Today In Troubling Financial News

(In the interest of sanity, this will not be a regular feature.)

–Currency fluctuations in China seem to signal a coming political crisis. “[D]omestic and global economic weakness could test the grip of the ruling Communist party. ‘This is clearly a reference to the fact that weak growth is likely to lead to significant social unrest,’ said Steve Barrow at Standard Bank.”

–Bill Gross, the bond wizard at Pimco, warns that the stock market of tomorrow is unlikely to be the stock market of yesterday. “We will not go back to what we have known and gotten used to. It’s like comparing Newton and Einstein: both were right but their rules governed entirely different domains. We are now morphing towards a world where the government fist is being substituted for the invisible hand, where regulation trumps Wild West capitalism, and where corporate profits are no longer a function of leverage, cheap financing and the rather mindless ability to make a deal with other people’s money.

–The U.S. Treasury lacks a “coherent plan” for distributing the bailout money.

–The home price slide ain’t done sliding. “Economists and other pros generally say home prices won’t bottom out before the second half of 2009, and some don’t see a bottom until 2011 or 2012. Even when they stop falling, prices may scrape along the bottom of the rut for years.”

–The credit crisis is moving “away from financials” into the rest of the corporate world, with market predictions of ever-greater corporate bond defaults.

–On the upside, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a scholar of the Great Depression, says we are experiencing an “order of magnitude” different kind of event when compared to the Great Depression. So we have that going for us.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    At CPAC, Romney Stresses Conservative Credentials

    Three days after a trifecta of losses underlined lingering questions about his ability to win over the Republican Party’s base, Mitt Romney arrived at CPAC to allay skeptics’ fears. Throughout his second bid for the GOP nomination, Romney has made his business bona fides the centerpiece of his candidacy. But on Friday, before a packed room at the annual conservative confab, he sought to emphasize the record he compiled in Massachusetts. “I was a severely conservative governor,” he told the crowd. “I know conservatism, because I have lived conservatism.” 

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Mired in the Sticky Politics of Health and Faith, Obama Shifts on Contraception

    In the face of mounting pressure from Catholic leaders and politicians, the White House on Friday tweaked its position on contraception coverage mandates in the Affordable Care Act. Rather than require large religious institutions like Catholic colleges and hospitals to provide employees with free health insurance coverage for contraception, insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the tab.

  • 53_3

    Dont know MS.
    .
    A freind of mine came back from the Mucleshoot reservation with a deck of cards. Guess what brand they were?
    .
    Paulson…

  • palininatowel

    I think you missed the biggest financial news of the day:
    .

    Credit-card industry may cut $2 trillion lines: analyst
    .
    Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:06pm EST
    .
    (Reuters) – The U.S. credit-card industry may pull back well over $2 trillion of lines over the next 18 months due to risk aversion and regulatory changes, leading to sharp declines in consumer spending, prominent banking analyst Meredith Whitney said.
    .
    The credit card is the second key source of consumer liquidity, the first being jobs, the Oppenheimer & Co analyst noted.
    .
    “In other words, we expect available consumer liquidity in the form of credit-card lines to decline by 45 percent.”

    .
    Want to see the economy shut down for a few years? Here it comes…
    .
    Wait… You mean we have to pay for all this stuff?
    .
    I bet we bail out the banks (again).

  • 53_3

    And what about the other $3,916,000,000,000?
    .
    Where the hell did that money come from?
    .
    Inflation, here we come!

  • 53_3

    Oh, yeah.
    .
    To elaborate:
    .
    We can account for $125,000,000,000 ’cause that was from the sneaky Paulson tinkering with 382. And, actually, I have to toss back $350,000,000,000 because George “I’m Sorry” Bush says he left it for Obama to spend.
    .
    Wow, so lets do some artihmetic here:
    .
    4,616,000,000,000
    ..-350,000,000,000
    ..-125,000,000,000
    —————–
    4,141,000,000,000
    .
    Hmmmm.
    .
    That means there’s a whole lotta money that came from somewhere.
    .
    Did Uncle Sam wake up with an envelope from the tooth fairy?

  • Cliff

    The credit card is the second key source of consumer liquidity, the first being jobs, the Oppenheimer & Co analyst noted.
    .
    Does anyone else see anything wrong with this state of affairs? It sounds to me like Oppenheimer & Co. are acting like credit cards are completely independent of job income. Like a card you sign up for, and it gives you free money.
    .
    That notion, plus this one:
    The U.S. Treasury lacks a “coherent plan” for distributing the bailout money
    .
    makes me ask: Who the hell are these people? And why are they so goddamn stupid? Why do they have to do the stupidest possible thing every goddamn second of the day?

  • michaelscherer

    Hey 53_3, I don’t think the 382 tinkering counts, since it is about future tax revenue. The best explanation of all the federal commitments, promises, loans, gifts, etc., can be found here, thanks to the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/26/business/20081126_FED_graph1.html

  • gysgt213

    When did all the financial problems start? I was at lunch.

  • palininatowel

    gysgt213,
    .
    The problems started late yesterday. It was announced that we’re in a recession.
    .
    They will be announcing the New Depression© as soon as the soup lines completely encircle one city block.

