Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked

EDWARD MORRISSEY writes about Clinton-era nostalgia:

In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue……. Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.

Nostalgists should also remember that the housing bubble started in this era — as did the internet boom — followed by the dot-com bust just as Clinton left office. This article is definitely worth reading.

via Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked.

How cancelling central banks’ holdings of government debt could be a useful thing | FT Alphaville

FT’s Kate Mackenzie writes: Morgan Stanley cross-asset strategist Gerard Minack says the remarkable thing about developed economy deleveraging is how little of it has happened:

The credit super-cycle ended four years ago, but leverage has hardly fallen in major economies: debt-to-GDP ratios remain historically high.

Debt To GDP Ratio

Minack says the problem is some of that deleveraging (particularly for households) is being tackled by saving more, but that won’t solve the problem, or at least not very quickly. This is because of what the borrowings were used to finance: mostly pre-existing assets (that were forecast to rise in value) rather than expenditure.

There is a simple reason why deleveraging is taking so long: governments are borrowing money (deficit-spending) to offset private sector deleveraging and avert a deflationary spiral. So overall (non-financial) debt to GDP ratios, which include government debt, are almost unchanged.

That is not necessarily a bad thing — unless you would prefer a 1930s-style 50% drop in GDP after a deflationary spiral. What can be destructive is funding government deficits from offshore because you eventually have to pay the money back. Far better to borrow from yourself — in other words your “independent” central bank. That way you never have to pay it back.

As for canceling central bank holdings of government debt. Why bother? Interest payments made on the debt go right back to the Treasury as central bank profit distributions. And why set a precedent? I doubt many would believe government promises that this was a once-off and would never be repeated…….until next time.

via How cancelling central banks’ holdings of government debt could be a useful thing | FT Alphaville.

Fed set to unveil extra asset purchases – FT.com

Robin Harding at FT writes:

The other issue on the agenda is replacing the FOMC’s current forecast that rates will stay low until mid-2015 with a set of preconditions for the economy to reach before it considers raising rates. “I now think a threshold of 6.5 per cent for the unemployment rate and an inflation safeguard of 2.5 per cent . . . would be appropriate,” said Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed…..

The problem is that both of these thresholds are moving targets:

  • Unemployment is based on surveys and only includes those who have actively sought a job in recent weeks. It fluctuates with the participation rate.
  • Inflation is also subjective, dependent on the basket of goods measured and estimates of housing inflation that are subject to manipulation.

Targeting nominal GDP growth would be far more accurate.

via Fed set to unveil extra asset purchases – FT.com.

Noam Chomsky: “Europe’s policies make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state.” | EUROPP

Noam Chomsky in an interview with EUROPP editors Stuart A Brown and Chris Gilson:

Europe’s policies [austerity during a recession] make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state. And that’s almost been said. Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, had an interview with the Wall Street Journal where he said that the social contract in Europe is dead. He wasn’t advocating it, he was describing it, but that’s essentially what the policies lead to…….

Chomsky has the cart before the horse. Collapse of welfare states in Europe led to austerity — not the other way round. Joe Hockey had a slightly different take on events in Europe in his April address to the Institute of Economic Affairs:

The Age of Entitlement is over. We should not take this as cause for despair. It is our market based economies which have forced this change on unwilling participants. What we have seen is that the market is mandating policy changes that common sense and years of lectures from small government advocates have failed to achieve.

Reduction of trade barriers and shrinking of the technological advantage enjoyed by developed nations will lead to the inevitable demise of the social contract. Free competition demands efficiency. Countries cannot remain competitive while carrying burdens imposed by a welfare state.

via Five minutes with Noam Chomsky – “Europe’s policies make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state.” | EUROPP.

‘Doomsday’ For The Fiscal Cliff? | ABC News

Republicans are considering a “Doomsday Plan” if fiscal cliff talks fail. The ABC’s Jon Karl reports:

It’s quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the president nothing more – no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

Two senior Republican elected officials say this Doomsday Plan is becoming the most likely scenario. A top GOP House leadership aide confirms the plan is under consideration, but says Speaker Boehner has made no decision on whether to pursue it.

Under one variation of the plan, House Republicans would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote “present” on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes.

