Showing posts with label Economic Recession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic Recession. Show all posts
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Friday, September 17, 2010
About 44 million in U.S. lived below poverty line in 2009, census data show
By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2010; 11:22 PM
In the second year of a brutal recession, the ranks of the American poor soared to their highest level in half a century and millions more are barely avoiding falling below the poverty line, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
About 44 million Americans - one in seven - lived last year in homes in which the income was below the poverty level, which is about $22,000 for a family of four. That is the largest number of people since the census began tracking poverty 51 years ago. The snapshot captured by the census for 2009, the first year of the Obama presidency, shows an America in the throes of economic upheaval.
Since 2007, the year before the recession kicked into gear, the country has almost 4 million fewer wage-earners. There are more children growing up poor. And for the first time since the government began tracking health insurance in 1987, the number of people who have health coverage declined, as people lost jobs with health benefits or employers stopped offering it.
With midterm elections less than two months away, the statistics bare the reality fueling much of the anger toward Washington.
In the Washington region, Virginia's poverty rate rose the most, to 10.5 percent from 8.6 percent. Maryland's edged up half a percentage point to 9 percent. The District's rate was the highest, but it declined from 18 percent to 17 percent.
Although the recession's impact was broad-based, there were disparities among groups. The official poverty rate increased for all races and ethnicities except Asians, who continued to have the highest median household income. More working-age adults lived in poverty, while the number of poor people 65 or older fell, largely as a result of increases in Social Security payments.
More than 51 million Americans lack health insurance, the census reported, and a greater-than-ever percentage of those who do have insurance are getting it from the government.
Scholars, nonprofit groups that work with the poor and President Obama all expressed concern about the gloomy picture.
Obama said the numbers could have been much worse were it not for government assistance.
"Because of the Recovery Act and many other programs providing tax relief and income support to a majority of working families - and especially those most in need - millions of Americans were kept out of poverty last year," he said in a statement.
Many conservatives, however, laid the blame on government programs that don't work.
"We're spending more money fighting poverty than ever before, yet poverty is up," said Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "Clearly, we're doing something wrong."
Along with a rise in the number of people living in poverty, the census reported a decrease in the number of people who are living just above poverty level, suggesting that many of those just slightly above poverty slipped over the edge in the previous year.
Food banks and shelters around the country say they are seeing former donors asking for help.
Dale City resident Jamie Imler is one. She used to give money to charity and make quilts for homeless shelters. But since she began treatment for breast cancer last year, she has been too weak to work at either of the two jobs she held, one in a restaurant and one for a recruitment agency. Her income has dropped from $2,000 a month to less than $700 - not enough to cover her rent - and she has been coming for the past six months to a food pantry in Prince William County called Action Through Service.
"Things were good," she said. "I was a single mom, raised my son and needed food stamps."
"And now I'm here," she added.
While the number of the country's poorest people is higher than in any other recorded period, the rate is not without precedent. The last time it was this high was 1994. And in the early 1960s, it was over 20 percent.
Despite the jump in poverty, median income did not go down for those who still had jobs. Men working full time saw their median earnings rise 2 percent, to $47,000, while the median wage of women rose about the same amount, to a little over $36,000.
The median household income declined a little, to just under $50,000. But household income is down 4.2 percent since the recession began and 5 percent from its peak of more than $52,000 in 1999. Black households fared particularly poorly, as incomes dropped 4.4 percent compared with 1.6 percent for white households.
"We always have a situation where some population groups have higher poverty rates than others," said Margaret Simms, who directs the Low Income Working Families Project at the Urban Institute. "During recessions, we see who bears the brunt in hard times in the kinds of numbers we see today."
The statistics have quickly become fodder for a debate on the proper role of government in combating economic downturns.
"It's a strong indication that there is not enough focus on growth and investment in job production," said Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio state treasurer who is a fellow at the Family Research Council.
Ron Haskins, a head of the Brookings Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, said government programs do not have enough money to make up for the decline among private and employer-provided health care. "Is the government going to pick it up?" he said. "That means bigger government, bigger expenses, more taxes."
This summer, a proposal to extend jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed came under attack by Republicans, who objected to more spending that would add to the soaring deficit. The measure eventually passed.
Some of those who have struggled to find work are making their way to Good Shepherd Alliance, a food pantry in Loudoun County, which is one of the country's wealthiest jurisdictions.
Vickie Koth, executive director, said she has grown accustomed to hearing clients say, almost as if dazed by their dizzying descent, that they used to volunteer at nonprofits like hers. The downturn will end some day, she noted, and hard times should be remembered.
"A lot of the community is really seeing this issue for the first time," she said. ". . . Once this turns around, I hope that people will remember what we went through so that our communities will be more open to serving those around us who are in need."
Staff writers Jennifer Buske and Caitlin Gibson contributed
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Economists: We Need Another Major Stimulus to Avoid Double-Dip Recession
Party Like Its 1929
By Mike Whitney
August 12, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- On Tuesday, the Fed announced that it will reinvest the proceeds from maturing mortgage-backed securities (MBS) into US Treasuries. The process is called Quantitative Easing. In theory, Q.E. increases inflation expectations so that consumers spend more and rev up the economy. That's the theory. But adding to bank reserves when the banks are already loaded to the gills, achieves nothing. It doesn't put money in the hands of people who will spend it, generate more economic activity or increase growth. It's a big zero. Oddly enough, the Fed even admits this. According to an article in Bloomberg News, "The Central Bank posted a paper co-written by Seth Carpenter, associate director of the Fed’s monetary-affairs division, finding that the “quantity of reserve balances itself is not likely to trigger a rapid increase in lending.” No "increase in lending" means no credit expansion and no rebound. Thus, QE will have no real impact.
From the FOMC Statement:
"Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.....
The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability."
There's not a glimmer of light in the Fed's statement, and yet, "the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization". But how? And on what is the Fed basing its prediction? Certainly not the data. Maybe tea leaves? The truth is the economy is in very bad shape and getting worse. This is from Wednesday's New York Times:
"The government’s preliminary estimate for economic growth in the second quarter is likely to be revised substantially lower...."Combining the bigger-than-expected trade deficit with other weak data suggests that Q2 growth was only 1.2 percent rather than the 2.4 percent originally estimated, placing the economy on even shakier ground than it seemed,” wrote Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight." (New York Times)
The Fed has dramatically revised its growth forecast downward since its last meeting. The fiscal stimulus is petering out and inventory restocking is nearly over. Now the economy will have to stand on its own without the support of fiscal and monetary aid. But is it strong enough? Households are still patching their balance sheets, credit is tight, and businesses have no incentive to invest due to flagging demand. So where's the growth going to come from? If the government does not provide more stimulus, asset prices will tumble, unemployment will rise, and the economy will contract. This is from Wednesday's Wall Street Journal:
"A Wall Street Journal survey found that by a two-to-one margin Wall Street economists see deflation as a bigger threat to the U.S. economy over the next three years than inflation."
“Deflation is dangerously close,” said David Resler of Nomura Securities, one of 53 economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal. Among economists who answered the question, nearly two-thirds said that deflation poses the bigger risk to the economy over the next three years; the remainder said inflation is the bigger threat. That compares to an April survey, when the economists were split 50/50 over whether inflation or disinflation posed the bigger risk over the next year." ("WSJ Survey: Risks of Deflation on the Rise, Fed on Hold Longer", Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal)
The looming risk of deflation is what makes the future so "unusually uncertain". (Bernanke words) But investors don't like uncertainty, which is why they pulling their money out of equities and moving it into bonds. That's also why the flight to safety has continued for more than 2 years since the crisis began. No one knows what the policy is or what the rules are. It's catch-as-catch-can. At the same time, falling bond yields are a referendum on Bernanke's performance. Historic low yields on Treasuries indicate that the Fed has been unable to restore confidence or allay investor fears. Recent surveys of small business owners (National Federation of Independent Business) and CEO's show that confidence continues to plunge. Consumer confidence is in the dumps, too. Bottom line: No one has faith in the Fed's approach.
Bernanke hoped that restarting his bond purchasing program would convince Wall Street that he was prepared to provide as much liquidity as needed. But traders saw through the ruse. The bond market cast its ballot immediately, driving yields into the ground. Investor pessimism pushed the 10-year below 3% while 2 year Treasuries slumped to historic lows. Investors are betting that the economy is headed into another vicious cycle of debt-liquidation and depression. They don't believe the Fed can stop the freefall, so they are shifting into risk-free liquid assets.
It took the stock market a bit longer to grasp what was going on, but 24 hours later, the rout on Wall Street began. Shares plunged throughout the session pushing down the Dow Jones 265 points by the end of the day. The other indexes were battered as well. The dollar strengthened on fears of deflation while bond yields on short-term notes fell sharply. Bernanke thinks the economy can muddle through on its own, but Wall Street isn't buying it. They want more monetary stimulus, and they want it now.
____________
PARTY LIKE ITS 1929
This is from David Rosenberg's "Breakfast with Dave":
"I know this sounds a bit dire, but little has changed from where we were a year ago......we had a huge bounce off the lows, but we had a similar bounce off the lows in 1930. The equity market was up something like 50% in the opening months of 1930, and while I am sure there was euphoria at the time that the worst of the recession and the contraction in credit was over, it’s interesting to see today that nobody talks about the great run-up of 1930 even though it must have hurt not to have participated in that wonderful rally. Instead, when we talk about 1930 today, the images that are conjured up are hardly very joyous. I’m not saying that we are into something that is entirely like the 1930s. But at the same time, we’re not in Kansas any more." ("Not in Kansas Anymore", David Rosenberg, Gluskin Schef)
The economy is on the rocks and another round of quantitative easing won't help. The Obama administration will have to toughen up and push through another fiscal stimulus program. It's the only way. QE, low interest loans, zero rates, consumer subsidies, tax cuts or more bank reserves will not do the trick. Private sector deleveraging is beginning to accelerate, which means that economic contraction is unavoidable unless government spending increases substantially for an extended period of time. The budget deficits are going to balloon. Get used to it. That's what it will take to get back on track. Obama's stimulus was never big enough. Experts like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Obama's-own Christiana Romer figured it would take roughly $1.4 trillion to suck up the excess capacity in the system and really put a dent in unemployment. $787 billion is a pittance compared to the $6 trillion in home equity and $4 trillion in retirement funds that were lost in the housing bubble flameout. When that much money vanishes from the system, it takes time to regroup. It blows a hole in personal balance sheets and forces people to cut back on spending. That's why the personal savings rate has skyrocketed to 6.4% in a matter of months. People are strapped and trying to pull themselves out of the red. It's government's job to give them a hand.
Here's an excerpt from a report by Goldman Sachs:
"The economic landscape has changed significantly during the last two months. The macroeconomic data that seemed to indicate improvement in April and May deteriorated sharply in June and early July. Cutting our 2011 EPS estimate to $89 represents a reversal for us and reflects the more challenging economic environment we now face compared with the backdrop just a few months ago."
Bernanke maintains the recovery is on track and that the economy is slowly improving, but as economist Dean Baker points out, demand has been weak throughout the crisis and is showing no signs of a rebound. Here's Baker:
"Growth has been boosted over the last 4 quarters by an inventory cycle as firms went from depleting to building their inventories. This cycle has now ended. Inventory growth is unlikely to accelerate further in the quarters ahead. This means that GDP growth will be close to final demand growth. Final demand growth has averaged 1.2 percent in the last four quarters and was 1.3 percent in the most recent quarter. There is no obvious reason to expect that the rate will increase in the near future." (Dean Baker, CEPR)
Bernanke's no-jobs, no-growth recovery has run aground. Now we need a real solution, a fiscal solution; a solution that will lower unemployment, put the country back to work and restore public confidence in government. And there's not much time to act either. As pessimism spreads and economic atrophy sets in, the prospect of a general fall in the price level becomes more likely. That will lead to more layoffs, more excess capacity, more plummeting asset prices, more debt-liquidation, more defaults and more bankruptcies. It's up to Obama and Co. to get this thing right and change course fast. Otherwise, we'll be back in the soup.