  • gysgt213

    Palininatowel-Well thank goodness they made an annoucement.

  • gysgt213

    Well this is important.
    .
    Two things stoked Erin Nash’s anger when she trolled the malls last year. First, most stores trumpeted their “holiday” sales. Second, every sales clerk robotically wished their customers “Happy holidays.” The word “Christmas,” Nash felt, had been discarded by the retailers like a wad of crumpled wrapping paper.
    .
    So the Fort Benning, Ga., resident took a yuletide stand.
    .
    “It became a test to me: I began wishing cashiers a ‘Merry Christmas’ to see if anyone would actually wish me a ‘Merry Christmas’ back,” Nash said.
    .
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27890640/

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Very weird that TIME’s deal with WordPress includes WordPress logo in place of TIME.
    .
    We are now morphing towards a world where the government fist is being substituted for the invisible hand, where regulation trumps Wild West capitalism, and where corporate profits are no longer a function of leverage, cheap financing and the rather mindless ability to make a deal with other people’s money.”
    .
    It’s weird that MS highlights this, because it makes absolute no sense. Perhaps the two clauses are meant to be entirely independent? The second one does indeed seem to be the case, or rather, should be. That is, credit markets should be regulated. But I don’t understand where the first one comes from. There’s no ‘invisible hand’ involved in fraud.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “It became a test to me: I began wishing cashiers a ‘Merry Christmas’ to see if anyone would actually wish me a ‘Merry Christmas’ back,” Nash said.
    .
    Nash continued, “And when they didn’t I left a special mark on the door. For later”
    .
    Honest to Pete, why are people so anxious to feel slighted?

  • gysgt213

    Gem from John Cole’s comment section. Michael should appreciate this:
    .
    THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY:A Play in Three Acts
    .
    Dramatis Personae
    .
    BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
    UAW, Big Three’s employee
    MITT ROMNEY, an idiot
    .
    ACT ONE
    .
    BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!
    .
    UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.
    .

    BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.
    .
    UAW: But I need to save for my inevitible retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.
    .
    BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.
    .
    UAW: Then I agree to work for you!
    .
    .

    ACT TWO
    .
    UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!
    .
    BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitible retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.
    .
    .
    ACT THREE
    .
    UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.
    .
    BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgment!
    .
    MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!
    .
    http://www.balloon-juice.com/

  • Cliff

    MS: Thanks for the NYT link. It doesn’t explain my stupidity question, though.
    .
    Gunny: Very nice, I could hear the warbly melodrama piano music playing in the background as I read it.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t why Erin Nash feels a need to impose her religious faith on strangers. The question we should be asking is why MSNBC is giving her a platform to validate her intolerance to millions of other readers who might otherwise not even think of it.

    In other news:
    The credit card is the second key source of consumer liquidity, the first being jobs, the Oppenheimer & Co analyst noted.

    Here’s where the real rip-off started. The same companies that proudly squeeze every ounce they can from their labor force, promote payday loans, rent-to-own schemes and 18% interest lines of credit as a way to compensate for the missing living-wage salary and then are utterly surprised when the whole house of cards come crashing down. Notice that it’s the banks who end up first in line at the Federal teat and laborers who get maligned for their outragous desire to be able to retire.

  • michaelscherer

    Jay, I think that sentence would pass grammatical muster (though I have a poor record on such things). It is essentially a list of three clauses, with the last clause having three sub-parts. As for invisible hand, it is an Adam Smith reference:

    http://www.investorwords.com/2633/invisible_hand.html

    As for the play script, it’s funny. Though I still think there is a bit of knee jerk is summarizing Romney’s bankruptcy plan as it’s-all-labors-fault, and then accusing me of holding that view, which i don’t. Everyone who has been talking about this issue, including the people I have linked to like Romney, points clearly to the failure of management (Romney says they must be fired) and the other structural problems like the dealer system. The bottom line is that the Big 3 must be competitive. The uncompetitiveness is not the union’s fault; the union inherited the legacy system too, and has tried to cope with it. And management did fail horribly, though less so in the case of Ford, it seems. But the unions have to be part of the solution.

  • gysgt213

    TPM highlights this excellent PBS NOW video on the ratings agencies role in this mess. Must see.
    .
    A Standard & Poor’s internal email (pdf) from December 2006, in which an employee states: “rating agencies continue to create [an] even bigger monster – the CDO [collateralized debt obligation] market. Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.”
    .
    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/446/index.html

  • 53_3

    “Hey 53_3, I don’t think the 382 tinkering counts, since it is about future tax revenue.”
    .
    Thanks, MS.
    .
    Holey Moley, Batman!
    .
    Where the pluperfect hell are we going to get this 7.something Godzillion dollars from? Borrow it? Print it?
    .
    So, we’ve spent about $1,400,000,000,000 that we don’t have, and we still have to pony up 5 Godzillion more. So we reduce future revenues by not only the $125,000,000,000 (middle), but we are giving it back as refunds a la ECAP.
    .
    Hells bells! That’s half a years GDP, we’ve already borrowed from nearly everyone on the rest of the planet, so how in holy hell are we supposed to get our hands on that kind of money?
    .
    To me, it seems there is only two ways, barring some “theoretically sound” shell game concocted by some economist somewhere:
    .
    1. Taxes
    2. Printing Press
    .
    Now if we aren’t going to do #1, that leaves #2, which, uh, I hate to say, but do I really need a degree in economics to figure out what’s going to happen here?
    .
    I’m guessing it ain’t going to be “deflation”…

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    The MSNBC reporter coulda saved a lot of time by just going and asking NBC management why they don’t say “Merry Christmas” on their holiday promos.
    .
    Me, I’m gonna go to some mall in Jersey and walk around saying “Satan rules.”

