Archives: December 2010

2011 To-Do List

Published on: 12/31/2010
Comments: 1 Comment

Many people I’ve spoken with over the past 6 months or so have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with their individual and/or collective ability to affect change in government. Sure, there have been some small victories here and there, but by and large our biggest problems continue to rage on unabated. For quite some time I shared in their frustration, and still do, but have realized that sometimes the actions of the masses need to take place on a different level to change the bigger paradigms. To use some old adages, we shouldn’t throw stones from a glass house, and we should certainly tend to our own backyard before criticizing that of our neighbor. On this last day of 2010, let’s take a look at what we can do in our own financial lives to improve our situations. Let’s call it trickle-up responsibility.

Stop Accumulating Additional Debt

Obviously, this one seems like a no-brainer, but let’s hit it from a few unconventional angles. First of all, it is important to understand that debt is one of the biggest ways the banking system creates inflation. The money multiplier, aka fractional reserve ratio, determines how much banks actually need to keep in their coffers to meet withdrawal requests by depositors. The rest can be out in the system in the form of loans, speculative investments, and the like. Let’s use an example. You to go the bank and deposit $100. The bank can create roughly $1000 in loans off that $100. In that sense, the bank has created inflation by inventing money from your deposit. Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions in this dawning age of awareness of the Federal Reserve and what it does is that the Fed is solely responsible for inflation. While the Fed does set the multiplier, the Fed itself does not create much of the inflation we experience. That is done in the banking system by creation of ~10X loans from deposits.

With this in mind, each time you take on additional debt, you are helping the banking system to create inflation, which erodes the purchasing power of the money you just borrowed plus all your other funds. This is why there has been such a big problem over the past two years and Bernanke et al are trying to scare the public about deflation. People weren’t borrowing enough to allow inflation to occur. Wonder of all wonders, we have actually undergone a period of deflation (contraction in M3), and the Fed, banks, and government just can’t have that. Why? Because they know that a fiat monetary system needs inflation like human beings need oxygen.

Who caused that period of deflation? The government and banking elite would have you believe that it was bad loans and falling home prices. WRONG. If you’d like proof of that, take a minute and read the My Two Cents from 10/10/2008. It was you – the American people – that did it by living responsibly for a time. You did it by foregoing on consumption and additional borrowing. You didn’t do it by having rallies, you didn’t do it by demonstrating, you didn’t do it by waving signs. You did it by making smart financial decisions at kitchen tables from sea to shining sea. That is the dirty secret those in charge of the banking system and the upper levels of government don’t want known.

This is another reason why the government has undertaken so much borrowing. It is not to stimulate the economy as we’ve already seen. Many of you have expressed frustration about the trillions spent on ‘stimulus’ with nearly nothing to show for it. The above facts are precisely the reason why this is the case. The government stepped in to save first the banking system, then the fiat money system itself by borrowing on your behalf. Many people have already caught on to this reality. Those are the priorities of the government. The financial system and the money system must be preserved because that is where actual political power is derived in the current paradigm. This is another reason why governments promote entitlement societies. They assist in preserving the fiat paradigm and at the same time gathering control over the citizenry.

The past two years of credit contraction and lack of additional accumulated debt by the American people have been a major thorn in the side of those who benefit from the fiat paradigm. This is why there has been a massive media and propaganda campaign to convince people that the economy is on the mend and that we should get out and spend money. It is why George Bush told the American people to go to Disney World, and it is why we continue to dump billions into continuing unemployment benefits rather than bringing jobs back home and finding ways to create sustainable employment for the unemployed. It is why banks continue to send pre-approved credit card applications to people who haven’t had jobs in 2 years. I personally know of at least two dozen situations where this is the case and I’m sure there are millions more out there.

Simply put, we’re analyzing the actions of the banks and government from a ‘good of the people’ perspective where they are acting from a ‘good of the fiat paradigm’ perspective. That is why nothing makes sense. Keep up the good work on eliminating debt accumulation; you’re doing a fantastic job!

Make Others Aware and Encourage Similar Action

On its face, the above heading may seem like the tripe that often comes out of futile movements, but as we’ve seen above, in the case of debt, what has happened has actually been working. People need to use every opportunity to make others around them aware of this reality. I understand that much of the contraction of debt accumulation has been forced on people by job loss and/or reduction in earnings. Economic realities often precipitate necessary actions and this is no exception. The key now is to continue the trend. And that will only happen if more individuals and families are recruited and encouraged to join the effort. And it costs nothing to join.

It is sad to think of the millions of Americans that have lived their entire adult lives with the burden of debt hanging like a millstone around their necks. It is even sadder when you begin to realize that much of it wasn’t necessary. I have a saying that I am quite sure someone else came up with, but it is very appropriate. It isn’t what you make, it is what you spend, and in this case what you borrow to spend. It has gotten us in trouble as individuals, as families, as counties, as states, and as a nation. While we might not be able to order Washington and Wall Street to represent us and dispense with this phony monetary paradigm, we can make it difficult if not impossible for them to continue it.