By Mike Whitney
August 12, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- On Tuesday, the Fed announced that it will reinvest the proceeds from maturing mortgage-backed securities (MBS) into US Treasuries. The process is called Quantitative Easing. In theory, Q.E. increases inflation expectations so that consumers spend more and rev up the economy. That's the theory. But adding to bank reserves when the banks are already loaded to the gills, achieves nothing. It doesn't put money in the hands of people who will spend it, generate more economic activity or increase growth. It's a big zero. Oddly enough, the Fed even admits this. According to an article in Bloomberg News, "The Central Bank posted a paper co-written by Seth Carpenter, associate director of the Fed’s monetary-affairs division, finding that the “quantity of reserve balances itself is not likely to trigger a rapid increase in lending.” No "increase in lending" means no credit expansion and no rebound. Thus, QE will have no real impact.
From the FOMC Statement:
"Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.....
The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability."
There's not a glimmer of light in the Fed's statement, and yet, "the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization". But how? And on what is the Fed basing its prediction? Certainly not the data. Maybe tea leaves? The truth is the economy is in very bad shape and getting worse. This is from Wednesday's New York Times:
"The government’s preliminary estimate for economic growth in the second quarter is likely to be revised substantially lower...."Combining the bigger-than-expected trade deficit with other weak data suggests that Q2 growth was only 1.2 percent rather than the 2.4 percent originally estimated, placing the economy on even shakier ground than it seemed,” wrote Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight." (New York Times)
The Fed has dramatically revised its growth forecast downward since its last meeting. The fiscal stimulus is petering out and inventory restocking is nearly over. Now the economy will have to stand on its own without the support of fiscal and monetary aid. But is it strong enough? Households are still patching their balance sheets, credit is tight, and businesses have no incentive to invest due to flagging demand. So where's the growth going to come from? If the government does not provide more stimulus, asset prices will tumble, unemployment will rise, and the economy will contract. This is from Wednesday's Wall Street Journal:
"A Wall Street Journal survey found that by a two-to-one margin Wall Street economists see deflation as a bigger threat to the U.S. economy over the next three years than inflation."
“Deflation is dangerously close,” said David Resler of Nomura Securities, one of 53 economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal. Among economists who answered the question, nearly two-thirds said that deflation poses the bigger risk to the economy over the next three years; the remainder said inflation is the bigger threat. That compares to an April survey, when the economists were split 50/50 over whether inflation or disinflation posed the bigger risk over the next year." ("WSJ Survey: Risks of Deflation on the Rise, Fed on Hold Longer", Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal)
The looming risk of deflation is what makes the future so "unusually uncertain". (Bernanke words) But investors don't like uncertainty, which is why they pulling their money out of equities and moving it into bonds. That's also why the flight to safety has continued for more than 2 years since the crisis began. No one knows what the policy is or what the rules are. It's catch-as-catch-can. At the same time, falling bond yields are a referendum on Bernanke's performance. Historic low yields on Treasuries indicate that the Fed has been unable to restore confidence or allay investor fears. Recent surveys of small business owners (National Federation of Independent Business) and CEO's show that confidence continues to plunge. Consumer confidence is in the dumps, too. Bottom line: No one has faith in the Fed's approach.
Bernanke hoped that restarting his bond purchasing program would convince Wall Street that he was prepared to provide as much liquidity as needed. But traders saw through the ruse. The bond market cast its ballot immediately, driving yields into the ground. Investor pessimism pushed the 10-year below 3% while 2 year Treasuries slumped to historic lows. Investors are betting that the economy is headed into another vicious cycle of debt-liquidation and depression. They don't believe the Fed can stop the freefall, so they are shifting into risk-free liquid assets.
It took the stock market a bit longer to grasp what was going on, but 24 hours later, the rout on Wall Street began. Shares plunged throughout the session pushing down the Dow Jones 265 points by the end of the day. The other indexes were battered as well. The dollar strengthened on fears of deflation while bond yields on short-term notes fell sharply. Bernanke thinks the economy can muddle through on its own, but Wall Street isn't buying it. They want more monetary stimulus, and they want it now.
____________
PARTY LIKE ITS 1929
This is from David Rosenberg's "Breakfast with Dave":
"I know this sounds a bit dire, but little has changed from where we were a year ago......we had a huge bounce off the lows, but we had a similar bounce off the lows in 1930. The equity market was up something like 50% in the opening months of 1930, and while I am sure there was euphoria at the time that the worst of the recession and the contraction in credit was over, it’s interesting to see today that nobody talks about the great run-up of 1930 even though it must have hurt not to have participated in that wonderful rally. Instead, when we talk about 1930 today, the images that are conjured up are hardly very joyous. I’m not saying that we are into something that is entirely like the 1930s. But at the same time, we’re not in Kansas any more." ("Not in Kansas Anymore", David Rosenberg, Gluskin Schef)
The economy is on the rocks and another round of quantitative easing won't help. The Obama administration will have to toughen up and push through another fiscal stimulus program. It's the only way. QE, low interest loans, zero rates, consumer subsidies, tax cuts or more bank reserves will not do the trick. Private sector deleveraging is beginning to accelerate, which means that economic contraction is unavoidable unless government spending increases substantially for an extended period of time. The budget deficits are going to balloon. Get used to it. That's what it will take to get back on track. Obama's stimulus was never big enough. Experts like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Obama's-own Christiana Romer figured it would take roughly $1.4 trillion to suck up the excess capacity in the system and really put a dent in unemployment. $787 billion is a pittance compared to the $6 trillion in home equity and $4 trillion in retirement funds that were lost in the housing bubble flameout. When that much money vanishes from the system, it takes time to regroup. It blows a hole in personal balance sheets and forces people to cut back on spending. That's why the personal savings rate has skyrocketed to 6.4% in a matter of months. People are strapped and trying to pull themselves out of the red. It's government's job to give them a hand.
Here's an excerpt from a report by Goldman Sachs:
"The economic landscape has changed significantly during the last two months. The macroeconomic data that seemed to indicate improvement in April and May deteriorated sharply in June and early July. Cutting our 2011 EPS estimate to $89 represents a reversal for us and reflects the more challenging economic environment we now face compared with the backdrop just a few months ago."
Bernanke maintains the recovery is on track and that the economy is slowly improving, but as economist Dean Baker points out, demand has been weak throughout the crisis and is showing no signs of a rebound. Here's Baker:
"Growth has been boosted over the last 4 quarters by an inventory cycle as firms went from depleting to building their inventories. This cycle has now ended. Inventory growth is unlikely to accelerate further in the quarters ahead. This means that GDP growth will be close to final demand growth. Final demand growth has averaged 1.2 percent in the last four quarters and was 1.3 percent in the most recent quarter. There is no obvious reason to expect that the rate will increase in the near future." (Dean Baker, CEPR)
Bernanke's no-jobs, no-growth recovery has run aground. Now we need a real solution, a fiscal solution; a solution that will lower unemployment, put the country back to work and restore public confidence in government. And there's not much time to act either. As pessimism spreads and economic atrophy sets in, the prospect of a general fall in the price level becomes more likely. That will lead to more layoffs, more excess capacity, more plummeting asset prices, more debt-liquidation, more defaults and more bankruptcies. It's up to Obama and Co. to get this thing right and change course fast. Otherwise, we'll be back in the soup.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Collapse in Living Standards in America: More Poverty By Any Measure
by Christine Vestal
Global Research,
July 14, 2010
More than 15 million Americans are unemployed, homelessness has increased by 50 percent in some cities, and 38 million people are receiving food stamps, more than at any time in the program’s almost 50-year history.
Evidence of rising economic hardship is ample. There’s one commonly used standard for measuring it: the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty rate. It guides much of federal and state spending aimed at helping those unable to make a decent living.
But a number of states have become convinced that the federal figures actually understate poverty, and have begun using different criteria in operating state-based social programs. At the same time, conservative economists are warning that a change in the formula to a threshold that counts more people as poor could lead to an unacceptable increase in the cost of federal and state social service programs.
When Census publishes new numbers for 2009 in September, experts predict they’ll show a steep rise in the poverty rate. One independent researcher estimates the data will show the biggest year-to-year increase in recorded history.
According to Richard Bavier, a former analyst for the federal Office of Management and Budget, already available data about employment rates, wages, and food stamp enrollment suggest that an additional 5.7 million people were officially poor in 2009. That would bring the total number of people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold to more than 45 million. The poverty rate, Bavier expects, will hit 15 percent — up from 13.2 percent in 2008, when the Great Recession first started to take its toll.
Still, the U.S. Census Bureau’s new numbers will offer only a partial picture of how the nation’s sputtering economy is affecting the poorest Americans — a problem state officials and the Obama administration want to address.
Overestimating food costs
The current formula for setting the federal poverty line — unchanged since 1963 — takes the cost of food for an individual or family and multiplies the number by three, under the assumption that people spend one-third of their incomes putting meals on the table. While the formula may have been a good way to estimate a subsistence cost of living in the early 1960s, experts say food now represents only one-eighth of a typical household budget, with expenses such as housing and child care putting increasing pressure on struggling families.
In addition, the official measure fails to account for regional differences in the cost of housing, it doesn’t include medical expenses or transportation, and at $22,000 for a family of four, the poverty line is considered by many to be simply too low.
Equally worrisome for policy makers is the Census Bureau’s failure to consider in-kind federal and state aid in calculating income. The existing formula counts only pre-tax cash income, leaving out such benefits as food stamps, housing vouchers and child-care subsidies, as well as federal and state tax credits for the working poor.
As a result, the nation’s official poverty count is unaffected by the billions spent on safety-net programs. Yet it remains by far the most frequently used measurement of how well governments are taking care of their most vulnerable citizens.
Conservatives have consistently argued that if safety-net programs were taken into account, the poverty rate would be much lower. At the same time, advocates for the poor have argued that poverty counts would be much higher if the cost of housing, child care and other expenses were factored in.
Nearly two decades ago, Congress asked the National Academies of Science (NAS) to revisit the official poverty measure and come up with recommendations for a new measure that would satisfy critics on both ends of the spectrum.
This past March, the Obama administration said it would use the NAS 1995 guidelines to update the federal government’s poverty calculation and promised to unveil the first new “supplemental poverty measure” in September of 2011.
“The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies,” Under Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank said. “Moreover, it will be dynamic and will benefit from improvements over time based on new data and new methodologies.”
Under the NAS recommendations, Commerce Department expenditure data for food, clothing, shelter and other household expenses would be used to set a poverty threshold for a reference family of four — two adults and two children. Then a family or individual’s resources would be compared to that line by including income and in-kind benefits, with taxes and other non-discretionary expenses, such as medical expenses and child care, excluded.
Because many expect the new calculation will result in a higher poverty count, the March announcement met with fiery criticism from some conservatives who charged the federal government could ill afford to increase its safety-net spending.
State experiments
But state and local policy makers applauded the move because they said it would give them the tools they need to assess the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs.
In New York City, for example, where an NAS-type poverty measure was adopted three years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the new data would allow the city to pinpoint who needs assistance most and which of the city’s social services have been most effective at improving its residents’ standard of living.
