP has generated billions helping clients navigate these contracts and assuming counter-party risk in such transactions. Its derivatives contracts were valued at roughly $81 trillion at the end of the first quarter, representing 40 percent of the derivatives held by all banks, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. JP has played down its potential risk exposure from these derivatives contracts, of course, but anyone who's been paying attention over the last ten months knows that unregulated derivatives have been at the center of the storm.

The tumult on the Street has also given both firms extraordinary market power. That's where much of the current profits are coming from. JP used the crisis to snap up Bear Stearns in March and Washington Mutual last fall, with the amiable assistance of the FDIC. The deals have boosted JP's dominance in retail banking and prime brokerage, enabling it to charge its corporate clients heftier fees for lending and other financial services, and to corner more of the market in fixed-income and equities. JP also bolstered its earnings by helping other financial companies raise capital following the stress test results in May.

Antitrust law was designed to prevent just this sort of market power and political heft. The Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission should investigate the new-found dominance of Goldman and JP -- and, if warranted, break them up. Alternatively, Congress should impose a surtax on the newly-exclusive group of Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman and JPMorgan, which are now backed by implicit government bailout insurance guaranteeing that, should they get into trouble, taxpayers will keep them afloat. The surtax would approximate the economic benefit to these firms of such government largesse, which I'd estimate to be at least 50 percent of their profits from here on.

Tuesday, September 15, 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]

Monday, September 14, 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

Sunday, September 13, 2009

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

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The House: Tax the Wealthy to Keep Everyone Healthy

It's the most blatant form of Robin-Hood economics ever proposed. The universal health care bill reported by the House yesterday pays for the health insurance of the 20 percent of Americans who need help affording it with a surtax on the richest 1 percent.

I don't recall the last time Congress came up with such a direct redistribution. Occasionally Congress closes a few tax loopholes at the top and offers a refundable tax credit to workers at the bottom, or it creates a poor people's program like Medicaid, paid for out of general revenues from a progressive income tax. But to say out loud, as the House has just done, that those in our society who can most readily afford it should pay for the health insurance of those who cannot is, well, audacious.

There's another word for it: fair. According to the most recent data (for 2007), the best-off 1 percent of American households take home about 20 percent of total income -- the highest percentage since 1928. Yes, I know: Critics will charge that these are the very people who invest, innovate, and hire, and thereby keep the economy going. So raising their taxes will burden the economy and thereby hurt everyone, including those who are supposed to be helped.

But there's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate, and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable health care for a far larger number of Americans, who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater.

Don't believe critics who say the surtax will harm small business. According to the Center for Tax Justice, it would hit only five percent of small business owners -- realistically defined as taxpayers for whom small business income makes up at least half of their adjusted gross income (from schedule C businesses, partnerships, family farms, and Subchapter S corporations).

Besides, only the profits of a small business would be taxed. The owner of a small business deducts money paid to employees as compensation, as well as operating costs. So, for example, a couple whose income comes entirely from a small business would have to earn more than $350,000 in business profits -- after paying all their expenses, including salaries -- before the surcharge would affect them at all. And if they earned more, the surcharge wouldn't reduce their incentive to hire more employees because they pay employees with pre-tax income. And not even purchases of equipment to expand business operations would be affected because most small business owners can write off up to $250,000 of the costs of such equipment immediately.

A surtax is easy to administer. And the whole idea is easy to understand. Tax the wealthy to keep everyone healthy. Not even a bad bumper sticker.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Thursday, September 10, 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.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Economy Slowing Says Calculated Risk

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Goldman's Back, and Why We Should Be Worried

Should we breath a sigh of relief that Goldman Sachs has posted record earnings as revenue from trading and stock underwriting reached all-time highs (second quarter net income was $3.44 billion) -- less than a year after the firm took $10 billion directly from taxpayers and $13 billion indirectly through AIG?

In some ways, yes. That Goldman is back signals that the worst of Wall Street's recent meltdown is over. And at least New York City's economy will again benefit from the trickle-down effects of the multi-million dollar bonuses of Goldman's executives and traders.

But in another respect, Goldman's resurgence should send shivers down the backs of every hardworking American who has lost a large chunk of retirement savings in this economic debacle, as well as the millions who have lost their jobs. Why? Because Goldman's high-risk business model hasn't changed one bit from what it was before the implosion of Wall Street. Goldman is still wagering its capital and fueling giant bets with lots of borrowed money. While its rivals have pared back risks, Goldman has increased them. And its renewed success at this old game will only encourage other big banks to go back into it.

“Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” Goldman's chief financial officer tells Bloomberg News. Value-at-risk -- a statistical measure of how much the firm’s trading operations could lose in a day -- rose to an average of $245 million in the second quarter from $240 million in the first quarter. In the second quarter of 2008, VaR averaged $184 million.

Meanwhile, Goldman is still depending on $28 billion in outstanding debt issued cheaply with the backing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Which means you and I are still indirectly funding Goldman's high-risk operations.

Goldman is skillful at playing the market. Now that most of its major competitors are out of the action or still under the strict control of the Treasury and the Fed, it has the market mostly to itself. Expect the others to jump back in to high-risk deals as soon as they can. But Goldman is also skillful at playing politics -- something its rivals aren't nearly as good at. Recall that last fall, at a closed meeting between Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (formerly Goldman's CEO), Tim Geithner (then at the New York Fed), and a handful of others to decide on the fate of giant insurer AIG, Goldman's cheif executive, Lloyd Blankfein, was at the table. The decision to bail out AIG resulted in a $13 billion giveaway to Goldman because Goldman was an AIG counterparty. Indeed, Goldman executives and alumni have played crucial roles in guiding the Wall Street bailout from the start.

