Europe Posts Trade Surplus in May


[Skip to the end]

Both imports and exports continued to fall in May as nothing there seems to be going right.

Europe Posts Trade Surplus in May as Imports Fall

By Emma Ross-Thomas

July 17 (Bloomberg) — Europe posted a trade surplus for a second month in May as exports declined less than imports.

Shipments from the 16-nation euro area fell a seasonally adjusted 2.7 percent from April, when they dropped 0.7 percent, the European Union’s statistics office in Luxembourg said today.

Imports slipped 2.8 percent, swelling the trade surplus to 800 million euros ($1.1 billion) in May from 700 million euros.


[top]

Homeowners Plan


[Skip to the end]

Glad they’re finally coming around!

Would have been nice to have offered this two years ago before a few million people had no choice but to leave and take down the neighborhood with them.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   Hi Warren,
>   
>   Treasury plan to allow foreclosed homeowners to stay in their homes.
>   

Administration Weighs More Foreclosure Aid

By Renae Merle

July 17 (Washington Post) — A top Treasury Department official told a Senate panel yesterday that the government is considering a proposal to allow homeowners to stay in their home as renters after a foreclosure.

>   
>   I am a huge fan of the bottom up recovery plans.
>   I still wonder why this was not implemented at the
>   beginning. We could have given a few hundred billion
>   to Americans and had this crisis already over!
>   

Problem remains they still don’t understand the monetary system or the function of federal taxation.

Thanks!


[top]

Southland home sales highest since late ’06; median price up again


[Skip to the end]

Thanks,

More and more evidence that it all started reversing when the great Mike Masters inventory liquidation ended late December as the automatic stabilizers did their thing (the ugly way).

Southland home sales highest since late ’06; median price up again

July 15 (DQNews) — La Jolla, CA — Southern California home sales rose in June to the highest level in 30 months as the number of deals above $500,000 continued to climb. June’s sales gain, plus another rise in the region’s median sale price, indicate buyers responded to price cuts on mid- to high-end homes and found it easier to secure financing for pricier abodes, a real estate information service reported.

A total of 23,262 new and resale houses and condos closed escrow in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties last month. That was up 12.0 percent from 20,775 in May and up 29.0 percent from a revised 18,032 a year ago, according to San Diego-based MDA DataQuick.

Sales have increased year-over-year for 12 consecutive months.

June’s sales were the highest for that month since 2006, when 31,602 homes sold, but were 17.7 percent below the average June sales total since 1988, when DataQuick’s statistics begin. June sales peaked at 40,156 in 2005 and hit a low last year.

Foreclosures remained a major force in June, but their impact on the resale market eased for the third consecutive month.

Foreclosure resales – homes sold in June that had been foreclosed on in the prior 12 months – represented 45.3 percent of Southland resales last month, down from 49.7 percent in May and down from a peak 56.7 percent in February this year. Last month’s level was the lowest since foreclosure resales were 43.7 percent of resales in July 2008.

As the influence of deeply discounted foreclosures in lower-cost areas has waned in recent months, sales in higher-cost housing markets have increased and accounted for a greater share of total transactions.

Resales of single-family houses priced $500,000 and above rose to 19.6 percent of all existing houses sold in June, up from 18.0 percent in May but still down from 29.2 a year ago. The last time the $500,000-plus market made up more than 19 percent of sales was last October, when it was 19.9 percent. Sales of $500,000-plus houses dipped to as little as 13.4 percent of sales in January this year.

The recent shift toward higher-cost markets contributing more to overall sales has put upward pressure on the region’s median sale price – the point where half of the homes sold for more and half for less. The median dived sharply over the past year not just because of price depreciation but because of a shift toward an unusually large share of sales occurring in lower-cost, foreclosure-heavy areas.

The median price paid for all new and resale houses and condos sold in the Southland last month was $265,000, up 6.4 percent from $249,000 in May but down 26.4 percent from $360,000 a year ago. It was the second consecutive month in which the median rose on a month-to-month basis. Before May’s 0.8 percent increase over April, the median hadn’t risen from one month to the next since July 2007.