Using an updated measurement, New York City found that children — the recipients of a broad range of social welfare programs — were less poor than originally thought, while elders, who were struggling with previously unaccounted for medical expenses, were poorer.
As states become increasingly challenged by shrinking revenues and rising numbers of people in need, more than a dozen have set up commissions to help low-income families and many have set poverty reduction goals.
Among them, Minnesota and Connecticut have used NAS-like formulas to assess the effectiveness of current and proposed anti-poverty measures.
With technical assistance from the public policy research group The Urban Institute, both states used the results to support aggressive anti-poverty campaigns. Minnesota has a Legislative Commission to End Poverty in Minnesota by 2020, and Connecticut created a Child Poverty and Prevention Council with the goal of cutting child poverty in half by 2014.
Connecticut found only a slight increase in the number of people living in poverty when using the updated calculation — 21,000 people in 2006, compared to 20,000 using the existing Census measure.
But it got very different results when determining which public assistance programs did the most to reduce poverty. Under previous assumptions, child care subsidies and adult education and job training were seen as the most highly effective at moving people out of poverty over time. But the new formula showed that increasing enrollment in programs such as food stamps, energy assistance and subsidized housing was a more effective way to reduce child poverty in the near term. As a result, the state redoubled its outreach efforts to sign up as many low-income families as possible for these federally-funded programs.
In Minnesota, where the results were similar, a bipartisan legislative committee recommended the state refine its definition of poverty, build public awareness, and carefully monitor the impact of all major legislation on existing anti-poverty programs.
Both states joined 12 others earlier this year in calling on the federal government to adopt an NAS-like formula that would “consider the increased financial burden of housing, child care, and health care on the modern American family while recognizing the benefit of critical work supports such as tax credits, food stamps, and other non-cash subsidies.”
The administration’s supplemental poverty measure remains controversial, and some leaders on both ends of the political spectrum are urging Congress and the administration not to adopt the new formula for purposes of allocating federal funding or determining individual eligibility anytime soon.
If used to parse federal grants among states, it could radically change the amount of money each state receives. It stands to reason, for example, that a family of four trying to make it on $22,000 would have an easier time in rural Alabama than they would in suburban Massachusetts. And should the new measure be used to set individual eligibility for safety net programs, some are fearful that current recipients would be disqualified if all of their federal and state benefits were counted.
For the Obama administration, the Census Bureau’s current measure is problematic because it will fail to show the benefits of at least $100 billion in 2009 stimulus money spent for low-income families. Even so, as those direct subsidies and other job-creating federal funds are phased out, advocates expect the poverty rate will shoot up again next year, when the data is in for 2010.
Global Research,
July 14, 2010
More than 15 million Americans are unemployed, homelessness has increased by 50 percent in some cities, and 38 million people are receiving food stamps, more than at any time in the program’s almost 50-year history.
Evidence of rising economic hardship is ample. There’s one commonly used standard for measuring it: the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty rate. It guides much of federal and state spending aimed at helping those unable to make a decent living.
But a number of states have become convinced that the federal figures actually understate poverty, and have begun using different criteria in operating state-based social programs. At the same time, conservative economists are warning that a change in the formula to a threshold that counts more people as poor could lead to an unacceptable increase in the cost of federal and state social service programs.
When Census publishes new numbers for 2009 in September, experts predict they’ll show a steep rise in the poverty rate. One independent researcher estimates the data will show the biggest year-to-year increase in recorded history.
According to Richard Bavier, a former analyst for the federal Office of Management and Budget, already available data about employment rates, wages, and food stamp enrollment suggest that an additional 5.7 million people were officially poor in 2009. That would bring the total number of people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold to more than 45 million. The poverty rate, Bavier expects, will hit 15 percent — up from 13.2 percent in 2008, when the Great Recession first started to take its toll.
Still, the U.S. Census Bureau’s new numbers will offer only a partial picture of how the nation’s sputtering economy is affecting the poorest Americans — a problem state officials and the Obama administration want to address.
Overestimating food costs
The current formula for setting the federal poverty line — unchanged since 1963 — takes the cost of food for an individual or family and multiplies the number by three, under the assumption that people spend one-third of their incomes putting meals on the table. While the formula may have been a good way to estimate a subsistence cost of living in the early 1960s, experts say food now represents only one-eighth of a typical household budget, with expenses such as housing and child care putting increasing pressure on struggling families.
In addition, the official measure fails to account for regional differences in the cost of housing, it doesn’t include medical expenses or transportation, and at $22,000 for a family of four, the poverty line is considered by many to be simply too low.
Equally worrisome for policy makers is the Census Bureau’s failure to consider in-kind federal and state aid in calculating income. The existing formula counts only pre-tax cash income, leaving out such benefits as food stamps, housing vouchers and child-care subsidies, as well as federal and state tax credits for the working poor.
As a result, the nation’s official poverty count is unaffected by the billions spent on safety-net programs. Yet it remains by far the most frequently used measurement of how well governments are taking care of their most vulnerable citizens.
Conservatives have consistently argued that if safety-net programs were taken into account, the poverty rate would be much lower. At the same time, advocates for the poor have argued that poverty counts would be much higher if the cost of housing, child care and other expenses were factored in.
Nearly two decades ago, Congress asked the National Academies of Science (NAS) to revisit the official poverty measure and come up with recommendations for a new measure that would satisfy critics on both ends of the spectrum.
This past March, the Obama administration said it would use the NAS 1995 guidelines to update the federal government’s poverty calculation and promised to unveil the first new “supplemental poverty measure” in September of 2011.
“The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies,” Under Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank said. “Moreover, it will be dynamic and will benefit from improvements over time based on new data and new methodologies.”
Under the NAS recommendations, Commerce Department expenditure data for food, clothing, shelter and other household expenses would be used to set a poverty threshold for a reference family of four — two adults and two children. Then a family or individual’s resources would be compared to that line by including income and in-kind benefits, with taxes and other non-discretionary expenses, such as medical expenses and child care, excluded.
Because many expect the new calculation will result in a higher poverty count, the March announcement met with fiery criticism from some conservatives who charged the federal government could ill afford to increase its safety-net spending.
State experiments
But state and local policy makers applauded the move because they said it would give them the tools they need to assess the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs.
In New York City, for example, where an NAS-type poverty measure was adopted three years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the new data would allow the city to pinpoint who needs assistance most and which of the city’s social services have been most effective at improving its residents’ standard of living.
Using an updated measurement, New York City found that children — the recipients of a broad range of social welfare programs — were less poor than originally thought, while elders, who were struggling with previously unaccounted for medical expenses, were poorer.
As states become increasingly challenged by shrinking revenues and rising numbers of people in need, more than a dozen have set up commissions to help low-income families and many have set poverty reduction goals.
Among them, Minnesota and Connecticut have used NAS-like formulas to assess the effectiveness of current and proposed anti-poverty measures.
With technical assistance from the public policy research group The Urban Institute, both states used the results to support aggressive anti-poverty campaigns. Minnesota has a Legislative Commission to End Poverty in Minnesota by 2020, and Connecticut created a Child Poverty and Prevention Council with the goal of cutting child poverty in half by 2014.
Connecticut found only a slight increase in the number of people living in poverty when using the updated calculation — 21,000 people in 2006, compared to 20,000 using the existing Census measure.
But it got very different results when determining which public assistance programs did the most to reduce poverty. Under previous assumptions, child care subsidies and adult education and job training were seen as the most highly effective at moving people out of poverty over time. But the new formula showed that increasing enrollment in programs such as food stamps, energy assistance and subsidized housing was a more effective way to reduce child poverty in the near term. As a result, the state redoubled its outreach efforts to sign up as many low-income families as possible for these federally-funded programs.
In Minnesota, where the results were similar, a bipartisan legislative committee recommended the state refine its definition of poverty, build public awareness, and carefully monitor the impact of all major legislation on existing anti-poverty programs.
Both states joined 12 others earlier this year in calling on the federal government to adopt an NAS-like formula that would “consider the increased financial burden of housing, child care, and health care on the modern American family while recognizing the benefit of critical work supports such as tax credits, food stamps, and other non-cash subsidies.”
The administration’s supplemental poverty measure remains controversial, and some leaders on both ends of the political spectrum are urging Congress and the administration not to adopt the new formula for purposes of allocating federal funding or determining individual eligibility anytime soon.
If used to parse federal grants among states, it could radically change the amount of money each state receives. It stands to reason, for example, that a family of four trying to make it on $22,000 would have an easier time in rural Alabama than they would in suburban Massachusetts. And should the new measure be used to set individual eligibility for safety net programs, some are fearful that current recipients would be disqualified if all of their federal and state benefits were counted.
For the Obama administration, the Census Bureau’s current measure is problematic because it will fail to show the benefits of at least $100 billion in 2009 stimulus money spent for low-income families. Even so, as those direct subsidies and other job-creating federal funds are phased out, advocates expect the poverty rate will shoot up again next year, when the data is in for 2010.
Friday, December 18, 2009
2010: "The Year of Severe Economic Contraction"
By Mike Whitney
Global Research,
December 15, 2009
Upbeat reports in the financial media, belie the effects of the ongoing credit contraction. Massive injections of central bank liquidity have prevented the collapse of financial markets, but have done little to ease the deleveraging of households or stimulate activity the broader economy. The crisis has stripped $13 trillion in equity from working families who now find their access to credit either cut off or severely curtailed by the same banks that received hefty taxpayer-funded bailouts. The fiscal strangulation of the millions of people who are no longer considered "creditworthy" is progressively weakening demand and spreading pessimism across all income levels. Growing public desperation was the focus of a special weekend report by Bloomberg News:
"Americans have grown gloomier about both the economy and the nation's direction over the past three months even as the U.S. shows signs of moving from recession to recovery. Almost half the people now feel less financially secure than when President Barack Obama took office in January, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.
The economy is the country's top concern, with persistently high unemployment the greatest threat the public sees. Eight of 10 Americans rate joblessness a high risk to the economy in the next two years, outranking the federal budget deficit, which is cited by 7 of 10. An increase in taxes is named as a high risk by almost 6 of 10.
Fewer than 1 in 3 Americans think the economy will improve in the next six months....Only 32 percent of poll respondents believe the country is headed in the right direction, down from 40 percent who said so in September." (Bloomberg)
The near-delirious optimism that followed the 2008 presidential election has fizzled in less than 12 months. While the policies of the Obama administration have improved Wall Street's prospects for record profits and lavish bonuses, ordinary working people continue to fight to keep their jobs and maintain their standard of living. Recent data show that household debt which surged during the boom years is being pared back at a historic pace. Household debt to disposable income has plummeted from 136 percent to 122 percent in a little more than a year, leaving many families with little to spend at the malls or shopping centers.
Severe retrenchment has triggered a shift towards personal thriftiness which is reducing economic activity and strengthening deflationary pressures. 2010 is likely to be even worse, as mushrooming foreclosures and commercial real estate defaults force banks to slash lending accelerating the rate of decline. This is from Bloomberg:
"Foreclosure filings in the U.S. will reach a record for the second consecutive year with 3.9 million notices sent to homeowners in default, RealtyTrac Inc. said. This year's filings will surpass 2008's total of 3.2 million as record unemployment and price erosion batter the housing market...