Obviously there are consequences for any course of action. Good ones and bad ones. In the case of debt, the positive consequences are freedom and peace of mind, not to mention saving all that money on interest payments. The negative consequences are that the Fed and USGovt will do their level best to pick up where you left off. Our government will borrow like it has never borrowed before and the Fed will buy more bonds. It might have to buy them all eventually. And so it will proceed until the fiat paradigm ends. It will end. It always has and always will. It is one of the immutable laws of economics given to us by God. As in all prior historical examples, it will not end well. There will be turbulence and dark times. That also is the way of things. Radical change in societies and paradigms never happens quietly. These transitions tend to follow another famous adage that those who play with fire tend to eventually get burned.

There is good news though. While all of this flux continues to transpire, you can do whatever is within your means to positively impact your situation in this regard. This much I will tell you: not only will it feel good and put more money in your pocket, you’ll sleep better at night as a result of it. Please accept my best wishes for a Happy New Year and may you be blessed in your efforts to become debt-free.

Bernanke’s PR Crew Talks up Economy, Markets

WASHINGTON — Eighteen months after the recession officially ended, the government’s latest measures to bolster the economy have led many forecasters and policy makers to express new optimism that the recovery will gain substantial momentum in 2011.

Economists in universities and on Wall Street have raised their growth projections for next year. Retail sales, industrial production and factory orders are on the upswing, and new claims for unemployment benefits are trending downward.

Despite persistently high unemployment, consumer confidence is improving. Large corporations are reporting healthy profits, and the Dow Jones industrial average reached a two-year high this week.

The Federal Reserve, which has kept short-term interest rates near zero since the end of 2008, has made clear it is sticking by its controversial decision to try to hold down mortgage and other long-term interest rates by buying government securities.

President Obama’s $858 billion tax-cut compromise with Congressional Republicans is putting more cash in the hands of consumers through a temporary payroll-tax cut and an extension of unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed.

It is also trying to address one of the biggest impediments to the recovery — the reluctance of companies to invest their piles of cash in new plants and equipment — by granting tax incentives for business investment.

The measured optimism is reminiscent of the mood a year ago, when the economy seemed to be reviving, only to stall again in the spring amid widespread fears caused by the debt crisis in Greece and other European countries.

Even so, economists are increasingly upbeat about the outlook, saying that while the economy in 2011 will not be strong enough to drive unemployment down significantly, it should put the United States on its soundest footing since the financial crisis started an economic tailspin three years ago.

Phillip L. Swagel, who was the Treasury Department’s chief economist during the administration of George W. Bush and teaches at the University of Maryland, said, “The recovery in 2011 will be strong enough for us to see sustained job creation that will finally give Americans a tangible sense of an improving economy.”

A prominent forecaster, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, predicted that the economy would be “off and running” next year. “The policy response, in its totality, has been very aggressive,” he said, “and I think ensures that the recovery will evolve into a self-sustaining expansion early in 2011.”

The recession officially ended in June 2009, when the economy started to grow again. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the country’s output, grew at an annualized rate of 3.7 percent in the first quarter of this year. But then it stalled, with the rate falling to a mere 1.7 percent in the second quarter and 2.6 percent in the third quarter.

Jan Hatzius, the chief United States economist at Goldman Sachs, said the economy was likely to grow at an annualized rate of around 3 percent this quarter. Goldman projected last week that the growth rate would be 4 percent for most of 2011. Morgan Stanley, which raised its growth forecast for 2011 to 4 percent, is even more optimistic, forecasting a rate of 4.5 percent this quarter.

Administration officials, who have been burned by premature optimism in the past, were reluctant to make predictions for next year. But Austan D. Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers since September, said that a shift in sentiment quickly followed the news of the tax deal

“There aren’t many policies which, on the day Washington announces them, lead most private-sector forecasters to publicly and significantly revise their forecasts upward,” he said. “This one did.”

There are significant caveats to the more positive outlook. The housing market remains weak, and another sustained drop in prices could badly undercut the economy. Financial markets and the banking system remain vulnerable to a new round of jitters in Europe over the debt burdens of countries like Ireland and Spain. There is mounting concern about the tattered balance sheets of state and local governments.

While fiscal and monetary policy seems to be helping the economy in the short turn, the tax-cut compromise essentially deferred looming battles over how to cut federal spending and address the government’s huge debt burden.

The Fed’s bond-buying efforts have not prevented long-term interest rates from rising — a phenomenon that is interpreted by optimists as a reaction to higher growth and by pessimists as a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the central bank’s efforts and the potential for inflation.

And for most of the roughly eight million Americans who have lost their jobs since the recession began in December 2007, it hardly feels like a recovery.

