Markets are getting closer to the idea that:

Interest rates don’t/won’t help
QE doesn’t/won’t help

With the larger point being coming to terms with the possibility the Fed can’t inflate, or do much of anything that actually matters for the real economy, except maybe fund zombie entities to keep them from failing.

So bonds are throwing in the inflation towel and yields are coming down.
The dollar is going up with miles to go before ppp is reached.
Gold is well off the highs and being held up probably by europeans running from the euro to dollars and a bit of gold.

(***Bernanke just again testified that a contango in futures prices is a reasonable forecast of higher prices down the road. So much for the credibility of their inflation forecast)

Meanwhile the eurozone is continuing it’s methodical implosion with no credible response in sight.
And the realization that all eurozone bank deposits are only insured by the national govts has yet to hit the headlines.

The Obama administration believes the US Treasury is ‘out of money’ and we have to borrow from China to spend and leave that for our children to pay back.
So any kind of meaningful US fiscal response seems off the table.

The American economy works best when people working for a living make enough to be able to one way or another buy their own output, and business competes for their dollars. It’s not happening.

We are grossly overtaxed for current circumstances with no meaningful relief in sight.

Lots of reasons to stay on the sidelines.

[Skip to the end]

This is the text of the address I gave at Dallas.

Will be repeating it in a northern Va meeting next weekend.

Still waiting for the video.

Feel free to distribute.

How tea party democrats can run successfully in the primaries

Honesty in government is a core value of the Tea Party movement and the most basic value in any representative democracy. Accordingly, my first proposal is that all candidates for public office be sworn in: ‘I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.’ As a consequence, any subsequent lies are perjury, and punishable by law.

I am here to discuss how I believe Tea Party Democrats can win in upcoming Democratic primaries. The answer is to emulate and extend the success of the Tea Party movement by getting back to basics. The Democratic party is the party of Jefferson and Jackson. The founders believed that the public voice should be heard. They believed in limited government. And they never kowtowed to special interests or cowered before purveyors of the conventional wisdom. This means Tea Party Democrats should be running against the Obama administration’s policies which are counter to both traditional Democratic values and Tea Party values.

It is the Washington elite that have moved away from the ideals of Jefferson and Jackson with policies that are, at best, regressive, elitist, and destructive to our quality of life. For example, with unemployment rising, real wage growth falling, and GDP now growing at over 5%, who’s getting all that increase in real goods and services?

Not the millions who voted Democratic who are losing their jobs and their homes, and watching wages fall even as their cost of living goes up. All that real wealth being created is instead rising to the top, due to impossible trickle down policies that would have made even Reagan blush.

The large majority of Americans that elected this administration did not do so to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values. But it’s clearly happening as even a blind man can see. And all because they don’t understand the monetary system, how and why government spends and taxes, and why we don’t owe China anything more than a bank statement.

I will devote most of the rest of my time talking about the economy. In part, that is because it is my area of expertise, given that I have spent most of my adult life in financial markets. But the most important reason is it is in that arena that the Washington elite have failed us the most. The so-called economic experts have confused themselves and their political masters with contrived explanations for the way the economy works. Their limited vision has limited the range of policy choice. And the result has been a monumental economic disaster and human tragedy.

My first proposal for the economy encompasses both the Tea Party and traditional Democratic values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and reliance on competitive markets. Working through the logic of this proposal will show both how this straightforward government policy can work, and how convoluted is the elite’s understanding of finance.

I believe that the surest engine for full economic recovery is a full payroll tax holiday. Payroll taxes take away over 15% of everyone’s paycheck, from the very first dollar earned. This is big money- about $1 trillion per year. Half comes from the employee and half from the employer. A payroll tax holiday does not give anyone anything. What it does is stop taking away $1 trillion a year from working people struggling to make their payments and stay in their homes, and businesses struggling to survive. A full payroll tax holiday means a husband and wife earning $50,000 a year each will see their combined take home pay go up by over $650 a month, so they can make their mortgage payments and their car payments and maybe even do a little shopping.

This fixes the banks and fixes the economy, from what I call the bottom up. It fixes the banks without giving them anything more than people who can afford to make their payments. That’s all they need to remain viable.

And what all businesses need most to expand output and employment is people with spending money who can buy their products. Without people to buy goods and services, nothing happens. The payroll tax holiday also means there is also a big reduction in expenses for business. With competitive markets this means lower prices, which also helps consumers, helps keep inflation down, helps businesses compete domestically and in world markets to help optimize our real terms of trade, and helps keep the currency stable as the dollar is ultimately worth what it can buy. So with the payroll tax holiday we get a dramatic increase in economic activity, rising employment in good jobs, and better prices. And we’ll see millions of new jobs, because, again, what business needs most is people with money to buy their products. Then they hire and expand.

What I don’t see is how any self respecting Democrat can allow this tax to stand for a single moment. It is the most regressive, punishing tax we’ve ever had. It starts from the first dollar earned with a cap at $106,800 per year. It’s an utter disgrace to the Democratic party. It should be immediately eliminated. Yet, instead, the Washington Democratic elite are actually discussing increasing it.

Let’s now back up and review how we got to where we are at this moment in time. Headline unemployment is unthinkably high at 10%, and if you count workers who have given up looking for a full time job, it’s over 17%. As you all know, it’s about the financial crisis. The banks got in trouble when their loans went bad. Well, what makes a loan go bad? Only one thing- people who can’t make their payments. If people make their payments, the loans are AAA. If people don’t make their payments the loans are junk and toxic waste. No matter what the security is- a loan, a cmo, cdo, clo, or whatever, it’s all the same. If people are making their loan payments there is no financial crisis. Unfortunately, instead of attacking the problem from the bottom up with a payroll tax holiday, we have an administration that thinks it first needs to fix the financial sector from the top down, before the real economy can improve. This is completely upside down. But the elites believe it, so that’s what they have done to us.

So starting with President Bush, and supported by both Senators McCain and Obama, they funded the financial sector with trillions, while they kept taking away trillions from people working for a living who couldn’t make their payments.

How does that help anyone make their payments, apart from a few bankers? It doesn’t.

