Underlying Economic Can Of Worms Will Hurt Investors In 2010

Matthew Buckley discusses how the economy's problems run deep despite the small signs of optimism on the surface. With every "green shoot" like growth in service jobs, there remains many fundamental issues that are yet to be resolved. See the following post from The Street.

One couldn't help but feel the optimism of the talking heads over the past couple of weeks as the espoused their rosy 2010 outlooks. Deep down I know that we're in for a Tiramisu Market.

My wife is not a big dessert person, but when she's offered tiramisu she always ends up ordering it, even if she initially demurs. Invariably, when the waiter walks away, she says, "I just like the top part." When the dessert arrives, she proceeds to eat the hard, sugary surface while bypassing the ... goo? ... that lies underneath.

Welcome to the 2010 market. The top may be good and pleasing for the short term, but underneath we have problems that no one wants to address and that are easier to push to the side of the table. Just give it back to the server.

Unemployment is hovering around 10%; growth is stagnant; housing is being propped up by, well, us; there's a wave of mortgage resets and foreclosures; there's a "new normal" in consumer spending (i.e., not a lot); the government printing press is smoking; and Congress is hell-bent on ramming through legislation that no one wants. Oh, and people are trying to kill us. All of us. And unfortunately they're eventually going to succeed, despite statements that "the system works."

I wish I could be more upbeat about the prospects for 2010, but after the party since March I'm feeling a little hungover ... and the bill just came. As first-quarter earnings season kicks off, the market will be looking past the cost-cutting efforts that boosted many bottom lines and looking for no kidding, old-fashioned profitability.

It's hard to be bearish. No one likes to be Eeyore. I'm long-term bullish -- I have to be. But I'm worried in the short term that the underlying issues will persist until we see job creation, housing stabilization, and restrained government spending. The government needs to halt the printing press; it's running out of ink.

We got to witness this Tiramisu effect in Dubai on Monday. The monstrosity formerly known as Burj Dubai was unveiled in a shower of fireworks and lights. The debut was interesting on several levels.

Dubai roiled the markets in December when it made the mistake of telling the world that it had spent more than it had. This apparently shocked investors, who believed their individual countries could never do such a thing.

Abu Dhabi decided that a foreclosure in its neighborhood wouldn't be good for home values, so it tossed a boatload of dirham to its neighbor. In a show of thanks, Sheik Mohammed renamed the Burj Dubai to honor his cousin (and new banker), Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

It appears that the members of the United Arab Emirates recognize the value of a bailout. I wonder what would happen if U.S. businesses had such respect for folks that bailed them out.

"General Motors is honored to announce that we are renaming ourselves 'Government Motors' in honor of our vengeful but kind overlord."

"AIG(AIG Quote) is proud to announce that we have changed our name to 'America Issues Us a Gift' and thank the American people for their generous contributions. We needed that money to pay our bonuses."

In a throwback to a 1988 cult classic, Lloyd Blankfein says Goldman Sachs'(GS Quote) ticker will remain the same but going forward it will stand for "Got You, Suckers."

And lastly, Citigroup(C Quote) is renaming its headquarters at 399 Park Avenue "Paulson Place."

Firing Line: This market may look sweet on the outside, but underneath there's a mess. Although I think a little hair of the dog might help for a while, I definitely plan on skipping dessert.

This post has been republished from The Street.

Why More Government Stimulus Is Needed Now

The third quarter of 2009 witnessed an economic growth rate of 3.4 percent, nearly three-fourths of which was driven by consumer spending. The announcement that consumer spending decreased by 0.5 percent in September, however, indicates that economic recovery may be less robust than analysts had previously predicted. Mark Thomas explains why more government stimulus is needed now in the following post from Economist's View.

I have something at Room for Debate (written last Friday) on the the extent to which the recent improvement in GDP growth can be attributed to the stimulus package, and whether more stimulus is needed ("Did the Stimulus Work?").

The link is to the much shorter version that appears on the NYT site. Here's the wordier, unedited version:

A Shaky Start, by Mark Thoma: With the news yesterday that output grew by 3.5% during the third quarter of this year, it appears we may finally be seeing the green shoots that signal the onset of the recovery. But what is driving the growth in output, what will it take to sustain that growth, and how long will it take to make up for the lost output and employment we experienced during the crisis?

A look beneath the growth numbers announced yesterday answers the first question. Increased consumer spending accounted for 2.4% of the 3.5% increase in growth, and much of the increase in consumption was driven by the Cash for Clunkers and other government stimulus programs. Today’s announcement that consumer spending fell by .5% in September now that the Cash for Clunkers program has ended raises serious questions about the sustainability of the growth we are seeing. Without further help from the government, which has clearly aided the economy despite what you may have heard from naysayers, will the private sector be able to sustain growth on its own?

One of the big dangers we face is that we will declare victory too soon and begin raising interest rates and cutting back on stimulus before the private sector has recovered the ability to sustain growth without help from the government. I believe that we need more stimuli right now to maintain the growth we are seeing, particularly given how far the recovery in employment lags behind the recovery in output, but adding to the stimulus package is a political non-starter. However, amid the worries about the growing deficit and fears of inflation that make further stimulus political poison, we can and must maintain the stimulus that is already in place.

The need to at least maintain the stimulus we have, if not increase it, is enhanced by the fact that even though a 3.5% growth rate is far better than the negative rates we have seen recently, it’s not nearly enough to make up for the output we lost during the crisis in a reasonable amount of time (Paul Krugman says that at this rate, “we wouldn’t reach anything that feels like full employment until well into the second Palin administration”). The recovery period from past recessions were associated with output growth rates of 6-7%, enough to resume the level of growth that existed before the crisis, and to make up for losses in a reasonable amount of time. If those losses had not been recovered, if the level of output had been permanently lower instead of just a temporary deviation from its long-run trend, then employment and income would have also been permanently lower. That is not a desirable outcome in any case, and in the current recession the weakness in employment markets combined with the stagnation in middle class incomes even before the crisis began makes such an outcome even more undesirable. Unfortunately, at a rate of 3.5% -- which is only slightly above the long-run trend rate of growth -- it will take many, many years to make up for losses and return to the long-run trend, and any further slippage in growth would make the losses permanent.

The recovery we are seeing is being driven, in large part, by government stimulus programs. The fact that growth is weaker than we need to fully recover losses in a reasonable amount of time, and the even slower recovery we are seeing in employment markets, indicates that the stimulus programs already in place are too small. Thus, even though it’s unlikely to happen, the economy could use more help than it’s getting, but in any case it’s imperative that we avoid cutting back too soon.

The signs are encouraging, and at some point the private sector will be able to sustain growth on its own, but it’s far too soon to declare victory.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

How The Economy Grew By 3.5% In The Third Quarter

There is reason to think that everything might be okay after all, as third quarter GDP numbers revealed the first time the economy has expanded in a year. All areas of consumer spending showed healthy growth, and although there are a number of caveats, this news is no small feat. James Picerno discusses how it unfolded in the following post from The Capital Spectator.

It's official: the U.S. economy expanded by 3.5% in the third quarter, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports today. Encouraging as that is, it's neither a surprise nor anything near to closure for the financial and economic hurricane of the last year or so. But it is a step in the right direction, albeit a tentative and not-yet fully confirming step that the walk ahead will be equally brisk.