The unemployment rate remains at its highest level since the early 1980s; it rose to 9.8 percent this month and is likely to remain above 9 percent through all of next year, confirming the view that the United States is in another jobless recovery like the ones that followed the last two recessions, in 1990-91 and in 2001.

“Historically, unemployment rates come down slowly, so even with 4 percent growth, you would expect to see the unemployment rate come down maybe a percentage point a year, probably less,” said Alan B. Krueger, who was the Treasury Department’s top economist until last month when he returned to Princeton. “Given how high the unemployment rate is, that’s going to seem very slow.”

Robert J. Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University and a member of the committee that sets the start and end dates of business cycles, cautioned against excessive optimism, noting the huge burdens on state and local governments, rising costs of health care and other long-run fiscal challenges. “The rise of the stock market is mainly because there are no other good investments in sight, not because the stock market has some unique talent in predicting what’s wrong with the economy.”

N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under Mr. Bush, said that “anything that spooks consumers and businesses from spending” could threaten the recovery, including “a worsening of the fiscal crisis in Europe or the increased fear that a similar crisis will soon infect U.S. cities and states.”

The Fed is likely to end its $600 billion bond-buying program in mid-2011, meaning monetary policy might be providing less of a kick to the economy by the end of the year. Officials in the Obama administration also seem to agree that after the $787 billion stimulus last year and the $858 billion tax-cut compromise just approved by Congress, the government’s arsenal of fiscal tools has just about been used up.

“We went through a year and a half period, at least, with the private sector in free fall and government taking a much more significant role than anybody in normal times would want,” said Mr. Goolsbee. “And the president’s oft-repeated view is that we don’t want to be in that circumstance forever — the government should not be the primary driver of long-run growth in the country. We’ve got to have the private sector stand up.”

Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, said he believed his party’s gains in the midterm elections had bolstered consumer and business confidence, arguing that Republicans have advocated fiscal discipline and opposed onerous regulations and tax increases.

“Consumer confidence seems to be on the upswing and business angst is dropping,” he said. “It hasn’t swung into the confidence column yet, but the negativity is lowering.”

Alabama Town’s Pension Failure is a Warning

Published on: 12/23/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: 1 Comment

This struggling small city on the outskirts of Mobile was warned for years that if it did nothing, its pension fund would run out of money by 2009. Right on schedule, its fund ran dry.

Then Prichard did something that pension experts say they have never seen before: it stopped sending monthly pension checks to its 150 retired workers, breaking a state law requiring it to pay its promised retirement benefits in full.

Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport.

Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”

The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow.

It is not just the pensioners who suffer when a pension fund runs dry. If a city tried to follow the law and pay its pensioners with money from its annual operating budget, it would probably have to adopt large tax increases, or make huge service cuts, to come up with the money.

Current city workers could find themselves paying into a pension plan that will not be there for their own retirements. In Prichard, some older workers have delayed retiring, since they cannot afford to give up their paychecks if no pension checks will follow.

So the declining, little-known city of Prichard is now attracting the attention of bankruptcy lawyers, labor leaders, municipal credit analysts and local officials from across the country. They want to see if the situation in Prichard, like the continuing bankruptcy of Vallejo, Calif., ultimately creates a legal precedent on whether distressed cities can legally cut or reduce their pensions, and if so, how.

“Prichard is the future,” said Michael Aguirre, the former San Diego city attorney, who has called for San Diego to declare bankruptcy and restructure its own outsize pension obligations. “We’re all on the same conveyor belt. Prichard is just a little further down the road.”

Many cities and states are struggling to keep their pension plans adequately funded, with varying success. New York City plans to put $8.3 billion into its pension fund next year, twice what it paid five years ago. Maryland is considering a proposal to raise the retirement age to 62 for all public workers with fewer than five years of service.

Illinois keeps borrowing money to invest in its pension funds, gambling that the funds’ investments will earn enough to pay back the debt with interest. New Jersey simply decided not to pay the $3.1 billion that was due its pension plan this year.

Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota have all taken the unusual step of reducing the benefits they pay their current retirees by cutting cost-of-living increases; retirees in all three states are suing.

No state or city wants to wind up like Prichard.

Driving down Wilson Avenue here — a bleak stretch of shuttered storefronts, with pawn shops and beauty parlors that operate behind barred windows and signs warning of guard dogs — it is hard to see vestiges of the Prichard that was a boom town until the 1960s. The city once had thriving department stores, two theaters and even a zoo. “You couldn’t find a place to park in that city,” recalled Kenneth G. Turner, a retired paramedic whose grandfather pushed for the city’s incorporation in 1925.

The city’s rapid decline began in the 1970s. The growth of other suburbs, white flight and then middle-class flight all took their tolls, and the city’s population shrank by 40 percent to about 27,000 today, from its peak of 45,000. As people left, the city’s tax base dwindled.