What happened for the next year and a half? The banks muddled through, profits and bonuses returned, but unemployment skyrocketed and is still going up, loan delinquencies and defaults and foreclosures skyrocketed and are still going up, and millions of Americans still can’t make their payments and are losing their homes. And a lot of the money the banks are making on federal support is being drained by continuing loan losses. We are getting nowhere as tens of millions of lives are being destroyed by policy makers who simply don’t understand how the monetary system works.

This has been a trickle down policy where nothing has trickled down, because there is no connection between funding the banks, and the incomes of people trying to make their payments. The answer, of course, is instead of giving trillions to the banks, to simply stop taking away trillions from people still working for a living. The government doesn’t even have to give us anything, just stop taking away the trillion dollars a year of payroll taxes with a full payroll tax holiday.

But then there’s the nagging question of ‘how are we going to pay for it? Aren’t we just going to have to borrow more money from China and leave it for our children to pay back? And if it doesn’t work, then where are we, another trillion in debt with nothing to show for it?’
And, in fact the failure to understand that question of ‘how are you going to pay for it’ is exactly what has set the Democratic party, and the nation, on the current path of economic ruin. Therefore, to run successfully against the Democrats who support current policy it is critical you understand what I’m going to say next. This understanding is the basis for achieving our core values of limited government and lower taxes. And what I’m about to tell you is pure, undisputable fact, and not theory or philosophy.

So let me start by examining exactly how government spends at what’s called the operational level. In other words, exactly how does government spend? And this is for the federal government, not the State and local government, who are in much the same position as you and I are. Well, when the federal government spends, it simply changes numbers up in bank accounts. Last May Fed Chairman Bernanke answered Congressman Pelley’s question about where the money comes from that the banks are getting. Bernanke told him the banks have accounts at the Fed and the Fed simply ‘marks them up’- changes the numbers in their bank accounts.

• (PELLEY) Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
• (BERNANKE) It’s not tax money. The banks have– accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

The Chairman is exactly right. All government spending is simply a matter of changing numbers upward in our bank accounts. It doesn’t come from anywhere. Just like when you kick a field goal and get 3 points. Where does the stadium get those points? Right, they don’t come from anywhere. It’s just scorekeeping. And that’s exactly how government actually pays for anything.

All it ever does, and ever can do when it spends, is mark up numbers in bank accounts, as the Fed Chairman told us. And with online banking you can actually watch it happen. When a government payment hits your account you can actually watch as the numbers change upward on your computer screen. And notice I’ve never mentioned China or anyone else in this spending process. They are simply not involved. Spending is done by changing numbers higher in our bank accounts. What China does or doesn’t do has nothing to do with this process. Again, this is not some theory or philosophy. It’s simply how it actually works. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it. I grew up on the money desk at Banker’s Trust on Wall St. in the 70’s, and I visit the Fed regularly and discuss monetary operations. I know exactly how it all works.

Now let’s look at how government taxes. And keep in mind what any Congressman will tell you- we have to get money from taxing or borrowing to be able to spend it.
Well, with modern on line banking you can watch what happens when a tax is paid. Suppose you have $5,000 in your bank account and you write a check to the government for $1,000 to pay your taxes. What happens? You can see it on your computer screen. The number 5,000 changes into the number 4,000. The number 5 changes to the number 4. All the government did is change the number in your bank account. They didn’t ‘get’ anything. No gold coins dropped into a box at the Fed. Yes, they account for it, which means they keep track of what they do, but they don’t actually get anything that they give to anyone. The man at the IRS simply changes numbers down in our bank accounts when he collects taxes. And, if you pay your taxes with actual cash, they give you a receipt, and then shred it. How does taking your cash and shredding it pay for anything? It doesn’t. Taxes don’t give the government anything to use to make payments.

So the absolute fact of the matter is, the government never has nor doesn’t have dollars. It taxes by changing numbers down, but doesn’t get anything. It spends by changing numbers up and doesn’t use up anything. Government can’t ‘run out of money’ like our President has repeated many times. There isn’t anything to run out of. It’s just data entry, it’s score keeping. And it has nothing to do with China, which I’ll get to shortly.

So why then does the government tax at all? To control our spending power, which economists call aggregate demand. If the government didn’t tax us at all and let us spend all the money we earn, and government spent all the money it wanted to spend, the result would be a lot of inflation, caused by more spending then there are real goods and services for sale. Too much spending power chasing too few goods and services is a sure way to drive up prices. So the purpose of taxes is to regulate the economy. If the economy is too hot, taxes can be raised to cool it down. If the economy is too cold, as it obviously is today, taxes should be cut to warm it up back to operating temperature.

Taxes are like the thermostat. When it gets too hot or too cold you adjust it. It’s not about collecting revenues, there is no such thing, government never has nor doesn’t have any dollars, it just changes numbers up and down in our bank accounts. It’s all about looking at the economy and deciding whether it’s too hot or too cold, and then making an adjustment.

So, given all this, just what does ‘fiscal responsibility’ mean?
Fiscal responsibility means not overtaxing us to the point we are at today with record unemployment. And Fiscal Responsibility means not spending so much or taxing so little that the economy ‘overheats’ and inflation becomes a problem. That’s what fiscal responsibility means. That’s all it means. The government is responsible for getting the economy right, and the monetary system, including taxation, is a tool for that job.
Taxation is a tool to get the economy right.

So where does China and borrowing come into the picture? To be a successful Tea Party Democrat you will have to understand this and be able to explain it.
So first, how does China get its dollars? It sells things to us and gets paid for them.

And where does China keep its dollars? In a bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank which they call a reserve account. It’s nothing more than a checking account with a fancy name. And why does China buy Treasury securities? To earn a bit more interest.

And what is a Treasury security? It is nothing more than a savings account at the Federal Reserve Bank with a fancy name. And just like any other savings account at any other bank, with a Treasury security you give the Federal Reserve Bank money, and you get it back plus interest. So when China buys a Treasury security, what happens? The Fed moves their funds- the money they earned from selling things to us- from their checking account at the Fed to their savings account at the Fed.