Nonetheless, good news is worthy of celebration at this point, if only for a moment. After four straight quarters of retreat, a gain in GDP is no trivial change. All the more so when we dive into the numbers and learn that the expansion was broad based. All the major categories that factor into the final GDP calculation posted healthy gains in Q3. That is, personal consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, exports and government spending were higher during the three months through September. That compares with red ink on those ledgers in past quarters, save for government spending and a mild rise in consumer spending in Q1 2009.

Otherwise, this is the first time in more than a year (or two, depending on your perspective) since the GDP report showed unambiguous growth across the board. If there's a single report that confirms that the economy has dodged a bullet—i.e., avoided a deeper, prolonged contraction—today's update is it. Thanks largely to Bernanke's Fed, the central bank's great mistake in the 1930s—keeping monetary policy too tight after the economic slump—has been avoided this time. GDP's Q3 report tells us so in no uncertain terms.

Indeed, it's no small trick to elevate consumer spending in the wake of the deepest economic recession since the Great Depression. And yet the numbers in our table below show that Joe Sixpack has been pulling out his wallet and spending across the board. This is no free lunch, of course, and so there'll be a price to pay for juicing consumer spending at a time of mounting debts and default. But the bigger risk, albeit temporary risk, was allowing spending generally to seize up. We've avoided that trap, at least for the moment, although we fear that we've traded an large acute problem for a modest chronic one that lingers.



In short, there are caveats lurking behind today's sunny GDP report. Many caveats. For now, we'll simply note one. The jump in durable goods, for instance, was assisted in no small way by the government's cash-for-clunkers stimulus program that boosted (or seemed to boost) auto purchases in recent months. That was a one-shot deal, of course, and it's not clear that the additional spending generated by the plan didn't simply transfer future spending activity into the present. Indeed, a report by Edmunds.com, via The Christian Science Monitor, charges that the cash-for-clunkers program gave money to consumers who would have bought a car regardless of the government's efforts.

The fact that the Fed has been effectively giving money away for much of the past year, combined with various fiscal stimulus efforts, insured that liquidity would be spilling over into every nook and cranny of the economy. Some of this liquidity was destined to show up as new consumption. If you print it, they'll spend it, at least some of it.

Helping the process along has been the snapback effect. Early in 2009, the economy was going to do one of two things: collapse or bounce back. The Fed's efforts helped tip the scale by more than a little to the latter, and we continue to see the effects. Indeed, the clues leading up to today's news of GDP's Q3 rise have been bubbling for some time, as we've been noting for months, including here.

But the snapback effect has limited reach, as do the government's various stimulus efforts. The true judge of the post-apocalyptic world of last autumn can't be judged—shouldn't be judged—by the Q3 GDP report alone. Yes, we've learned the lesson of how to manage monetary affairs in the immediate aftermath of a severe financial crises/recessions. But the lessons, and the solutions, for the period beyond that early post-crash period remain much more of a gray area with less-obvious policy responses, if any.

We're now moving into uncharted territory. Yes, we've arguably laid a foundation to provide the economy with a fighting chance of maintaining stability. Fostering growth, on the other hand, remains a challenge of some magnitude, with no easy answers, as the ongoing slump in the labor market reminds. Part of the problem is that there are so few periods to study in recent history. Japan in the 1990s and the U.S. in the 1930s are the main precedents, and neither offers compelling insights beyond the immediate snapback period.

Regardless, the U.S. economy faces a number of challenges, few of which are of the garden variety, starting with debt. Another is the labor market, which was showing signs of strain well before last year's debacle. As we pointed out earlier this month, the labor market rebound following recessions over the past 25 years has been increasingly mild. Given the context this time around, there's little reason to think the trend will abate. If anything, it seems likely to accelerate.

So, yes, let's cheer today's GDP report. But let's reserve judgment on whether we won the war or merely survived the first battle.

This post has been republished from James Picerno's blog, The Capital Spectator.

Public Sector Versus Private Sector: Why We Need Both

The ongoing debates regarding private versus public service often references the presumed edge of the private sector regarding cost and innovation. This completely ignores times and ways the public sector can force the private sector to deliver innovation at minimal cost: a consideration integral to questions of health care in the US. Mark Thoma from the Economist's View discusses this very timely issue.

The public option for health care appears to be dead, so this is a bit late, but I keep hearing that there are no examples of public-private competition, let alone successful ones. But there are examples of this, and they have been successful.

We are used to the argument that the private sector can discipline and usually beat the government in terms of providing services at minimum cost (though I should note that is not always true). What is harder to find is anything written on how the government can do the same to the private sector, force them to provide innovative services at minimum cost (the point of the public plan in health care), partly because nobody ever seems to ask that question. Thus, an important part of this description of public-private competition to provide garbage collection services in Phoenix to note is that the discipline runs both ways, government forces the private sector to lower costs and be innovative, and the private sector forces the government to do the same (e.g. see the part at the end where the private firm loses the contract to the government and vows to win the next contract with its experimental truck).

This article was written in 1984, so it is untainted by the current debate, but this was also a time period when there was a lot of enthusiasm and interest in privatization. Hence, many of the articles written around this time are slanted toward examining how the private sector can discipline the government, not the other way around. Still, the story below makes clear that the city did force the private sector to continue to innovate and improve. Another interesting point is that the private sector contractor claims that the bidding process is much improved when the city is forced to participate (e.g. in specifying specs, see the full article for more on this point), a benefit of public-private competition that is often overlooked (I couldn't find much written on the Phoenix experiment more recently, so I don't know for sure how well the program has performed since the 1980s and 1990s when most of the articles on the Phoenix experiment appeared, but it does appear that currently the city won contracts in two of the three regions where private sector competition is present):

Entrepreneurs Can Do Everything Government Can Do, Only Better, by Eugene Linden, Inc., Dec. 1, 1984: Chuck Walbridge and Ron Jensen both see themselves as solid businessmen. There is a certain irony in this perception: Although both may be solid, Jensen is not a businessman at all, but a government bureaucrat.

That hasn't kept him from competing with Walbridge, however. Last year, for example, the two bid on the same contract, with Walbridge coming up the winner. Jensen has vowed that it won't happen again."We will be analyzing every cost to see where we might have gone wrong," he says. Walbridge, for his part, admits that Jensen is a tough competitor...

Jensen is director of the Public Works Department of Phoenix -- a city that regularly invites private companies to bid against its own agencies on various contracts. It was such a contract, the one for garbage collection, that was awarded in the summer of 1983 to Walbridge's company...

The ... concept behind privatization is not as new as it may seem. U.S. government administrations have long vacillated between providing services themselves and contracting them out. During the early 1800s, for example, privately operated bridges, tollroads, fire departments, and street lights were commonplace. Subsequently, gross abuses by both private contractors and public officials led to an outcry that caused governments to start providing the services themselves. Now the wheel has turned full circle, and privatization is seen as a solution to the problem of governmental bloat -- a way for governments to provide improved public services and reduce expenditures at the same time. ...

Walbridge's company, National Serv-All, is a 27-year-old, family-owned garbage-collection and -disposal business... It was Chuck Walbridge's father, Glen, who launched the family in the garbage business ... in Anderson, Ind...

Chuck Walbridge, who took over in 1979, concentrated on learning the business: how to deliver the service and how to keep the customers satisfied. ... Small as the company was, Walbridge was keenly interested in efficiency and innovation, and he constantly searched for ways to lower costs and improve service. Toward that end, he struck up a relationship with International Harvester Co.'s engineering division, which was located in Fort Wayne, and began testing Harvester's new trucks, making suggestions about improvements. He also began designing his own vehicles, trying out different bodies and control systems. In his quest to keep up-to-date with the latest advances in garbage collection, he made his first trip to Phoenix in 1975.

