I’m ok, eur ok?

First, the euro funding issue/crisis could vanish with a simple announcement, like:

The ECB hereby guarantees all the debt of the national governments.

But they won’t do that.
They are worried about their ability to subsequently enforce the Growth and Stability Pact, which has already proven unenforceable.

In fact, the only enforcement tool for austerity seems to rest with the ECB, which conditions its funding on austerity.

This is also the disciplinary principle behind my proposed ECB annual revenue distribution of maybe 10% of euro zone GDP to the national govts on a per capita basis-
The ECB would have the right to withhold future distributions to members who fail to comply with deficit rules. But this proposal isn’t even a consideration, so not likely to happen.

Mosler bonds (in the case of default they can be used for payment of taxes) for individual euro nations offer real hope, but time is short and the political process long.

That leaves the euro zone with what it’s been doing all along.
Muddle along anticipating, entertaining, debating, various funding proposals,
but ultimately,
when it gets bad enough,
relying on the ECB writing the check and buying national govt debt in the market place to facilitate ongoing funding.

All contingent with the member nation in question complying with terms and conditions of austerity set by the ECB.

It’s all highly deflationary, strong euro medicine, while it lasts.
It’s also operationally sustainable.
And phase 1- where austerity reduces deficits- has proven politically sustainable as well.

However we may now be entering phase 2,
where austerity results in falling GDP and higher deficits for all the euro members.
Yes, it’s operationally sustainable and continues to support the euro.

So the question is whether austerity measures intended to bring deficits down, that instead cause deficits to increase, are politically sustainable.

And, if not, what next?
And when?
How bad does it all have to get before they change policy?
And what change would that be?
The first step would probably be some ‘new’ form of QE,
and maybe even an interest rate cut,
which only make things worse,
as they wait for the appropriate lag before said policy ‘kicks in’.

And how long would it all continue to deteriorate before they stop waiting for it to ‘kick in’ and again change policy?

US deficit reduction round 2 coming soon as well.

To again quote that carpenter working on his piece of wood,
‘no matter how many times i cut it, it’s still too short’.

Is a misguided fuss over a reserve drain going to bring down global capitalism?

Statement by President Herbert Hoover on March 8, 1932

This statement was issued by President Herbert Hoover on March 8, 1932:

“The whole of the administrative officials are cooperating with the special Economy Committee appointed by the House of Representatives in the drive to bring about further drastic economies in Federal expenditure.

“You will recollect that the budget sent to Congress represented reductions in expenditures for the next fiscal year of about $365 million below the present fiscal year. The House Appropriations Committee has reduced the amounts of bills so far reported out by about $112 million. Of this, however, between 60 and 70 million is a deferment until Congress meets next December when they will be compelled to meet positive obligations by deficiency bills. To this extent, therefore, the reductions do not help next year’s expenditures.

“In order to meet the requirements of the Ways and Means Committee that expenditures must be reduced by $125 million in order to balance the budget, it is necessary that further cuts be made. There is very little room left for reductions by administrative action and the House Appropriations Committee has passed upon the major supply bills except the Army and Navy. Further economies must be brought about by authorization of Congress, either by reorganization of the Federal machinery or change in the legal requirements as to expenditure by the various services.

“The Director of Veterans’ Affairs has proposed to the special House Committee on Economy some changes in the laws relating to pensions and other allowances which would produce economies of between 50 and 60 millions per annum. The Postmaster General is placing before the committee changes in the legal requirements of Post Office expenditures. The Secretary of Agriculture has suggested changes in the law requiring expenditures in the Department of Agriculture, and the other departments are engaged in preparation of similar drastic recommendations.

“I believe the Committee on Economy, through administrative reorganization and such methods as I have mentioned, will be able to find a large area of economy.

“Nothing is more important than balancing the budget with the least increase in taxes. The Federal Government should be in such position that it will need issue no securities which increase the public debt after the beginning of the next fiscal year, July 1. That is vital to the still further promotion of employment and agriculture. It gives positive assurance to business and industry that the Government will keep out of the money market and allow industry and agriculture to borrow the monies required for the conduct of business. I cannot overemphasize the importance of the able nonpartisan effort being made by the Ways and Means Committee and the Economy Committee of the House whose work are complementary to each other.

Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

Spending cuts have higher multiples, but in any case it’s all beside the point.

The problem is the deficit is too small, not too large.

After the post S&P downgrade discussions, where all agree the US govt ‘prints the dollar’
the argument that there could be a Greek like financial crisis has quietly vanished.

The only remaining case against the deficit,
which no one is making,
for obvious reasons,
is that inflation from ‘overspending’ is too high, and even higher levels of unemployment are needed to fight inflation.

Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

August 22 (AP) — The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.


The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor’s downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country’s fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.

At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years.

payroll tax hike on the way?

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

By Charles Babington

August 22 (AP) — News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes. Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he “would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side” to spur job growth, his campaign said.

Romney completely misses the point, unless he wants it known he’s for favoring employers over employees?

Jobs come mainly from sales, and cutting payroll taxes for workers increases spending, sales, and jobs.

Cutting payroll taxes for business also has benefits, as that reduces costs which puts downward pressure on prices which helps consumers and does thereby add to sales, but in a much smaller way.

I continue to propose we suspend FICA entirely.

Looks to me like this latest discussion will only strengthen suspicions that Republicans are trying to keep the economy from improving to hurt the President’s chances of winning next year.