And what happens when those Treasury securities- savings accounts- come due? How do we pay off China? The Fed just moves the funds from China’s savings account at the Fed back to their checking account at the Fed, and makes the number a little higher to include the interest. That’s it. Debt paid. And our children will continue to do this just like our fathers did before us. None of this involves what we call government spending. When government spends to buy something or pay someone else, it just ‘marks up’- as Chairman Bernanke put it- numbers in bank accounts. China’s bank accounts at the Fed are not involved. So why is this administration kowtowing to China on everything from Korea to human rights? And why do we go over there, thinking they are our government’s bankers, worried about getting their money to spend on everything from health care to Afghanistan, when there is no such thing as the US government getting money to spend? Why? There is only one reason. This administration does not understand the monetary system. They reason the Democrats are against a payroll tax holiday is because they think they need those actual revenues to support their spending.

So yes, we are grossly overtaxed and that’s what’s causing the sky high unemployment and the failed economy, as well as the ongoing banking crisis. And fiscal responsibility means setting taxes at the right level to sustain our spending power- not to hot and not too cold, but just right for optimal output and employment and price stability, and a return to prosperity.

And this brings up the next question, which is how to determine the right size of government. First, tax revenues don’t tell us anything about that. Taxing is just changing numbers down. It doesn’t give us anything to spend. Spending is changing numbers up; there is no numerical limit to spending.

So how do we decide how much government we want if the money doesn’t tell us anything? We do it on a very practical level. For example, when it comes to the military we need to ask ourselves, how many soldiers do we need to defend ourselves? How many planes, boats, tanks, and missiles do we need? The more we need, the more people we take who could be in the private sector producing real private sector goods and services, including doctors and nurses, teachers and teaching assistants, scientists and engineers, etc. etc. The military also uses up real resources like oil and steel. That’s the real cost of the military- how many people and resources it takes away from productive private sector activity.

What is the right size for the legal system? That depends on how long you want to wait for a court date, or for a decision. If the process is too slow, we may need more people working there, or we may need better technology. And again, the more people in government, the fewer there are to work in the private sector.

Once we have decided on the ‘right size’ of government, and pay for it by changing numbers up in people’s bank accounts when government spends, we have to decide the right amount to tax to keep the economy not too hot and not too cold, but just right. My educated guess would be, in a normal economy, to start with taxes that are less then spending by about 5% of GDP, if history is any guide. If I’m wrong taxes can either be lowered or raised to get it right. And when government spends more than it taxes- when it changes numbers up more than it changes down- we call that difference the budget deficit.

And when government changes more numbers changed up than down, the economy has exactly that many more dollars in it, which adds exactly that much to the savings of the economy. In fact, in US National Income Accounting, as taught in economics 101, the government deficit equals the total savings of financial assets in the rest of the economy, to the penny. Yes, deficits add to our monetary savings, to the penny. And everyone I’ve talked to in the Congressional Budget Office knows it. And it’s just common sense as well that if government changes numbers up in our bank accounts more than it changes them down, we have exactly that many more dollars.

Let me add one more thing about the size of government. It makes no sense to me to grow the size of the government just because the economy is too cold, if we already have the right sized government. And if we don’t have the right sized government we should immediately get it right, and then adjust taxes if the economy is too hot or too cold.
With this grasp of the fundamentals of taxing, spending, and the size of government, a Tea Party Democrat is well armed to take on the Democratic establishment that’s overtaxing us, driving up unemployment to today’s record levels, destroying our economy and standard of living, and arbitrarily growing government as well.

Conclusions:

Tea Party Democrats have a unique opportunity to be a part of history and overturn the ideas the current administration is employing that are, at best, regressive, elitist, and destructive to our quality of life.

With unemployment rising, real wage growth falling, and GDP now growing at about 4%, who’s getting that increased GDP? Not the millions who voted Democratic who are losing their jobs and their homes, and watching their wages fall. That real wealth being created is instead rising to the top, due to the Obama administration’s impossible trickle down policies. This administration was not elected to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values. But it’s clearly happening, and all because they don’t understand the monetary system, the don’t understand how and why government spends and taxes, and the don’t understand why we don’t owe China anything more than a bank statement.

The door is wide open for an enlightened, populist Democrat to lead the way to a new era of unsurpassed national prosperity.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Tea Party Plan for Democrats — Cut to the Front with Tax Cuts

At Saturday’s Tea Party conference in Dallas I’ll be outlining how Tea Party Democrats can run against Obama administration policies that are counter to both Tea Party and traditional Democratic values. It is the Washington elite that have moved away from the ideals of Jefferson and Jackson with policies that are, at best, regressive, elitist, and destructive to our quality of life. And who’s benefiting? Not the millions who voted Democratic who are losing their jobs and their homes. And with GDP now moving higher while unemployment rises, all that additional wealth is flowing up to the top. This Democratic President and Congress was not elected to enrich the bankers, insurance executives, drug companies, and union leaders at the expense of the rest of us, in a perversion of true core Democratic values. Unfortunately, the so-called economic experts have confused themselves and their political masters with contrived explanations for the way the economy works, and their limited vision has limited the range of policy choice. The result has been a monumental economic and social disaster caused by an obvious shortage of aggregate demand. The spending power needed to make mortgage payments, car payments, and do a bit of shopping- all of which would fix the economy and end the financial crisis- just isn’t there.

The answer is a full payroll tax holiday, where the US Treasury would make all FICA payments for both employees and employers that regressively remove 15% of every pay check from dollar one up to $106,800 of income. The take home pay of a husband and wife with a combined income of $100,000 per year would increase by over $650 a month, and quickly restore output and employment. Rather than funding the banks from the top down with an improbable trickle down theory that would have made Reagan blush, this tax cut restores the incomes necessary to support all economic activity from the bottom up. Instead of funding the financial sector with $trillions, the payroll tax holiday instead simply stops taking $trillions away from people working for a living.

Unfortunately, the Democratic elite has been not only against this kind of tax cut, even though it is a tax so regressive that no self respecting Democrat should tolerate for a single moment, because they think the Federal Government has to actually get revenue to be able to spend. However, that anachronistic gold standard reality has long been replace by our current, non convertible currency regime and floating exchange rate policy. Chairman Bernanke told Congressman Pelley exactly how the Federal Government spends today last May:

(PELLEY) Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
(BERNANKE) It’s not tax money. The banks have– accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

Our govt has only one way to spend- they ‘mark up’ numbers in bank accounts. The funds don’t ‘come from’ anywhere any more than the 6 points for a touchdown posted on scoreboard at a football game ‘come from’ anywhere. Nor does govt. get anything when it taxes- the IRS just changes numbers down in our bank accounts.