At the time, Phoenix had not yet begun to contract out its garbage collection, but it did use an innovative collection system designed to minimize labor costs and beat the desert heat. The system was built around a fleet of one-person trucks with mechanical arms that could pick up large, standardized containers. (Today, such containers are so big that transients occasionally take up residence in them, and Walbridge instructs his men to shake the containers before dumping them.) Walbridge was fascinated by the idea and inquired where it had come from. He was told that Phoenix was working with a system developed by a small Arizona company with the unlikely name of Government Innovators Inc.

Government Innovators is a story in its own right. Founded in 1971, it had grown out of the lunchtime bull sessions of a group of entrepreneurially minded bureaucrats in nearby Scottsdale, Ariz. For entertainment, they had often brainstormed about how they would improve their departments if they could keep the money they saved. Among the ideas they came up with was one for automated garbage trucks. The idea seemed like a natural -- so much so that they even designed the equipment and went looking for a company to produce the system. When they found no solid offers, they decided to do it themselves, building the nation's first automated garbage-collection system within the Scottsdale Public Works Department. Subsequently, some of them left public service and formed Government Innovators.

Curious about the possibilities of such a system, Walbridge purchased one of Government Innovators' trucks and took it back to Fort Wayne. Over the next few years, he experimented with various modifications, which he discussed with people at the company. They were duly appreciative. ... Walbridge's knowledge of equipment and systems stood him in good stead in 1983, when National Serv-All suddenly found itself competing nationwide against the giants of the garbage-collection industry. ...

Walbridge was ... impressed with the situation he encountered when he returned to Phoenix in 1982. There had been changes since his first visit seven years earlier. For one thing, the city had begun inviting bids for city contracts, largely in response to the budgetary constraints arising from the tax revolt of the late 1970s. That was a situation faced by government officials all over the country...

The center of privatization activity in Phoenix has been Ron Jensen's Public Works Department, which began inviting bids on garbage-collection contracts in 1978. From the beginning, the city stipulated that the Phoenix Sanitation Division would hold onto 50% of the business, to ensure that garbage collection would continue in the event that a private vendor proved unable to deliver service for one reason or another. The other 50% was put out for bidding, with the sanitation division competing against private vendors for two of the four available five-year contracts.

To keep the department's bids honest, Phoenix arranged to have them prepared by the city auditor, who made sure that they represented costs fairly on a basis comparable to those used by the private contractors. This task was easier in Phoenix than elsewhere because the city uses cost accounting. Thus, for example, the city's equipment fleet is centralized in one division of the Public Works Department and then "rented out" to various departments at a per-mile or per-hour rate calculated to reflect overhead. Management overhead is likewise apportioned among the department, right down to a fraction of the city manager's salary.

All of these systems were in place in 1982 when Walbridge returned to Phoenix... Walbridge believed National Serv-All would be in a strong position vis-a-vis other competitors, thanks to his own knowledge of the city's equipment and collection system. "I had helped to design the [Harvester] trucks Phoenix was using," he says."We knew more about them than anyone else. While Waste Management and the others buy their equipment, we custom design our own. . . . One of the reasons we beat [both the giants and the city] was that we planned to take their bodies off and put our [more efficient] bodies on." Although the city did have an advantage in knowing the actual costs of maintaining the equipment, says Walbridge, "I felt we had about a 15% advantage in productivity. Our system would load barrels faster, and our compactors gave our bodies more capacity."

In the end, that proved to be the difference. Walbridge's winning bid for contained garbage was a mere penny lower than the city's (on a unit-per-household-per-month basis). Waste Management came in third, SCA Services fourth, and Browning-Ferris Industries fifth. The thinness of the margin notwithstanding, the city conceded defeat and awarded the contract to National Serv-All. ...

National Serv-All might lose the Phoenix contract when it comes up for bid again in four years. Not that Walbridge expects to lose. "Phoenix is exceptional as far as cities go," he says. "They have a better understanding of business, and they are fair." But, in a fair contest, he believes he can usually underbid a government agency. "A city is hobbled by a low-bid requirement in the purchase of equipment, which sometimes forces them to take equipment that may not be the best. I can buy what I want." That means, for example, that a city might be unable to purchase Government Innovators truck bodies, which cost 10% more than other models, but reduce overall costs by about 20%. Adds Kevin Walbridge, "We're motivated, while cities are still cities. They will always be bureaucratic."

Marvin Andrews and Ron Jensen don't agree. They believe that government workers can be motivated to keep costs down, if only because they want to hold on to their jobs. "Quite frankly, we learn from the experience of going through the contracting process," says Jensen. "When we lose a bid, it's up to us to figure out why we lost it. Where were our costs too high? Was it equipment costs? Labor costs? And this whole feeling of competition gets to the unions, too."

This past August, Jensen's department demonstrated just how serious it was about the process, turning in the low bid on a major contract for both contained and uncontained refuse. The city's bid, moreover, was low by a substantial margin, thanks in part to its planned purchase of a fleet of new trucks. National Serv-All -- which came in fourth in the bidding -- was taken by surprise. "What they did," says Walbridge, "was to tighten up their specs on their trucks. It was smart on their part -- the new truck is a first-class piece of machinery." Walbridge says he is now working on an experimental truck that will allow National Serv-All to do better the next time around.

While stimulated by the competition, Walbridge is still not thrilled by the Phoenix approach to privatization. Granted, it works in Phoenix, but elsewhere -- he says -- it is subject to abuse. After all, many governments are less scrupulous than Phoenix's, and Walbridge would prefer not to spend $30,000 preparing a bid only to find that the competition is rigged, or that the process is so murky that he cannot figure out what is going on."I understand a private bid, but it is very difficult to know how a city formulates its bids."

Walbridge's cautions notwithstanding, it is precisely the competitive discipline imposed by Phoenix's system that makes the city an attractive place for National Serv-All to do business. Only by applying private-sector standards to its employees and departments -- and by subjecting them to competitive pressures -- is the city government able to keep track of its real costs, and thereby to come up with detailed job specifications. Without competition, privatization in Phoenix would be subject to all the problems and pitfalls that Walbridge encountered in other cities.

From that perspective, the Phoenix system -- a system of sound management leavened with a touch of entrepreneurism -- may well hold the key to the future of privatization in America. If it does, Chuck Walbridge is liable to find himself competing with government bureaucrats like Ron Jensen for years to come.

Update: I meant to include this 2003 article as an example of government's ability to innovate:

Ron Jensen, Phoenix's public works director, was the driving force behind the development of the first automated collection truck system “He actually is the one who started the privatization effort here as well,” Franklin says.

Tinkering with Equipment

Obviously, automation relies on equipment, which Franklin remembers vividly as the biggest hurdle. “I started as a mechanic in 1979 and worked on the stuff that the city was running. Most of the equipment was farm machinery hydraulics and stuff built in the basement,” he says. “We had a hydraulics shop that had eight or nine people working internally, building a lot of components. We built our own lifts and did those things to support ourselves because the industry wasn't mature enough.”

This article has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Consumer Confidence Shows Drastic Improvement

In past recessions consumers may have already started to rush back to the malls, but this time might be different. Instead of going back to the shopping centers, consumers may instead be sending their money to credit card companies to pay back their high levels of debt. So what should we make of consumer confidence increasing the most in six years? Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made explains why a sudden improvement in consumer confidence may not be as significant as it first appears.