  • gysgt213

    “Though I still think there is a bit of knee jerk is summarizing Romney’s bankruptcy plan as it’s-all-labors-fault, and then accusing me of holding that view.”
    .
    Michael-Just so we are clear. I didn’t accuse you of holding any view other than this strange appreciation for Romney has Auto Czar. Not that you blame it on the unions. I do think though that Mitt Rommeny would not work well with a union.

  • gysgt213

    “But the unions have to be part of the solution.”
    .
    Michael-By the way this is a good point. Did any of the big 3 bring union members to the hearings? Do you think it would have been a good idea to include them? I would have used them as human shields at the first hearing if I was in the hot seat and had them to deploy.

  • 53_3

    And I’m willing to say also MS that I was wrong too about you and anti-union kneejerk sentiments.
    .
    So you have my apology on that.
    .
    Orgainized labor has it’s place, though, and lest one forget, that the middle class of the ’50s and ’60s was built by the labor activists. Their reign, however, ended with the less-than-illustrius “trickle down” theory and the demise of the SWE family…

  • Paul-no not that one

    Maybe Romney’s history of anti-employee “management” and layoffs at Bain make people a tad suspicious.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    MS–
    .
    You realize it’s Gross’s sentence I’m talking about.\
    .
    It’s grammatical. It just doesn’t make any sense.
    .
    the government fist is being substituted for the invisible hand
    .
    Or maybe what I mean is that it is just stupid. If he’s only talking about financial markets, then it makes no sense. There’s no invisible hand operating here:
    .
    leverage, cheap financing and the rather mindless ability to make a deal with other people’s money.
    .
    What happened was fraud. AIG, in particular, took money to insure the creditworthiness of instruments that it didn’t have the capital to insure. That’s no more invisible hand than a Ponzi scheme (no, I am not saying this WAS a Ponzi scheme.)
    .
    The idea that regulating financial markets has something to do with government fiat is ridiculous. Not allowing Merril, Goldman, Lehman, and the other two investment banks to adopt 30-1 leverage would not have been ruling by fiat. Nor would going back to Glass-Steagall amount to government fiat.
    .
    Jamming the two unrelated sentences together is jarring, but I think that’s mostly because the first one doesn’t make any sense.

  • 53_3

    Maybe so, but people should remember that the Republicans, as we knew them, are extinct and I don’t see why we need to please them.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    gunny
    .
    lol
    .
    It looks like the dealer network, and associated state laws is also part of the problem.
    .
    I’ve never seen a more striking example of management crossing its fingers and wishing. There’s nothing that’s not messed up here.

  • michaelscherer

    Jay, Gross’s crime is being a bond man who dallies in poetry. Government fist substituted for invisible hand is just a fancy way of saying government regulation will increase, restricting the free market. But I guess your point is different, that the free market was never free, but corrupt. Even so, Gross’s point is also right: More government regulation is ahead. And I don’t get the sense that he finds this a terrible thing. It just changes investment math.

  • 53_3

    MS:
    .
    Has anyone yet asked just where this money is going to come from?
    .
    All the articles are geared toward what to do with this money, but as yet unanswered is where will it come from because just shuffling that tweensy little problem into next week doesn’t really solve the problem:
    .
    If you spend 7.someting Godzillion dollars, you have to get 7.something Godzillion dollars.
    .
    And further, it will have to be real money, not just Monopoly money…

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    But I guess your point is different, that the free market was never free, but corrupt.

    I’m wondering if the mythology that surrounds the concept of ‘free markets’ would have quite the power it still seems to hold if it hadn’t been developed with the Soviet Union in place to act as a counterweight and villain. Certainly a truly ‘free’ market is an illusion since we rely on the State for not only currency but the force of arms necessary to defend property against ‘improper’ encroachment. We also rely on it for protection against fraud and all sort of other ‘regulations’ which have the effect of greasing commerce. The notion that government has no proper role in commerce is not only a false ideal, but as we have seen, adherence to it in the face of contrary evidence has caused serious and lasting harm.

    We never had an ‘invisible hand’ so much as ‘the hand that shall not be named’!

  • michaelscherer

    53_3,
    .
    The answer to your question is a course in macroeconomics, which I didn’t take either. (Somehow it was not a priority at UC Santa Cruz.) I can suggest to you a book, A Concise Guide to Macroeconomics, by Harvard’s David Moss, which is short, consisting of a few lectures he prepared for incoming business school students, and which I read over Thanksgiving.
    .