Foreclosure filings exceeded 300,000 for the ninth straight month in November, RealtyTrac said today. A weak labor market and tight credit are "formidable headwinds" for the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in a Dec. 7 speech in Washington. The 7.2 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007 are the most of any postwar economic slump, Labor Department data show. Unemployment, at 10 percent last month, won't peak until the first quarter, Quigley said." (Bloomberg)
The Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus pushed GDP into positive territory for the first time in more than a year, but the maximum impact has already been felt. President Obama--under advice from his chief advisors-- has shifted his focus from soaring unemployment to long-term deficits. Additional stimulus will be no more than $200 billion, of which, a mere $50 billion will go towards jobs initiatives. At the same time, Fed chair Ben Bernanke will terminate the quantitative easing (QE) program which kept long-term interest rates low while providing financing for the housing market. When the program ends, rates will rise, housing prices will tumble, and liquidity will drain from the system. The end of QE coupled with dwindling stimulus ensures that economy will slide back into recession in the 2nd or 3rd Quarter of 2010.
Policymakers have decided to create conditions that are favorable to financial sector consolidation and the further privatization of public assets. The economy is being strangled by design.
Here's economist Mark Thoma explaining why consumption will not return to pre-crisis levels:
"For the immediate future and likely for much longer than that, slow consumption growth is expected. One way that could change is if the government implements a successful jobs program or uses some other means to increase household income (e.g. a payroll tax cut), and households spend rather than save the extra income..., but the political environment makes a jobs program or further fiscal policy action highly unlikely.
Similarly...the Fed is anxious to unwind its massive policy intervention, not extend it, so monetary policy is unlikely to help much either. Since monetary and fiscal policy authorities are unwilling to provide further help, slow growth is the best outcome we're likely to get." ("Will Consumption Growth Return to Its Pre-Recession Level?" Mark Thoma, moneywatch.com)
Along with flagging consumption, economists Antonio Fatas and Ilian Mihov show why both investment and employment will not rebound in the way that many bullish analysts expect. By tracking the rate of recovery in the last 5 recessions, the two economists show that demand will remain flat for a prolonged period of time, precipitating a "jobless" and "investmentless" recovery. Their research supports additional stimulus to reduce the output gap and engage the labor force in productive activity. The administration's policies are the exact opposite of the majority of professional economists who believe that deficits need to increase to effect overcapacity and underutilization. Obama is deliberately steering the economy into a double-dip recession.
While financial institutions have been propped up with zero-rates, myriad lending facilities and boatloads of Fed liquidity, the real economy continues to on a downward path. As households rebalance accounts and increase savings, the signs of distress are becoming more apparent. In Europe, the ECB and IMF have begun to use the financial crisis to wrest control of the budgets of deficits-plagued nations to apply business-friendly austerity measures. The economic meltdown--that was generated by overleveraged banks trading dodgy investment paper--is now being used to assert corporate/bank control over sovereign nations. Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain are all presently in the crosshairs of neoliberal restructuring. Surely, the same policies will be applied within the United States under the guidance of supply-side economist and chief advisor to the president, Lawrence Summers. Thus, in 2010, economic contraction will continue to force state and local governmnets to lay off millions of more workers while public assets and services are made available at firesale prices to private industry.
Debt deflation and deleveraging will continue into 2011, while foreclosures, personal bankruptcies and defaults continue to mount. The public's frustration with ineffective government policies, is likely to change from pessimism to rage on short notice. The prospect of social unrest or sporadic incidents of violence can no longer be excluded.
Global Research,
December 15, 2009
Upbeat reports in the financial media, belie the effects of the ongoing credit contraction. Massive injections of central bank liquidity have prevented the collapse of financial markets, but have done little to ease the deleveraging of households or stimulate activity the broader economy. The crisis has stripped $13 trillion in equity from working families who now find their access to credit either cut off or severely curtailed by the same banks that received hefty taxpayer-funded bailouts. The fiscal strangulation of the millions of people who are no longer considered "creditworthy" is progressively weakening demand and spreading pessimism across all income levels. Growing public desperation was the focus of a special weekend report by Bloomberg News:
"Americans have grown gloomier about both the economy and the nation's direction over the past three months even as the U.S. shows signs of moving from recession to recovery. Almost half the people now feel less financially secure than when President Barack Obama took office in January, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.
The economy is the country's top concern, with persistently high unemployment the greatest threat the public sees. Eight of 10 Americans rate joblessness a high risk to the economy in the next two years, outranking the federal budget deficit, which is cited by 7 of 10. An increase in taxes is named as a high risk by almost 6 of 10.
Fewer than 1 in 3 Americans think the economy will improve in the next six months....Only 32 percent of poll respondents believe the country is headed in the right direction, down from 40 percent who said so in September." (Bloomberg)
The near-delirious optimism that followed the 2008 presidential election has fizzled in less than 12 months. While the policies of the Obama administration have improved Wall Street's prospects for record profits and lavish bonuses, ordinary working people continue to fight to keep their jobs and maintain their standard of living. Recent data show that household debt which surged during the boom years is being pared back at a historic pace. Household debt to disposable income has plummeted from 136 percent to 122 percent in a little more than a year, leaving many families with little to spend at the malls or shopping centers.
Severe retrenchment has triggered a shift towards personal thriftiness which is reducing economic activity and strengthening deflationary pressures. 2010 is likely to be even worse, as mushrooming foreclosures and commercial real estate defaults force banks to slash lending accelerating the rate of decline. This is from Bloomberg:
"Foreclosure filings in the U.S. will reach a record for the second consecutive year with 3.9 million notices sent to homeowners in default, RealtyTrac Inc. said. This year's filings will surpass 2008's total of 3.2 million as record unemployment and price erosion batter the housing market...
Foreclosure filings exceeded 300,000 for the ninth straight month in November, RealtyTrac said today. A weak labor market and tight credit are "formidable headwinds" for the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in a Dec. 7 speech in Washington. The 7.2 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007 are the most of any postwar economic slump, Labor Department data show. Unemployment, at 10 percent last month, won't peak until the first quarter, Quigley said." (Bloomberg)
The Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus pushed GDP into positive territory for the first time in more than a year, but the maximum impact has already been felt. President Obama--under advice from his chief advisors-- has shifted his focus from soaring unemployment to long-term deficits. Additional stimulus will be no more than $200 billion, of which, a mere $50 billion will go towards jobs initiatives. At the same time, Fed chair Ben Bernanke will terminate the quantitative easing (QE) program which kept long-term interest rates low while providing financing for the housing market. When the program ends, rates will rise, housing prices will tumble, and liquidity will drain from the system. The end of QE coupled with dwindling stimulus ensures that economy will slide back into recession in the 2nd or 3rd Quarter of 2010.
Policymakers have decided to create conditions that are favorable to financial sector consolidation and the further privatization of public assets. The economy is being strangled by design.
Here's economist Mark Thoma explaining why consumption will not return to pre-crisis levels:
"For the immediate future and likely for much longer than that, slow consumption growth is expected. One way that could change is if the government implements a successful jobs program or uses some other means to increase household income (e.g. a payroll tax cut), and households spend rather than save the extra income..., but the political environment makes a jobs program or further fiscal policy action highly unlikely.
Similarly...the Fed is anxious to unwind its massive policy intervention, not extend it, so monetary policy is unlikely to help much either. Since monetary and fiscal policy authorities are unwilling to provide further help, slow growth is the best outcome we're likely to get." ("Will Consumption Growth Return to Its Pre-Recession Level?" Mark Thoma, moneywatch.com)
Along with flagging consumption, economists Antonio Fatas and Ilian Mihov show why both investment and employment will not rebound in the way that many bullish analysts expect. By tracking the rate of recovery in the last 5 recessions, the two economists show that demand will remain flat for a prolonged period of time, precipitating a "jobless" and "investmentless" recovery. Their research supports additional stimulus to reduce the output gap and engage the labor force in productive activity. The administration's policies are the exact opposite of the majority of professional economists who believe that deficits need to increase to effect overcapacity and underutilization. Obama is deliberately steering the economy into a double-dip recession.
While financial institutions have been propped up with zero-rates, myriad lending facilities and boatloads of Fed liquidity, the real economy continues to on a downward path. As households rebalance accounts and increase savings, the signs of distress are becoming more apparent. In Europe, the ECB and IMF have begun to use the financial crisis to wrest control of the budgets of deficits-plagued nations to apply business-friendly austerity measures. The economic meltdown--that was generated by overleveraged banks trading dodgy investment paper--is now being used to assert corporate/bank control over sovereign nations. Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain are all presently in the crosshairs of neoliberal restructuring. Surely, the same policies will be applied within the United States under the guidance of supply-side economist and chief advisor to the president, Lawrence Summers. Thus, in 2010, economic contraction will continue to force state and local governmnets to lay off millions of more workers while public assets and services are made available at firesale prices to private industry.
Debt deflation and deleveraging will continue into 2011, while foreclosures, personal bankruptcies and defaults continue to mount. The public's frustration with ineffective government policies, is likely to change from pessimism to rage on short notice. The prospect of social unrest or sporadic incidents of violence can no longer be excluded.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
This Depression is just beginning
Skip the Happy Talk
By Mike Whitney
August 03, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Too bad Pulitzer's aren't handed out for blog-entries. This year's award would go to Zero Hedge for its "The 'Money on the Sidelines' Fallacy" post. This short entry shows why the economy will continue its downward slide and why the US consumer will not get off the mat and resume spending as he has in the past. The fact is the Net Wealth of US Households has "declined from a peak of $22 trillion to just under $12 trillion in early March."
Ouch!
The problem is compounded by the fact that Total US Household debt, as of first quarter 2009, amounts to roughly $13 trillion, and has stayed within that range for the last 3 and a half years.
Zero Hedge:
"From the end of 2007 through Q1 of 2009, household equity has declined by 94%. Is it surprising that today's GDP number would have been a complete debacle if the consumer had been left alone to prop the U.S. economy, on whom 70% of the economy is reliant? Obama pulled a Hail Mary with the stimulus: without it there would be no debate America is in a depression right now." MORE...
What does all this mean?
It means the consumer is down-for-the-count. His credit lines have been cut, his home equity eviscerated, and his checking account swimming in red ink. That spells trouble for an economy that's 70% dependent on consumer spending for growth....which brings us to another interesting point. The uptick in GDP last quarter was almost entirely the result of the surge in government spending; ie "fiscal and monetary stimulus". How long can that go on? How long will China keep slurping up US Treasuries rather than let their currency rise? Here's a clip from the Wall Street Journal on Friday:
"Shaky auctions of Treasury notes this week reignited concerns about whether the government can attract buyers from China and elsewhere to soak up trillions in new debt.
A fuse was lit this week when traders noted China's apparent absence from direct participation in two Treasury bond auctions. While China may have bought Treasury's just before the auctions, market participants read the country's actions as a worrying sign that China and other foreign investors may be ratcheting back purchases at a time when the U.S. is seeking to fund a $1.8 trillion budget deficit.
This week alone, the U.S. deluged the bond market with more than $200 billion in record-size sales. The U.S. has had little trouble finding buyers in recent months. But that demand is fading, and the Treasury market has become volatile."
Uncle Sam is goosing the bond market just like he is the stock market. (more on that later) Take a look at Treasury's latest bit of chicanery which appeared in the back pages of the Wall Street Journal in June:
"The sudden increase in demand by foreign buyers for Treasury's, hailed as proof that the world's central banks are still willing to help absorb the avalanche of supply, mightn't be all that it seems.
When the government sells bonds, traders typically look at a group of buyers called indirect bidders, which includes foreign central banks, to divine overseas demand for U.S. debt. That demand has been rising recently, giving comfort to investors that foreign buyers will continue to finance the U.S.'s budget deficit.