Reuters reports on the sharpest increase in U.S. consumer confidence in more than six years. But, don't get overly excited (like the stock market currently is), the American shopper is still quite depressed by historical measure.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said on Tuesday its index of consumer attitudes jumped to 54.9 in May from a revised 40.8 in April, the biggest one-month jump since April 2003. Economists had been looking for a much smaller rise to 42.0.

Fewer Americans said jobs were "hard to get," the survey found, with that measure slipping to 44.7 percent from 46.6 percent. Those saying jobs were plentiful climbed to a still meager 5.7 percent, but that was still higher than April's 4.9 percent.

"Consumers are considerably less pessimistic than they were earlier this year," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center.

Once again, less bad is the new good, the "considerably less pessimistic" assessment being cause for some to get out the bubbly and celebrate, at least for a little while.

More details...

The survey offered mixed messages regarding Americans' propensity to spend money. The proportion of those who said they planned on buying a car over the next six months rose to 5.5 percent, its highest in at least a year.

But fewer intended to buy homes -- only 2.3 percent, a tough break for one of the hardest hit sectors in the country's economic crisis. A separate report on Tuesday revealed U.S. home prices dropped 18.7 percent in March compared to a year earlier.

Here's a graphic from the Wall Street Journal showing how the expectations index has surged past the present conditions index in a manner similar to the 2003 bottom. Since confidence had sunk to such historic lows in recent months, like many other economic indicators, comparing recent developments to patterns seen in previous recessions may not provide all that much relevant insight.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Should Historic Deflation In Britain Be A Concern?

Could deflation be the next big road block on the road to economic recovery? News out of Britain indicates that significant deflation has hit Britain's economy which can lead to things getting worse rather than better. What does the lowest Retail Price Index since they started keeping records mean for Britain's economy? Tim Iacono from the blog The Mess That Greenspan Made, shares his view on the significance of record deflation in Britain.

The British have succumbed to the scourge of deflation and about all the rest of the world can do now is bid them a fond farewell - they've entered the abyss, as reported by the Telegraph.

Britain sinks into deepest deflation since 1948
The British economy sank deeper into deflation last month to the lowest level in more than 60 years as the effect of falling house prices and lower mortgage repayments escalated.

Inflation on the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure, which includes housing costs, dropped sharply to -1.2pc in the year to April, from -0.4pc in March, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Tuesday.

It was the lowest RPI figure since records began in 1948, and weaker than economists had expected.

The number of times that economists have been taken by surprise over the last few years has been increasing at such an astonishing rate that, sometimes, you have to stop and wonder why we even keep them around.

Maybe we'd be better off with no forecasts and no expectations for the future at all.

More importantly, you have to wonder why their counsel continues to be sought in order to remedy the ills that took them by such great surprise.

Anyway, on the subject of de-flation, the British method of measuring the changes to consumer prices appears to be even more dysfunctional than the one used in the U.S. as central bank lending rates have a direct impact on their broadest measure of inflation which happens to include interest paid via mortgage payments.

So, all other things being equal, if interest rates are slashed, inflation goes down, whereas, if the bank hikes lending rates, inflation goes up.

The main driver of the fall was lower mortgage interest payments following the Bank of England's decision to cut interest rates by half a percentage point to 0.5pc in March, the ONS said.
...
Although in the short term falling prices will appeal to consumers, RPI is used to calculate wage increases so the sharp fall in April is likely to add to downward pressure on salaries already caused by higher unemployment and falling corporate profits.
"As a result, many workers are likely to get wage freezes or even pay cuts," said Howard Archer, chief UK economist at IHS Global Insight.

Deflation poses a further threat to the economy if people expect prices to fall further and put purchasing plans on hold which can, if the trend persists, lead to lower output and even more job losses.

There's the real evil of inflation - right there in that last paragraph...

If people see negative numbers showing up in the government's measure of inflation, they'll stop obsessing about the ongoing financial market meltdown and how it must ultimately lead to the end of life as we've known it and promptly cut back on their already sharply curtailed spending plans in hopes of getting a better deal sometime in the months ahead.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Phoenix Real Estate Market Showing Signs Of Life

The Phoenix real estate market was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped, and it looks like it might be one of the first to rebound. Buyers are beginning to show heightened interested in the market, with one of the most attractive features being that buying is basically as cheap as renting. Typically when buying is cheaper than renting, people will buy — if they are able. However, with a tightened lending market, millions out of work and many with tarnished credit, the buyer pool is seemingly shrinking. Despite that, the Phoenix market appears to be on the right track, though, Tim Iacono cautions that this could be a small boom created by artificially low interest rates. Foreclosures are continuing to flood the market, and once interest rates go back up the new quasi-bubble could pop.

Evidence is mounting that when home prices tumble by more than 50 percent and the Fed keeps mortgage rates at freakishly low levels, people will buy houses. This report from the LA Times talks of a resurgence in home buying where prices have fallen the furthest.

After four years of renting because they were priced out of the real estate market, Jamia Jenkins and Scott Renshaw concluded the time had arrived for them to buy.

They saw that home prices had dropped so fast here -- faster than in any other big city in the nation -- that mortgage payments would be less than the $900 they paid in rent. The city is littered with foreclosed houses, so the couple figured they could easily snatch up something in the low $100,000s.

Three months later, they're still looking. They have submitted 13 offers and been overbid each time. "It's just pathetic," said Jenkins, 53. "Investors are going out there and outbidding everyone."

While many now cheer the arrival of a housing market bottom this year - more likely in real estate sales than in prices paid - you have to wonder what's going to happen in another year or two when long-term interest rates are much higher.

For example, at today's artificially low mortgage rates, you can get a 30-year loan of $170,000 for about $900, similar to what the couple above is planning. But at the far more typical rates of seven or eight percent, that payment moves up by one-third to about $1,200.

Stated another way, that same $900 payment only buys $130,000 worth of housing - not the $170,000 as indicated above - absent the freakishly low interest rates, something that is a near certainty in the years ahead.

Naturally, that doesn't stop people from buying, as the 2006 fever seems to have returned...

Phoenix's housing bust has turned into a quasi-boom, a sign that its market may have hit bottom and a sneak preview of what a national housing recovery could look like.

More homes are selling than at any time since 2006. Prices are slowly stabilizing. Buyers are once again finding themselves in frantic bidding wars -- only this time over foreclosed houses selling at deep discounts rather than ranch homes listing for vast sums.

"The free market is at work," said Shannon Hubbard, a real estate agent and blogger here. "Prices got driven down so much that people said, 'I'm going to come out and play.' "
Home prices continue to plummet or tread water in much of the nation, but there have been tentative signs of life. Pending home sales rose 3.2% nationally in April, the second month of increases after a record low in January.

John Burns Real Estate Consulting in February identified Phoenix as "the most unique market in the nation," where affordability was better than at any time since 1981 and buying a house was once again cheaper than renting.

It should be an interesting summer as waves of new foreclosures battle waves of new buying interest from a bargain hunting public that is still fearful of more job losses.

This post can also be found on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Is The Obama Administration Covering Up What Really Happened In Treasury Meeting?

One watchdog group is accusing President Obama's administration of covering up what really went down during the major Treasury meeting that ended with 9 major banks selling equity stakes in their companies to the government for $250 billion. The Treasury originally stated that it had no documentation from the meeting, however, some documents were later obtained. The watchdog group insists some documents — potentially implicating current Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner — are being withheld. Who knows what is true and not in all this, but it will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out. For more details about the meeting, along with what the watchdog group thinks happened, read the following article from Money Morning.