    I am still no expert, but I am able to summarize: Currency value is no longer pegged to anything real, like gold. Rather it is controlled by the federal government. If the fed wants to add more dollars into circulation, it can do just that, by crediting banks with more money. (Since most of the trillions in discussion are only promises or insurance, it has not had to do that for most of the 7 plus trillion that people talk about.) see here: http://www.slate.com/id/2205574/
    .

    The reason the money is good is because people have faith in the future output of the U.S. economy. The danger of such a policy is hyperinflation that would come if people began to lose faith in U.S. currency and countries like China decided they no longer wanted U.S. money. (Under this scenario, everyone would have too many dollars, prices would skyrocket, and people would start buying groceries with silver coins or euros or bails of hay.) Right now the smart economists of the world are not so worried about inflation, though the threat is there. They are concerned about an even more insidious threat: sustained deflation, in which prices would go down because demand goes away, causing people to stop buying until prices dropped, reducing demand further, etc. etc. If this happens, then lots of people will lose their jobs, no one will go to stores or buy houses, etc., and the economy will fall apart.
    .

    The lesson that everyone seems to be using is the general theory of Keynes, which argues that when a nation enters a severe recession the best thing to do is get the government spending lots of money to jump-start everything again. (See here for the debate in action: http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/keynesian-policies-and-the-depression/ )
    .
    The goal is to get the nation producing more by any means necessary, and then deal with the fallout later, because the fallout is much less bad than an economy in a downward spiral. That is why we are going to get a gargantuan stimulus package from Obama next year. For more reading, Krugman’s blog is a good resource: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
    .
    And if someone who understands this stuff better than me sees a flaw in what I have written, please let me know. By comparison, campaign politics is like tic-tac-toe.
    .
    m.

  • pintortwo

    “It could be worse…”
    .
    “How?”
    .
    “It could be raining.”
    .
    (thunderclap…)

  • Cliff

    That is why we are going to get a gargantuan stimulus package from Obama next year.
    .
    Gargantuan like $13,200? (That’s 4.616 trillion divided by 350 million; or roughly what we would get if all these bailouts were divided evenly among the populace.)
    .
    I mean, as long as we’re spending money foolishly…

  • michaelscherer

    Cliff, that’s another tricky one. First, 4.6 trillion has not been spent yet. It has been “committed,” or promised if needed, depending on how one counts, in lots of ways, some of which should actually make the taxpayers money if and when everything gets better. But it gets at another big distinction that is lost in a lot of this: There is a difference in saving the credit markets, and saving parts of the U.S. economy. Not that i want to deny you your justified anger for the Wall Street traders who messed everything up, but if there is no way to get credit — loans, plastic, etc. — then the damage will actually be much greater than a few thousand dollars for each citizen. (Though again, the treasury has not actually paid that many trillion out yet.) Or at least that’s what the economists tell us.

    Again, this is a nice chart of how and where the money is going:
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/26/business/20081126_FED_graph1.html

  • gysgt213

    GAO Report on Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09161.pdf

  • Art Pepper

    Also a lot (or just some?) of the bailout money is either loans, or the gov’t buying up assets, right? So it’s not just “expending” money in the same way as, say, misplacing entire forklift pallets of $100 bills in Iraq.
    -
    Isn’t the proposed auto bailout also a loan?

  • Cliff

    MS: Thanks for replying again. I looked at the graph when you posted it before (I believe I posted my thanks for that right after Gunny’s union drama play).
    .
    My last post was born purely out of greed. I figure, as long as they’re promising preposterous amounts of money, I might as well get in on the action. I’ve got some student loans burning a hole in my pocket.
    .
    Also:
    (Though again, the treasury has not actually paid that many trillion out yet.)
    .
    One trillion counts as “that many trillion” in my book.

  • CP in FL

    53_3,
    .
    It is my understanding that the money is going to come from the sale of treasury bonds. Other countries such as China already hold much of our debt and many of the bonds would be sold to foreign governments.
    .
    Our government cannot simply print more money. This would cause inflation to skyrocket.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    MS–
    .
    (I was gonna read the whole thing for context but the link is wrong.)