Prichard’s pension plan was established by state law during the good times, in 1956, to supplement Social Security. By the standard of other public pension plans, and the six-figure pensions that draw outrage in places like California and New Jersey, it is not especially rich. Its biggest pension came to about $39,000 a year, for a retired fire chief with many years of service. The average retiree got around $12,000 a year. But the plan allowed workers to retire young, in their 50s. And its benefits were sweetened over time by the state legislature, which did not pay for the added benefits.

For many years, the city — like many other cities and states today — knew that its pension plan was underfunded. As recently as 2004, the city hired an actuary, who reported that “the plan is projected to exhaust the assets around 2009, at which time benefits will need to be paid directly from the city’s annual finances.”

The city had already taken the unusual step of reducing pension benefits by 8.5 percent for current retirees, after it declared bankruptcy in 1999, yielding to years of dwindling money, mismanagement and corruption. (A previous mayor was removed from office and found guilty of neglect of duty.) The city paid off its last creditors from the bankruptcy in 2007. But its current mayor, Ronald K. Davis, never complied with an order from the bankruptcy court to begin paying $16.5 million into the pension fund to reduce its shortfall.

A lawyer representing the city, R. Scott Williams, said that the city simply did not have the money. “The reality for Prichard is that if you took money to build the pension up, who’s going to pay the garbage man?” he asked. “Who’s going to pay to run the police department? Who’s going to pay the bill for the street lights? There’s only so much money to go around.”

Workers paid 5.5 percent of their salaries into the pension fund, and the city paid 10.5 percent. But the fund paid out more money than it took in, and by September 2009 there was no longer enough left in the fund to send out the $150,000 worth of monthly checks owed to the retirees. The city stopped paying its pensions. And no one stepped in to enforce the law.

The retirees, who were not unionized, sued. The city tried to block their suit by declaring bankruptcy, but a judge denied the request. The city is appealing. The retirees filed another suit, asking the city to pay at least some of the benefits they are owed. A mediation effort is expected to begin soon. Many retirees say they would accept reduced benefits.

Companies with pension plans are required by federal law to put money behind their promises years in advance, and the government can impose punitive taxes on those that fail to do so, or in some cases even seize their pension funds.

Companies are also required to protect their pension assets. So if a corporate pension fund falls below 60 cents’ worth of assets for every dollar of benefits owed, workers can no longer accrue additional benefits. (Prichard was down to just 33 cents on the dollar in 2003.)

And if a company goes bankrupt, the federal government can take over its pension plan and see that its retirees receive their benefits. Although some retirees receive less than they were promised, no retiree from a federally insured plan in the private sector has come away empty-handed since the federal pension law was enacted in 1974. The law does not cover public sector workers.

Last week several dozen retirees — one using a wheelchair, some with canes — attended the weekly City Council meeting, asking for something before Christmas. Mary Berg, 61, a former assistant city clerk whose mother was once the city’s zookeeper, read them the names of 11 retirees who had died since the checks stopped coming.

“I hope that on Christmas morning, when you are with your families around your Christmas trees, that you remember that most of the retirees will not be opening presents with their families,” she told them.

The budget did not move forward. Mayor Davis was out of town.

“Merry Christmas!” shouted a man from the back row of the folding chairs. The retirees filed out. One woman could not hold back her tears.

After the meeting, Troy Ephriam, a council member who became chairman of the pension fund when it was nearly broke, sat in his office and recalled some of the failed efforts to put more money into the pension fund.

“I think the biggest disappointment I have is that there was not a strong enough effort to put something in there,” he said. “And that’s the reason that it’s hard for me to look these people in the face: because I’m not certain we really gave our all to prevent this.”

Surprise Surprise! Lower Taxes Stimulate Growth

Published on: 12/22/2010
Comments: No Comments

For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.

The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

My third observation is that immigration is slowing down and may be reversed. Immigration accelerated during the 1990s, and the 2000 census showed more immigrants than the Census Bureau had estimated.

In contrast, immigration has clearly slowed down since the housing bubble burst and the construction industry went bust in 2007. And the 2010 census showed fewer residents in several high-immigration states than the Census Bureau had estimated were there in 2009.

The drop was particularly big, 3 percent, in Arizona, where state and local governments have cracked down on illegals, notably by requiring employers to use the e-Verify system to determine immigration status (that law was signed by Janet Napolitano, then governor and now homeland security secretary).

We can’t be sure until more detailed data are reported, but it looks like we’re seeing significant reverse migration. The lesson is that states’ public policy and law enforcement practices can make a difference.