The fact is, the US Government never has nor doesn’t have dollars. It’s the scorekeeper for the dollar. It just changes numbers in bank accounts.

So why tax? To regulate aggregate demand. Taxation is the thermostat. When the economy is too hot, raise taxes to cool it down. When it’s too cold, like it surely is today, a payroll tax holiday will warm it back up to operating temperature.

The Democratic elite have it wrong and their wrongheaded ways are doing serious damage to the US economy and the people struggling under their failed economic agenda. And their latest moves towards what they call ‘fiscal responsibility’ will only cut demand further and make things worse.

Tea Party Democrats can lead the way towards true fiscal responsibility, which means setting taxes at the right level needed to sustain output and employment. And today that means a full payroll tax holiday.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Obama: Bank Regulators May Have Gotten Too Tough

Jan. 22 (AP) —President Barack Obama said on Friday that regulatory oversight of the country’s banks might now be erring too much on the side of caution, potentially hindering the flow of credit to small businesses.

This is definitely the case. It’s called regulatory overreach, as previously discussed on my website.

“The banks feel as if regulators are looking over their shoulder, discouraging them from lending,” Obama told a town-hall style meeting in Elyira, Ohio during a trip to promote his jobs and health care policies.

Obama said it was not his intention to interfere with bank supervision. But he had told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to make sure that the country has not “seen the pendulum swing too far”, with regulators now being too tough after being too slack in the past.

Including the risk weight rules that require non senior impaired securities to functionally be marked at 0.

On other issues, it was a combative Obama that exhorted Congress to pass a new job-creation bill, taking a populist appeal to America’s recession-racked Rust Belt in an effort to recapture the excitement of his campaign.

Obama weaved us-against-them rhetoric into his appearances, telling a town hall audience that he “will never stop fighting” for an economy that works for the hard-working, not just those already well off.

He said a jobs bill emerging in Congress must include tax breaks for small business hiring and for people trying to make their homes more energy efficient — two proposals he wasn’t able to get into a bill the House passed last month.

He also pitched fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. Not sure how he proposes to do both, as below.

And he used the word “fight” or some variation of it over a dozen times. The House-passed $174 billion stimulus package faces a stern test in the Senate, in part because it is financed with deficit spending.

He strongly defended unpopular actions he has taken to bail out banks and insurers and to rescue automakers from collapse. Such measures have not gone over well in many quarters, and have been derided as moves that expanded government intervention and swelled the deficit.

The measures were seen as a helping hand for Wall Street while many on Main Street walked the unemployment lines.

Obama said that propping up the financial industry was as much about regular Americans as wealthy bankers. “If the financial system had gone down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with it,” he argued.

As before, he states his belief in a top down solution.

Similarly, allowing GM and Chrysler to go under might have satisfied calls to force businesses to reap the consequences of bad decisions.

Cleaning up Chrysler to hand it over to Fiat to import Fiats to compete with GM seems a confused strategy to me.

But he also said, “Hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been hurt, not just at those companies themselves, but at other auto companies and at their suppliers and dealers, here in Ohio, up in Michigan, and all across this country.”

Missing the macro benefits by seeing only the very micro results in sub optimal solutions.

“He’s done a lot, but they are all negative things,” said Ray Angell, 65, of Twinsburg, Ohio, a conservative active in the anti-tax Tea Party movement, mentioning the stimulus package and climate change proposals.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Not exactly a unified front for the team.

TREASURY SECRETARY GEITHNER HAS EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS ABOUT PROPOSED U.S.
BIG BANK LIMITS ANNOUNCED ON TUESDAY–FINANCIAL INDUSTRY SOURCES

GEITHNER HAS CONCERNS LIMITS DO NOT NECESSARILY GET AT PROBLEMS THAT FUELED
FINANCIAL CRISIS–SOURCES

GEITHNER HAS CONCERNS THAT POLITICS INFLUENCING REFORMS–SOURCES

[top]

[Skip to the end]

I am undeniably disappointed in Obama, though I recognize that he has had some very difficult stuff to deal with.

At the time I voted for him, I was a deficit hawk and pretty neo-liberal in outlook. Initially I was even highly skeptical of the stimulus! After Obama was elected, I realized that as an ordinary citizen, I did not understand economics at all. So I have been trying to actually learn about it, and read Keynes, Friedman (for balance, I guess), and Minsky, along with every economics blog I could find (left, right, and center). The result (so far) is that I end up going through an “everything you know is wrong” revelation with MMT. The tipping point for me was Warren Mosler asking where the points come from on a scoreboard and saying that when you pay taxes, the government destroys your money, because it does not need it to spend, via your “Should America Kowtow to China?” post. Then it just hit me like a ton of bricks - everything you know about macroeconomics is wrong. It’s hard to sufficiently emphasize how hard I was suddenly hit by it. So at least from my perspective, much of the disappointment arises from me actually changing my opinions, less from disappointment in him.

Another, larger, better targeted fiscal stimulus is needed. But with his current economic advisers, not to mention the political mood, there is no way that will actually happen. People don’t understand why it is needed because people do not understand the macro-economy. People are scared by the banal gold-standard conventional wisdom that “our children will have to re-pay the national debt,” and that “the government is going to go bankrupt.” As long as (normal but reasonably educated) people think that way, it would be suicide for any politician to actually do what is needed to fix the economy, even if that politician actually understood why it was necessary, which of course none of them do.

Well, at least Obama’s better than McCain. We would probably have lunacy like a spending freeze with him in charge.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Fixing the Small Banks

The Obama administration has been preaching the importance of fixing the small banks and getting them lending again. This will review what I see as the critical issue and how to fix it.

First, the answer:

1. The Fed should loan fed funds (unsecured) in unlimited quantities to all member banks.

2. The regulators should then drop all requirements that a % of bank funding be ‘retail’ deposits.

Yes, it is that simple. This simple, easly to implement ‘fix’ will immediately work to restore small bank lending from the bottom up by removing unnecessary costs imposed by current government policy.

The current problem with small banks is their too high marginal cost of funds. The only reason the Fed hasn’t expressed an interest in ‘opening the spigot’ and supplying unlimited funding at its target interest rate to any member bank to bring down this elevated cost of funds has to be a lack of understanding of our banking system.

Currently the true marginal cost of funds to small banks is probably at least 2% over the fed funds rate. This is keeping their minimum lending rates at least that much higher, which also works to exclude borrowers who need that much more income to service their borrowings, all else equal.

The primary reason for the high cost of funds is the requirement for ‘retail deposits’ that causes the banks to compete for a finite amount of available deposits in this ‘category.’ While, operationally, loans create deposits, and there are always exactly enough deposits to fund all loans, there are some leakages. These include cash in circulation, the fact that some banks, particularly large, money center banks, have excess retail deposits, and a few other ‘operating factors.’ This causes small banks to bid up the price of retail deposits in the broker CD markets and raise the cost of funds for all of them, with any bank considered even remotely ‘weak’ paying even higher rates, even though its deposits are fully FDIC insured. Additionally, small banks are driven to open expensive branches that can add over 1% to a bank’s true marginal cost of funds, to attempt to attract retail deposits. So by driving small banks to compete for a limited and difficult to access source of funding the regulators have effectively raised the cost of funds for small banks.

It should be clear my solution would immediately lower the marginal cost of funds for small banks. I’ll now attempt to address the usual host of objections to my proposal.

There are always two fundamentals to keep in mind when contemplating banking with a non convertible currency and floating exchange rate:

1. The liability side of banking is not the place for market discipline.

2. The Fed and monetary policy in general is about prices (interest rates) and not quantities.

Disciplining banks on the liability side has been tried repeatedly and always and necessarily fails. First, it’s fundamentally impractical to the point of ridiculous to expect anyone looking to open a checking account or savings account, for example, to be responsible for analyzing the finances of competing banks for solvency, when even Wall Street analysts can’t reliably do this. The US leaned this the hard way when the banking system was closed in 1934, reopening with Federal deposit insurance for bank deposits for the sole purpose of removing this responsibility from the market place. Regulation and supervision on the asset side then became the imperative. And while we have seen periodic failures due to lax regulation and supervision of the asset side of the US banking system, and it’s a work in progress, the alternative of using the liability side of banking for market discipline exposes the real economy to far more disruptions and far more destructive systemic risk.

Those who understand reserve accounting and monetary operations, including those directly involved in monetary operations at the world’s central banks, have known for decades that in banking, causation runs from loans to deposits, with reserve requirements, if any, being merely a ‘residual overdraft’ at the central bank and not a control variable. This includes Professor Charles Goodhart at the Bank of England, who has written extensively on this subject for roughly half a century, endlessly debating the ‘monetarist’ academic economists who spew gold standard and fixed exchange rate rhetoric, and who are unaware of how monetary operations are altered when there is no legal convertibility of a currency. Recall the ‘500 billion euro day’ back in 2008 when the ECB added that many euro in reserves to its banking system, and a week later the monetarists pouring over the data ‘couldn’t find it.’ The fact that they even looked was evidence enough they had no actual knowledge of reserve accounting and monetary operations. And, more recently, the notion that ‘quantitative easing’ makes any difference at all apart from changes in interest rates (it’s always about price and not quantity) reinforces the point that there is very little understanding of monetary operations and reserve accounting. While Professor Goodhart did declare quantitative easing in the UK a ‘success’ he did so on the basis of how it restored ‘confidence,’ making it clear that there was no actual monetary channel of causation from excess reserves to lending. Banks do not ‘lend out’ reserves. Loans create their own deposits. Total reserves are not diminished by lending. This is operational and accounting fact, and not theory or philosophy.

What this means in relation to my proposal of unlimited lending by the Fed to small banks at its target rate, is that any lending by the Fed will not alter anything regarding lending and the ‘real economy’ in any other regard, apart from the resulting term structure of interests per se. (Also, and not that it matters in any event, total lending by the Fed won’t exceed funds ‘hoarded’ by some banks along with the usual operating factors that routinely ‘drain’ reserves.)

In other words, the notion that this policy will somehow result in some inflationary monetarist type expansion is entirely inapplicable with a non convertible currency and floating exchange rate policy.

The other common concern is the risk to the Fed of lending unsecured to its member banks. However, there is none, if you look at government from the macro level. All bank assets are already regulated and supervised, and the banks are continually subjected to solvency tests. This means government has already deemed to the banks ‘safe to lend to.’ Furthermore, functionally, the fact that banks can indeed fund themselves in unlimited size with FDIC insured deposits means the government already lends to banks in unlimited quantities, protecting itself by regulating and supervising the assets, including asset quality, capital requirements, etc. Therefore, the Fed asking for collateral from its member banks is entirely redundant, as well as disruptive and a cause of increased rates to borrowers.

Conclusion: If the Obama administration had the knowledge, they would immediately move to implement my proposals to support small banking.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Geithner: Tight Lending Threatens US Recovery

Dec. 22 (Reuters) —U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner expressed confidence on Tuesday that the U.S. economy was on a solid recovery path, but said tight lending practices by banks still pose a risk.

He said the Treasury “will do what is necessary” to prevent another severe downturn. “We cannot afford to let the country live again with a risk that we’re going to have another series of events like we had last year,” Geithner said.

So how about a payroll tax holiday, revenue sharing for the states, and funding an $8/hr job for anyone willing and able to work? Maybe this is why:

On December 16, Mr. Obama told a television audience that if his “health care bill” doesn’t pass, “the federal government will go bankrupt” and that “health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget.”

Someone needs to remind them how, operationally, the federal government actually does spend and lend:

(PELLEY) Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?

(BERNANKE) It’s not tax money. The banks have– accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Yes, this is the essence of the Tea Party movement,

And so far the President has at best refrained from directly addressing these concerns.
At worst he’s been dismissive,
leaving the growing impression that indeed that is his vision,
even as his approval ratings plummet.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Banking and the entire private sector in a capitalist society is necessarily procyclical. Only the Federal government can be countercyclical, and,
indeed that’s it’s role in supporting aggregate demand in a slowdown. The blame for current conditions falls unambiguously on current policy. Comments below

Obama Plans to Press Banks Monday to Start Lending Again

Dec. 13 (CNBC) —President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are talking tough about the banks ahead of his meeting Monday with heads of financial institutions.

Larry Summers and Christina Romer say Obama will press bankers to ease lending to help Americans get back to work.

As Summers put it, bankers need to recognize that “they’ve got obligations to the country after all that’s been done for them.”
He says no major bank would be intact without the government’s bailout of the financial sector, and now they need to do all they can to get credit flowing again.

Why would we want to demand releveraging of the private sector and not growth through increased incomes via my proposals for a payroll tax holiday, per capita revenue distribution, and an $8/job for anyone willing and able to work to facilitate private sector expansion as demand is restored?

Only one reason- the usual deficit myths.

Summers spoke Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.
Romer, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said Americans are still paying the price for Wall Street excesses.

No, we are still paying the price for poor policy response due to disgraceful flawed mainstream economics mired in deficit myths that has blocked the obvious means of supporting aggregate demand readily available.

On Saturday, Obama singled out financial institutions for causing much of the economic tailspin and criticized their opposition to tighter federal oversight of their industry.

Why does he care if “they” oppose any particular policy?

This shows a profound weakness of leadership where he can’t use his bully pulpit to lobby congress to do the ‘right thing.’

Unfortunately, however, due to the lack of a fundamental understanding of banking and the financial sector in general the administration’s proposals fall far short of the mark even if they did get them passed.

While applauding House passage Friday of overhaul legislation and urging quick Senate action, Obama expressed frustration with banks that were helped by a taxpayer bailout and now are “fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists” against new government controls.
In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama said the economy is only now beginning to recover from the “irresponsibility” of Wall Street institutions that “gambled on risky loans and complex financial products” in pursuit of short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences.

Its just barely stopped the slide from a too little too late fiscal adjustment that added precious little to the work done by the fiscal ‘automatic stabilizers’ of rising transfer payments and falling incomes due to the slowdown.

Not to forget Fed policy that further removes personal interest income, which should be a good thing as it allows for lower taxes for a given level of federal spending. But of course that’s not recognized and therefore the 0 rate policy is instead a wet blanket on demand.

“It was, as some have put it, risk management without the management,” he said.

Right back to you.

The president also told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that “the people on Wall Street still don’t get it. … They’re still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year … in decades and you guys caused the problem,” Obama said in an excerpt released in advance of Sunday night’s broadcast of his interview.

Right back to you.

The only question is whether this is innocent fraud or subversion.

(feel free to distribute)

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like a lapse into behavior not becoming a President- name calling, cheap shots, demonizing, and failure to recognize the behavior in question is a consequence of incentives built into the current institutional structure.

‘True reform’ begins with my previous proposals:

Link

If gold is a bursting bubble rather than a bull mkt correction and the dollar remains firm (which makes sense with crude breaking 70),

psychology could quickly turn deflationary with the concern that the Fed’s tools may be unable to deal with deflation.

And a government and mainstream economics profession that believes the government has ‘run out of money.’

Obama complains about “fat-cat bankers”

Dec 11 (Reuters) — President Barack Obama complained about “fat-cat bankers” and sharply criticized Wall Street banks for paying out big bonuses to executives in a television interview to air on Sunday.

Obama, who has taken some heat from Americans for supporting a Wall Street bailout, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” banks do not understand how angry people are with them.

“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” Obama said.

It very much appears that’s what he’s been doing.

The president said it appeared the only firms paying out bonuses and avoiding the caps put on them under the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were the ones who had paid back their bailout money.

“I think that in some cases (to be able to pay bonuses) was the motivation,” Obama said.

That’s how capitalism is supposed to work- govt. establishes the incentives that determine private sector behavior.

“Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don’t get it. They’re still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10 (million), $20 million dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year in decades and you guys caused the problem,” he said.

No, the Bush and Obama administrations caused the problem by not supporting demand at full employment levels.

Obama told “60 Minutes” it was wrong for financial industry lobbyists to try to derail a financial regulatory overhaul that passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Friday.

It’s up to the administration to use the legal system to get the desired behavior. If what the banks are doing is illegal, prosecute them. If it’s legal but counter to public purpose, implement appropriate law.

“What’s really frustrating me right now is that you’ve got these same banks who benefitted from taxpayer assistance who are fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists up on Capitol Hill, fighting against financial regulatory control,” he said.

They didn’t make the rules, govt. did. It’s up to govt. to make rules that promote public purpose.

After House passage of the financial overhaul, Obama issued a written statement in which he urged the Senate to join the House in passing what he called a necessary regulatory reform as quickly as possible.

“This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors,” he said. (Reporting by Steve Holland; editing by Todd Eastham)

Unfortunately, none of them have a sufficient grasp of banking and the monetary system to get it anywhere near right.

For example, how many understand that TARP is nothing more than regulatory forbearance?

How many recognize taxes function to support aggregate demand and not to raise revenue per se?

How many recognize that exports are real costs and imports real benefits?

It continues to be a case of the blind leading the blind.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like a lapse into behavior not becoming a President- name calling, cheap shots, demonizing, and failure to recognize the behavior in question is a consequence of incentives built into the current institutional structure.

More and more voters are beginning to believe this is deliberate.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   Of course, your reform is vastly superior to anything that is out there.
>   
>   But this criticism of the banks is sheer hypocrisy on the part of Obama.
>   It’s kabuki.
>   
>   It might even be deliberate: see Matt Taibbi’s evisceration of the Obama
>   financial reforms. He’s usually on top of the prevailing zeitgeits.
>   
>   This legislation will be totally ineffective. Interesting today that the
>   bank stocks went UP on passage of the bill.
>   

yes.

Policy just keeps getting worse.

I’ve about lost hope that he can ever get it right, unless accidentally.

The longer term risk is fiscal tightening. So far it’s not actually happening.

A driving force behind tax rate hikes is the misread that the Clinton tax rate hikes ‘worked’ to both spur the economy and drive the budget into surplus.

I suppose a repeat of the massive expansion of consumer debt that reached maybe 7% of gdp by 1999 could
somehow materialize isn’t impossible, but sure seems highly unlikely in the current environment.

