The decisions over the past 30 years to pass huge huge tax bills to those in the future is unsustainable. Saying you cut taxes when all you actually do is postpone them is dishonest. However, many people go along with such false statements so politicians have learned to buy votes today by raising taxes on the future. Since the public keeps voting for such people when the facts are clear the only explanation is they support raising taxes, not today, but in the future (or, I suppose, they are not able to understand the clear implications of what they vote for). The Long-Term Budget Outlook
…
For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.
…
CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level.
…
Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
The cost of paying for a dysfunctional medical system has been a huge drain on the USA economy for decades. But that is nothing compared to what the future holds if we don’t adopted sensible strategies that reduce the huge extra costs we pay and the worse performance we receive for that cost.
Social security is not the huge problem many think it is. Still I would support reducing the payout to wealthy individuals and bringing the age limits more in line with the changes in life expectancy. 12.4% of pay for low and middle wage workers (high income earners stop paying social security taxes so in effect marginal tax rates decrease by 12% for any income above $106,800). Medicare taxes add 2.9% bringing the total social security and Medicare taxes to 15.1% (including both the amount paid directly by the employee and the amount paid for the employee by the employer).
Related: True Level of USA Federal Deficit – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – quotations about economics – articles on improving the health care system – USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007
U.S. Job Report Suggests that Green Shoots are Mostly Yellow Weeds by Nouriel Roubini
It’s clear that even if the recession were to be over anytime soon – and it’s not going to be over before the end of the year – job losses are going to continue for at least another year and a half. Historically, during the last two recessions, job losses continued for at least a year and a half after the recession was over.
…
The latest figures – published this week – on mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures suggest a spike not only in subprime and near-prime delinquencies, but now also on prime mortgages. So the problems of the economy are significantly affecting the banking system.
…
So the outlook for the US and global economy remains extremely weak ahead. The recent rally in global equities, commodities and credit may soon fizzle out as an onslaught of worse- than-expected macro, earnings and financial news take a toll on this rally, which has gotten way ahead of improvement in actual macro data.
Certainly this is not a forecast that will make people happy. I agree that the expectations for a nice quick recovery have become too optimistic. I am far from certain what lies ahead but the second half of 2009 does not look to be very strong. It is still a time to be cautious.
Related: Jim Rogers on the Financial Market Mess (Oct 2008) – Beware of the Sucker’s Rally – USA Consumers Paying Down Debt – Investing quotations
Peter Schiff answers economic questions from Reddit users (see part 2). See our Economics and Investing Reddit. He made the point that inflation will be a serious problem. He also recommended several books, including: Economics in One Simple Lesson by Henry Hazlit and The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You by his father. He is an opinionated economist. I certainly do not agree with everything he says but I think he is worth listening to. As an investor I believe it is important to seek out unconventional opinions and find worthwhile unconventional opinions that can help you beat the market.
Related: Skeptics Think Big Banks Should Not be Bailed Out – Inflation is a Real Threat – Let the Good Times Roll (using Credit) – Dell, Reddit and Customer Focus
Surging U.S. Savings Rate Reduces Dependence on China
…
Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University and chairman of RGE Monitor, forecasts that the savings rate will ultimately reach 10 percent to 11 percent. What’s critical, he said in a Bloomberg Television interview on June 24, is how quickly it increases.
A rapid rise in the next year because of a collapse in consumption would push the economy, already in its deepest contraction in 50 years, further into recession, he said. If it occurs over a few years, the economy may grow.
…
From 1960 until 1990, households socked away an average of about 9 percent of their after-tax income, government figures show. Americans got out of the habit in the 1990s as they saw their wealth build up in other ways, first through surging stock prices and then soaring home values, Gramley said.
That process has now gone into reverse. U.S. household wealth fell by $1.3 trillion in the first quarter of this year, with net worth for households and nonprofit groups reaching the lowest level since 2004, according to a Fed report. Wealth plunged by a record $4.9 trillion in the last quarter of 2008.
Edmund Phelps, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 2006 and a professor at Columbia University in New York, said it may take as long as 15 years for households to rebuild what they lost in the recession.
As I have been saying the living beyond our means must stop. Those that think health of an economy is only the GDP forget that if the GDP is high due to spending tomorrows earnings today that is not healthy. Roubini correctly indicates the speed at which savings increases could easily determine the time we crawl out of the recession. I hope the savings rate does increase to over 10 percent.
If we do that over 3 years that would be wonderful. But it is more important we save more. If that means a longer recession to pay off the excessive spending over the last few decades so be it. And it is going to take a lot longer than a few years to pay off those debts. It is just how quickly we really start to make a dent in paying them off that is in question now (or whether we continue to live beyond our means, which I think it still very possible – and unhealthy).