By doing this, Republicans avoid taking blame for tax increases on 98 percent of income tax payers. As one senior Republican in Congress told me, “You don’t take a hostage you aren’t willing to shoot.”

This is a time for mending bridges damaged during the election. The ability of the President to unify rather than polarize the two sides of the house will be tested in the next few weeks. Let us hope that he measures up.

via ‘Doomsday’ For The Fiscal Cliff? (The Note) – ABC News.

Obama Theatrics, Obama Reality – Business Insider

Wendy McElroy writes that we should ignore the distraction of President Obama’s flowery speeches and focus on the under-the-radar actions of regulatory agencies and regulatory czars appointed — FDR-style — directly by the president.

A Nov. 19 article in the National Review opened, “On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected petitions from the governors of Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina to suspend the biofuel-blending requirements established by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.”

The petition asked for relief from the program’s requirement to convert corn crops into ethanol. National Review explained, “The 2012 target is to blend 13.2 billion gallons of biofuel into our gasoline, a quantity that ratchets up to 13.8 billion gallons in 2013. This year, about 4.7 billion bushels, or 40% of the nation’s corn crop, will be consumed by ethanol manufacturing.” The petitioning states are economically reeling from “the worst drought in 50 years,” and the EPA czar has the power to waive the program’s requirement. She chose not to.

via Obama Theatrics, Obama Reality – Business Insider.

Fiscal Cliff Is Just a Speed Bump on the Road to a Real Crisis | International Liberty

Dan Mitchell writes in the New York Post:

A lot of people get upset about the national debt, which is somewhere between $11 trillion and $16 trillion, depending on whether you include money the government owes itself. Those are big numbers — but if you add up the amount of money that the government is promising to spend for entitlement programs in the future and compare that figure to the amount of revenue that the government projects it will collect for those programs, the cumulative shortfall is more than $100 trillion. And that’s after adjusting for inflation. Some politicians claim this huge, baked-into-the-cake expansion of government isn’t a problem, because we can raise taxes. But that’s exactly what Europe’s welfare states tried — and it didn’t work. Simply stated, even huge tax hikes won’t stem the flow of red ink in the long run if government keeps growing faster than the private economy. This is the fiscal problem that demands attention. Absent real entitlement reform, such as block-granting Medicaid to the states, the burden of government spending will consume ever-larger shares of our economic output with each passing year.

via Explaining in the New York Post that the Fiscal Cliff Is Just a Speed Bump on the Road to a Real Crisis « International Liberty.

China: Uncertain foundations – FT.com

Simon Rabinovitch at FT writes:

Shadow banking is flourishing in China, helping to make non-bank institutions as big a source of credit as banks themselves since July – something that has never happened before. Chinese bankers, leading rating agencies and the International Monetary Fund have all warned about risks from the surge in loosely regulated lending, with some even pointing to parallels with developed economies before the global financial crisis. But the Chinese government itself has taken a permissive stance.

Highly regulated banks restricted lending to property developers following concerns over a real estate bubble. But regulators turned a blind eye to unregulated shadow lenders who borrow short — normally no more than 3 months — and lend long. They may believe this will sustain economic growth while protecting banks from risky lending. The thinly capitalized sector, however, is at risk from defaults and a consequent liquidity crisis which could spread to the banking sector.

via Uncertain foundations – FT.com.

IMF: Australia's banks need more capital

The IMF identifies risks to Australia’s banking system:

  • Residential mortgages are banks’ single largest asset, and a combination of high household debt and elevated house prices increases the risk in this portfolio.
  • Banks rely on funding from outside the country, and with the crisis in Europe and the global economy suffering, these funding sources are volatile.
  • Four major banks dominate the banking system, and they share many similarities that can be a cause of risk spreading from one to another in the event of a crisis.

……The four major banks are systemically important which means difficulties in any one of them would have severe repercussions for the financial system and the economy. A higher minimum capital requirement would provide a bigger cushion against potential losses.

Capital ratios may under-state capital requirements through risk-weighting assets. Past performance is not always a good predictor of the future. I prefer FDIC director Thomas Hoenig’s unweighted comparison of tangible assets to tangible equity.

via IMF Survey: Australia’s Banks Sturdy, Closely Connected.