Apart from the fact that it’s also not my first choice for supporting output and employment.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

This is getting depressing.
I thought McCain was bad when he said he’d cut spending to help the economy:

Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession

By Deborah Solomon and Jonathan Weisman

Nov. 18 (Reuters) — President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.

His administration was considering ways to accelerate economic growth, with tax measures among the options to give companies incentives to hire, Obama said in the interview with Fox conducted in Beijing during his nine-day trip to Asia.

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,” he said.

Fox News, which released a transcript of the interview, showed that comment by Obama on Wednesday morning and said the full discussion would be broadcast later in the day. (Reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by John O’Callaghan)

[top]

[Skip to the end]

It’s like having the job of driving the bus and fixing it when it breaks, and much of the election was about who can fix the broken bus and how they are going to do it.

This bus can be immediately fixed by anyone who knows how it actually works and what it needs to get rolling again.

We suffer from a lack of demand which is easily remedied by an immediate fiscal response.

Quantitative easing, for example, is at best like installing a second battery to give the car more power. It completely misses the point.

He didn’t just show up for the job-

He volunteered for the job insisting he could fix the economy.

He pushed the TARP (as a Senator and a candidate) not recognizing giving capital to banks was nothing more than regulator forbearance and instead believed it was deficit spending.

His stimulus package came after the automatic stabilizers hiked the deficit to muddle through levels and has proven far too small to keep millions from losing their jobs and their homes.

And now the talk has turned to deficit reduction after proclaiming on multiple occasions “the US government is out of money”

which is like moving forward with the engine at idle speed not understanding that his foot on the brake is keeping the bus from getting up to cruising speed.

Obama and his administration is in this way over their heads.

Unfortunately, the mainstream opposition is probably worse.

Risking overstatement, McCain’s proposal was to not have a bus driver.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Keeps getting worse, as we think we need them and continue to kowtow to their demands:

Obama Meets Asian Bankers Who May Call His Loan: William Pesek

By Deborah Solomon and Jonathan Weisman

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) — Global recession. Free trade. Security. Climate change. Afghanistan. Iraq. North Korea.

Barack Obama sure has lots to discuss on his maiden voyage to Asia as U.S. president. Yet all this is just conversation compared with the real issue on Asia’s mind: a wobbly dollar that’s putting the region’s money at risk.

Think of this trip as a visit to America’s banker, and an unpleasant one. Asia wants assurances that the U.S. can repay its fast-mounting debt and prevent a dollar crash. The reality dawning on Asia is that Obama can’t offer them such a pledge — not with U.S. borrowing so out of control.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looking for more of the same with the preponderance of ‘top down’ initiatives.

Wall street banks dividing up tens of billions in bonuses, as fees and net interest margins remain wide, helped by income lost by ’savers’ due to fed rate cuts, while unit labor costs plunge with productivity high and wages stagnating.

Negative headline CPI means no social security increase, unemployment near 10% and jobs still being lost, foreclosures running at record levels, and mortgage delinquencies continuing to climb.

And now with real GDP growing at maybe 3% and lower income groups still going backwards, a larger chunk of the output has to be going to the top.

Wealthy U.S. Shoppers Boost Spending 29%

By Cotten Timberlake

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Spending in the U.S. on luxury goods and services spurted 29 percent in the third quarter from the previous three months, as consumers with the highest incomes unleashed pent-up demand, according to Unity Marketing.

Spending among 1,067 consumers with average annual income of $228,800 rose to $18,826 each in the three months ended in September from $14,554 a quarter earlier, the Stevens, Pennsylvania-based luxury-market research firm said today. Shoppers cut spending by 3.2 percent in the second quarter and spent $13,429 in the third quarter of 2008.

The increase was driven by consumers with the highest income levels, starting at $250,000 a year, said Pam Danziger, Unity’s Marketing’s president. Spending was strongest in the home, travel and dining segments, she said. The wealthy curbed purchasing earlier this year because of Wall Street job cuts, lower home values and volatile financial markets.

“No question that this quarter’s spending increase is good news for luxury marketers,” Danziger said in a telephone interview today. “Many affluent consumers returned after sitting on the sidelines for a year. However, the richest are few in number, 2.5 million households, so competition will be fierce to win their attention.”

MasterCard Report

U.S. luxury sales rose 3.4 percent to $891 million in September from a year earlier, the first such gain since August 2008, according to figures provided today by credit-card company MasterCard in its SpendingPulse report. Last month, those sales fell 13 percent from the previous year.

The luxury category covers apparel, leather goods and department-store sales at the highest 10 percent of prices. SpendingPulse measures retail sales across all payment forms, including cash and checks.

United Marketing said purchases increased in all but three of the 22 product and service categories it tracks.

The highest-income group spent an average of $43,111 in the latest quarter and the lowest-income group tracked, with earnings of $100,000 to $149,999, spent $10,423. The three categories that didn’t gain were fashion accessories, fashion apparel and art, Danziger said.

Gains in confidence among luxury consumers, meanwhile, slowed, Unity Marketing said.

The researcher’s luxury confidence index rose 1.6 points to 75.9, after jumping 18.6 points to 74.3 in the previous quarter. That index peaked at 113.2 at the end of March 2006. Its low was 40.3 in September 2008. It started at 100 in January 2004.

The findings were based on a survey conducted among adults aged 24 to 70 with income of at least $100,000 from Oct. 2 to Oct. 7. Unity Marketing does not calculate a margin of error. It plans to publish the survey results Oct. 19.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Further evidence of a deliberate policy that undermines our standard of living:

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Roger wrote:
>   

Larry Summers was just quoted on the morning news, as saying “We want the US to transition from a consumer-based to an export-based economy.” And he has the “complete agreement” of Obama and the G20.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

This does not do much for ‘jobs’ but it is pretty good for financial markets.

Low wages, high productivity growth and a bit of top line growth makes for happy management and investors. And a continuing flow of real wealth from the bottom to the top.

Obama Weighs Spending to Stem Job Cuts Without Second Stimulus

By Mike Dorning and Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama is considering a mix of spending programs and tax cuts to respond to widening job losses that would amount to an additional economic stimulus without carrying that label.