Despite promises of open government, the Obama administration tried to “cover up the very existence of smoking-gun documents” prepared for a meeting in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson allegedly coerced major banks to allow the government to take equity stakes, according to conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch said the Treasury initially said it had no records about the meeting. It didn’t release a transcript of discussions between government officials and bankers.

However, documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that Paulson and other Treasury officials gave nine major banks no options other than allowing the government to take $250 billion in equity.

Judicial Watch said on its Web site that after it made inquiries, the Treasury insisted on Feb. 4 it had no documents about the historic meeting.

Furthermore, “the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

The group says suggested edits of the “talking points” for the meeting by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve are being withheld by the Obama administration.

Saying the nine U.S. banks were “central to any solution” of the credit crisis, Paulson told their leaders in the meeting in Washington on October 13, 2008, to take the government aid voluntarily or be forced to by regulators.

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed,” the document said, citing Paulson talking points. “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

Within four hours of the start of the meeting the CEOs wrote by hand the names of their institution and multibillion dollar amounts of “preferred shares” to be issued to the government, the documents show.

“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector,” Fitton said in a statement.

The banks were represented by Vikram Pandit of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), John Thain of Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of BofA, Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), John Mack of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Robert Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon Corp (NYSE: BK), and Ronald Logue of State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT).

A spokesman for the Treasury, Andrew Williams, didn’t return calls seeking comment from Bloomberg News.

The Treasury has invested $199.1 billion in the bank-preferred share program, with $1.2 billion since returned by 12 institutions, according to government data, Bloomberg reported.

Despite his heavy-handed nature, Paulson succeeded at stabilizing the financial services industry, J.P. O’Sullivan, an SNL Financial bank analyst in Charlottesville, Va., told Bloomberg.

“It was a calming mechanism,” O’Sullivan said.

This isn’t the first time Paulson has been accused of strong-arming bankers to bend to his will.

As previously reported in Money Morning, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis said in testimony before New York’s attorney general that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke pressured him not only to move ahead with a merger with Merrill Lynch despite reservations, but also to stay quiet about the mounting losses at the crumbling investment bank.

Lewis went on to testify that he felt Paulson threatened him with losing his job if he didn’t go along with completing the Merrill Lynch deal.

“I can’t recall if he said, ‘We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]‘ or if he said ‘we would do it if you intended to.’ I don’t remember which one it was,” Mr. Lewis said.

This article can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

New York Post Writer Goes Off On Greenspan And NAR

As we talked about a couple of days ago, Greenspan's speech for NAR was obviously biased, and no weight whatsoever should be given to what came out of Greenspan's mouth. That being said, it is disturbing to see the depths that NAR has fallen to — as well as Greenspan. This display was so ugly that a writer from the New York Post had to publicly condem it. Tim Iacono looks at this writer's article — and adds some input of his own — in the blog post below.

John Crudele of the New York Post goes off on both the National Association of Realtors and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan in this commentary from yesterday.

WHO the hell would be stupid enough to pay to hear Alan Greenspan's opinion of anything!

Notice, that isn't a question because I already know the answer. Rather, it's a statement with one of those exclamation points to show that my voice is being raised in a mix of bewilderment and anger.

The National Association of Realtors, which is probably suffering from combat fatigue, asked the former Federal Reserve chairman and the chief suspect in the destruction of the US economy, to address its Washington conference Tuesday and tell real estate people what they want to hear -- that things are getting better.

So Greenspan did just that.

Did anyone see the video clip of this speech that CNBC had up yesterday? I watched about the first minute or so and began feeling nauseous.

Apparently, so did Mr. Crudele...

"We are finally beginning to see the seeds of a bottoming" in the housing industry, Greenspan told the gathering. Adding, according to Bloomberg News, that the US is "at the edge of a major liquidation" in the stock of unsold houses.

Applause, applause. Here's your check, Alan.

I figured it was worth knowing how much Greenspan gets these days for defending his own indefensible actions at the Fed while also trying to pull the wool over the eyes of would-be homeowners.

So I asked someone named Lucien Salvant, managing director of the NAR's public affairs department.

His answer in an e-mail: "None of your business. How much is the NY Post paying you to ask that question?" Whoa! Calm down, Lucien.

It gets a little ugly from there, the NAR rightly accused of "shoveling crap to the press" which gets passed along to unsuspecting potential home buyers all for the greater good of the real estate profession.

And, of course, there's another litany of errant predictions from the Maestro.

This is just sad in so many ways - like two zombies embracing each other.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

NAR Calling For Expansion Of First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is pushing lawmakers — yet again — to expand the first-time homebuyer tax credit. NAR hopes that lawmakers will make the tax credit available to everyone, rather than just first-time homebuyers — among other things. For more on this, read the following article from HousingWire.

NAR today called for expansion of the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit to include all home buyers at all income levels.

The push for a broadened tax credit comes after US Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary Shaun Donovan announced home buyers pursuing Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages may soon use the tax credit as a down payment at the closing table.

An expanded tax credit, combined with HUD’s initiative to make the credit available at the closing table for down payment purposes — called ‘monetization’ of the tax credit in the industry — would make federal assistance available to anyone pursuing a government-insured mortgage.

NAR, from its legislative summit this week, also urged Congress to make the ‘08 loan limit increase formula and loan limit caps permanent, and to “fortify” mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.7867 +2.17%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.8166 +2.08%) to ensure the continued availability of capital for mortgage lenders.

“Housing is the engine of economic growth, and real estate is the road to economic recovery,” says Charles McMillan, NAR president and Dallas-based broker, in a statement today. “With many of the country’s current problems resting on a wobbly foundation of declining home prices, rampant foreclosures and increasing job loss, our members will be asking Congress to pass further legislation that moves the housing market forward.”

This article can also be viewed on housingwire.com.

Could The Yuan Become The World's Next Reserve Currency?

The U.S. dollar has faced some serious attacks lately, and our economy here in the U.S. is struggling, but have things really gotten so bad that the USD could lose its place as the world's reserve currency? And even if it did, wouldn't the Euro be next in line to take its place? According to Nouriel Roubini, the next world reserve currency could in fact be the Chinese Yuan, and the transition could happen sooner than we think. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma which looks at Roubini's recent article on the subject.

Nouriel Roubini is worried that the dollar will lose its status as a reserve currency if we don't change our ways:

The Almighty Renminbi?, by Nouriel Roubini, Commentary, NY Times: ...While the dollar’s status as the major reserve currency will not vanish overnight, we can no longer take it for granted. Sooner than we think, the dollar may be challenged by other currencies, most likely the Chinese renminbi. This would have serious costs for America, as our ability to finance our budget and trade deficits cheaply would disappear. ...

The... downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time. But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies, as those countries are not major powers. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high. The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the renminbi. ...

At the moment,... the renminbi is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the renminbi to become a reserve currency, but it could happen. ...

We have reaped significant financial benefits from having the dollar as the reserve currency. In particular, the strong market for the dollar allows Americans to borrow at better rates. We have thus been able to finance larger deficits for longer and at lower interest rates, as foreign demand has kept Treasury yields low. We have been able to issue debt in our own currency rather than a foreign one, thus shifting the losses of a fall in the value of the dollar to our creditors. Having commodities priced in dollars has also meant that a fall in the dollar’s value doesn’t lead to a rise in the price of imports. ...