Related: Will Americans Actually Save and Worsen the Recession? – Can I Afford That? – $2,540,000,000,000 in USA Consumer Debt (April 2008) – Paying for Over-spending
It seems to me the situation that lead to the current economic problems are due to the overthrown of the Glass-Steagal and other long time sensible regulation put in place to restrict economy wide destruction caused by a few large financial firms (well, that plus incredibly poor management by people that paid themselves many times more than anyone else and other factors – huge consumer debt…). But the most significant systemic problem was failure to regulate even close to sensibly. I have several posts on this topic on previously: Congress Eases Bank Laws, 1999 – Treasury Now (1987) Favors Creation of Huge Banks – Canadian Banks Avoid Failures Common Elsewhere and Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation.
Capitalism requires sensible regulation. Regulation is not a friction on capitalism it is a necessary component. Poor regulation is a friction that is waste that should be excised. Unfortunately that is a very challenging task and when you allow those with the most gold to set the rules it is no surprise you have them saying they should not be regulated but should be protected. The failure of financial regulations do show the very obvious problem we have currently of those that donate huge amounts to politicians are granted favors that are paid for by the economy overall.
The widespread failure to regulate financial markets recently is almost certain to lead to this exact type of situation every time. Companies will over-leverage, take huge risks, take huge pay while times are good and just go bankrupt when times are bad. Think about how a bank makes money. They charge fees for things like: writing a loan, overdraft charges on your account, arranging financing (loan or stock sale)… They charge more for in interest than they pay. Some money there but really they are doing nothing special so they should not be able to charge too much. Even the ridicules fees companies pay (often those in the companies have arrangements to get personal special deals – allocations of IPO’s, jobs later…) for arranging stock sales do not have a systemic risk. Those risks should be very easy to manage sensible.
They speculate in currency markets, commodities markets, futures, derivatives… If you want a stable economy if you allow huge speculative investments to be assumed to such an extent they risk the economy you are in trouble. If you refused those risks to limited liability companies perhaps your limited regulation model might work. Where those profiting on products with negative economic externalities would personally go bankrupt prior to the losses becoming economically crippling. But I doubt even that would work. And we don’t have that now. We allow people to setup limited liability corporations, drain them of capital on speculation of potential value and then walk about with hundreds of millions of dollars if the company fails. And the negative externalities (due to huge leverage) are huge.
Regulation seems the obvious solution. And it works when applied. It wasn’t until the USA decided to abandon the financial system regulation and enforcement that the problems became systemic. And see the current Canadian banking system for what happens, even while the world economy is collapsing if you required banks to remain banks instead of massively leveraged speculators paying huge bonus to the executives based on their claims of profitability.
I agree trying to control risk is dangerous. There are however, very sensible measures to take. Do not allow huge financial companies to exist (we have laws on anti-trust, anti-competitive behavior…). Do not allow banks to speculate (more than a careful controlled regulated amount). Do not allow massive leverage of massive amounts of money. Do require audited financial records. Do require companies that want to speculate to be much smaller than regulated bank, and bank-like companies. Do elect politicians that will appose allowing companies to undertake systemic risks to the economy for short term financial gains.
We continue to elect politicians that provide large favors to those giving them money at the expense and risk to the rest of us. Therefore we are bringing this upon ourselves. When we chose to stop supporting politicians that behave in that way then we will get different behavior. Until that point it will continue. We don’t seems to be in any mood to change what we have been doing.
Comments on Note to Regulators: Beware the Montana Paradox
Related: More on Failed Banking Executives – more posts on regulation in capitalist economies – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – Bad Behavior
As I mentioned a few months ago, the New York Times archive is a great tool to see the history that led to the economic crisis we now face. Here is an article from 1999: Congress Passes Wide Ranging Bill Easing Bank Laws
”Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ”This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”
The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation’s financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.
…
‘The world changes, and we have to change with it,” said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ”We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.” In the House debate, Mr. Leach said, ”This is a historic day. The landscape for delivery of financial services will now surely shift.”
But consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation’s biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.
The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.
”I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930’s is true in 2010,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ”I wasn’t around during the 1930’s or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980’s when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ”seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.”
This is a great view into how both parties foolishly risked the economy to provide favors to their big donors and golfing buddies. It is sad that we chose to elect such people that play such an important role in our economy. But it is not as though we make these choice without easy access to the information on how they govern. And today listening to the people that took the money and voted for these, and similar changes to favor financial friends, they try and make it sound like they are not responsible. And sadly my guess is most people will accept their excuses. Until we do a better job of electing people we are going to continue to suffer the results of bad policy and to pay for the favors politicians give to those giving them money.
Related: Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – Copywrong – Pork Sugar – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Ignorance of Capitalism – Ethanol: Science Based Solution or Special Interest Welfare – Legislation to Address the Worst Credit Card Fee Abuse – Maybe
Fluke? Credit crisis was a heist by James Jubak
Of course, just because the plan blew up on the looters, taking off a financial finger here and a portfolio hand there, you shouldn’t have any illusion that they’ve retired. In fact, in the “solutions” now being proposed — by Congress — to fix the global and U.S. financial systems, you can see the looters at work as hard as ever.