But in a little-noticed switch on June 1, the Treasury changed the way it accounts for indirect bids, putting more buyers under that umbrella and boosting the portion of recent Treasury sales that the market perceived were being bought by foreigners." ("Is foreign Demand as solid as it looks, Min zeng)
Hmmmm.
So, someone doesn't want you and me to know that foreign demand has gone to the dogs. That's not encouraging. So, they move the shells around the table and "Presto"---central banks and foreign investors can't get enough of those fetid T-Bills. What a racket.
This is what happens when monetary policy is handed over to bank-vermin and Ponzi-scam artists. Anything goes!
The Zero Hedge article shows that homeowners used the equity in their homes to fuel the soaring stock market.
Zero Hedge: "Most interesting is the correlation between Money Market totals and the listed stock value since the March lows: a $2.7 trillion move in equities was accompanied by a less than $400 billion reduction in Money Market accounts!
Where, may we ask, did the balance of $2.3 trillion in purchasing power come from? Why the Federal Reserve of course, which directly and indirectly subsidized U.S. banks (and foreign ones through liquidity swaps) for roughly that amount. Apparently these banks promptly went on a buying spree to raise the all important equity market, so that the U.S. consumer who net equity was almost negative on March 31, could have some semblance of confidence back and would go ahead and max out his credit card. Alas, as one can see in the money multiplier and velocity of money metrics, U.S. consumers couldn't care less about leveraging themselves any more."
You read that right! Only $400 billion of that fantastic 6 month "green shoots" stock market rally came from money market accounts. The rest ($2.3 trillion) was laundered through the banks and other financial institutions to create the appearance of recovery and to raise equity for underwater banks rather than forcing them into receivership (which is where they belong) Bernanke probably knew that congress wouldn't approve another TARP-type bailout for dodgy mortgage-backed assets, so he settled on this shifty plan instead. The only problem is, the banks are still broke, business investment is at historic lows, consumers are on the ropes, the unemployment lines are swelling, the homeless shelters are bulging, the pawn shops are bustling, tent cities are sprouting up everywhere, and according to MarketWatch, Corporate insiders have recently been selling their companies' shares at a greater pace than at any time since the top of the bull market in the fall of 2007."
Face it; the economy is in the crapper and Bernanke's trickery hasn't done a lick of good.
It's been two years since the crisis began and nothing... NOTHING has been done to fix the banking system or force the banks to write-down their shi**y assets to market. But the losses are real and no amount of Congressionally approved accounting hanky-panky (like suspending mark-to-market) will change a bloody thing.
So, how bad will it get?
Well, it depends on whether the FDIC decides to continue to allow financial institutions like Corus and Guaranty Banks to operate with "negative Tier 1 ratio" hoping that all the green shoots happy talk can turn insolvent institutions into thriving mega-banks. "Abrakadabra".
Karl Denninger explains this latest hoax in a recent entry on his site Market Ticker:
"So what's going on here?
Simple: An enormous number of banks are holding loans at or close to "par" that really aren't. They're holding mortgages at massively-inflated values, even on defaulted properties, and this is why you are not seeing more foreclosure sales - that is, why inventory is being held back. If they sell it the accountants will force recognition of the loss, which will render them instantly insolvent, but so long as they "extend and pretend" they are marking these loans way, way above recovery value. The upshot of this is that these firms' balance sheet claims on asset values are massively inflated, regulators know it, and they're intentionally ignoring it."
Bingo! It's all 100% fakery conducted right under the nose of the Fed, the Treasury and the FDIC.
How many hundreds of banks are being kept on life-support because the FDIC is down to its last few farthings and doesn't want to ignite a panic?
Stay tuned.
The banking system is insolvent and the fact that the politically-connected big banks talked their their friends at the Fed into pumping liquidity into equities so they could access the capital markets, doesn't change matters for the hundreds of local and regional banks that will be caught in next year's downdraft. Prepare for massive consolidation with G-Sax and JPM left to pick up former competitors for pennies on the dollar.
FIRING UP THE PRINTING PRESS
Keep in mind that Wall Street veterans knew from the very beginning that Bernanke's quantitative easing (QE) was a load of malarkey intended to justify keeping toxic asset prices artificially high while pumping trillions into the stock market. Here's former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler's analysis way back in May:
"On March 18, the Federal Reserve announced it would purchase up to $300 billion of long-term bonds as well as $750 billion of mortgage-backed securities. Of all the Fed's moves, this "quantitative easing" gets money into the economy the fastest -- basically by cranking the handle of the printing press and flooding the market with dollars (in reality, with additional bank credit). Since these dollars are not going into home building, coal-fired electric plants or auto factories, they end up in the stock market.
A rising market means that banks are able to raise much-needed equity from private money funds instead of from the feds. .....It's almost as if someone engineered a stock-market rally to entice private investors to fund the banks rather than taxpayers." (Andy Kessler "Was it a Sucker's Rally" Wall Street Journal)
What a swindle.
Bernanke's had a good go-of-it, juicing the market through the backdoor and concealing--as much as possible--who is still buying US Treasuries. (who knows; maybe it's the Fed buying its own paper offshore?!?) But what good will it do? The US consumer is broke; the tank is on empty. Household equity has declined by 94%, jobs are scarce, personal savings are rising, and families are cutting back and hunkering down. It will take a decade or more before household debt is whittled-away to a point where people can consume at pre-crisis levels. Another stock market bubble won't change a damn thing. This Depression is just beginning.
By Mike Whitney
August 03, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Too bad Pulitzer's aren't handed out for blog-entries. This year's award would go to Zero Hedge for its "The 'Money on the Sidelines' Fallacy" post. This short entry shows why the economy will continue its downward slide and why the US consumer will not get off the mat and resume spending as he has in the past. The fact is the Net Wealth of US Households has "declined from a peak of $22 trillion to just under $12 trillion in early March."
Ouch!
The problem is compounded by the fact that Total US Household debt, as of first quarter 2009, amounts to roughly $13 trillion, and has stayed within that range for the last 3 and a half years.
Zero Hedge:
"From the end of 2007 through Q1 of 2009, household equity has declined by 94%. Is it surprising that today's GDP number would have been a complete debacle if the consumer had been left alone to prop the U.S. economy, on whom 70% of the economy is reliant? Obama pulled a Hail Mary with the stimulus: without it there would be no debate America is in a depression right now." MORE...
What does all this mean?
It means the consumer is down-for-the-count. His credit lines have been cut, his home equity eviscerated, and his checking account swimming in red ink. That spells trouble for an economy that's 70% dependent on consumer spending for growth....which brings us to another interesting point. The uptick in GDP last quarter was almost entirely the result of the surge in government spending; ie "fiscal and monetary stimulus". How long can that go on? How long will China keep slurping up US Treasuries rather than let their currency rise? Here's a clip from the Wall Street Journal on Friday:
"Shaky auctions of Treasury notes this week reignited concerns about whether the government can attract buyers from China and elsewhere to soak up trillions in new debt.
A fuse was lit this week when traders noted China's apparent absence from direct participation in two Treasury bond auctions. While China may have bought Treasury's just before the auctions, market participants read the country's actions as a worrying sign that China and other foreign investors may be ratcheting back purchases at a time when the U.S. is seeking to fund a $1.8 trillion budget deficit.
This week alone, the U.S. deluged the bond market with more than $200 billion in record-size sales. The U.S. has had little trouble finding buyers in recent months. But that demand is fading, and the Treasury market has become volatile."
Uncle Sam is goosing the bond market just like he is the stock market. (more on that later) Take a look at Treasury's latest bit of chicanery which appeared in the back pages of the Wall Street Journal in June:
"The sudden increase in demand by foreign buyers for Treasury's, hailed as proof that the world's central banks are still willing to help absorb the avalanche of supply, mightn't be all that it seems.
When the government sells bonds, traders typically look at a group of buyers called indirect bidders, which includes foreign central banks, to divine overseas demand for U.S. debt. That demand has been rising recently, giving comfort to investors that foreign buyers will continue to finance the U.S.'s budget deficit.
But in a little-noticed switch on June 1, the Treasury changed the way it accounts for indirect bids, putting more buyers under that umbrella and boosting the portion of recent Treasury sales that the market perceived were being bought by foreigners." ("Is foreign Demand as solid as it looks, Min zeng)
Hmmmm.
So, someone doesn't want you and me to know that foreign demand has gone to the dogs. That's not encouraging. So, they move the shells around the table and "Presto"---central banks and foreign investors can't get enough of those fetid T-Bills. What a racket.
This is what happens when monetary policy is handed over to bank-vermin and Ponzi-scam artists. Anything goes!
The Zero Hedge article shows that homeowners used the equity in their homes to fuel the soaring stock market.
Zero Hedge: "Most interesting is the correlation between Money Market totals and the listed stock value since the March lows: a $2.7 trillion move in equities was accompanied by a less than $400 billion reduction in Money Market accounts!
Where, may we ask, did the balance of $2.3 trillion in purchasing power come from? Why the Federal Reserve of course, which directly and indirectly subsidized U.S. banks (and foreign ones through liquidity swaps) for roughly that amount. Apparently these banks promptly went on a buying spree to raise the all important equity market, so that the U.S. consumer who net equity was almost negative on March 31, could have some semblance of confidence back and would go ahead and max out his credit card. Alas, as one can see in the money multiplier and velocity of money metrics, U.S. consumers couldn't care less about leveraging themselves any more."
You read that right! Only $400 billion of that fantastic 6 month "green shoots" stock market rally came from money market accounts. The rest ($2.3 trillion) was laundered through the banks and other financial institutions to create the appearance of recovery and to raise equity for underwater banks rather than forcing them into receivership (which is where they belong) Bernanke probably knew that congress wouldn't approve another TARP-type bailout for dodgy mortgage-backed assets, so he settled on this shifty plan instead. The only problem is, the banks are still broke, business investment is at historic lows, consumers are on the ropes, the unemployment lines are swelling, the homeless shelters are bulging, the pawn shops are bustling, tent cities are sprouting up everywhere, and according to MarketWatch, Corporate insiders have recently been selling their companies' shares at a greater pace than at any time since the top of the bull market in the fall of 2007."
Face it; the economy is in the crapper and Bernanke's trickery hasn't done a lick of good.
It's been two years since the crisis began and nothing... NOTHING has been done to fix the banking system or force the banks to write-down their shi**y assets to market. But the losses are real and no amount of Congressionally approved accounting hanky-panky (like suspending mark-to-market) will change a bloody thing.
So, how bad will it get?
Well, it depends on whether the FDIC decides to continue to allow financial institutions like Corus and Guaranty Banks to operate with "negative Tier 1 ratio" hoping that all the green shoots happy talk can turn insolvent institutions into thriving mega-banks. "Abrakadabra".
Karl Denninger explains this latest hoax in a recent entry on his site Market Ticker:
"So what's going on here?
Simple: An enormous number of banks are holding loans at or close to "par" that really aren't. They're holding mortgages at massively-inflated values, even on defaulted properties, and this is why you are not seeing more foreclosure sales - that is, why inventory is being held back. If they sell it the accountants will force recognition of the loss, which will render them instantly insolvent, but so long as they "extend and pretend" they are marking these loans way, way above recovery value. The upshot of this is that these firms' balance sheet claims on asset values are massively inflated, regulators know it, and they're intentionally ignoring it."
Bingo! It's all 100% fakery conducted right under the nose of the Fed, the Treasury and the FDIC.
How many hundreds of banks are being kept on life-support because the FDIC is down to its last few farthings and doesn't want to ignite a panic?
Stay tuned.
The banking system is insolvent and the fact that the politically-connected big banks talked their their friends at the Fed into pumping liquidity into equities so they could access the capital markets, doesn't change matters for the hundreds of local and regional banks that will be caught in next year's downdraft. Prepare for massive consolidation with G-Sax and JPM left to pick up former competitors for pennies on the dollar.
FIRING UP THE PRINTING PRESS
Keep in mind that Wall Street veterans knew from the very beginning that Bernanke's quantitative easing (QE) was a load of malarkey intended to justify keeping toxic asset prices artificially high while pumping trillions into the stock market. Here's former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler's analysis way back in May:
"On March 18, the Federal Reserve announced it would purchase up to $300 billion of long-term bonds as well as $750 billion of mortgage-backed securities. Of all the Fed's moves, this "quantitative easing" gets money into the economy the fastest -- basically by cranking the handle of the printing press and flooding the market with dollars (in reality, with additional bank credit). Since these dollars are not going into home building, coal-fired electric plants or auto factories, they end up in the stock market.
A rising market means that banks are able to raise much-needed equity from private money funds instead of from the feds. .....It's almost as if someone engineered a stock-market rally to entice private investors to fund the banks rather than taxpayers." (Andy Kessler "Was it a Sucker's Rally" Wall Street Journal)
What a swindle.
Bernanke's had a good go-of-it, juicing the market through the backdoor and concealing--as much as possible--who is still buying US Treasuries. (who knows; maybe it's the Fed buying its own paper offshore?!?) But what good will it do? The US consumer is broke; the tank is on empty. Household equity has declined by 94%, jobs are scarce, personal savings are rising, and families are cutting back and hunkering down. It will take a decade or more before household debt is whittled-away to a point where people can consume at pre-crisis levels. Another stock market bubble won't change a damn thing. This Depression is just beginning.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Debt Relief and Regulation
By Mike Whitney
"We've explained the difference between a recession and a depression before. But we'll do it again. A recession is a pause in an otherwise healthy, growing economy. A depression is when the economy drops dead." Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning
March 09, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- There's good news and bad news. The good news is that Obama's economics team understands the fundamental problem with the banks and knows what needs to be done to fix it. The bad news is that Bernanke, Summers and Geithner all have close ties to the big banks and refuse to do what's necessary. Instead, they keep propping up failing institutions with capital injections while concocting elaborate strategies for purchasing the banks bad assets through backdoor transactions. It's all very opaque, despite the cheery public relations monikers they slap on their various "rescue" plans. This charade has gone on for more than a month while unemployment has continued to soar, the stock market has continued to plunge, and the country has slipped deeper into economic quicksand.
Paul Krugman summed up the administration's response in Friday's column, "The Biig Dither":
"There’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern....
Why do officials keep offering plans that nobody else finds credible? Because somehow, top officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have convinced themselves that troubled assets ... are really worth much more than anyone is actually willing to pay for them — and that if these assets were properly priced, all our troubles would go away. ...
What’s more, officials seem to believe that getting toxic waste properly priced would cure the ills of all our major financial institutions.(Paul Krugman, The Big Dither, New York Times)
Krugman is right about the "dithering" but wrong about the toxic waste. Geithner and Bernanke know exactly what these assets are worth--- just pennies on the dollar. That's why Geithner has avoided taking $5 or $10 billion of these mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and putting them up for public auction. That would be the reasonable thing to do and it would remove any doubt about their true value. But the Treasury Secretary won't do that because it would just draw attention to the fact that the banking system is insolvent; the vaults are full of nothing but garbage loans that are defaulting at a record pace. Instead, Geithner has cooked up a plan for a "public-private partnership" which will provide up to $1 trillion in funding for private equity and hedge funds to purchase toxic assets from the banks. The Treasury will offer low interest "non recourse" loans (with explicit government guarantees against any potential loss) to qualified investors. If the hedge funds or private equity firms don't turn a profit in three years, they simply return the assets to the Treasury and get their money back. In essence, Geithner's plan provides a lavish subsidy to private industry on a totally risk free investment. It's a sweetheart deal.
At the same time, the plan achieves Geithner's two main objectives; it gives the banks the chance to scrub their balance sheets of junk mortgages and it also allows them to keep the present management-structure in place. The $1 trillion taxpayer giveaway to the hedge funds is just another juicy bone tossed to Geithner's real constituents-- Wall Street speculators.
Unfortunately, markets don't like uncertainty, which is why Geithner's circuitous plan has put traders in a frenzy. Wall Street has gone from scratching its head in bewilderment, to a stampede for the exits. In the last month alone, the stock market has plummeted a whopping 18 percent, indicating ebbing confidence in the political leadership. Geithner is now seen as another glorified bank lobbyist like his predecessor, Paulson, who is in way over his head. His lack of clarity has only added to the widespread sense of malaise. Markets require transparency and details, not obfuscation, gibberish and Fed-speak. This is how Baseline Scenario blogger Simon Johnson summed it up:
"Confusion helps the powerful... When there are complicated government bailout schemes, multiple exchange rates, or high inflation, it is very hard to keep track of market prices and to protect the value of firms. The result, if taken to an extreme, is looting: the collapse of banks, industrial firms, and other entities because the insiders take the money (or other valuables) and run.
This is the prospect now faced by the United States.
Treasury has made it clear that they will proceed with a “mix-and-match” strategy, as advertised....The course of policy is set. For at least the next 18 months, we know what to expect on the banking front. Now Treasury is committed, the leadership in this area will not deviate from a pro-insider policy for large banks; they are not interested in alternative approaches (I’ve asked). The result will be further destruction of the private credit system and more recourse to relatively nontransparent actions by the Federal Reserve, with all the risks that entails.
"The road to economic hell is paved with good intentions and bad banks."(Simon Johnson Baseline Scenario)
This is unusually harsh criticism from a former head economist at the IMF, but Johnson's analysis is dead-on. Geithner is putting the interests of the banks before those of the country. The "public private partnership" is just a convoluted way of avoiding the heavy-lifting of rolling up the banks, wiping out shareholders, separating the bad assets, and replacing management. The same is true of Bernanke's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) which is another futile attempt to restart Wall Street's failed credit-generating mechanism, securitization. It was securitization (which is the conversion of pools of mortgages into securities) which got us into this mess to begin with. It doesn't do any good to restore an inherently crisis-prone system that only works properly when the market is going up. There are more efficient ways to recapitalize the banks than the PPP, just as there are better ways to promote consumer spending than the TALF. Treasury should be looking into debt relief, jobs programs and higher wages, instead of barreling blindly down the same dead end. There are solutions that do not involve artificially low interest rates, government subsidies for toxic waste or lavish handouts to hedge funds. They simply require a commitment to rebuild the economy on sound principles of hard work, productivity and fair distribution of the the profits.
Even industry cheerleaders, like the Wall Street Journal, are skeptical of Bernanke's TALF and have denounced it as just another boondoggle.
Wall Street Journal: “If you missed the first hedge-fund boom, now may be the time to put up your shingle. Looking at the terms of the Federal Reserve’s new Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, investors using it should be able to generate hefty returns with little risk. The TALF effectively turns the Fed into a generous prime brokerage.”
Who needs a free market when Obama's Politburo is more than willing to prop up private industry with hundreds of billions of tax dollars?
There is another part of Geithner's plan that is even more troubling, that is, after the banks sell their dodgy assets to the hedge funds, what will they do with the money? Consumers are retrenching, so the pool of creditworthy customers will remain small. And businesses are trying to work off existing inventory, so they won't be borrowing to increase investment or retool anytime soon. If the opportunities for lending dry up, the banks will be forced to seek unconventional means for generating profits. My guess is the banks will put a large portion of their money into hedge funds for commodities speculation, which will push the price of oil, natural gas and other raw materials into the stratosphere just like they did last year when oil shot up to $147 bbl. The banks really have no choice; 65 percent of their business was securitized investments. That door has been slammed shut for good.
"TOO BIG TO FAIL"?
The Financial Times economics editor Martin Wolf warned in Friday's column of the dangers of our present course. He said:
"If large institutions are too big and interconnected to fail... then talk of maintaining them as “commercial” operations... is a sick joke. Such banks are not commercial operations; they are expensive wards of the state and must be treated as such.
The UK government has to make a decision. If it believes that costly bail-out must be piled upon ever more costly bail-out, then the banking system can never be treated as a commercial activity again: it is a regulated utility – end of story. If the government does want it to be a commercial activity, then defaults are necessary, as some now argue. Take your pick. But do not believe you can have both. (Martin Wolf, Big risks for the insurer of last resort, Financial Times)
Citigroup is now officially a "ward of the state" although CEO Pandit and his scurvy band of pirates are still allowed to collect their paychecks and hang out by the water cooler. Citi's survival depends on the reluctant generosity of the US taxpayer who is now its biggest shareholder. The mega-bank has slumped from $58 per share to $1 per share in less than 2 years. It's now more expensive to buy a grande latte at Starbucks than it is to buy three shares of Citi...and, at least with the Starbucks, the buyer gets a buzz on. There's no upside to the Citi deal. It's a dead-loss. The real question is, how long will Geithner let this joke continue before he does his job?
Wolf is correct to draw attention to the myth of "too big to fail". In fact, the Kansas Federal Reserve President, Thomas Hoenig made the same point in a PDF released this week:
"We have been slow to face up to the fundamental problems in our financial system and reluctant to take decisive action with respect to failing institutions. ... We have been quick to provide liquidity and public capital, but we have not defined a consistent plan and not addressed the basic shortcomings and, in some cases, the insolvent position of these institutions.
We understandably would prefer not to "nationalize" these businesses, but in reacting as we are, we nevertheless are drifting into a situation where institutions are being nationalized piecemeal with no resolution of the crisis." (Too Big has Failed, thanks to Calculated Risk)
Hoenig and Wolf are smart enough to know that the problem is not as simple as it sounds. They know that the largest financial institutions are lashed together in a net of complex counterparty contracts--mainly credit default swaps (CDS)--which run into tens of trillions of dollars, and, that if one player is allowed to default, it could pull all of the others down the elevator shaft along with it. The problem could be resolved with proper regulation which would force all CDS onto a regulated exchange so that government watchdogs could make sure that they are sufficiently capitalized to pay off whatever claims are levied against them. But, so far, no one in Congress has taken the initiative to propose the necessary regulation. Thus, the taxpayer continues to pay off hundreds of billions of dollars of insurance claims against AIG, which was so grossly under-capitalized, it couldn't meet its own obligations. The AIG fiasco provides a window into the real motivation behind financial engineering and the alphabet-soup of complex debt-instruments. (CDOs, MBSs, CDS) Wall Street knew that the fastest way to fatten the bottom line was to circumvent minimum capital requirements and expand leverage to unsustainable levels. In other words, a system of debt-fueled capitalism with only specks of capital. It worked beautifully, until it didn't.
Nobel prize-winning economist, Myron Scholes, who helped invent a model for pricing options, added his voice to the growing chorus of angry reformers who think the CDS market should be scrapped altogether. According to Bloomberg News: Scholes said "regulators need to ‘blow up or burn’ over-the-counter derivative trading markets to help solve the financial crisis. The markets have stopped functioning and are failing to provide pricing signals... The “solution is really to blow up or burn the OTC market, the CDSs and swaps and structured products, and let us start over.” (Bloomberg)
Treasury and the Fed have taken the position that they will not fix the system until they are forced at gunpoint. This is a prescription for disaster, not just because of growing public frustration or the free-falling stock markets, but because the banks are just the tip of the iceberg. The other non bank financial institutions are brimming with mortgage-backed sludge that will require emergency treatment, too. MarketWatch gives us a glimpse of the magnitude of the problem in last week's article "Banks fall out of bed, Citi shares under a buck":
"Market strategist Ed Yardeni's latest research shows that.....80.6%, or $7.4 trillion, of the assets held by the S&P financials companies were Level 2," he said in a research report. Level 2 assets are so-called mark-to-model, which are carried at a value based on assumptions, not true market prices."