Last month’s median was the highest since it was $278,000 last December, but it stood 47.5 percent below the peak $505,000 median reached in spring and summer of 2007.

“The rising median should still be viewed mainly as a sign the market’s moving back toward a more normal distribution of sales across the home price spectrum. Sales in many higher-cost neighborhoods couldn’t have gotten much lower, so this recent uptick in activity should come as no surprise. The recession and problem mortgages are fueling more high-end distress, hence more high-end ‘bargains.’ What’s missing, still, is a wide-open financing spigot for the would-be buyers of these more expensive homes,” said John Walsh, DataQuick president.

There were signs last month that credit was flowing a bit more easily for high-end buyers: The share of Southland purchase loans above $417,000 rose to 14.8 percent in June, the highest since it was 15.6 percent last August. “Jumbo” mortgages needed to buy pricier homes have been more expensive and much harder to obtain since August 2007, when the credit crunch hit. Before then, nearly 40 percent of Southland sales were financed with jumbo loans, then defined as over $417,000.

Bank of America makes the most home purchase loans in Southern California with about 20 percent of the market. Wells Fargo has 10 percent of the market.

In lower-cost “starter” housing markets, many first-time buyers continued to choose government-insured FHA financing. Such loans were used to finance 36.8 percent of home purchases last month, down slightly from 37.4 percent in May but up from 19.7 percent a year ago.

Absentee buyers, including investors who will have their property tax bills sent to a different address, bought 18.6 percent of the Southland homes sold last month. That’s up from 16.1 percent a year ago but down from 19.5 percent in May. The monthly average since 2000: 15 percent. Southland homebuyers appearing in public records with “LLC” in their names, meaning a limited liability company (used by some investor groups), accounted for about 1.5 percent of June home sales (345 sales). That’s down from a high of 2 percent in April but still well above the average of 0.6% of monthly sales this decade.

The year-ago numbers for Orange County and the region have been revised to include a late data update.

The typical monthly mortgage payment that Southern California buyers committed themselves to paying was $1,193 last month, up from $1,052 the previous month, and down from $1,762 a year ago. Adjusted for inflation, current payments are 46.0 percent below typical payments in the spring of 1989, the peak of the prior real estate cycle. They are 55.7 percent below the current cycle’s peak in July 2007.

Indicators of market distress continue to move in different directions. Foreclosure activity remains near record levels, while financing with adjustable-rate mortgages is near the all-time low but has recently edged higher. Financing with multiple mortgages is low, down payment sizes and flipping rates are stable, and non-owner occupied buying is above-average in some markets, MDA DataQuick reported.


[top]

Comments from Obama at last nights All-Star Game


[Skip to the end]

Obama Play-By-Play

Fast forward to 6:00

“This is a problem,” the president said, asking Buck and McCarver, “what’s your best theory on this?” Three or four years’ worth of losing is one thing, you can say it’s “just happenstance,” but this was something else. McCarver cited the American League’s designated hitter rule.

“So there’s no bailout plan for the National League?” one of the sportscasters asked, laughing.

“No,” said Obama, “we’re out of money.”


[top]

Progress!


[Skip to the end]

Deficits saved the world

By Paul Krugman

July 15 (NYT) — Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs has a new note (no link) responding to claims that government support for the economy is postponing the necessary adjustment. He doesn’t think much of that argument; neither do I. But one passage in particular caught my eye:

    The private sector financial balance—defined as the difference between private saving and private investment, or equivalently between private income and private spending—has risen from -3.6% of GDP in the 2006Q3 to +5.6% in 2009Q1. This 8.2% of GDP adjustment is already by far the biggest in postwar history and is in fact bigger than the increase seen in the early 1930s.


That’s an interesting way to think about what has happened — and it also suggests a startling conclusion: namely, government deficits, mainly the result of automatic stabilizers rather than discretionary policy, are the only thing that has saved us from a second Great Depression.