Finally, let’s get to politics. The net effect of the reapportionment was to add six House seats and electoral votes to the states John McCain carried in 2008 and to subtract six House seats and electoral votes from the states Barack Obama carried that year. Similarly, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

That’s not an enormous change. But it’s part of a long-term trend that has reshaped the nation’s politics. If you go back to the 1960 election, when the electoral votes were based on the 1950 census, you will find that John Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. But the states he carried then will have only 272 electoral votes in 2012, a bare majority. And without Texas, which he narrowly carried, the Kennedy states would have only 234 electoral votes.

The bottom line: You need a lot more than the Northeast and the industrial Midwest to get elected president these days.

And to control a majority in the House of Representatives. Thanks to unexpectedly large gains in state legislatures, Republicans stand to control the redistricting process in 18 states with 204 House districts, while Democrats will control it in only seven states with 49 districts. That doesn’t guarantee continued Republican majorities, but it’s probably worth 10 to 15 seats.

Meanwhile, I await the post-Christmas treat of more detailed census results to come.

USGovt Liabilities Rise Another $2 Trillion in FY2010

Published on: 12/21/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

(Reuters) – The U.S. government fell deeper into the red in fiscal 2010 with net liabilities swelling more than $2 trillion as commitments on government debt and federal benefits rose, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Tuesday.

The Financial Report of the United States, which applies corporate-style accrual accounting methods to Washington, showed the government’s liabilities exceeded assets by $13.473 trillion. That compared with a $11.456 trillion gap a year earlier.

Unlike the normal measurement of government intake of receipts against cash outlays, accrual accounting measures costs such as interest on the debt and federal benefits payable when they are incurred, not when funds are actually disbursed.

The report was instituted under former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the first Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, to illustrate the mounting liabilities of government entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The government’s net operating cost, or deficit, in the report grew to $2.080 trillion for the year ended September 30 from $1.253 trillion the prior year as spending and liabilities increased for social programs. Actual and anticipated revenues were roughly unchanged.

The cash budget deficit narrowed in fiscal 2010 to $1.294 trillion from $1.417 trillion in 2009. But the $858 billion tax cut extension package enacted last week is expected to keep the deficit well above the $1 trillion mark for another year.

BUDGET CUT DEBATE

The latest Treasury report should fuel debate in Congress over spending cuts next year as a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives takes office.

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a compromise bill to fund the government until March 4, 2011. After that, Republicans will have the chance to push through dramatic budget cuts.

“Today, we must balance our efforts to accelerate economic recovery and job growth in the near term with continued efforts to address the challenges posed by the long-term deficit outlook,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter accompanying the report. “The administration’s top priority remains restoring good jobs to American workers and accelerating the pace of economic recovery.”

Among key differences between the operating deficit and the cash deficit were sharp increases in costs accrued for veterans’ compensation, government and military employee benefits and anticipated losses at mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The biggest increase in net liabilities in fiscal 2010 stemmed from a $1.477 trillion increase in federal debt repayment and interest obligations, largely to finance programs to stabilize the economy and pull it out of recession.

The federal balance sheet liabilities do not include long-term projections for social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but these showed a positive improvement.

The report said the present value of future net expenditures for those now eligible to participate in these programs over the next 75 years declined to $43.058 trillion from $52.145 trillion a year ago — a change attributed to the enactment of health-care reform legislation aimed at boosting coverage and limiting long-term cost growth.

The overall projection, including for those under 15 years of age and not yet born, is much rosier, with the 75-year projected cost falling to $30.857 trillion from last year’s projection of $43.878 trillion.

The report noted, however, that there was “uncertainty about whether the projected reductions in health care cost growth will be fully achieved.”

WSJ Runs Pro Gold Standard Article

Published on: 12/20/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: 1 Comment

Manuel Hinds, Former Finance Minister of El Salvador and c0-author of the 2010 Manhattan Institute Hayek Prize winning book “Money, Markets, and Sovereignty”.

It is ironic that the international monetary system of floating currencies is based on a theory called the “Optimal Currency Area” that celebrates the freedom of central banks to print money at will. The idea is that total freedom to create money would promote global progress and employment, smooth out business cycles, and prevent bubbles and their associated crises.

The irony is that the system is obviously suboptimal. It goes against the grain of globalization, the process that is defining our economic times. To accommodate the central bankers’ wishes to control their own currencies, the floating system requires splitting the world’s monetary markets into as many currency areas as there are countries.

This introduces a grave fragmentation in the international monetary markets precisely when all other markets, including the financial ones, are coming together into a single global market. It creates obstacles for the operation of the emerging global chains of production as well as for the international allocation of resources. Fragmentation also opens the door for currency and financial crises, turning capital flows, a naturally stabilizing force, into a destabilizing one through currency speculation.