What does "Level 2 assets" mean? It means that the financial giants are short on liquid assets--like cash or US Treasurys--and loaded with sketchy mortgage-backed paper to which they have arbitrarily assigned a value that no one in their right mind would ever pay. The entire US financial system, including the pension funds and insurance companies, is one humongous debt-bloated time bomb that is set to blow at any minute.
Surprisingly, Bernanke thinks he can simply wave his wand and restart the moribund credit markets. That's what the TALF is all about. The problem is that even if the Fed buys all of the AAA securities held by the respective financial institutions, (most of them are non banks) that still only accounts for 20 percent of the bad paper on the books. Here's what Tyler Durden said on Zero Hedge web site:
"Unfortunately for Geithner, who apparently did not read too deeply into the data, the bulk of the $1 trillion decline in securitizations came from home equity lending and non agency RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities), which reflect the "non-conforming" mortgage market, i.e. the subprime, alt-A and jumbo origination, loans which are the cause for the credit crisis, and which are rated far below the relevant AAA level. The truly unmet market, which the Treasury is addressing is at best 20% of the revised total amount." (Tyler Durden, Could TALF be the biggest disappointment yet?, Zero Hedge)
That leaves Geithner and Bernanke with few good choices. Either they expand TALF to include crappy AA (and lower) graded securities--putting the taxpayer at even greater risk--or they devise some totally new lending facility that will bypass the financial institutions altogether and issue credit directly to consumers and small businesses. There is no third option.
The problem with the TALF is that it ignores the new economic reality, that consumer demand has collapsed from the massive losses in home equity and retirement accounts. When credit markets froze last year, housing values dropped sharply raising havoc with household balance sheets and forcing a radical change in spending habits. That cutback in spending created a negative feedback loop to the financial sector which made it impossible to re-inflate the credit bubble. The ultimate size of the financial system will be determined, to large extent, by the capacity of people to borrow again which depends on many factors including job security, savings, and optimism about the future. Needless to say, the growing worry over a 1930s-type Depression will not help to lift spirits or improve the chances for a speedy recovery. That said, there are positive steps the administration can take now to restore confidence in the markets and put the ship o' state on even keel. These measures fall under three main headings; debt reduction (forgiveness), regulation and accountability. Confidence is not built on inspiring oratory or personal charisma, but concrete actions to reestablish a rules-based system that penalizes crooks and fraudsters. Recovery isn't possible without a strong commitment to these basic changes. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
"We've explained the difference between a recession and a depression before. But we'll do it again. A recession is a pause in an otherwise healthy, growing economy. A depression is when the economy drops dead." Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning
March 09, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- There's good news and bad news. The good news is that Obama's economics team understands the fundamental problem with the banks and knows what needs to be done to fix it. The bad news is that Bernanke, Summers and Geithner all have close ties to the big banks and refuse to do what's necessary. Instead, they keep propping up failing institutions with capital injections while concocting elaborate strategies for purchasing the banks bad assets through backdoor transactions. It's all very opaque, despite the cheery public relations monikers they slap on their various "rescue" plans. This charade has gone on for more than a month while unemployment has continued to soar, the stock market has continued to plunge, and the country has slipped deeper into economic quicksand.
Paul Krugman summed up the administration's response in Friday's column, "The Biig Dither":
"There’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern....
Why do officials keep offering plans that nobody else finds credible? Because somehow, top officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have convinced themselves that troubled assets ... are really worth much more than anyone is actually willing to pay for them — and that if these assets were properly priced, all our troubles would go away. ...
What’s more, officials seem to believe that getting toxic waste properly priced would cure the ills of all our major financial institutions.(Paul Krugman, The Big Dither, New York Times)
Krugman is right about the "dithering" but wrong about the toxic waste. Geithner and Bernanke know exactly what these assets are worth--- just pennies on the dollar. That's why Geithner has avoided taking $5 or $10 billion of these mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and putting them up for public auction. That would be the reasonable thing to do and it would remove any doubt about their true value. But the Treasury Secretary won't do that because it would just draw attention to the fact that the banking system is insolvent; the vaults are full of nothing but garbage loans that are defaulting at a record pace. Instead, Geithner has cooked up a plan for a "public-private partnership" which will provide up to $1 trillion in funding for private equity and hedge funds to purchase toxic assets from the banks. The Treasury will offer low interest "non recourse" loans (with explicit government guarantees against any potential loss) to qualified investors. If the hedge funds or private equity firms don't turn a profit in three years, they simply return the assets to the Treasury and get their money back. In essence, Geithner's plan provides a lavish subsidy to private industry on a totally risk free investment. It's a sweetheart deal.
At the same time, the plan achieves Geithner's two main objectives; it gives the banks the chance to scrub their balance sheets of junk mortgages and it also allows them to keep the present management-structure in place. The $1 trillion taxpayer giveaway to the hedge funds is just another juicy bone tossed to Geithner's real constituents-- Wall Street speculators.
Unfortunately, markets don't like uncertainty, which is why Geithner's circuitous plan has put traders in a frenzy. Wall Street has gone from scratching its head in bewilderment, to a stampede for the exits. In the last month alone, the stock market has plummeted a whopping 18 percent, indicating ebbing confidence in the political leadership. Geithner is now seen as another glorified bank lobbyist like his predecessor, Paulson, who is in way over his head. His lack of clarity has only added to the widespread sense of malaise. Markets require transparency and details, not obfuscation, gibberish and Fed-speak. This is how Baseline Scenario blogger Simon Johnson summed it up:
"Confusion helps the powerful... When there are complicated government bailout schemes, multiple exchange rates, or high inflation, it is very hard to keep track of market prices and to protect the value of firms. The result, if taken to an extreme, is looting: the collapse of banks, industrial firms, and other entities because the insiders take the money (or other valuables) and run.
This is the prospect now faced by the United States.
Treasury has made it clear that they will proceed with a “mix-and-match” strategy, as advertised....The course of policy is set. For at least the next 18 months, we know what to expect on the banking front. Now Treasury is committed, the leadership in this area will not deviate from a pro-insider policy for large banks; they are not interested in alternative approaches (I’ve asked). The result will be further destruction of the private credit system and more recourse to relatively nontransparent actions by the Federal Reserve, with all the risks that entails.
"The road to economic hell is paved with good intentions and bad banks."(Simon Johnson Baseline Scenario)
This is unusually harsh criticism from a former head economist at the IMF, but Johnson's analysis is dead-on. Geithner is putting the interests of the banks before those of the country. The "public private partnership" is just a convoluted way of avoiding the heavy-lifting of rolling up the banks, wiping out shareholders, separating the bad assets, and replacing management. The same is true of Bernanke's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) which is another futile attempt to restart Wall Street's failed credit-generating mechanism, securitization. It was securitization (which is the conversion of pools of mortgages into securities) which got us into this mess to begin with. It doesn't do any good to restore an inherently crisis-prone system that only works properly when the market is going up. There are more efficient ways to recapitalize the banks than the PPP, just as there are better ways to promote consumer spending than the TALF. Treasury should be looking into debt relief, jobs programs and higher wages, instead of barreling blindly down the same dead end. There are solutions that do not involve artificially low interest rates, government subsidies for toxic waste or lavish handouts to hedge funds. They simply require a commitment to rebuild the economy on sound principles of hard work, productivity and fair distribution of the the profits.
Even industry cheerleaders, like the Wall Street Journal, are skeptical of Bernanke's TALF and have denounced it as just another boondoggle.
Wall Street Journal: “If you missed the first hedge-fund boom, now may be the time to put up your shingle. Looking at the terms of the Federal Reserve’s new Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, investors using it should be able to generate hefty returns with little risk. The TALF effectively turns the Fed into a generous prime brokerage.”
Who needs a free market when Obama's Politburo is more than willing to prop up private industry with hundreds of billions of tax dollars?
There is another part of Geithner's plan that is even more troubling, that is, after the banks sell their dodgy assets to the hedge funds, what will they do with the money? Consumers are retrenching, so the pool of creditworthy customers will remain small. And businesses are trying to work off existing inventory, so they won't be borrowing to increase investment or retool anytime soon. If the opportunities for lending dry up, the banks will be forced to seek unconventional means for generating profits. My guess is the banks will put a large portion of their money into hedge funds for commodities speculation, which will push the price of oil, natural gas and other raw materials into the stratosphere just like they did last year when oil shot up to $147 bbl. The banks really have no choice; 65 percent of their business was securitized investments. That door has been slammed shut for good.
"TOO BIG TO FAIL"?
The Financial Times economics editor Martin Wolf warned in Friday's column of the dangers of our present course. He said:
"If large institutions are too big and interconnected to fail... then talk of maintaining them as “commercial” operations... is a sick joke. Such banks are not commercial operations; they are expensive wards of the state and must be treated as such.
The UK government has to make a decision. If it believes that costly bail-out must be piled upon ever more costly bail-out, then the banking system can never be treated as a commercial activity again: it is a regulated utility – end of story. If the government does want it to be a commercial activity, then defaults are necessary, as some now argue. Take your pick. But do not believe you can have both. (Martin Wolf, Big risks for the insurer of last resort, Financial Times)
Citigroup is now officially a "ward of the state" although CEO Pandit and his scurvy band of pirates are still allowed to collect their paychecks and hang out by the water cooler. Citi's survival depends on the reluctant generosity of the US taxpayer who is now its biggest shareholder. The mega-bank has slumped from $58 per share to $1 per share in less than 2 years. It's now more expensive to buy a grande latte at Starbucks than it is to buy three shares of Citi...and, at least with the Starbucks, the buyer gets a buzz on. There's no upside to the Citi deal. It's a dead-loss. The real question is, how long will Geithner let this joke continue before he does his job?
Wolf is correct to draw attention to the myth of "too big to fail". In fact, the Kansas Federal Reserve President, Thomas Hoenig made the same point in a PDF released this week:
"We have been slow to face up to the fundamental problems in our financial system and reluctant to take decisive action with respect to failing institutions. ... We have been quick to provide liquidity and public capital, but we have not defined a consistent plan and not addressed the basic shortcomings and, in some cases, the insolvent position of these institutions.
We understandably would prefer not to "nationalize" these businesses, but in reacting as we are, we nevertheless are drifting into a situation where institutions are being nationalized piecemeal with no resolution of the crisis." (Too Big has Failed, thanks to Calculated Risk)
Hoenig and Wolf are smart enough to know that the problem is not as simple as it sounds. They know that the largest financial institutions are lashed together in a net of complex counterparty contracts--mainly credit default swaps (CDS)--which run into tens of trillions of dollars, and, that if one player is allowed to default, it could pull all of the others down the elevator shaft along with it. The problem could be resolved with proper regulation which would force all CDS onto a regulated exchange so that government watchdogs could make sure that they are sufficiently capitalized to pay off whatever claims are levied against them. But, so far, no one in Congress has taken the initiative to propose the necessary regulation. Thus, the taxpayer continues to pay off hundreds of billions of dollars of insurance claims against AIG, which was so grossly under-capitalized, it couldn't meet its own obligations. The AIG fiasco provides a window into the real motivation behind financial engineering and the alphabet-soup of complex debt-instruments. (CDOs, MBSs, CDS) Wall Street knew that the fastest way to fatten the bottom line was to circumvent minimum capital requirements and expand leverage to unsustainable levels. In other words, a system of debt-fueled capitalism with only specks of capital. It worked beautifully, until it didn't.