The following figure makes the argument:

Here I show the private sector surplus and the public sector deficit, both as functions of GDP; the private sector line is upward-sloping because higher GDP means higher income and more savings, the public-sector line is downward-sloping because higher GDP means higher revenues. In equilibrium the private surplus equals the government deficit (not strictly true for any one country if you add in international capital flows, but think of this as a picture for the world economy). To make the figure cleaner I’ve shown an initial position of balance in both sectors, but this isn’t important.

What we’ve had is a sharp increase in the desired private surplus at any given level of GDP, due to a combination of higher personal saving and reduced investment demand. This is shown as an upward shift in the private-surplus curve.

In the 1930s the public sector was very small. As a result, GDP basically had to shrink enough to keep the private-sector surplus equal to zero; hence the fall in GDP labeled “Great Depression”.

This time around, the fall in GDP didn’t have to be as large, because falling GDP led to rising deficits, which absorbed some of the rise in the private surplus. Hence the smaller fall in GDP labeled “Great Recession.”

What Hatzius is saying is that the initial shock — the surge in desired private surplus — was if anything larger this time than it was in the 1930s. This says that absent the absorbing role of budget deficits, we would have had a full Great Depression experience. What we’re actually having is awful, but not that awful — and it’s all because of the rise in deficits. Deficits, in other words, saved the world.


[top]

Obama at All Star Game: “We’re out of money”


[Skip to the end]

Agreed

And worse, it may mean we don’t get a decent health care program but continue with what we have that is driving doctors and other practitioners out of the field in droves.

With 10% unemployment we can afford just about anything and everything before we run out of available resources!

(Only available energy is currently limited on several levels.)

Mike Norman Economics

Obama at the All Star Game: “We’re out of money.”

Was just watching Obama chit-chatting with announcers Tim McCarver and Joe Buck at the All Star Game. When Joe Buck asked Obama if there would be any “bailout” for the National League, which hasn’t won in 11 years, Obama replied, “We’re out of money.” Although it was meant as a joke, it’s what he believes when it comes to the government’s finances.

This is a very misguided point of view. It effectively is like putting America on a gold standard when we are not on one. And it is the reason behind his new and misguided policy of taxing millionaires to pay for his health care plan. With very little demand in the economy right now, applying fiscal drag in the form of tax–on anybody–is really, really, dumb.


[top]

CPI/Empire


[Skip to the end]

Looks to me to translate into improving earnings even as unemployment continues to rise some.

Karim writes:

CPI up a bit more than expected

  • Headline up 0.744% and core up 0.198%
  • Driven by energy (7.4%) and volatile components of core (apparel up 0.7% and tobacco up 0.8%)
  • Stable components of core in line (OER 0.1% and medical 0.2%)

Recent decline in energy prices and weak wage numbers to put downward pressure on both headline and core in year ahead

Empire Survey

  • Improves from -9.4 to -0.55
  • Orders up from -8.1 to 5.9
  • Shipments up from -4.8 to 11.0
  • Employment up from -21.8 to -20.8

Industrial sector likely to show further improvement in shipments and orders in months ahead due to inventory rebuild (production was cut well below sales).

But this is unlikely to say much about demand, which is likely to remain anemic as employment (and income) conditions remain weak.


[top]

new pecora open letter


[Skip to the end]

The ‘finanical crisis’ is not an economic concern per se. Particularly as the financial sector contributes no value added to the real economy and for the most part serves no public purpose.

However, when aggregate demand falls short of politcal goals, as evidenced by the unemployment rate, capacity utilization, and other measures, government has the immediate option of a fiscal adjustment of any size necessary to meet those political output and employment goals.

What caused the sudden drop in aggregate demand last July is therefore less important than what it is that continues to delay an appropriate fiscal response to immediately restore output and employment.

The answer is that an unwarrented fear of Federal deficits per se has taken the readily available option of using a fiscal adjustment to fully restore employment and output completely off the table.

As our politcal leaders, opinion leaders, and leading economists struggle to determine how the economy can be ‘saved’ with the least possible amount of Federal deficit spending, and none challenge the President’s statement that the nation has ‘run out of money,’ the unemployment rate continues to rise and millions of Americans needlessly depreciate in the unemployment lines.

It’s really quite simple. Taxation functions to reduce aggregate demand. It does not function to give the Federal governent ‘something to spend.’ In fact, if you pay your taxes at the Fed with actual cash they take your money, give you a receipt, and then throw the bills in a shredder. If you pay by check they change the number in your bank account to a lower number. The government doesn’t actually get anything to spend.

When the Federal government spends, numbers in bank accounts get changed by government to higher numbers from lower numbers. As Chairman Bernanke told Congress in May, when asked where the funds come from that he’s giving the banks, the Fed simply changes numbers in the member bank’s account at the Fed.

Federal spending is obviously not operationally constrained by revenues. There is no such thing as the Federal government ‘running out of money.’ The only constraints on nominal spending are self imposed.

So what does the statement ‘higher deficits today mean higher taxes later’ actually state? The reason taxes would be higher ‘later’ would be if aggregate demand is deemed too high at the time- unemployment too low and capicity utilization too high- and a tax hike proposed to cool down an overheating economy.

So does that statement not mean that higher deficits today will cause aggregate demand to increase, unemployment come down, and capacity utilization go up, to the point a tax increase might be called for?

And how does the Federal government pay off it’s debt? When Treasury securities mature the Fed debits the holder’s security account at the Fed and credits his reserve account at the Fed. End of story.

The risks of deficit spending are inflation, not insolvency or even higher interest rates. Yet the public debate is paralyzed by fears of Federal insolvency, and ratings agencies only add to that fear with threats of downgrades.

This misinformation IS the problem, and it isn’t rocket science. There will always be something that causes a surprise drop in aggregate demand. And, in fact I have made numerous recommendations for banking and the financial sector over the last several years that would have prevented most of the subsequent problems, and drastically scaled back the entire financial sector to limit it to areas of direct public purpose.

The greater problem, however, is the inability of our political leaders to respond appropriately when aggregate demand does fall, for any reason.

Therefore I urge you to redirect this project to instead promote an understanding of how a currency actually functions, and the operational reality of monetary operations and reserve accounting.

Determining ‘what went wrong’ will do nothing to enlighten policy makers as to their available fiscal options that can immediately restore the American economy to desired levels of employment and output. In fact, the effort will only delay a favorable outcome as energies get diverted from the more urgent issue of restoring demand.

FYI – the Roosevelt Institute is launching a major new initiative around the new Pecora Commission – we have been posting significant commentary on www.newdeal20.org (thank you for the great overview launch piece Bill), we have a partnership with Huffington and have created a Big News page around it, have investigative reporters in the works to track the commission, are considering a shadow commission, etc. As part of that, we have written an open letter to the commission that we will launch publicly the minute it gets announced – the open letter pushes for the three criteria that Bill discusses. We have several prominent economists and historians signing it (Stiglitz, Galbraith, Robert Reich, Bill, etc). The goal is to have 50-100 major econ/historians and then push it publicly once the commission members are formally announced (possibly in a day or two according to my sources). You can see the open letter here www.whatcausedthecrisis.com – if you are willing to sign the open letter, please let me know – please send me your name and affiliation so I can list you appropriately. We are also planning a media push around it so if you can speak on it or want to blog, please let me know

Thank you –

And if you can sign the letter, please let me know soon – I think this is happening in a day or two.


[top]

IMF Says U.K. Can’t Afford 2010 Stimulus


[Skip to the end]

This says a lot more about the IMF than the UK:

IMF Says U.K. Can’t Afford 2010 Stimulus, Telegraph Reports

The U.K. is alone with Argentina as the only members of the Group of 20 that cannot budget for temporary spending increases next year to aid economic growth, the Sunday Telegraph cited the International Monetary Fund as saying. The Washington-based fund presented a paper at a G-20 meeting in Basel saying the average fiscal stimulus among member countries will be 1.6 % next year, the Telegraph reported. Britain’s fiscal position has left it unable to budget for an increase in expenditure or tax cuts in 2010 to boost the economy, the Telegraph cited the IMF as saying.


[top]