    Government fiat substituted for invisible hand is just a fancy way of saying government regulation will increase, restricting the free market.
    .
    Well that is the part that doesn’t make sense. If he is referring only to the financial sector, that has been heavily regulated since the depression, with regulations relaxed beginning late in the Clinton administration, and then not applied at all to what Krugman calls the “shadow banking system,” but there is no free market involved here. (I’m reminded of an essay by PJ O’Rourke, who went to Wall Street to see how it really worked, and was very surprised to see how intensively regulated the NYSE is.) This idea that there has ever been a “free market” in the US is a shibboleth. The whole basis of capitalism is state acquisition, ownership, distribution and regulation of real property.
    .
    The later “wild wild west” characterization is a fairly accurate metaphor, for the CDO/CDS markets. But this period was about six-eight years long. Not the normal free market state of affairs, but rather like the period preceding the S&L crisis, a cases of the government dumping honey all over the picnic table, and the ants arriving in droves.
    .
    But I guess your point is different, that the free market was never free, but corrupt.
    .
    No, my point is that unregulated financial markets don’t exist, don’t work. They rely on the participants trusting verbal agreements made in short spans of time. It’s impossible to maintain such a market without regulation.
    .
    The corruption came in regulators permitting agents who did not have ability to fulfill their contracts to make those verbal contracts as if there were a regulatory agency in place to enforce them, when there was not, when they were no good, and when anybody who had been paying attention, since at least mid-2006, was aware of this situation. Very latest point where there is no excuse was November 10, 2007 when some guy with a sucky blog coined the “Big Sh!tpile.”
    .
    Even so, Gross’s point is also right: More government regulation is ahead. And I don’t get the sense that he finds this a terrible thing. It just changes investment math.
    .
    He says:
    .
    We will not go back to what we have known and gotten used to. It’s like comparing Newton and Einstein: both were right but their rules governed entirely different domains.
    .
    First he’s wrong about Newton and Einstein, but that’s okay. We are indeed going back to what we have known and are used to, in about 5 years. I doubt we go back as far as Glass-Steagall, which seems to be what everybody thought was still operating.
    .
    For example, what “too big to fail” used to mean that there were some money center banks, like Citi, that in the event of failure would not be treated the way other failed banks would be treated. If a regular bank failed, then the depositors would be paid off up the FDIC limits, the Fed would take over the bank’s assets, and dispose of them in an orderly fashion.
    .
    Now, in this very recent, unsustainable new order, “too big to fail” turned out to mean “too disruptive to credit markets to fail.” That’s an entirely new idea.
    .
    Why he’s not making sense is he is treating the aberrant as a norm.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    The notion that government has no proper role in commerce is not only a false ideal, but as we have seen, adherence to it in the face of contrary evidence has caused serious and lasting harm.
    .
    No, Paul, it’s false to fact. The US has a “mixed economy.” The only ‘free markets’ that have arisen have been small, local and brief. Think of Deadwood.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    All the articles are geared toward what to do with this money, but as yet unanswered is where will it come from because just shuffling that tweensy little problem into next week doesn’t really solve the problem
    .
    It will come from future taxes. The argument for borrowing against future taxes for this purpose is that it will lead to faster economic growth (i.e, more factories operating with workers making stuff, rather than both lying idle). This rests, though, on the premise that giving money to these agents will lead them to lend. At this point, it looks as if a wiser course would have been outright nationalization, with the shareholders stripped and the government opening up credit markets by lending directly.
    .
    You did hear about the AIG “retention payments” right?

  • rose83

    Just to add to the bad news, Krugman is now less sure we’re not heading towards a depression: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/02/paul-krugman-interview-it_n_147674.html

    The goal is to get the nation producing more by any means necessary, and then deal with the fallout later, because the fallout is much less bad than an economy in a downward spiral. That is why we are going to get a gargantuan stimulus package from Obama next year.

    I’m worried it won’t be big enough. If he proposes 300 billion, everyone will be talking about how it’s such a huge (and progressive) stimulus measure. But actually 300 is not enough. Obama’s in a catch-22: A sufficiently large stimulus package will displease Wall Street, but if he pleases Wall Street we will end up in a depression.

    But it gets at another big distinction that is lost in a lot of this: There is a difference in saving the credit markets, and saving parts of the U.S. economy. Not that i want to deny you your justified anger for the Wall Street traders who messed everything up, but if there is no way to get credit — loans, plastic, etc. — then the damage will actually be much greater than a few thousand dollars for each citizen.
    The problem is that we have no guarantee that Wall Street will use the money to expand consumer credit. It would be cheaper to nationalize and directly fuel consumer credit. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21sorkin.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin

  • jose

    OT- The Supremes just ruled that federal law does not pre-empt California’s medical marijuana laws.

  • michaelscherer

    Along these lines, here is Ben Bernanke back in 2002, describing his plan to head off deflation if it ever occurred, which he thought was unlikely at the time.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021121/default.htm

    The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under a fiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning. A little parable may prove useful: Today an ounce of gold sells for $300, more or less. Now suppose that a modern alchemist solves his subject’s oldest problem by finding a way to produce unlimited amounts of new gold at essentially no cost. Moreover, his invention is widely publicized and scientifically verified, and he announces his intention to begin massive production of gold within days. What would happen to the price of gold? Presumably, the potentially unlimited supply of cheap gold would cause the market price of gold to plummet. Indeed, if the market for gold is to any degree efficient, the price of gold would collapse immediately after the announcement of the invention, before the alchemist had produced and marketed a single ounce of yellow metal.

    What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

    Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).8 Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system–for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Rose thanks for the Krugman interview link.
    This topic is always hard for me to understand and Krugman is excellent at speaking to people like me.
    .
    I do wonder why you say this-
    “Obama’s in a catch-22: A sufficiently large stimulus package will displease Wall Street”
    Wouldn’t investment please Wall Street? And investment in infrastructure is money going into business’ hands.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    OK Mr. Bernanke, you can print money and create inflation, but does that necessarily stimulate actual economic growth & activity?
    I’m thinking of places like Zimbabwe here — no matter how much currency you got, there’s still nothing to buy.

  • rose83

    P-NNTO, Wall Street is not “business” in a traditional sense. It’s tied to the financial services/imaginary/pyramid scheme side of the economy. So money going to infrastructure investment is just money that’s not going to bail out the derivatives crash. Actually Erin Burnett was talking about this on MTP recently, saying how happy Wall Street was to hear that Obama was only talking about creating 2.5 million jobs and totally not seeing the implications of Wall Street being happy that fewer jobs were going to be created.