Nobel prize-winning economist, Myron Scholes, who helped invent a model for pricing options, added his voice to the growing chorus of angry reformers who think the CDS market should be scrapped altogether. According to Bloomberg News: Scholes said "regulators need to ‘blow up or burn’ over-the-counter derivative trading markets to help solve the financial crisis. The markets have stopped functioning and are failing to provide pricing signals... The “solution is really to blow up or burn the OTC market, the CDSs and swaps and structured products, and let us start over.” (Bloomberg)
Treasury and the Fed have taken the position that they will not fix the system until they are forced at gunpoint. This is a prescription for disaster, not just because of growing public frustration or the free-falling stock markets, but because the banks are just the tip of the iceberg. The other non bank financial institutions are brimming with mortgage-backed sludge that will require emergency treatment, too. MarketWatch gives us a glimpse of the magnitude of the problem in last week's article "Banks fall out of bed, Citi shares under a buck":
"Market strategist Ed Yardeni's latest research shows that.....80.6%, or $7.4 trillion, of the assets held by the S&P financials companies were Level 2," he said in a research report. Level 2 assets are so-called mark-to-model, which are carried at a value based on assumptions, not true market prices."
What does "Level 2 assets" mean? It means that the financial giants are short on liquid assets--like cash or US Treasurys--and loaded with sketchy mortgage-backed paper to which they have arbitrarily assigned a value that no one in their right mind would ever pay. The entire US financial system, including the pension funds and insurance companies, is one humongous debt-bloated time bomb that is set to blow at any minute.
Surprisingly, Bernanke thinks he can simply wave his wand and restart the moribund credit markets. That's what the TALF is all about. The problem is that even if the Fed buys all of the AAA securities held by the respective financial institutions, (most of them are non banks) that still only accounts for 20 percent of the bad paper on the books. Here's what Tyler Durden said on Zero Hedge web site:
"Unfortunately for Geithner, who apparently did not read too deeply into the data, the bulk of the $1 trillion decline in securitizations came from home equity lending and non agency RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities), which reflect the "non-conforming" mortgage market, i.e. the subprime, alt-A and jumbo origination, loans which are the cause for the credit crisis, and which are rated far below the relevant AAA level. The truly unmet market, which the Treasury is addressing is at best 20% of the revised total amount." (Tyler Durden, Could TALF be the biggest disappointment yet?, Zero Hedge)
That leaves Geithner and Bernanke with few good choices. Either they expand TALF to include crappy AA (and lower) graded securities--putting the taxpayer at even greater risk--or they devise some totally new lending facility that will bypass the financial institutions altogether and issue credit directly to consumers and small businesses. There is no third option.
The problem with the TALF is that it ignores the new economic reality, that consumer demand has collapsed from the massive losses in home equity and retirement accounts. When credit markets froze last year, housing values dropped sharply raising havoc with household balance sheets and forcing a radical change in spending habits. That cutback in spending created a negative feedback loop to the financial sector which made it impossible to re-inflate the credit bubble. The ultimate size of the financial system will be determined, to large extent, by the capacity of people to borrow again which depends on many factors including job security, savings, and optimism about the future. Needless to say, the growing worry over a 1930s-type Depression will not help to lift spirits or improve the chances for a speedy recovery. That said, there are positive steps the administration can take now to restore confidence in the markets and put the ship o' state on even keel. These measures fall under three main headings; debt reduction (forgiveness), regulation and accountability. Confidence is not built on inspiring oratory or personal charisma, but concrete actions to reestablish a rules-based system that penalizes crooks and fraudsters. Recovery isn't possible without a strong commitment to these basic changes. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Liquidating the Empire
By Patrick j. Buchanan
14/10/08 "Information Clearinghouse" --- “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers.”
So Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover in the Great Crash of ‘29.
Hoover did. And the nation liquidated him — and the Republicans.
In the Crash of 2008, 40 percent of stock value has vanished, almost $9 trillion. Some $5 trillion in real estate value has disappeared. A recession looms with sweeping layoffs, unemployment compensation surging, and social welfare benefits soaring.
America’s first trillion-dollar deficit is at hand.
In Fiscal Year 2008 the deficit was $438 billion.
With tax revenue sinking, we will add to this year’s deficit the $200 to $300 billion needed to wipe the rotten paper off the books of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion (plus the $100 billion in add-ons and pork) for the Wall Street bailout, the $85 billion to bail out AIG, and $37 billion more now needed, the $25 billion for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and the hundreds of billions Hank Paulson will need to buy corporate paper and bail out banks to stop the panic.
As Americans save nothing, where are the feds going to get the money? Is the Fed going to print it and destroy the dollar and credit rating of the United States? Because the nations whose vaults are full of dollars and U.S. debt — China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs — are reluctant to lend us more. Sovereign wealth funds that plunged billions into U.S. banks have already been burned.
Uncle Sam’s VISA card is about to be stamped “Canceled.”
The budget is going to have to go under the knife. But what gets cut?
Social Security and Medicare are surely exempt. Seniors have already taken a huge hit in their 401(k)s. And as the Democrats are crafting another $150 billion stimulus package for the working poor and middle class, Medicaid and food stamps are untouchable. Interest on the debt cannot be cut. It is going up. Will a Democratic Congress slash unemployment benefits, welfare, education, student loans, veterans benefits — in a recession?
No way. Yet, that is almost the entire U.S. budget — except for defense, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and foreign aid. And this is where the axe will eventually fall.
It is the American Empire that is going to be liquidated.
Retrenchment has begun with Bush’s backing away from confrontations with Axis-of-Evil charter members Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, and will likely continue with a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are already talking “reconciliation” with the Taliban.
We no longer live in Eisenhower or Reagan’s America. Even the post-Cold War world of George H. W. Bush, where America was a global hegemon, is history. In both relative and real terms, the U.S.A. is a diminished power.
Where Ike spent 9 percent of GDP on defense, Reagan 6 percent, we spend 4 percent. Yet we have two wars bleeding us and many more nations to defend, with commitments in the Baltic, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans we did not have in the Cold War. As U.S. weapons systems are many times more expensive today, we have fewer strategic aircraft and Navy ships than Ike or Reagan commanded. Our active-duty Army and Marine Corps consist of 700,000 troops, 15 percent women, and a far higher percentage of them support rather than combat troops.
With so few legions, we cannot police the world, and we cannot afford more. Yet, we have a host of newly hostile nations we did not have in 1989.
U.S. interests in Latin America are being challenged not only by Cuba, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Brazil, Argentina and Chile go their own way. Russia is reasserting hegemony in the Caucasus, testing new ICBMs, running bomber probes up to U.S. air space. China, growing at 10 percent as we head into recession, is bristling over U.S. military sales to Taiwan. Iran remains defiant. Pakistan is rife with anti-Americanism and al-Qaida sentiment.
The American Empire has become a vast extravagance.
With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries?
With a recession of unknown depth and duration looming, why keep borrowing billions from rich Arabs to defend rich Europeans, or billions from China and Japan to hand out in Millennium Challenge Grants to Tanzania and Burkina Faso?
America needs a bottom-up review of all strategic commitments dating to a Cold War now over for 20 years.
Is it essential to keep 30,000 troops in a South Korea with twice the population and 40 times the wealth of the North? Why are McCain and Obama offering NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees against Russia, to a Georgia run by a hothead like Mikheil Saakashvili, and a Ukraine, millions of whose people prefer their kinship to Russia to an alliance with us?
We must put “country first,” says John McCain.
Right you are, Senator. Time to look out for America first
14/10/08 "Information Clearinghouse" --- “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers.”
So Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover in the Great Crash of ‘29.
Hoover did. And the nation liquidated him — and the Republicans.
In the Crash of 2008, 40 percent of stock value has vanished, almost $9 trillion. Some $5 trillion in real estate value has disappeared. A recession looms with sweeping layoffs, unemployment compensation surging, and social welfare benefits soaring.
America’s first trillion-dollar deficit is at hand.
In Fiscal Year 2008 the deficit was $438 billion.
With tax revenue sinking, we will add to this year’s deficit the $200 to $300 billion needed to wipe the rotten paper off the books of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion (plus the $100 billion in add-ons and pork) for the Wall Street bailout, the $85 billion to bail out AIG, and $37 billion more now needed, the $25 billion for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and the hundreds of billions Hank Paulson will need to buy corporate paper and bail out banks to stop the panic.
As Americans save nothing, where are the feds going to get the money? Is the Fed going to print it and destroy the dollar and credit rating of the United States? Because the nations whose vaults are full of dollars and U.S. debt — China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs — are reluctant to lend us more. Sovereign wealth funds that plunged billions into U.S. banks have already been burned.
Uncle Sam’s VISA card is about to be stamped “Canceled.”
The budget is going to have to go under the knife. But what gets cut?
Social Security and Medicare are surely exempt. Seniors have already taken a huge hit in their 401(k)s. And as the Democrats are crafting another $150 billion stimulus package for the working poor and middle class, Medicaid and food stamps are untouchable. Interest on the debt cannot be cut. It is going up. Will a Democratic Congress slash unemployment benefits, welfare, education, student loans, veterans benefits — in a recession?
No way. Yet, that is almost the entire U.S. budget — except for defense, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and foreign aid. And this is where the axe will eventually fall.
It is the American Empire that is going to be liquidated.
Retrenchment has begun with Bush’s backing away from confrontations with Axis-of-Evil charter members Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, and will likely continue with a negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Gates are already talking “reconciliation” with the Taliban.
We no longer live in Eisenhower or Reagan’s America. Even the post-Cold War world of George H. W. Bush, where America was a global hegemon, is history. In both relative and real terms, the U.S.A. is a diminished power.
Where Ike spent 9 percent of GDP on defense, Reagan 6 percent, we spend 4 percent. Yet we have two wars bleeding us and many more nations to defend, with commitments in the Baltic, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans we did not have in the Cold War. As U.S. weapons systems are many times more expensive today, we have fewer strategic aircraft and Navy ships than Ike or Reagan commanded. Our active-duty Army and Marine Corps consist of 700,000 troops, 15 percent women, and a far higher percentage of them support rather than combat troops.
With so few legions, we cannot police the world, and we cannot afford more. Yet, we have a host of newly hostile nations we did not have in 1989.
U.S. interests in Latin America are being challenged not only by Cuba, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Brazil, Argentina and Chile go their own way. Russia is reasserting hegemony in the Caucasus, testing new ICBMs, running bomber probes up to U.S. air space. China, growing at 10 percent as we head into recession, is bristling over U.S. military sales to Taiwan. Iran remains defiant. Pakistan is rife with anti-Americanism and al-Qaida sentiment.
The American Empire has become a vast extravagance.
With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries?
With a recession of unknown depth and duration looming, why keep borrowing billions from rich Arabs to defend rich Europeans, or billions from China and Japan to hand out in Millennium Challenge Grants to Tanzania and Burkina Faso?
America needs a bottom-up review of all strategic commitments dating to a Cold War now over for 20 years.
Is it essential to keep 30,000 troops in a South Korea with twice the population and 40 times the wealth of the North? Why are McCain and Obama offering NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees against Russia, to a Georgia run by a hothead like Mikheil Saakashvili, and a Ukraine, millions of whose people prefer their kinship to Russia to an alliance with us?
We must put “country first,” says John McCain.
Right you are, Senator. Time to look out for America first
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)