He is exactly right.
Answer: Because the federal government had forced them to back off. An aggressive interpretation of the definition of insurance could have let state insurance agencies regulate the derivatives contracts that AIG’s financial-products group was writing out of London. These were, in fact, insurance policies that guaranteed the companies taking them out (banks, other insurance companies, investment banks and the like) against losses on securities in their portfolios.
But Congress had made it very clear in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — supported by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, steered through Congress by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000 — that most over-the-counter derivatives contracts were outside the regulatory purview of all federal agencies, even the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
With the new law on the books, the market for credit default swaps exploded from $632 billion outstanding in the first half of 2001, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, to $62 trillion in the second half of 2007.
Question: Wasn’t anybody worried about the risk to the financial system posed by a market that dwarfed the assets of the sellers of this insurance?
Answer: Worry about leverage? You’ve got to be kidding.
In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission, after hard lobbying by Wall Street, reversed its 1975 rule limiting investment banks to leverage of 15-to-1. The new limit could be as high as 40-to-1 if the investment banks’ own computer models said it was safe.
Understanding the people paid lots of money to politicians and then (after they got lots of money) those politicians enacted laws that endangered the economy to favor those giving them lots of money. Now maybe these politicians just like letting exceptionally wealthy people endanger the economy for personal gain. Maybe they think that is a good idea. I tend to think instead they do what those they give them lots of money want. But maybe I am wrong on that.
Read more
Don’t let the talking heads on TV convince you that capitalism is about corrupt businessmen that think they are entitled to loot companies. That is about the powerful accepting money from their golfing buddies to share the loot among themselves. Capitalism is about places like Trickle Up, micro-finance, appropriate technology and entrepreneurs making better lives for themselves and their families. Donate to Trickle Up (I do).
Related: High School Student Provide Clean Water Solution – Creating a World Without Poverty – Microfinancing Entrepreneurs – Ignorance of Capitalism
The economy has structural problems. The solution at this time is not to convince people that everything is fine and just go spend money you don’t have. Personal debt is much to high. The practices that allowed huge anti-competitive and economy endangering institutions to threaten the economy have not been addressed. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to those who caused the credit crisis. Making the federal debt problem even worse.
Some suggest we need to regain consumer confidence. Unfortunately that fixes nothing. That “strategy” is just to convince people problems don’t exist and buying what you can’t afford is fine. Just convince people to go spend more money, run up their credit card debt, borrow against their house, as long as everyone believes it can continue. That can work for awhile but it then fails due to structural issues. And the solution becomes more and more difficult the longer such a strategy is used. The same way a ponzi scheme eventually implodes.
If you could convince those in a ponzi scheme (and new investors) that they should just be optimistic it can continue. But eventually people ask for their money to buy something and none exists and the scheme fails.
With an economy, after structural problems are addressed then you need to convince people to be less fearful and to be more optimistic. Because often by that time people have become so fearful that they are not taking even reasonable steps. They don’t buy even though they have the money in the bank and have a real need for the purchase. When this happens, convincing people that the economy is stable is important. However, cheerleading and convincing people to just continue to run up their debts to spend more is not wise when the economy is already far to in debt is not wise (though it is politically expedient).
The USA needs to stop living beyond its means. That is the most important factor to long term economic strength. But the focus doesn’t seem to be on doing this, instead it seems to be on printing money to paper over the problems. There are many great strengths of the economy and those have allowed huge federal deficits, huge personal debt, monopolistic practices, destabilizing financial risks taking… Even with that things have been quite good. But those areas need to be addressed over the long term.
Related: Let the Good Times Roll (using Credit) – Families Shouldn’t Finance Everyday Purchases on Credit – Living on Less
Oil has fallen to $40 a barrel from nearly $140 less than a year ago. Now that $140 level was the result of a huge spike in the price. But if I owned a bunch of oil (as a country or a company) I sure wouldn’t want to sell it at $40. I would much rather just keep it in the ground and sell it later.
OPEC has reduced quotas in an attempt to react to the global recession. But it strikes me as bad management to sell your resources at these low levels. Now you might have to sell some to service debt and meet fixed expenses. But continuing to sell at these levels instead of just keeping it in the ground and waiting a year or two (or longer) just seems like a very shortsighted action.
Now you would have great difficulty acting on my opinion if you don’t plan ahead. To do so you would need to bank profit when you are selling at high prices so you can ride out low prices without being forced to sell to meet your obligations. And it seems many countries are unable to do that. And my guess is many oil company contracts require production based on what the country wants done.
It just doesn’t seem to me that the I would do much better waiting to sell my oil than sell it at these prices.
Related: Forecasting Oil Prices – Oil Consumption by Country – South Korea To Invest $22 Billion in Overseas Energy Projects – Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog posts on energy