Review of the recession and how to end it


[Skip to the end]

  1. The problem is suboptimal output and employment which is evidence of a lack of aggregate demand.
     
  2. Less important what caused the drop in aggregate demand
    • The end of the subprime expansion in 2006 reduced the demand for housing
       
    • The wind down of the one time Q2 2008 fiscal adjustment (Q2 2008 GDP was up 2.8%)
       
    • The Mike Masters inventory liquidation that began in July 2008 added supply from inventories, reducing output and employment
       
    • A shift in the propensity to spend due to the pro cyclical nature of credit worthiness

     

  3. My proposals for restoring aggregate demand:
    • A full payroll tax holiday – This tax is taking $1 trillion per year from workers and businesses struggling to make ends meet $1,000 per capita in revenue sharing for the States (approx. $300 billion total).
       
    • Federal funding for a $8 per hour full time job for anyone willing and able to work that includes federal health care.
       
    • Caveat – Unless our demand for motor fuel is cut in half, restoring aggregate demand will also empower the Saudis to set ever higher prices for crude oil which will cause our real terms of trade and standard of living to deteriorate.
       
    • Political options for reducing imported fuel consumption:
       

      • Regressive – utilizing allocation by price (Carbon tax, fuel taxes)
         
      • Closer to neutral – mandating higher fuel economy requirements for new vehicles, offering incentives to trade up to more fuel efficient vehicles
         
      • Progressive – substantially reducing speed limits to discourage driving and advantage public transportation

     

  4. Redirect banking to serve public purpose
    • Ban banks from all secondary markets.
       
    • Allow bank lending only to serve public purpose.
       
    • Do not use the liability side of banking for market discipline.

     

  5. Analysis of current situation
    • Our leaders believe they must first ‘get credit flowing again’ to restore output and employment.
       
    • Unfortunately the reverse is the case; restoration of output and employment will restore the flow of credit.
       
    • Government is removing about $1 trillion per year in payroll taxes from employees and employers who can’t meet their mortgage payments and wondering what is causing the financial crisis.
       
    • All moves to date by the Treasury and Federal Reserve have only served to shift financial assets between the public and private sectors. Nothing has directly added to aggregate demand.
       
    • Therefore the economy has continued to deteriorate, with only the ‘automatic stabilizers’ slowly adding financial assets and income to the private sector, as the counter-cyclical deficit rises.
       
    • The rate of federal deficit spending (not counting TARP and other shifting of financial assets that does not directly alter demand, as above) now exceeds 5% of GDP and seems to have begun moving the economy sideways.
       
    • The new fiscal package starts taking effect in April. While modest in size, it isn’t ‘nothing’ and will further support GDP.
       
    • Employment will not grow until real output of goods and services exceeds productivity growth.
       
    • Fuel prices are already moving higher.

     

  6. Conclusion
    • Leadership that doesn’t understand how the monetary system works has needlessly prolonged the recession and delayed the recovery.
       
    • They have put a premium on ‘confidence’ as the President spends countless hours in front of the TV cameras, when in fact loss of ‘confidence’ means only that federal taxes can be lower for a given level of federal spending:

      lower confidence = less private sector spending = less aggregate demand = lower taxes or higher federal spending to sustain output and employment

    • The headline USD trillions they have directed towards the financial sector has accomplished little or nothing beyond burning up expensive political capital and credibility.
       
    • They are in this way over their heads, and it’s costing us dearly.
       


[top]

Mosler plan vs Geithner plan


[Skip to the end]

The Mosler plan to better accomplish what the Geithner plan has attempted to do:

Targeted credit default insurance between the FDIC and the banks

Here’s how it works:

Any bank could apply for FDIC credit default insurance.

The bank would submit the securities it wants insured to the FDIC for approval.

The FDIC would calculate a risk adjusted cash flow value for those securities (for a fee to cover expenses).

The bank then has the option of buying credit default insurance from the FDIC at perhaps a 1% annual premium of the average balance outstanding.

The FDIC credit default insurance would cover any bank losses on those securities.

This utilizes the FDIC as the ‘bad bank’ as is its intended purpose.

The FDIC should already have the capability to assess the risk adjusted value of all bank securities, as it does that to perform its normal audit functions.

The purchase of FDIC credit default insurance eliminates all capital charges and risk considerations for the bank for those securities.


[top]

Geithner backwards again on banks, risk, and recovery


[Skip to the end]

No we don’t. We ‘get out of this’ with a fiscal adjustment sufficient to restore output and employment, and as credit worthiness improves lending picks up.

Banking is necessarily pro cyclical Tim, get over it!

Geithner Says Some Banks to Need ‘Large Amounts’ of Assistance

by Ryan J. Donmoyer

Mar 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that for the U.S. economy to recover from the recession, banks need to show more willingness to take risks and restore lending to businesses.

“To get out of this we need banks to take a chance on businesses, to take risks again,” Geithner said today on the ABC News program “This Week.”


[top]

Obama for or against unions?


[Skip to the end]

Didn’t we just hear a speech from our President about the need to strengthen unions?

White House to set GM, Chrysler deadlines: report

Mar 27 (Reuters) — The Obama administration will set a strict deadline for General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC to reach cost-cutting deals with creditors and their major union even as it extends more aid to the struggling automakers, the New York Times reported on Friday.

The New York Times reported that the White House autos task force was likely to set a deadline of weeks rather than months for GM and Chrysler to reach a deal with creditors and the United Auto Workers. Under the terms of the $17.4 billion in emergency loans approved for the Detroit automakers by the Bush administration in late December, GM and Chrysler need to win concessionary agreements to reduce the amount owed to the United Auto Workers and other creditors. GM and Chrysler have reached agreements in principle to change provisions of their contract with the UAW that would reduce the average hourly cost for production workers, another provision of the loan deal.


[top]