This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if we do not get our financial house in order. ... For the last two decades America has been spending more than its income, increasing its foreign liabilities and amassing debts that have become unsustainable. A system where the dollar was the major global currency allowed us to prolong reckless borrowing.

Now that the dollar’s position is no longer so secure, we need to shift our priorities. This will entail investing in our crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital — rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only way to slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain our influence in global affairs.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Why You Can't Listen To Greenspan Or NAR On Housing Prices

Greenspan opened up his mouth again and told the world that the U.S. is nearing a bottom for the real estate market. Those who remember back to 2006, might remember that Greenspan made another market bottom call, and he turned out to be horribly mistaken. In both accounts his statements were backed by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) who offer up all sorts of real estate data. Investors can't listen to anything that NAR says, for obvious reasons, and history shows us that we should give much more weight to what comes out of the former Fed chief's mouth either. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

Should anyone be surprised that former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan reaffirmed his "early-2009" housing market bottom call yesterday before the National Association of Realtors?

From Bloomberg:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the decline in the U.S. housing market may be bottoming and it’s “very easy to see” financial markets continuing to improve.

“We are finally beginning to see the seeds of a bottoming” in the housing industry, Greenspan said today during a conference of the National Association of Realtors in Washington. The U.S. is “at the edge of a major liquidation” in the stock of unsold properties, which may help to stabilize prices, Greenspan said.

At "the edge of a major liquidation"? What newspapers has he been reading? The headline in my newspaper today says "Foreclosure filings hit record for second month".

Back to the Bloomberg story:

While the housing bottom may not be obvious in prices, it is becoming clear in “significant regional differences,” where some of the hardest-hit areas are starting to show signs of improvement, he said.

While it is certainly true that, in some of the hardest hit areas, home prices just can't go much lower (think Detroit), there are lots of other areas where the descent is ongoing and moving up the socio-economic ladder as Option-ARMs and Alt-A loans sour in record numbers.

Ironically, the realtors' trade group had reported earlier in the day that home prices had just declined by a record amount during the first quarter.

A quick search on housing market predictions during 2008 shows that the former "Maestro" made a few very public calls for a housing market bottom in early-2009, so you'd have to think that, with six weeks left to go, the odds are working against him at the moment.

Despite all the recent cheerleading, it is doubtful that the "seeds" of a bottoming in housing that are now seen will turn into the required "green shoots" in the near-term.

Interestingly, when the NAR joined forces with the former Fed chairman back in November of 2006, this is what they produced:
The advice DON'T DELAY was offered two and a half years ago.Wow! Homebuyers who heeded these words back then would be down about 30 percent today, according to the latest data from the Case-Shiller Home Price Index.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

What Is The Likelihood Of The U.S. Losing Its AAA Credit Rating?

A few months back — after Moody's issued a warning — there was a lot of talk about the possibility of America losing it's AAA credit rating. Of course that never materialized. Now after a recent report on the health of Social Security and Medicare, the talk is resuming. The question still remains though of whether all this talk, is just talk, or if there is any merit to it. Kathy Lien looks closer at the question in her blog post below.

In today’s Financial Times, there is an op-ed article by David Walker, the CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation pondering the possibility of the U.S. losing its prized AAA credit rating. The paper focuses on a warning that was issued by rating agency Moody’s months ago. Moody’s has not issued a new warning, yet Walker and in turn, the FT has decided to re-inject uncertainty into the financial markets by resurrecting this fear. What has prompted this article is most likely the recent comments about the insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare systems. According to the trustees for the systems, the Social Security trust fund could be depleted by 2037 while Medicare could be insolvent by 2017. These dates of insolvency have been pushed up as the weak labor market reduces contributions. The Obama Administration has pressed the importance of gaining control of the growth in Medicare costs and their desire to tackle Social Security insolvency once health care reform is passed.

According to Walker, if the health care reforms strains finances further or if the federal government fails to monitor spending, tax or budget control, rating agencies could strip the U.S. of its credit rating.

Is Losing AAA Rating that Big of a Deal?

But is losing the AAA rating that big of a deal? Yes. A credit rating reflects the risk of default. Therefore a lower credit rating means that a country is at greater risk of defaulting on their debt. Some global funds are mandated to invest only in AAA debt and therefore if the U.S. loses its AAA rating, we could see a massive outflow of foreign investment. Also, a credit rating downgrade is the perfect excuse to push through an alternative reserve currency to replace the dollar because it would strip the confidence of sovereign funds like China that have been buying dollars to prop up the U.S. economy. Yes, investors will still buy U.S. Treasuries, but their purchases will be less. It could also have a spillover effect on corporate debt and will raise the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government.

How Real is the Risk?

Now with the risk in mind, I think that ratings agencies talk a good game but they will face problems following through. The consequences of downgrading U.S. sovereign debt is huge both politically and economically. Therefore Moody’s or any rating agency for that matter may be reluctant to the first to pull the trigger. Downgrading the U.S. is very different from downgrading Ireland. Based upon how the rating agencies have handled the credit derivatives bubble, chances are they will be behind the curve once again.

With that in mind, U.S. finances are deteriorating significantly, raising the concern of Asian nations. However if President Obama is successful at turning around the U.S. economy, America will be well equipped to meet its debt obligations.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

So What Is The Fed's Next Move?

With the growing number of positive economic reports coming out, many people are questioning whether the economy has turned a corner. Have we really turned a corner, though, or are we seeing a temporary upswing? The Federal Reserve is playing a difficult game right now. If they leave rates low too long we could be faced with inflation, but if they raise them too quickly it could hamper the recovery. With this in mind, the Fed has some challenging decisions ahead of them. How are they going to respond? Mark Thoma looks at a recent article from Tim Duy that addresses this in his blog post below.

Turning Which Corner, by Tim Duy: Is the economy turning a corner? And, if so, which corner is it turning? In my view, economic activity has been influenced by two separate trends since 2007. One is the structural response to an over-leveraged household sector that pushed the US economy into what was initially a mild recession. The second trend is the sharp cyclical recession that began in earnest in the second half of 2008 as the commodity price shock decimated already weakened households and the deepening credit crunch cut financing for a broad swath of firms. Excess capacity emerged throughout the economy, triggering the familiar phenomenon of rising unemployment. Difficult though they may be, the cyclical dynamics do not last indefinitely - generally speaking, output declines stop well short of zero GDP and unemployment will not rise to 100%. Market participants are rightly anticipating the economy is turning the corner on the cyclical trend. But I suspect we have a long path ahead of us on the structural challenge poised by overleveraged households - suggesting that the green shoots we hear so much about will yield little more than stunted growth. This is why Bernanke and Co. are more likely to fertilize the fields than plan for the next harvest.

If there is one picture that sums up the cyclical story of the past year, it is the path of real consumption:

The sharp deceleration has come to an end, of that there can be little doubt. Nor should there be much surprise. The collapse in commodity prices, lower interest rates to allow mortgage refinancing for those homeowners still above water, and tax cuts all joined to provide powerful support for household budgets allowing consumption to stabilize despite the massive job losses experienced in recent months. The stabilization in consumer demand will eventually slow the pace of job cuts. Indeed, this is already evident in the data - analysts have pointed topeak of initial claims as a key hurdle in the race to recovery. To be sure, it is difficult if not impossible to characterize the data flow as "good." But it is certainly less "bad." The path to Great Depression II has hit something of a speedbump. And seeing that, market participants have priced out some of the most cataclysmic scenarios, supporting equities and commodities while pushing bond yields higher.