Unbridled monetary printing led us to the collapse of Bretton Woods in the late 1960s and then into the stagflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. Then, after a brief recess that ended in the mid-1990s—the result of Paul Volcker’s refusal to print money during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman—we returned to trigger-happy monetary creation.

hinds

As a result, in the past 15 years we have gone from bubble to bubble, and from bust to bust, printing money first to keep the economy going; then to overcome the bursting of the dot-com bubble, then to sustain a triple bubble of housing, securitized instruments and commodities; then to overcome the effects of the bursting of these bubbles, which is leading to a second commodity bubble and a boom in emerging markets that seem to be waiting to go bust. It is as if we believe that by printing money we can remove hard budget constraints.

Worse, as happened in the mid-1930s, when currencies also floated, countries are engaging in currency wars that nobody can possibly win. The objective of all warriors is to depreciate their currency more than the rest of the world. In the process, while all currencies are debased, the floating system is failing to perform its most elementary promise: absorbing international imbalances. As with the United States and China, the absorption of these balances has ceased to be based on automatic, economic processes and has become the subject of political confrontations.

This failure should lead us back to the drawing board to re-design the international monetary system, reversing the trend that prevailed during the 20th century. We started that century with a fundamental international currency, gold, which kept its value through time and was widely accepted around the world. We ended the century with more than 150 currencies that change their value constantly and at different rates from each other, in such a way that most currencies are not accepted in most countries.

In pursuance of the illusion that money can remove hard budget constraints, we moved from order to disorder. After demonetizing gold in the 1970s, now we are demonetizing money by debasing and politicizing it.

Mentioning the gold standard that prevailed all over the world during the Industrial Revolution brings about derisory comments, some of them suggesting that the value of gold was based on fetishism. This is a mistake. The gold standard was a highly rational system. It kept prices constant through centuries and provided an automatic mechanism to remove international imbalances, such as those that are creating today’s currency wars, without the help of any international bureaucracy.

The gold standard achieved this not because of any mystical property of gold itself but because it was an impersonal system. Central banks or governments could not tamper with monetary creation. This is what we need today.

Payrolls Decrease in 28 States; Unemployment Rises in 21

Published on: 12/19/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: 1 Comment

Payrolls decreased in 28 U.S. states and the unemployment rate climbed in 21, showing most parts of the world’s largest economy took part in the November labor- market setback.

North Carolina led the nation with 12,500 job cuts last month, followed by Massachusetts with 8,600 dismissals, and Ohio with 7,800, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. Joblessness increased most in Georgia and Idaho, while workers in Nevada faced the highest rate in the country at 14.3 percent.

The report is consistent with figures on Dec. 3 that showed unemployment increased last month for the first time since August. The Federal Reserve’s pledge to buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries by June and the $858 billion bill passed by Congress extending all Bush-era tax cuts for two years may help boost growth and cut unemployment.

The report shows “an uneven distribution of improvement with some disappointing results,” said Russell Price, a senior economist at Ameriprise Financial Inc. in Detroit. “We’ve seen pretty clear evidence that demand is starting to improve and with the tax program that was passed last night it should further accelerate. That increased demand is going to pull forward further improvements in employment.”

Leading Index

Another report showed the economy is poised to pick up in 2011. The index of leading economic indicators increased 1.1 percent in November, the biggest gain in eight months, the New York-based Conference said today. The reading matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

After Nevada, the jobless rate was highest in California and Michigan at 12.4 percent, today’s report from the Labor Department showed. Michigan, which is part of the so-called manufacturing Rust Belt, saw its unemployment rate drop by 0.4 percentage point, pushing it to the lowest level since February 2009, as the labor force shrank by 19,500 workers.

Yahoo! Inc., owner of the largest U.S. Web portal, is among companies still trimming payrolls. The firm is cutting about 600 jobs, or about 4 percent of its workforce, part of an almost two-year turnaround effort. The notification process began on Dec. 14 and most of the cuts will come from the product group, said Kim Rubey, a spokeswoman for Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo.

Unemployment in North Dakota, the lowest in the U.S., was unchanged at 3.8 percent.

November Payrolls

The Labor Department’s Dec. 3 report showed payrolls increased by 39,000 in November, less than the most pessimistic forecast of economists surveyed at the time by Bloomberg News, and the jobless rate climbed to 9.8 percent, the highest since April.

State and local employment data are derived independently from the national statistics, which are typically released on the first Friday of every month. The state figures are subject to larger sampling errors because they come from smaller surveys, making the national figures more reliable, according to the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Today’s report showed Texas led states with the biggest payroll gains as employers added 19,100 workers. New Jersey was second with an increase of 10,000.

The jobless rate held at 9.2 percent in New Jersey, rose to 8.3 percent from 8.2 percent in New York, and fell to 9 percent from 9.1 percent in Connecticut.

Unemployment in Georgia climbed by 0.3 percentage point to 10.1 percent in November after having fallen in the previous two months. Idaho’s rate climbed by the same amount to 9.4 percent, just short of the almost three-decade high of 9.5 percent reached in February.

Yield Curve Continues to Steepen

Published on: 12/18/2010
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: Could it be that Susanne Walker is finally admitting in print that our ‘growth’ has been coming from ever-widening deficits? Perhaps even the Keynesians are starting to get it!

The extra yield Treasury investors demand to hold 10-year notes over 2-year securities touched the widest since February on speculation an extension of tax cuts will spur growth and increase deficits.

The benchmark 10-year yield rose this week to the highest level in seven months as retail sales advanced in November more than economists forecast and the Federal Reserve said the recovery is continuing. The U.S. economy grew at a faster pace in the third quarter, a report is forecast to show next week.

“The market will be subject to selling,” said Brian Edmonds, head of interest rates in New York at Cantor Fitzgerald LP, one of the 18 primary dealers that trade directly with the Fed. “It’s hard to think of anything good for bonds coming out of the tax-cut extension. Something has got to give.”

The difference in yield between 10- and 2-year notes increased for a third week, rising to 272 basis points yesterday, or 2.72 percentage points, from 268 basis points on Dec. 10, according to Bloomberg data. The spread touched 289 basis points on Dec. 15, the widest since Feb. 23.

Fed officials maintained following their Dec. 14 meeting a $600 billion program of U.S. debt buying under a second round of quantitative easing, saying the economic expansion hasn’t been strong enough to reduce joblessness. The recovery “is continuing, though at a rate that has been insufficient to bring down unemployment,” the Fed said in its statement.

The central bank bought Treasuries maturing from 2028 to 2040 yesterday, bringing the total in its latest purchase program to $129.7 billion, according to Bloomberg data. The Fed will hold two buybacks on Dec. 20.

Benchmark Note

The yield on the benchmark 10-year note was little changed at 3.326 percent yesterday, from 3.325 percent on Dec. 10, according to BGCantor Market Data. The 2.625 percent security maturing in November 2020 traded at 94 1/8.

The 10-year note yield touched 3.56 percent on Dec. 16, the highest level since May 13. A gain in two-year notes this week pushed the yield down three basis points to 0.61 percent. It touched 0.69 percent Dec. 13, the highest level since June 23.

President Barack Obama signed into law yesterday an $858 billion bill extending for two years all tax cuts enacted during the administration of George W. Bush. Congress passed the measure this week.

Retail sales gained 0.8 percent last month as Americans began holiday shopping, the Commerce Department reported Dec. 14. The median forecast of 77 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for an increase of 0.6 percent.

U.S. Economic Growth

The U.S. economy grew 2.8 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier, faster than the 2.5 percent estimate issued last month, according to the median forecast of 61 economists before the Commerce Department’s report Dec. 22. Gross domestic product advanced 1.7 percent in the second quarter.

“The data has improved, and the tax package has contributed to the rise in yields,” said David Ader, head of government bond strategy at CRT Capital Group LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “One needs to adjust what they were thinking next year to accommodate it.”

Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s MOVE index, which measures volatility in Treasuries based on prices of over-the-counter options maturing in 2 to 30 years, rose on Dec. 15 to 125.20, the highest level since September 2009.

Treasuries rallied over the past two days as yields near a seven-month high attracted investors.

The 10-year yield fell 20 basis points on Dec. 16-17, the most since a decrease of 22 basis points during the two days ended June 7, after the U.S. payrolls report showed employers added fewer jobs than forecast.

Relative Strength

The 14-day relative strength index on the 10-year yield was at 62 yesterday after increasing to 74.384 on Dec. 15, the highest since May 2009, according to Bloomberg data. Readings at or above 70 typically indicate yields are poised to fall.

Bonds rose yesterday as Moody’s Investors Service lowered Ireland’s credit rating five levels to Baa1 from Aa2. Moody’s also this week placed Greece’s Ba1 local and foreign currency government bond ratings on review for possible downgrade.

European Union leaders agreed to amend the bloc’s treaties to create a permanent crisis-management mechanism in 2013, with Germany refusing to boost the current 750 billion-euro ($1 trillion) emergency fund for the most indebted countries.

“There are still worries coming out of Europe that are lingering that are still supportive of the Treasury market,” said Jason Rogan, director of U.S. government trading in New York at Guggenheim Partners LLC, a brokerage for institutional investors. “The market will trade volatile and illiquid into the end of the year as people wind down their positions. The action should be very choppy.”

Latest Eurozone ‘Paper Patch’ Solution is Another Joke

Published on: 12/17/2010
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: They are just dying to bail everybody out without actually saying that is what they are doing. This crisis is nowhere near over and will be back again in a couple of months. Why? Because none of the systemic problems have even been addressed let alone dealt with.

European Union leaders agreed to amend the bloc’s treaties to create a permanent debt-crisis mechanism in 2013 as they struggled to bridge divisions over immediate steps to stabilize bond markets.