So the fact that Goldman has reverted to its old ways in the market suggests it has every reason to believe it can revert to its old ways in politics, should its market strategies backfire once again -- leaving the rest of us once again to pick up the pieces.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Sugar Giants Shove Their Sweetener

by Chris Tenove

Jul/Aug 2003 Issue

What does anybody know about the sugar industry? The people who put the frosting on the frosted flakes keep a low profile and are happy when folks are too busy eating to ask a lot of questions. Now, though, a dust-up with the World Health Organization (WHO) has flushed them into the limelight, where they're pitting profits against public health.

The conflict was inflamed by a new set of dietary guidelines drawn from two years of research by the WHO and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. The guidelines are part of a worldwide strategy to tame the swelling epidemic of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases. One recommendation is that free sugars (i.e. sugar added to foods) should make up no more than 10 percent of our daily caloric intake. The sugar lobby reacted to that suggestion like a toddler asked to hand back his Halloween booty...

'It was particularly stupid for them to put in writing that they're going to try to get Congress to take away WHO's money,' says Michael Jacobsen, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 'It gave consumers a chance to see the kind of bullying that is usually done behind closed doors.' [Adbusters]

Sunday, September 6, 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)

Saturday, September 5, 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

Friday, September 4, 2009

When Will The Recovery Begin? Never.

The so-called "green shoots" of recovery are turning brown in the scorching summer sun. In fact, the whole debate about when and how a recovery will begin is wrongly framed. On one side are the V-shapers who look back at prior recessions and conclude that the faster an economy drops, the faster it gets back on track. And because this economy fell off a cliff late last fall, they expect it to roar to life early next year. Hence the V shape.

Unfortunately, V-shapers are looking back at the wrong recessions. Focus on those that started with the bursting of a giant speculative bubble and you see slow recoveries. The reason is asset values at bottom are so low that investor confidence returns only gradually.

That's where the more sober U-shapers come in. They predict a more gradual recovery, as investors slowly tiptoe back into the market.

Personally, I don't buy into either camp. In a recession this deep, recovery doesn't depend on investors. It depends on consumers who, after all, are 70 percent of the U.S. economy. And this time consumers got really whacked. Until consumers start spending again, you can forget any recovery, V or U shaped.

Problem is, consumers won't start spending until they have money in their pockets and feel reasonably secure. But they don't have the money, and it's hard to see where it will come from. They can't borrow. Their homes are worth a fraction of what they were before, so say goodbye to home equity loans and refinancings. One out of ten home owners is under water -- owing more on their homes than their homes are worth. Unemployment continues to rise, and number of hours at work continues to drop. Those who can are saving. Those who can't are hunkering down, as they must.

Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting.

My prediction, then? Not a V, not a U. But an X. This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained.

The X marks a brand new track -- a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can't "recover" because it can't go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin. More on this to come.

Thursday, September 3, 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]

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The fiscal stimulus: ineffective or wrong?

The latest economic data show that output growth has weakened and unemployment is creeping up. The government is worried, with good reason, that the economy is going through a pronounced slowdown, perhaps even a recession. To limit the damage, Congress yesterday approved a battery of fiscal measures. By my reckoning, however, the plan will at best provide a short-lived nudge to consumption, but not employment; at worst, it’ll do nothing.

Starting in May, the government will send $600 checks to individuals ($1,200 for couples and an extra $300 for each child). People who earn too little to pay income taxes, but make more than $3,000, will receive a $300 payment. Payments will total $106 billion and will add to the budget deficit.

Cash outlays are supposed to boost private consumption expenditures and accelerate overall growth. $106b may seem a small stimulus for a $14 trillion economy, but the payments are expected to have a “multiplier effect”: higher demand will prompt businesses to hire more workers, and increased employment will further stimulate private consumption, which in turn will induce more hiring. The process continues ad infinitum. The outlays, therefore, can have a final effect on aggregate demand that is many times bigger than the initial stimulus —hence the name “multiplier.”

The effectiveness of the measure hinges on two factors. First, the fraction of the government outlays that will be spent immediately. According to Bruce Bartlett, previous experiences with tax rebates in 1975 and 2001 indicate that it's small. The recent study by Elmendorf and Furman indicates that it's a 50 percent.

The second requirement, which has received less attention, is that businesses will respond to the initial surge in demand by hiring new workers. If they don’t, then the fiscal package will have no second-round impact on demand, and the stimulus to consumption will total just $50b.

Because the first two quarters of 2008 will be marked by considerable uncertainty about the course of the economy in the medium term, the announcement of the fiscal plan will not have an immediate effect on hiring. Manufacturers may ratchet up their inventories, in anticipation of the small jolt of demand in May, but they will do so by using overtime and temp workers, rather than hiring permanent employees. In the services sector, we won’t see any change in employment until the late spring, and even then employers will similarly meet spikes in demand with overtime hours and temp workers, at least initially. If, come June, forecasts have improved, we may see employment pick up over the fall. But by then the effect of the government checks will have played out. In conclusion, the fiscal package won’t provide any significant boost to employment.

A less obvious reason to reject the stimulus is that the slowdown in aggregate demand is necessary, even healthy. Most of the growth experienced between 2002 and 2006 was based on low interest rates, over-valued real estate, and loose lending standards.

Chart 1, from a story by Michael Mandel at BusinessWeek, tells it all. Mandel estimates that, “if consumer spending had tracked the overall economy over the past decade as it has in the past, Americans today would be spending about $600 billion less a year. The extra spending has amounted to a total of about $3 trillion since 2001.” That extra spending was financed with debt. Quite literally, Americans were borrowing their prosperity from the future —not exactly a sustainable growth path.

Chart 1 (left) and 2 (right). Click to enlarge.

Tuesday, September 1, 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