Category: Economy

Analysis of the global economy

Posted on

Fed monetary policy

I read this excerpt from a speech by Ben Bernanke in September (courtesy of Cullen Roche):

The tools we have involve effecting financial asset prices. Those are the tools of monetary policy. There are a number of different channels. Mortgage rates, other interest rates, corporate bond rates. Also the prices of various assets. For example, the prices of homes. To the extent that the prices of homes begin to rise, consumers will feel wealthier, they’ll begin to feel more disposed to spend. If home prices are rising they may feel more may be more willing to buy home because they think they’ll make a better return on that purchase. So house prices is one vehicle. Stock prices – many people own stocks directly or indirectly. The issue here is whether improving asset prices will make people more willing to spend. One of the main concerns that firms have is that there is not enough demand… if people feel their financial position is better… they’ll be more likely to spend, and that’s going to provide the demand firms need in order to be willing to hire and to invest.

It stopped me in my tracks. Here is why:

  1. The Fed Chairman avoids stating the obvious: there is only one aim of monetary policy: to increase or decrease the amount of debt in the economy. Their tools are designed to encourage people to borrow more — or occasionally less, when the results of their earlier policy materialize.
  2. Raising prices to increase demand? Raising home prices is unlikely to clear inventories of unsold homes or stimulate the construction industry.
  3. What Bernanke is referring to is known as the “wealth effect” — raising asset prices by lowering interest rates stimulates spending. The “wealth illusion” would be a more appropriate name.
  4. Rising asset prices make people more willing to spend. He is 100% correct here. But he fails to mention the resulting asset bubble that follows. Low interest rates and rising prices feed speculation….. which lead to higher prices and more speculation….. which lead to a self-reinforcing spiral.

Economics is not a hard science like engineering or physics, where one can accurately gauge outcomes. It is a soft science, like psychology, and many practitioners with competing theories as to how to treat the patient. With spectacular failure rates. Theory after theory is consigned to the waste basket as we struggle to understand the human condition.

Posted on

Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Tax is Political, Not Fiscal

Eward Morrissey of the Fiscal Times points out the way toward resolving the fiscal cliff impasse:

Both parties want to reform the corporate and personal tax systems to eliminate complexity and provide stability and predictability. Rather than aim specifically at revenue, start by realizing the bipartisan goal of tax reform, which will boost investor confidence, and then address the spending that drives the deficits. That will be the only way to have a truly balanced long-term solution and a reliable increase in revenue, one that will keep America on a firm path to solvency…..

via Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Tax is Political, Not Fiscal.

Posted on

Back to Basics: A Better Alternative to Basel Capital Rules | Thomas M. Hoenig

FDIC Director Thomas Hoenig calls for a simple capital ratio of Tangible Equity/Tangible Assets instead of the complex measures proposed by Basel III. Using Tier 1 capital measured according to Basel III standards overstates tangible equity capital by about 40 percent and using risk-weighted assets makes capital adequacy ratios even more subjective.

Prior to the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, bank equity levels were primarily market driven. In this period the U.S. banking industry’s ratio of tangible equity to assets ranged between 13 and 16 percent, regardless of bank size……..

[Basel capital standards] led to a systematic decline in bank capital levels. Between 1999 and 2007, for example, the industry’s tangible equity to tangible asset ratio declined from 5.2 percent to 3.8 percent, and for the 10 largest banking firms it was only 2.8 percent in 2007. More incredible still is the fact that these 10 largest firms’ total risk-based capital ratio remained relatively high at around 11 percent, achieved by shrinking assets using ever more favorable risk weights to adjust the regulatory balance sheet.

via FDIC: Speeches & Testimony – 9/14/2012.

Hat tip to Barry Ritholz.

Posted on

Larry Elder | Is the US becoming a food stamp nation?

Larry Kudlow interviews Larry Elder: Is there a future for free markets?

[gigya name=”cnbcplayer” PLUGINSPAGE=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” allowfullscreen=”true” allowscriptaccess=”always” bgcolor=”#000000″ height=”380″ width=”400″ quality=”best” wmode=”transparent” scale=”noscale” salign=”lt” src=”http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000129206/code/cnbcplayershare” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash”]

“We are at the point where almost 50 percent of voters can go into that voting booth and pull the lever to vote themselves a raise….”

Posted on

Richard Fisher | Politicians need to get their act together

Texas Fed President, Richard Fisher believes fiscal authorities need to get their act together. “There is a limit to what we can do. We can’t have a Buzz Lightyear monetary policy: to infinity and beyond.”