A day after the European Central Bank armed itself with more capital to resist the crisis, the EU started to discuss measures such as offering shorter-term credits or using the bloc’s main rescue fund to buy bonds of distressed countries.

“My vision is of a Europe that grows ever closer together – - at different speeds in some cases, to be sure,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters after an EU summit in Brussels today.

For now, Germany ruled out topping up the current 750 billion-euro ($1 trillion) emergency fund or rushing aid to Portugal or Spain, reinforcing skepticism in markets about Europe’s search for the right formula to quell the fiscal contagion that threatens the euro.

The future setup “is to some extent window-dressing as it does not solve the current crisis,” said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING Group NV in Brussels. “European leaders failed to address the issue of debt sustainability and possible insolvency problems prior to 2013.”

The euro gained 0.1 percent to $1.3254 at 2:45 p.m. in Brussels, while bonds of Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland slipped. Moody’s Investors Service followed up warnings that it may cut the credit ratings of Spain and Greece by announcing today that it downgraded Ireland by five notches to Baa1 from Aa2, with a negative outlook.

Talks Under Way

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said deliberations are under way over more flexible use of the main 440 billion-euro component of the fund instead of waiting until the last minute to arrange all-or-nothing lifelines like the 85 billion-euro package granted to Ireland on Nov. 28.

Asked whether shorter-term credits or bond purchasing are up for debate, Juncker said measures being considered are “exactly those that you mentioned.”

Such steps would ease strains on the ECB, which has bought 72 billion euros of weaker countries’ debt since May to stabilize markets. Yesterday, the ECB shored up its capital base to guard against losses from the purchases, voting to almost double its capital to 10.76 billion euros.

“Let’s be candid,” International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said in an interview on “Charlie Rose” on PBS. “The European Union needs a little more time, until maybe the beginning of next year, to be able to produce a comprehensive package.”

No ‘Speculation’

Driven by a German public outcry against propping up fiscally reckless countries, Merkel opposed putting more money on the table or further entwining Europe’s economies through joint bond sales. Merkel didn’t rule out more flexible use of the current fund, declining to enter into “speculation.”

In a departure from German insistence that each country determine its own fate, Merkel said today that maintaining national fiscal discipline won’t alone put the 16-nation euro region on a sounder footing.

Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy indicated that closer coordination of business tax rates might come back onto the agenda as Europe tries to forge a more unified economy and fix flaws in the euro’s makeup.

In a jab at Ireland’s 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, Sarkozy said “I don’t think you can have the lowest corporate taxes in the euro zone and then transfer your debt.” Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said the tax discussion is an “important novelty” that will play out over years.

‘Needs to Mature’

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi put calls for joint euro-area borrowing in the same category, noting the German opposition “but that the proposal needs to mature. It will be studied more deeply.”

On the summit’s main business, Germany won an EU commitment for a treaty amendment to set up a crisis-resolution system in 2013 that would allow financial aid “if indispensable” to underpin the euro and might force bondholders to bear some of the costs of future rescues.

German insistence on cutting bond values when countries get into trouble in the future triggered the latest phase in the debt crisis, culminating in Ireland’s support package and triggering concern that Portugal and Spain will be next.

While costs for bondholders aren’t mentioned in the two- sentence amendment agreed on last night, the leaders endorsed a Nov. 28 decision by finance ministers that writedowns may take place on a “case by case” basis in accord with IMF practices.

‘Useful Clarification’

ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet called the pledge not to mandate bond writeoffs a “useful clarification.”

Merkel needed the amendment to prevent German high-court challenges to the future aid mechanism, which the EU wants to get up and running when the current rescue package lapses in mid-2013.

The compromise text reads: “The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

Merkel didn’t get everything she wanted. Germany originally pushed to allow financial aid only as a “last resort,” language that might have ruled out contingency credit lines or given the IMF the lead in sorting out Europe’s economic woes.

Last overhauled a year ago, the treaty is the EU’s equivalent of a constitution, binding on EU institutions in Brussels and on national governments’ handling of European affairs. All 27 countries, including the 11 outside the euro region, must ratify the amendment.

European finance ministers plan to work out details of the future system by March so it can take effect in the middle of 2013.

Andy Sutton on Liberty Talk Radio (12/15)

Andy Sutton appeared on Liberty Talk Radio with host Joe Cristiano for their monthly conversation about the economy, financial markets, and anything else Joe had up his sleeve. Some topics included:

  • China and the some ways we can unwind our dependence on Asia and other areas
  • Discussion on interest rates
  • Andy’s rant during which he calls out both our government AND the American people on debt and spending

As a reminder, these appearances are the third Wednesday of each month, starting at 8PM Eastern Time. The call-in numbers are 888-773-4496 and 646-652-4620

Click Here to Listen

page 1 of 2 »

Welcome , today is Wednesday, 02/22/2012