    Of course there are many business elements that would be helped by a stimulus package. But the financial services sector has a disproportionate influence over the economy. For example, all the prospective Treasury Secretaries I heard about have made at least a hundred million dollars through this crazy financial system. People like Romney who made his money the old-fashioned way – taking over dying companies, slashing their labor forces and then making a huge profit by reselling – would gain by a stimulus package. But no one’s talking about making Romney or one of his colleagues Treasury Secretary.

  • gysgt213

    “The Supremes just ruled that federal law does not pre-empt California’s medical marijuana laws.”
    .
    Well lite em if you got em. Helps with recession-depression.

  • gysgt213

    “Well lite em if you got em. Helps with recession-depression.”
    .
    Should also help understand what Michael and Jay are talking about too.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks for the response Rose. It points me in a direction to do some research.
    Time will tell what the stimulus package size will be and what Wall Street really responds to. If the choices are as you put them my guess is that it will be scenario #2.
    Krugman sounded a little less pessimistic. A little.

  • jarais

    Thanks for the deflation link, MS. That’s scary stuff. I’m thinking Japan in the 1990s, but worse.

    Rose, I think you are right about those agents being displeased with a huge stimulus package. They will argue that expansionary fiscal policy calls for huge, mythic, magical tax cuts instead.

  • rose83

    P-NNTO, here’s a long but very entertaining account of the derivatives phenomenon: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?tid=true

    And I agree about the second scenario. Which is why I’m reluctant to go into debt for grad school! Although if I had spent my early 20s on Wall Street like those people in the Portfolio article, I wouldn’t need to go into debt…

  • jarais

    Ah, you’re having the grad school dilemma, too!

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    “Obama’s in a catch-22: A sufficiently large stimulus package will displease Wall Street”
    Wouldn’t investment please Wall Street? And investment in infrastructure is money going into business’ hands

    .
    A broad stimulus package (even the 700 billion isn’t much per capita in the form of rebates) would have to be funded and they would expect it to be funded by soaking the rich more. (Else, there is no stimulus.)
    .
    But, at this point, eff ‘em. Henry Kravis can take his fifteen percent marginal rate….and so forth.

  • bryanfromhouston

    This is all well and good, but Chris Isidore does (as usual) a great job in conveying the depth of the problem. The problem is the fact that we (just like housing) had an auto bubble. See here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/02/news/companies/automakers_plans/index.htm?postversion=2008120213
    .
    Unfortunately, no amount of CEOs taking road trips in their latest hybrids, opting for $1 yearly salaries or pontificating about future models and sales will change this very significant fact. The only way to get out of a bubble is to reduce capacity and wait for demand to overcome supply until they are back in equilibrium.
    .
    There is no bailout short of a handout that will keep people employed in Detroit. And any bailout making more cars only prolongs the scenario of bringing supply and demand back into balance. This is the paradox of the bailout…it is welfare where the poor worker never regains control of their wealth making ability.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Oh, and if the fed inflates away the deficit, that hurts creditors (they get paid back with cheaper dollars), who are, by definition capital holders.

  • Andy from MA

    MS are you a “banana slug?”

    Palininatowel#2 My credit card company already cut my limit by one third without any notification today. I got my on line statement which closed two days ago. When I logged in to make my payment, it was 33% lower.
    .
    When I called American Express Blue today, I did not get a satisfactory explanation, and am a awaiting a call back from a Director of Credit Card services.
    .
    My credit report has been unchanged with respect to debt to cash ratio for almost two years, with no delinquencies. I have had a 67% increase income since then. It’s outrageous.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks for the link Rose, I just saw the author and am going to dig in. I like Michael Lewis, read Liars Poker a long time ago. I also recommend Trail Fever which is a very fun read.
    P.S. I know that’s your way to get rid of me-linking to a 9 page story!

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    “Honest to Pete, why are people so anxious to feel slighted?”
    .
    At the core of white supremacist movements, the need for the majority to somehow feel victimized is key.
    .
    Jayack, the precise phrase is ‘Praise hail Satan’.
    .
    “Our government cannot simply print more money. This would cause inflation to skyrocket.”
    .
    All Dollars are loaned into existence, you take out a loan, viola!…money gets printed. Debt must grow every year at a rate large enough to cover the interest rate on last years loans or else you start running into money supply problems. Unfortunately, hyperinflation and currency collapse is the eventual end result. This could have been offset by investing large amounts of this funny money into the infrastructure. We built bombs instead. In a troubling sign, last year the Fed stopped releasing the M3 numbers which is the broadest measure of dollars in existence, which leads me to believe that they don’t want the populace to know the full scope of the situation vis a vis the Dollar.
    .
    Prediction: We are entering into what will be a prolonged deflationary period. When this period ends and the engine of the economy again starts turning, we will see the end of deflation and inflation will come back in full force and increase at an exponential rate until the Dollar collapses. The Oakland Raiders will still be a sub 500 team however…so there’s that.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    > like tic-tac-toe

    Speaking of which, I got my butt skunked in two games, today, but I’ll get ‘er, next time.

    Thanks for engaging the unwashed masses, MS.

  • formerlyjames

    I have nothing to add here. I just want to say this is the most educational blog/thread I have seen in a while. And thanks to MS for causing it, and for his updates on his economic education. I did major in economics and have revisited economic theories I had forgotten. This has been interesting. Thanks everybody.

  • gysgt213

    I was wondering how the daily show would handle Mumbai attack. I think they did a pretty good job. In case you missed it:
    .
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=210916

  • vwcat

    I think anyone already knows the treasury lacks any plan. It’s not only obvious but, par for the Bush Administration. They just keep on bungling.

  • plukasiak

    all this talk about “deflation” is way overblown — what is actually going to happen is that people will start buying the less expensive items. e.g. people will begin settling for that 26 inch television instead of the 32 inch one — there will be slight economic dislocation as the market adjusts to changes in consumer spending habits, but demand will still exist, its just a question of what specific products the demand will be for. Buying less expensive items is not “deflationary” — its just common sense in uncertain economic times.

  • michaelscherer

    I am indeed a banana slug. Or was once, at least.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    I think deflation has already begun:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8110149
    .
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aCC.aK6XbpoA&refer=home
    .
    People w/o jobs and without credit cards don’t buy sh!t.

  • gysgt213

    I’m watching a rerun of the World Music Awards. Did you guys and gals know that the crap that passes for music has spread world wide? all the way down to the no dancing no singing blondes in skimpy attire singing yeah yeah yeah.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Hey AMC lives, she is on Maddow right now. Who is more likely to post here next-AMC or MM?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Ok so as we see Rachel Maddow calling Georgia for Chambliss I gotta ask, was it REALLY worth keeping LIEberman after all?
    .
    Sheesh!

  • wvng

    gunny. I agree, TDS was perfect on Mumbai. Call em out for what they are.
    .
    And, sgw, good to see you get your full Lieberman on.

  • jose

    What’s the deal with AMC’s new do. It is so wrong. Did you catch her Sarah moment?

  • plukasiak

    from the cincinattus bloomberg link at 65…

    Dow Chemical Co., the largest U.S. chemical maker, is among producers hurt by a drop in demand. The prices Dow charges for two of the most-used plastics, polyethylene and polypropylene, fell as much as 40 percent since September, giving up gains achieved since June, the company said. Midland, Michigan-based Dow is closing more factories as sales decline.

    this is supposed to be evidence of deflation? Polyethylene and polypropylene are freaking petrochemicals, and since june the price of crude has dropped from over $140/barrel to under $50/barrel. When the cost of your raw materials go up, prices go up — and when prices go up that much, alternatives to those plastics (like paper grocery bags, glass bottles, natural fibers, etc) begin to look a lot more attractive and demand goes way down for the petrochemical products.

    it should also be noted that “core inflation” (i.e. excluding fuel and food) continues to be up (0.4% or about 5% annually). When consumers were screaming for relief from the impact of high gas prices last spring, the same bozos who are now talking deflation were pointing to the fact that “core inflation” wasn’t that high, and no relief was needed.

    Bottom line, the current appearance of “deflation” is merely the other side of the inflationary impact of higher oil prices last spring. The financial sector was not panicked when consumers were suffering because of high gas prices, nor is anyone that concerned with the fact that heating prices will be high this season because of commitments made by utility companies to buy oil and natural gas when prices were still high (and thus much of the current low prices of oil and natural gas won’t be passed onto consumers.)

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Bottom line, the current appearance of “deflation” is merely the other side of the inflationary impact of higher oil prices last spring.

    The problem with that argument is that the general slowdown in economic activity is what driving the fuel prices back down. So the fact that oil is at the center of the activity doesn’t negate the idea of deflation.

  • michaelscherer

    Paul and Plu, Declining prices of things like oil, or Xboxes, do not mean deflation. It has to be a widespread, systematic decline in prices across the board. I don’t think anyone is saying we are in a deflationary spiral yet, despite all the sales at Banana Republic. But the danger is there. Here is Bernanke’s definition from the same 2002 speech i linked to higher in the comments.

    “Deflation is defined as a general decline in prices, with emphasis on the word “general.” At any given time, especially in a low-inflation economy like that of our recent experience, prices of some goods and services will be falling. Price declines in a specific sector may occur because productivity is rising and costs are falling more quickly in that sector than elsewhere or because the demand for the output of that sector is weak relative to the demand for other goods and services. Sector-specific price declines, uncomfortable as they may be for producers in that sector, are generally not a problem for the economy as a whole and do not constitute deflation. Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.”