[gigya name=”cnbcplayer” PLUGINSPAGE=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” allowfullscreen=”true” allowscriptaccess=”always” bgcolor=”#000000″ height=”380″ width=”400″ quality=”best” wmode=”transparent” scale=”noscale” salign=”lt” src=”http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000129200/code/cnbcplayershare” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash”]

Fisher’s frustration with Washington is hard to miss:

“We have to completely reboot tax policy. We need to completely reboot spending policy……..This is all about job creation…..We have to build confidence in the business community, who are the job creators. And until we give them some clarity, they are just going to hold back. If we have temporary fixes to the fiscal cliff this just pushes out the envelope of indecision…… Just get the job done. Give the business community and those who employ people — the private sector — a sense of direction and confidence. Right now they know nothing. They don’t know what their taxes are going to be. They don’t know what spending patterns are going to be. They don’t know what the costs of these massive regulatory initiatives are going to be…. No business can plan right now…..”

Posted on

Australia: Not fiscal cliff — fiscal flab

Jessica Irvine writes that Australia is faced with an aging population and spiraling health costs, but a free-spending government will leave us unprepared.

Two veteran Budget forecasting groups, Deloitte Access Economics and Macroeconomics, have in recent days delivered their verdict on Mr Swan’s mid-year Budget update: It’s codswallop. The Federal Budget is not in surplus by $1.1 billion this year but in deficit by $4.2 billion, according to Deloitte, and $7 billion, according to Macroeconomics…..

via We're afflicted with the same fiscal flab most governments struggle with | thetelegraph.com.au.

Posted on

President Obama Has Drawn A Dangerous Line In The Sand – Business Insider

Bruce Krating’s analysis of the fiscal cliff stoush:

The headlines make it seem like B&O are ready to work together, and achieve the necessary compromises to avoid falling off a cliff. I think the press has it wrong. We’re headed into a bitter fight; in part, because the President has drawn a very dangerous line in the sand…..

via President Obama's Has Drawn A Dangerous Line In The Sand – Business Insider.

Posted on

Jan Hatzius Connects All the Dots | Business Insider

Important insight from Jan Hatzius at Goldman Sachs, reported by Cullen Roche:

The US private sector continues to run a large financial surplus of 5.5% of GDP, more than 3 percentage points above the historical average. This is the flip side of the deleveraging of private sector balance sheet. We expect a normalization in this surplus over the next few years to provide a boost to real GDP growth. This is the key reason why we see US economic growth picking up gradually in the course of 2013 and into 2014, despite the near-term downside risks from the increase in fiscal restraint……..

via Jan Hatzius Connects All the Dots – Business Insider.

Posted on

Resolving The Crisis And Restoring Healthy Growth: Why Deleveraging Matters? | David Lipton | IMF

David Lipton, IMF First Deputy Managing Director writes that when G20 leaders met at the height of the GFC they had two simple objectives: i) to resolve the crisis; and ii) to make sure it did not happen again……..

Progress has been hard in part because the measures called for under each agenda item to some extent undermine the other agenda item. The first objective, exiting the crisis requires strong enough demand to restore growth and jobs. At the same time, the second objective, ensuring sustainability and laying the foundation for a stronger global economy, requires deleveraging in many advanced economies, which will dampen demand, particularly if it happens simultaneously in many sectors in many countries.

Lipton points out that the actions of all major players impact on each other. He calls for deficit countries to continue fiscal consolidation and private sector deleveraging “in a sustainable way” and for “structural reforms to improve competitiveness”. Surplus countries also need to cut back on “reserve accumulation” and allow “more exchange rate flexibility”.

via Resolving The Crisis And Restoring Healthy Growth: Why Deleveraging Matters? by David Lipton, IMF First Deputy Managing Director.

Posted on

Japan economy shrinks as China dispute takes toll

Elaine Kurtenbach at USA Today writes:

Japan’s economy contracted in the latest quarter, signaling that like Europe it may already be in recession, further weighing down world growth. On an annualized basis, the world’s No. 3 economy shrank 3.5% in the July-September quarter, the government reported Monday. It was in line with gloomy forecasts after Japan’s territorial dispute with China hammered exports that were already weakened by feeble global demand……

Rajeshni Naidu-Ghelani at CNBC writes that Japan’s recovery depends on global demand:

Izumi Devalier, Japan economist at HSBC in Hong Kong backed that sentiment saying Japan’s economic development over the past decade shows that it’s been extremely dependent on exports and external demand.

“Sad to say, Japan will have to wait for the overseas economies to pick up before it sees its own economy really lifted,” Devalier told CNBC.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper