Monthly Archives: June 2010

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse, Laffer

Posted on by

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse

By Arthur Laffer

June 7 (WSJ) —People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it’s also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, “high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.”

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn’t rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there’s always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what’s going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Yes, those are very strong forces, especially for the second half.

They will also cause tax collections to go up this year, reducing non gov net financial assets which means we go into next year’s slow down that much weaker financially.

The thing that can reverse it is an acceleration of borrowing to spend in the domestic private sectors. That’s usually from housing, cars, maybe cap ex, commercial construction, etc. But those traditional areas of credit growth aren’t showing any signs of being able to take up the slack, at least yet. while the employment picture is modestly improving (see Karim’s work on total hours worked) seems to me it has a long way to go before it generates robust credit growth.

And, of course, the external risks remain.

Share

G20 rules out fiscal expansion

Posted on by

G20 Says Expansionary Fiscal Policy Not Sustainable

The G20 has dropped its support for fiscal expansion. The deficit hawks are prevailing. But why is that? We all either know or should know that operationally Federal spending is not constrained by revenues, as Chairman Bernanke stated last year, when asked on ’60 Minutes’ by Scott Pelley where the funds given to the banks came from :

“…we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.”

We know that when the Fed spends on behalf of the Treasury it simply credits a member bank or foreign government’s reserve account at the Fed.

We know that a US Treasury security is a credit balance in a securities account, also at the Fed.

We know that buying a Treasury security means US dollars (numbers on the Fed’s spreadsheet) shift from a Fed reserve account to a Fed securities account, which adds to the ‘national debt.’

We know that government deficits = ‘non government’ saving (net dollar financial assets) to the penny, as a matter of national income accounting.

And we know paying off the Treasury securities happens continuously when Treasury securities mature and the Fed simply shifts those US dollars from the securities account back to a Fed reserve account (including the interest).

So why should we care if US dollars are in a Fed reserve account or a Fed securities account?

We should not, yet most still do.

There are two featured sides to the argument, pro and con, deficit hawks and deficit doves. The deficit hawks aren’t the problem. They have no argument that makes any sense as a point of simple monetary operations. There is no such thing as the Federal Government running out of money, being dependent on foreigners or anyone else for funding to be able to spend, and the US is not the next Greece.

The problem is the deficit doves featured by the media don’t understand actual monetary operations and reserve accounting, and so they take the same ‘fundamentally wrong’ positions as the deficit hawks. The difference is nothing more than timing and degree. In effect, the media is showing only one side of the argument.

To be a credible media deficit dove, you agree deficits are ‘bad’ but in the long term, arguing that in the short term we need tax cuts or spending increases now, and deficit reduction later. You agree that deficits can be too high, but argue they have been higher, particularly in World War II, so current levels should be easily manageable, further agreeing there is a level that could not be manageable. You agree markets could be ‘unfriendly’ and a lack of confidence could translate into far higher interest rates, but argue that the current low rates for Treasury securities are the markets telling us that currently they do have confidence in the US and they are eager to fund current deficits. You agree that ‘bang for the buck’ matters and support tax cuts and spending increases based on higher ‘multipliers.’

The two ‘sides of the story’ are in fact on the same side, just with differing degrees. The media does not feature the true deficit dove story. Nor do any of the true doves have even a small piece of the administration’s ear, or the ear of anyone in Congress willing to speak out. There are maybe a hundred of them, including many senior economics professors. The nagging question is why this professional, highly educated, highly experienced collection of true doves, who happen to be correct and could get us back to full employment and prosperity in reasonably short order, does not get a fair hearing.

The answer may be credentials. My BA in Economics from the University of Connecticut in 1971 doesn’t cut it, nor the fact that the very large fund I managed was the highest rated firm for the time I ran it. And my net worth never getting anywhere near a billion hasn’t helped either. Seems billionaires get celebrity status and airtime for just about anything they want to say.

The same is true of the Economics professors who’ve got it right. Without being from and at the usual ‘top tier’ schools none can even get published in main stream economics journals, where submissions featuring obvious accounting realities are routinely rejected. In fact, any economist who states accounting identities and operational realities such as ‘deficits = savings’ or ‘loans create deposits’ or ‘Federal spending is not constrained by revenues’ is immediately labeled ‘heterodox’ and unworthy of serious mainstream consideration. Even the late Wynne Godley, who did have reasonable credentials as head of Cambridge Economics, and was the number one UK economics forecaster, was labeled ‘unorthodox’ because his mathematical models featured the deficits = savings accounting identity.

The breakthrough could happen at any time, in addition to economists at the ‘right schools’ or right financial sector firms, there are government officials with sufficient credentials to lead the breakthrough, including the head of the CBO and OMB, the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman, as well as former Fed officials, particularly from monetary operations.

Unfortunately Treasury Secretary Geithner, a potential hero due to the celebrity of his office, and the rest of the G20 are acting out the deficit hawk position, acting as if they do indeed believe the US has run out of money, is dependent on its creditors, and could be the next Greece. They speak as if they have no idea that the euro nations operate within a unique institutional structure that puts them in a ‘revenue constrained’ financial position similar to the US States, but with nothing equivalent to the US Treasury to run the countercyclical deficits for them. They speak as if they have no idea that the US, UK, Japan, and others with ‘normal’ central governments taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to raise revenue per se. They act as if they don’t realize they can immediately make the fiscal adjustments- cut taxes and/or increase government spending- that will restore aggregate demand, employment, and output. In short, they act as if they were all still on the gold standard, an institutional arrangement where indeed government spending was constrained by revenues, and, as a consequence, the world witnessed repetitive, devastating deflationary depressions, far worse than what we’ve seen so far in this cycle.

The results of unnecessarily allowing a universal lack of aggregate demand to persist are already tragic, and if policy continues along the line of this weekend’s G20 results no relief is in sight, and it could all get a whole lot worse.

Share

7DIF and national security

Posted on by

Euro May Rise to $1.60 Due to Austerity: Economist

“a group of logistics officers at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces developed a national security strategy as a class exercise. Their No. 1 recommendation for maintaining U.S. global leadership was “restore fiscal responsibility.”

Sec. of Defense Gates also got involved. All of them seriously misinformed, and think “fiscal responsibility” equals strangling a growing economy with a fixed currency supply. It’s a crisis of misinformation. Logistics training obviously doesn’t prepare one for sound systems, operations, ecology or macroeconomics analysis. You have to wonder if they’ve all adopted the “Scorched Economy” security model from Peter-the-Not-so-Great.

New Obama security strategy hardens economic resolve

“If you owe all this money you become less independent in the broader sense because you have to worry about where you are going to raise the next loan,” he said

Share

Mosler on cnbc

Posted on by

Thanks,

It was an hour interview and to some degree taken out of context.

I would not buy euro here- chart looks terrible!!!

But I would look to see it show signs of turning with an eye to getting long, probably vs the yen.

The problem with the euro zone has been a tendency for the currency to continually adjust to levels where the trade balance can’t go into surplus in a meaningful way, like China, Japan, and Germany before the euro.

To run a trade surplus generally requires tight fiscal to keep domestic demand down, but then a policy of buying fx (off balance sheet deficit spending) to keep the currency ‘competitive’ to support exporters at the expense of the macro economy.

Euro May Rise to $1.60 Due to Austerity: Economist

By Antonia Oprita

June 4 (CNBC) — Austerity measures imposed by the euro zone will likely push the euro back towards $1.50 or even $1.60 but the European currency is unlikely to achieve the status of reserve currency, economist Warren Mosler, founder and principal of broker/dealer AVM, told CNBC.com Friday.

The euro has fallen sharply versus the dollar since the euro zone’s sovereign debt worries began, with many analysts predicting it will slide to parity with the greenback or even below.

But Mosler thinks the recent plunge has been caused by portfolio adjustments – investors shifting assets from euros to gold or dollars – and that this trend is nearly over.

Rising taxes and spending cuts, pledged by governments in the single European currency area to cut debt, are “like a crop failure” because they will decrease the amount of euros available, he said.

“Everything they do in the euro zone is highly deflationary,” Mosler told CNBC.com in a telephone interview.

“I think there’s a very good chance the euro would be stronger because of the austerity measures; this can very easily get it back to $1.50-$1.60,” he added.

To keep the euro down, the ECB would have to buy dollars but “ideologically, that would mean they’re accumulating dollar reserves,” which the European Union does not want, Mosler said.

The euro is unlikely to become a global reserve currency because the EU’s economic policy is geared towards growth based on exports and the euro zone is running a surplus, he explained.

“The only way the rest of the world will hold your currency is if you run a trade deficit,” he said. “Economics is the opposite of religion, it’s better to receive than to give.”

The ECB Could End the Debt Crisis

The European Central Bank could easily appease the fears of default which have plagued markets regarding by creating money and giving it to its members, Mosler said.

The ECB, “if it wants to credit any nation, it can,” he added. “The ECB could make a distribution of, say, 10 percent of GDP to each member. The ECB can just credit the accounts of the member nations based on how many people they have. That would reduce all debt ratios this year by 10 percent.”

The measure would not contradict EU anti-bailout rules, since the money would be distributed equally among members and if the cash is used to cover the deficit would not be inflationary, Mosler added.

“My proposal is to put the ECB in a position where governments become dependent of checks from the ECB,” he said. “Operationally, it’s very simple to do, you just credit their accounts. The Finance Ministers would direct the money.”

The central bank could make this an annual distribution, and attach financial discipline conditions to it, such as respecting the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact.

The country that does not respect the pact does not get the money, making it a more powerful enforcement mechanism and helping fight speculators at the same time, he explained.

Share

Our govt molding our children’s minds

Posted on by

See below what our govt. is directing at our children.

Truly depressing.

All donations to my campaign are added to what I’m spending anyway to try to get the word out.

Many thanks to all of you who have already donated, no matter how small!!!
It all goes into the pot to sustain the effort.

Also many thanks to all of you who continue to try to organize meetings and speaking events for me- much appreciated!

CBO’s Director’s Blog: Letter to a Seventh Grader

A short time ago, I received an interesting letter from a young man in Michigan asking about federal budget deficits. I thought that perhaps other students would be interested in the kinds of questions he asked and how I answered him, so I’ve decided to share my letter to him with all of you. Here’s what I wrote:

1. What are the primary causes of the current federal budget deficits?

The current large deficits are the result of a combination of factors. These include an imbalance between tax revenues and the government’s spending that began before the recent economic recession and turmoil in the financial markets, sharply lower revenues and higher spending related to current economic conditions, and the budgetary costs of policies put in place by the government to respond to those conditions.

2. How will budget deficits affect people under the age of 18?

The government runs a budget deficit when it spends more on its programs and activities than it collects in taxes and other revenues. The government needs to borrow to make up the difference. When the federal government borrows large amounts of money, it pushes interest rates higher, and people and businesses generally need to pay more to borrow money for themselves. As a result, they invest less in factories, office buildings, and equipment, and people in the future—including your generation—will have less income than they otherwise would.

Also, the government needs to pay interest on the money it borrows, which means there will be less money available for other things that the government will spend money on in the future. Squeezing other spending affects different people in different ways, depending on their individual situations. For example, many young people benefit from government programs that provide money to families in need of food or medical care or to people who have lost their job, or from the financial support the federal government provides to local schools, or from the grants or loans the government offers to help pay for college education.

3. How is the U.S. government working to reduce budget deficits?

The President created a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to draw up plans to address the deficit problem. Most of the people on the commission are Members of Congress.

The commission will consider ways to reduce the budget deficit by 2015 as well as ways to improve the long-term budget outlook. Under current government policies, the gap between the government’s spending and revenues in coming years will be large. Therefore, balancing the budget would require significant changes in spending, taxes, or both. On CBO’s Web site, you can find information about the budget outlook during the next 10 years and over the long term.

More information about the commission can be found on its Web site: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov.

Congress also has enacted a new law (called “Pay-As-You-Go”) that typically requires legislation that increases spending or lowers tax revenues to include other measures to offset the costs of those changes.

4. What can people, and especially school-aged children, do to help curb budget deficits? The most important thing that school-aged children can do to help reduce future deficits is to study hard and acquire the best possible education. This will help you and your classmates get better jobs when you grow up, which will help the economy grow. In turn, a stronger economy will produce higher tax receipts for the government, which will lower the deficit.

When young people get jobs, they should be sure to save some of the money they earn. Through a fun and important bit of math called compounding, savings of small amounts can grow over time into significant amounts. For the economy as a whole, the more people save, the more money is available for businesses to invest in factories, office buildings, and equipment. For individuals and families, more savings provide a financial cushion in times of economic difficulty. In particular, more savings can help people pay large medical expenses or save their home in case they lose their job or become ill, thus helping them avoid needing government assistance.

People of all ages can also help to reduce the deficit by learning how the government spends money and from whom the government collects money. Understanding the current budget is essential for choosing intelligently among different ways to change programs and policies in order to reduce deficits.

5. If I am to convey one key message to my school regarding the federal budget deficit, what would it be?

The prospect of budget deficits for many years in the future is a serious problem for our country. Ultimately, people in the United States will have to bring into balance the amount of services they expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the amount of taxes they are willing to send to the government to finance those services. Because it takes a long time to implement major policy changes, deciding what those changes will be is an urgent task for our citizens and for our policymakers.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us about these difficult issues.

Best wishes,

Doug Elmendorf

Share

Service Sector ISM//NFP

Posted on by


Karim writes:

Similar to manufacturing, service sector ISM stabilizing at high levels; Large increase in backlogs also bodes well for future activity.

With employment index now also crossing the 50 level, adds to upside potential in NFP tomorrow; look for headline NFP up ~600k; with ex-census up ~225k.



May April
PMI 55.4 55.4
Activity 61.1 60.3
Prices Paid 60.6 64.7
New Orders 57.1 58.2
Backlogs 56.0 49.5
Employment 50.4 49.5
Export Orders 53.5 57.0
Imports 56.5 56.5

Anecdotes below seem to bode well for corporate profits: demand improving and costs controlled.

  • “Our business continues to grow. We are significantly above last year’s pace.” (Information)
  • “Business is steady right now — not the normal spring for construction, but improving.” (Construction)
  • “Outlook is still generally flat for the remainder of this year, with signs that orders and activity will be picking up.” (Professional, Scientific & Technical Services)
  • “Continuing our pattern of cautious optimism. Consumers appear to be coming out of hibernation and willing to spend. We expect that if this trend can remain solid, we’ll in turn spend additional dollars to support and drive sales activities.” (Retail Trade)
  • “Customers’ activity is improving in some parts of the country.” (Wholesale Trade)
  • “We continue to ‘staff to volume’ in order to control labor and supply costs.”(Health Care & Social Assistance)

Yes, looking like we’re modestly improving domestically with the risks mainly external including spillover weakness form China and the euro zone.

Export growth down a touch but not serious to this point.

Share

latest Senatorial release

Posted on by

The JOBS candidate Warren Mosler announces his
Million Dollar Challenge to Senate CANDIDATES

Middletown, Conn. (June 2, 2010) – Warren Mosler, Independent candidate for US Senate, knows for a fact that, operationally, there is no such thing as the US government running out of dollars, being dependent on foreign borrowing, or potentially facing a solvency crisis like Greece, and he has pledged $1 million of his own money to any of his Senate opponents on the ballot who can prove him wrong.

“Those concerns are due to pure fear mongering from supposed experts. They have no factual basis, and they have become the true obstacles to the return of full employment and prosperity” said Mosler, who added “and there is absolutely no financial reason to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.”

Many have also argued that the nation’s growing debt rules out further tax reductions, but Mosler says those assertions are blatantly untrue, proposing a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday for employees and employers that will add over $300/mo to the take home pay of someone earning $50,000 a year. This plan and similar initiatives will reintroduce the capital the economy needs to prosper and grow.

“We lost over 8 million private sector jobs primarily for one reason- sales collapsed,” said Mosler. “My full payroll tax (FICA) holiday for employees and employers boosts take home pay and helps lower prices to quickly restore those lost sales which brings back the lost jobs, fixing the economy the right way, the American way, from the bottom up.”

In the midst of our social and economic calamity, with the Republican and Democratic candidates offering no viable plans to restore full employment, Mosler, an expert in monetary operations, is uniquely qualified to quickly move America back to full employment and prosperity. He knows the American economy works best when people working for a living have enough take home pay to buy the goods and services they produce, with business competing for those consumer dollars.

Mosler congratulated candidates McMahon and Blumenthal on their convention victories, and looks forward to public debate on the urgent economic issues facing our nation and the world.

“We have seen Republicans and Democrats overseeing the devastatingly tragic loss of over 8 million jobs. And while lower income people working for a living struggle to survive, elites who contributed to our problems rake in billions from bailouts,” said Mosler. “It’s time the government focuses on getting its hand out of the pocket of the hard working Americans who make this country great.”

See www.moslerforsenate.com for details of Mosler’s ‘Right on the Money’ proposals and his $1 Million Challenge.

Share

Taylor

Posted on by

This means we can have far lower taxes for any given amount of govt spending.

Hope they all see it that way!

Friday, May 21, 2010

The Administration and the IMF on the Multiplier
In a soon to be published paper, several economists at the International Monetary Fund report estimates of government spending multipliers which are much smaller than those previously reported by the U.S.

Administration. In order to obtain the estimates the IMF economists use a very large complex model called the Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal (GIMF) Model developed by Douglas Laxton and his colleagues at the IMF . The paper is quite technical, but the bottom line summary is that a one percent increase in government purchases (as a share of GDP) increases GDP by a maximum of 0.7 percent and then fades out rapidly. This means that government spending crowds out other components of GDP (investment, consumption, net exports) immediately and by a large amount.

The IMF estimate is much less than the multiplier reported in a paper released last year by Christina Romer of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein of the Vice President’s Office. The attached graph shows how huge the difference is. It shows the impact on GDP of a one percentage point permanent increase in government purchases as a share of GDP reported in the IMF paper (labeled GIMF) and in the Administration paper (labeled Romer-Bernstein).

John Cogan, Volker Wieland, Tobias Cwik and I raised questions about Romer-Bernstein paper soon after it was released last year because the estimates seemed to be much different from comparable estimates based on more modern new Keynesian models. We classified the Romer-Bernstein estimates as old Keynesian. Since then many technical papers have been written on this subject, of which a recent paper by Michael Woodford is the most comprehensive in my view. The IMF model is of the new Keynesian variety and adds more evidence of the huge policy differences between new Keynesian and old Keynesian models.

Posted by John B. Taylor at 12:48 AM

Share

Mtg Purchase Applications

Posted on by

Obvious that the end of the $8,000 first time home buyer credit caused a spike that has been more than reversed, much like November.

The question is how much that pull back, along with the euro and China issues, will slow what has been a moderately growing US economy.

With demand leakages like pension fund contributions and income compounding in pension funds and other corporate reserves, aggregate demand can only be sustained by the private sector or the public sector spending more than its income.

And right now the drivers of private sector debt- housing and cars- don’t show signs of the increases necessary to close our output gap.

That leaves the public sector.

For the current size of govt, we remain grossly over taxed by a govt that thinks its run out of money and is now dependent on the confidence of investors to fund itself.

Note, for example, the expired unemployment benefits mean a reduction in aggregate demand which in fact works against employment.

And this is with a Democratic majority.

As long as the ‘deadly innocent fraud’ that to be able to spend dollars the US Govt needs to tax or borrow is taken as a given, it seems unlikely that pro growth policy will be implemented and unlikely growth will be sufficient to materially close the output gap any time soon.

Share

EU News

Posted on by

Pretty much all bad:

European Unemployment Unexpectedly Increases to 12-Year High

Trichet Says Fiscal Sustainability Fosters Confidence, Growth

By that he means the austerity measures/deficit cutting which only makes things worse.

Trichet Says ECB ‘Fiercely Independent,’ Stable Prices Mandate

Just doing his job.

Trichet sees need for ‘budgetary federation’

He’s sees this as a watchdog to keep deficits down.

Trichet Says ECB Won’t Tolerate Budget Indiscipline Any Longer

He’s concerned about the secondary mkt purchases of greek debt meaning even this very modest support is in question.

ECB’s Noyer Says Rating Firms Aggravating Crisis

Weber Says ECB Bond Purchases Musn’t Exceed ‘Tight Limits’

More talk on limiting ECB purchases.

ECB’s Stark Says Bank May Start Withdrawing Liquidity in July

Doesn’t matter but indicates their attitude.

Nowotny Sees No Risk of Double-Dip Recession due to Austerity

That’s the entire source of the risk of a double dip recession.

Bank of Italy: EU euro defense package can’t last

And calls for a return to the 3% deficit limits.

ECB: Banks Will Suffer Considerable Loan Losses In 2010, 2011

Bank deposits are insured only by the national govts that are already seeing their funding threatened.

ECB warns of ‘hazardous contagion’

True, but they have their channels totally confused.

Trichet Says Second-Quarter Growth May Be Better Than Expected

European Manufacturing Growth Slowed More Than Estimated in May

Germans, ECB Spar Over Bond Plan

After Debt Crisis, New Tension Between ECB, Germany

Survey suggests Germans are unhappy with Merkel

Merkel Says Budget Deficit Looks ‘Moderate’ Versus Spain, U.K.

Still doesn’t get how the UK comp isn’t applicable.

Hypo Real Estate gets more loan guarantees

Spain presses for labor market reform deal

Fitch downgrades Spain’s credit rating

European Loans Post First Annual Increase in Eight Months

German Unemployment Falls Twice as Much as Forecast

German Retail Sales Rose in April on Declining Unemployment

French New Car Sales Fall 12% in May, After 12 Monthly Gains

Italian Unemployment Climbs as Recovery Fails to Create Jobs

Share