There will be more opportunities for euphoria - do not underestimate the power of pent-up demand to trigger bursts of positive data. There is a portion of the population who are not credit constrained, biding their time for the perfect moment to buy a new car or schedule a vacation. Indeed, such bursts of data are more likely than not following a sharp decline in activity (the 2.2% gain in consumption spending in 1Q09 is such an example). I believe, however, that those bursts of data will not be sustainable. Far from it - at a minimum, the ability of households to carry activity forward is at its end, which by itself would leave the economy floundering .

I think it is difficult to ignore the implications of the growth of consumer dominance in defining patterns of economic activity:

The story of the last 25 years has been an increasing role for household spending, rising to perhaps a peak of conspicuous consumption, with the motto "a filet mignon in every stainless steel oven, a RV in every garage." Patterns of economic development - more to the point, capital formation - have favored taking advantage of this trend. Countless business plans are based on the expectation that this trend will continue. The baby boomers have endless wealth (not so anymore, if it ever was), there is a never ending supply of equity rich Californians to support our [insert locality] housing market, etc. Those plans will be stressed, to say the least, if the trend stalls. The implications for a reversal are even more significant. And for those that believe reversal is necessary, note that the reversal has really not even begun. What took 25 years to build may take another 25 years to destroy.

How sure are we that the trend is at an end? My thought is that the factors that supported the trend - a steady march down in the saving rate to zero and a steady march up in household debt, coupled with monetary policy that had room to go from 15% short rates to zero over nearly three decades, are at an end. Even if you believe that savings rates will not rise to 12%, the inability to sustain below zero rates puts a limit on household spending growth (as well as debt accumulation). And with underwriting conditions tightening - a permanent tightening, given the changing regulatory environment - the role of debt financing in the life of the consumer is sure to stagnate.

The challenge then is to transition the economy away from the debt-supported consumption trend that looks no longer viable to a trend more reliant on investment and external spending. This, however, is easier said then done. How quickly can 25 years of growth directed at consumer spending be reversed? And reversed to what, especially if the rest of the world continues to struggle? I see little hope of an "immaculate conception" of a fresh, sustainable pattern of economic activity. Until the transition path reveals itself, fiscal policy will be necessary to fill the economic hole likely to exist if the savings proclivities of households continue to exceed the investment intentions of firms.

Ironically, the "best" road to growth is also the riskiest from a policy perspective - a rapid expansion of emerging market activity. Such an expansion, however, would once again place the US in competition for global resources, and threaten a reversal of the commodity and interest rate trends that have been so important to supporting US consumers. Indeed, just the whiff of recovery has supported oil prices, promising an abrupt end to one of the factors supporting US consumers. In the worst case scenario, a flight of capital away from the Dollar (in response to more promising investments abroad) would generate an inflationary and structural shock that would leave the Fed juggling between renewed recession and higher inflation. In short, the optimal external shock would be one only partially supportive; anything more would push the globe to a revisiting of the commodity price surge of early 2008. Looking for a decoupling story now, however, seems like almost a naïve dream.

What is the Fed's next move? One email crossed my inbox after the April employment report suggested some thinking that the Fed could hike rates as early as November. Such a scenario (absent a stability threatening run on the Dollar) must come from a spectacularly optimistic take on incoming data. Data, I might add, that is a reflection of the massive crutch provided by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, not necessarily a sea change in the underlying economic environment. Look too how quickly bond rates began to climb after the Fed declined to expand Treasury purchases at the last FOMC meeting. More generally, consider this tidbit on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's thinking back in 2003:

The 2003 FOMC transcripts showed then-Governor Ben Bernanke very tuned into financial markets as he pressed for earlier release of Fed forecasts and a willingness to lower interest rates to zero.
From the June 2003 FOMC meeting, when the Fed lowered the target fed funds rate to 1%:

“I wonder if you might give some thought to whether or not it would make sense tactically to say publicly that we are willing to lower the federal funds rate to zero if necessary…I think it would have a beneficial effect on expectations in that there would no longer be a feeling in the market that we had reached the end of our rope.”

“It’s extremely important that we do what we can to maintain the supportive configuration in financial markets. That means continuing our easy monetary policy and, even more important, using our statement to signal our willingness to keep policy easy so long as there is a risk of further disinflation and continuing economic weakness."

A year and a half after the end of the 2001 recession, Bernanke was looking at the possibility of lowering rates to zero in order to maintain support for financial markets. And comparatively, financial markets were leaps and bounds healthier in 2003 than now. Is a rate hike really feasible this year - or even next - given the current state of dependence of the financial system on government largess? Moreover, consider the disinflation worries in 2003 and fast forward to last week:

Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

In this environment, we anticipate that inflation will remain low. Indeed, given the sizable margin of slack in resource utilization and diminished cost pressures from oil and other commodities, inflation is likely to move down some over the next year relative to its pace in 2008. However, inflation expectations, as measured by various household and business surveys, appear to have remained relatively stable, which should limit further declines in inflation.

Now consider the output gap over the last decade:

The current gap already far exceeds that of the last disinflationary scare, and Bernanke expects it to continue to expand further, and then diminish only gradually. As long as the gap continues to expand, Bernanke's bias will be in favor of additional easing. The only question is whether he remains content to allow TALF funds to slowly trickle into the economy, or speeds the pace of policy with expansions of longer dated Treasury purchases. Given Bernanke's past behavior, expecting patience on his part seems unrealistic. Moreover, the last jobs report provides less room for optimism than observers suggest. Importantly, Jim Hamilton notes the decline in hours worked appears unabated; threat of a currency collapse aside, there will be no policy tightening, only easing, until hours worked moves unquestionably and sustainably in a positive trajectory.

Bottom Line: The economy looks to be turning a corner relative to the downward cyclical force of last year. But this is only a partial victory, as the factors that that started us down this path - namely, a debt-supported consumer spending dynamic - remain in play, and will likely remain in play for years, arguing for a long period of slow growth, punctuated by short-lived bursts of positive data. In such an environment, and considering the importance of government support to sustain financial stability, the odds favor continued policy easing. Those looking for a more positive scenario are pinning their hopes on either an unlikely rapid return to past patterns of consumer behavior, an unlikely rapid evolution in patterns of economic activity that are not consumer dependent, or a decoupling of emerging market economic activity from the US (which could pose a different set of policy challenges).

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Could Legalizing Marijuana Help Solve California's Budget Problems?

The budget problems in California are well known across the nation, but one desperate idea to help balance the budget is sure to meet opposition from the rest of the country. California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has apparently requested a full debate on the legalization of marijuana. The benefit — of course — to California if marijuana is legalized is that they can tax sales of the substance. According to a recent public opinion poll of California voters, a majority favor legalization of marijuana. Perhaps citizens feel that compared to the other budget cuts — and new taxes — on the table to shrink the deficit, legalizing marijuana might not be so bad. For more on the situation in California, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

It appears as though we'll be getting out of the Golden State in the nick of time as the fallout from the likely rejection by voters of most May 19th ballot initiatives is set to make things a whole lot worse for California's budget.

The Sacramento Bee reports on the relentless deterioration in the state's finances since the last budget bill was passed a few months back, one that really just forestalled the inevitable.

California's projected budget deficit has grown as large as $21.3 billion through next June because of a sharp economic decline, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disclosed Monday in a letter to legislative leaders.

The latest projection means lawmakers will have to negotiate deep spending cuts in education, corrections and welfare as well as consider borrowing and new fees or taxes.