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Cincy’s point is that disposable income is dropping like a stone. Formally, disposable income is income net of tax. Less formally, as when talking about the disposable income of teenagers, it refers to money available to spend on stuff.
    .
    Wages are flat to falling. Credit lines are being cut, dramatically, right before Christmas. Just as inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, deflation is too little money chasing too many goods. Like those cars parked in California ports of entry or in dealer lots.
    .
    The Black Friday reports were “Sales were UP!” but prices were apparently cut dramatically.
    .
    What makes this different, and in some ways scarier than the Depression, is that everybody has a lot of inventory at home. That is, most Americans have stuff they haven’t used up, or even used, that in the last twenty years or so they would have supplemented with another item. Televisions. MP3 players. Coffee makers, ummmmm Cars.
    .
    So it’s not just retail inventory available for consumption. It’s also accumulated consumer goods. People could very easily buy next to nothing, aside from food, shelter and transportation for a couple of months. They could give Christmas presents out of inventory this year.
    .
    Paul’s observation that the decline in energy prices is a symptom, not a cause is well made. There’s no harm to the American economy if oil prices fall–but if core inflation goes negative, that may mean a negative wage price spiral.
    .

  • 53_3

    MS, Jayack, et al:
    .
    “The reason the money is good is because people have faith in the future output of the U.S. economy. The danger of such a policy is hyperinflation that would come if people began to lose faith in U.S. currency and countries like China decided they no longer wanted U.S. money.”
    .
    Which, in a nutshell, is what I thought. So the real strategy is:
    .
    1. Hope like hell no one (like China) decides to divest (which they’ve already threatened once…), or, no one loses their nerve, er, I mean, faith in the US. If that happens, we’ze in big, big, doodoo that only a banana slug would appreciate.
    .
    2. Hope like hell that we can raise enough tax money to pay it all off. I don’t know about this one, gentlemen, Obama will have to do a tweensy bit more than just let the Bush tax cuts sunset, in my rather sorry opinion.
    .
    It looks like that really, bottom line, the possibility of hyperinflation is a very serious threat, far more serious than the possibility of deflation. So far, the only things I’ve seen deflate are:
    .
    1. The number of GOPers
    2. Really sound economic solutions to the present problem
    3. Oversight of the whole shebang
    4. Electronics (which always deflate, so who cares…)
    5. Real Estate (won’t last long)
    6. Price of gas (maybe a while longer than real estate, now that we’ve gotten rid of the Neocons)
    .
    I don’t know about you, but I’m not reassured, and I think, as little as I really do know about eocnomics, in the end, we might just be printing money, but are using economic expedients to explain it away so no one keeps looking.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    You left out wages, 53_3.
    .
    It really isn’t difficult to manage this, politics aside. You just shift about a third of defense spending into domestic infrastructure refurbishment and extension, including green energy initiatives.
    .
    You cut agency costs by reverting to civil service employees doing the work, firing the contractors. Likewise the military. End the occupation of Iraq, fire all the contractors, reduce total troop levels. Unbundle the department of homeland security, and get rid of the feet inspectors and other money wasting instances of security theatre.
    .
    We’ve been hearing our whole lives about waste and fraud, but this administration has set records, and that provides budgetary opportunity.
    .
    The political problem is getting all the private interests that have keys to the Treasury out of there.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    …also wouldn’t hurt to end the War on Drugs which is nothing more than a welfare program for the police state and a job security program for prison guards.
    .
    Again, debt must increase every year at a rate large enough to cover the interest rate on the the previous year’s debt. This is an exponential equation. Example of an exponential equation on a graph:
    .
    http://hotmath.com/images/gt/lessons/genericalg1/exponential_graph.gif
    .
    Graph of inflation in the US over 200 years:
    http://one-simple-idea.com/InflationHistory1800-2003.gif
    .
    Note the similarities. Once the deflationary period ends we’ll resume the upward trajectory which eventually becomes a straight line up.

  • bryanfromhouston

    What jayackroyd said.
    .
    Deflation can contained but not stopped. Further, the real problem will exist in trying to shift agency costs. Nobody wants to make a single sacrifice until forced to do so.

  • rose83

    It really isn’t difficult to manage this, politics aside. You just shift about a third of defense spending into domestic infrastructure refurbishment and extension, including green energy initiatives.

    Yes, the Obama Administration’s success in confronting the economic problems will depend on foreign and military policy. And maybe, in this context, the HRC choice is smart. Her primary interest seems to be domestic policy, unlike pretty much everyone else in the foreign policy establishment. Which at first glance made the choice seem a little weird. But maybe if Obama says we need to downsize our foreign policy to save our economy, environment and help those “invisible” people, HRC will be more willing to think outside the box and make that happen than a more conventional choice like Kerry. Domestic policy is her passion, and that could make her a great Secretary of State.

  • 53_3

    I’m going to have to disagree with et al. These numbers are so large that I’m of a mind that if one focuses on the simplest aspects of this situation, one can easily see this could get into an “expert”-driven shell game based on theories that may or may not have any utility.
    .
    I just don’t think there is enough money in the wasteful portion of the budget to accomodate the need for 7.1 trillion dollars.
    .
    In one swoop, we grow the national debt by what, maybe 40 to 45%?
    .
    It all looks so good on paper, but the fact remains that $7,100,000,000,000 (7.1 x 10^12) dollars is a good 3.2 times the entire national budget in any one year!
    .
    I think for the forseeable future, raising taxes will be the only way to go that even has a chance of rederessing this issue, if all the other smoke-and-mirrors wave-the-wand “procurement” strategies work.
    .
    And China or someone else doesn’t get any big ideas about divesting.
    .
    Any takers?

blog comments powered by Disqus