The announcement comes less than three months after the Legislature and the governor closed $34 billion of a then $40 billion state budget deficit with tax hikes and spending cuts and asked voters to eliminate the rest in next week's special election.

These "new" estimates will probably turn out to be just as overly optimistic as every previous forecast and once again, the state of California is blazing a trail for the rest of the country, this time on the road to insolvency.

There is more than a little irony in the Gubernator being voted into office some six years ago when his predecessor had similar problems that, in retrospect, look like a walk in the park by comparison, unless of course another housing bubble is in the offing.

New plans are being prepared to close the new budget gaps.

The governor did not disclose his solutions Monday. But he warned groups last week he will consider borrowing $2 billion from cities and counties, releasing low-level offenders in state prisons and reducing school funding by $3.6 billion. The state also could eliminate its planned $2 billion reserve.

"It's well beyond triage," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "We're talking about painful and difficult decisions. You can't just finesse your way through $15 billion or $21 billion."

It's odd how $15 billion or $20 billion really doesn't sound like a lot of money anymore...

Here's one way the state might be able to generate new revenue. After having been talked about for some time now, momentum is building to somehow find a way to tax marijuana (presumably, after legalizing it) as reported by the U.K. Guardian.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has never apologized for smoking pot – and loving it — at the height of his bodybuilding career in the 1970s. Now, as a struggling Republican governor of California reaching a crossroads in his political career, he might yet become America's most visible advocate for legalizing marijuana.

The actor-turned-politician gladdened the heart of every joint-roller and dope fiend across the Golden State earlier this week when he said it was time for a full debate on legalization.

Schwarzenegger was careful not to say too much – he stopped short of saying he was in favor of legalizing cannabis now – but his words broke a long-standing taboo among both Republicans and Democrats who have previously felt obliged to say marijuana must remain illegal, and marijuana users and pushers be subject to criminal prosecution.

The governor spoke in response to a new public opinion poll showing that 56% of registered voters in California favor legalizing and taxing marijuana – in part to help the state out of the worst budget crisis in its history.

If they ever do such a thing, this California trend is likely to meet with some resistance in many other parts of the country.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Job Loss Report Beats Expectations Thanks To Government Jobs

For the first time in a long time, job loss numbers came in better than expected. A large part of this is thanks to a huge run up in government jobs as the country prepares for the upcoming census. That being said we still saw over 500,000 jobs lost in April, and the unemployment rate went up to 8.9 percent for the nation. For more on this, read the following blog post from Tim Iacono.

The Labor Department reported that fewer jobs were lost in April than in any month since last October, but that the unemployment rate continues to rise sharply, an indication that laid off workers are finding it increasingly difficult to find new employment.
Nonfarm payrolls fell 539,000 in April after losses of 681,000 in February and 699,000 in March. Total revisions for the two prior months were -66,000 as the February and March data were revised downward from 651,000 and 663,000, respectively.

Over the last six months, a total of 3.9 million jobs have been lost and, since the recession began in December of 2007, the U.S. economy has shed 5.7 million jobs.

The jobless rate jumped from 8.5 percent in March to 8.9 percent in April, reaching its highest level since the September 1983 mark of 9.2 percent and the total number of unemployed now stands at 13.7 million, up from 13.2 million in March. The post-WWII high for unemployment came in December of 1982 at 10.8 percent.

If laid off workers who have stopped looking for a job are included in the unemployment figure along with those currently employed but settling for part-time work, the jobless rate would have been 15.8 percent, a 15-year high.

While job losses may have peaked with January's decline of 741,000 (though, next year's benchmark revisions to the payrolls data could radically change this), the jobless rate is likely to continue higher until the economy begins to improve and companies are more willing to hire.

One part of the economy that was hiring last month was the government where total payrolls rose by 72,000. This was driven by a the addition of some 140,000 temporary workers that will begin work on the 2010 census. A total of 1.4 million workers will be hired over the next year to conduct the population count that happens every ten years.

Elsewhere, job losses continued, but at a slightly slower pace than in previous months, manufacturing leading the way down with a decline of 149,000 and the trade, transportation, and utilities category not far behind at minus 126,000.
The birth-death model added a total of 226,000 jobs in April, a new high for the year.

Since this data is used to adjust the raw totals prior to seasonal adjustments, you can't just subtract it from the headline seasonally adjusted data to determine its impact, but it is important to note that the entire 65,000 increase in professional and business services payrolls (which was then seasonally adjusted to -122,000) was contributed by the birth death model - it's hard to imagine that there were so many new businesses formed in April.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Obama Pushes For $17 Billion In Budget Cuts...That's It?

In what seems like joke, President Obama has sent lawmakers a proposal that aims to cut over a hundred programs, and save us $17 billion. When you look at the fact our deficit this year will be a projected $1.85 trillion, you can start to see that $17 billion in cuts is next to nothing. It's almost as if Obama is simply trying to appear like he is making an effort to trim spending. The worst part is that it appears Obama will be fought tooth and nail to get these cuts through. If he can't manage to get $17 billion cut off the budget, what hope does this country really have forbalanced budget? For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

President Barack Obama sent lawmakers a budget package today (Thursday) that proposes to shrink or eliminate 121 federal programs and save almost $17 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But the budget plan contains cuts that will face vigorous opposition in Congress and fierce resistance from special interest groups.

The package of proposed reductions fills in the fine print of a $3.55 trillion budget outline approved by lawmakers in April that contains Obama’s top agenda items, including a health care overhaul, a push for renewable, clean-energy sources and changes in education funding.

The President wants to cut or end a number of programs that he feels are wasteful or ineffective to take the first toward getting spending under control. But the administration’s attempt at bringing fiscal discipline to Washington has already been met with skepticism by analysts.

“Every government program - no matter how wasteful - will be defended by its recipients and congressional champions,” Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based research group told Bloomberg News. “Unless Obama puts the weight of the White House behind his spending cuts, Congress will ignore them.”

The cuts are miniscule compared to the overall budget package and deficits that will be ushered in the next few years. The $787 billion stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress combined with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bank bailout will come on top of the $1 trillion deficit the administration inherited when he took office in January.

Total savings from the cuts, even if they were accepted by Congress in their entirety, would represent a paltry 0.4% of the overall budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $1.85 trillion this year, about four times the previous record, and $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010.

“Even if you got all of those things, it would be saving pennies, not dollars. And you’re not going to begin to get all of them,” Isabel Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who waged her own battles with Congress as a senior official in the Clinton White House budget office, told the Washington Post. “This is a good government exercise without much prospect of putting a significant dent in spending.”

Only about 80 of the proposed cuts are new - the others had been previously revealed. And most of the cuts will be from the “discretionary” budget, avoiding the so-called untouchable “third-rail” entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs account for more than 40% of government spending, meaning the more difficult work on deficit reductions has been left for another day.
“More serious efforts at deficit reduction are going to require entitlement and tax reform - that’s where most of the money is.” Marc Goldwein, policy director of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, a Washington-based research group, told Bloomberg. “To really get the deficit under control, we’re going to have to start thinking bigger,” he said.

But some in Congress defended the administration’s approach, saying the list of program reductions is just the start of a more comprehensive effort to cut spending and pull the reins on the skyrocketing deficit.

“It depends on what it means over the scope of five and 10 years.” Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) told Bloomberg. It’s a “deep, cavernous hole where we have been left, we’re looking a long way up but it’s a steady climb” using the budget plan agreed to by Obama and Congress, he said.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.