Contradictory Missions

In considering the measures, the administration has to reconcile two potentially contradictory missions: combating rising unemployment through government intervention and the need to hold deficits down.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday highlighted those political sensitivities, saying there “were no plans” for a second stimulus like the $787 billion package passed earlier this year. Instead, he said, the administration is looking at “extensions” of existing programs.

The Obama administration isn’t near a final decision on additional measures, said Jen Psaki, a White House spokeswoman.

“As they continue to explore the best options, any notion that we are any farther along than preliminary discussions about new proposals is wildly inaccurate,” she said.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Right, as anticipated from the actions of the administration.

We are witnessing the largest transfer of real wealth from the bottom to the top in the history of the world.

U.S. Income Inequality Is Frightening–And Much Worse Than We Thought

By Bruce Judson

Sept. 30 (Business Insider) — The newest economic inequality numbers, which ran counter to the expectations of almost all experts, are frightening.

The Associated Press released an article titled, US income gap widens as poor take hit in recession. The opening paragraph of the article, based on recent census data, reads:

  The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the
  economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job
  layoffs ravaged household budgets.

The article, which then discussed the Census statistics that led to this conclusion, failed to mention that the Census Bureau considered the differences between 2007 and 2008, with regard to economic inequality, statistically insignificant.

But, whether the Census Data shows a meaningful increase, or not. is irrelevant. The Census Data reports that, contrary to the almost universal expectations of economists, economic inequality most likely did not decrease in 2008. Experts had anticipated that the declines in income of the rich would lead to a reversal in this groups ever–widening share of our national income. Instead, the Census reported that the 2008 income losses by the top 10% of Americans were offset by larger losses among middle class and poorer Americans.

MIT economist Simon Johnston appears to have been one notable exception to this expectation of a shrinking income gap.

Let’s review what we know about the measurement of income inequality before discussing the disturbing implications of this newest government report.

About two weeks ago, I critiqued a Sept 10, 2009 front page story in the Wall Street Journal titled, Income Gap Shrinks in Slump at the Expense of the Wealthy. My critique had three central points:

First, economists have, with few exceptions, agreed that Census Data is inappropriate for measuring income inequality because it consistently understates the income of the wealthiest families. To protect the privacy of reporting individuals, the Census “top-codes” income, which means that no one is ever recorded as making more than about $1.1 million in a single year. So, oil traders, hedge fund executives and anyone else at the super-high end of the income strata who might earn $100, $50 or $5 million in a single year, always earn $1.1 million or less in this Census Data. In addition, the Census Data does not include capital gains income, which is typically a large source of income for the wealthiest Americans.

Two economists, Professors Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, developed a method for measuring income inequality using IRS data, which avoided the problems inherent in using Census Data. This data was recently updated in response to the IRS release of 2007 information, and found that: Economic inequality in 2006 was, by some measures at the highest levels, ever found in the data available for the past 95 years. In 2007, these same measure showed a further jump further bringing America to it it’s highest levels of economic inequality in recorded history.

As a consequence of Census top-coding and the lack of capital gains data, the Saez-Piketty methodology has consistently shown that the Census substantially understates the extent of economic inequality in the nation. This means that, there is a real possibility that the the new Census Data understated the extent to which income inequality grew in 2008, and that the relative losses of the wealthiest families, versus less fortunate Americans, will be more than statistically insignificant.

It is possible that losses in reported capital income by the wealthiest Americans, if captured by the Saez-Piketty methodology, will be larger than the the incomes above $1.1 million that were not reported and offset the Census findings, leading as economists anticipated to a decline in the share of income going to the rich. However, I view this as unlikely. In considering this possibility, its important to remember that the IRS works on reported income gains, not gains which were never captured as taxable income. For income reporting purposes, the question is not whether the market value of capital assets declined but whether they were sold at an actual loss from their purchase price.

We will not know the answer to this question until July or August 2010, but in weighing the available evidence my working hypothesis is that as demonstrated by this new Census Report, income inequality did not decrease from 2008 to 2007.

Second, the original Journal article expressed a strong expectation that, as a result of the Great Recession, the ongoing growth of income inequality would decline substantially through 201o. My critique indicated that this was “far from clear.” The conventional economic wisdom, based on historical data, is that income inequality decreases, at least temporarily, as the richest Americans lose income faster than less-well-off Americans during a downturn. In contrast, this new data suggests that the dangerous cycle toward increasing income at the top of America has become even more self-reinforcing than previously recognized. We are now at the point where the pure market forces, which many economists told us would eliminate this issue, are no longer effective.

Third, the Journal article implied that the decrease in economic inequality it incorrectly predicted might be the start of a long-term trend. Instead, I demonstrated that, even if income inequality did decline in 2008 and 2009, it would almost certainly be “temporary.” The historical evidence shows that economic inequality frequently declines in a downturn, in the absence of strong government action, but that it will almost inevitably rebound and continue its march forward.

Now, let’s return to our main point:

Early next week, my new book It Could Happen Here will be released by HarperCollins. The book is an in-depth look , based on a historical analysis, of the implications of our historically high levels of economic inequality for the nation’s ultimate, long-term political stability. As economic inequality grows, nations invariably become increasingly politically unstable: Should we complacently believe that America will be different?

A central conclusion of the book is that once economic inequality reaches a self-reinforcing cycle it is halted only by inevitably controversial, hard-fought, bitterly opposed government action. Senator Jim Webb encapsulated this idea, when he wrote in his book, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming A Fair and Just America:

   “No aristocracy in history has decided to give up any portion of its power
  willingly.”

In 1928, economic inequality was near today’s levels. Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in reversing the trend toward the continuing concentration of wealth, but it was a turbulent battle. In 1936, while campaigning for his second term and speaking at Madison Square Garden, FDR told the crowd:

  â€œNever before in all our history have these forces [Organized Money] been
  so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in
  their hate for me and I   welcome their hatred.

  I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of
  selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it
  said, wait a minute, I should like to have it said of my second Administration
  that in it these forces met their master.”

In FDR’s era and in our own, money brings power: both explicitly and implicitly, in hundreds of different ways, both large and small. Today, the wealthiest Americans, together with a number of financial and corporate interests that act on their behalf, protect their ever-increasing influence through activities that include, among others, lobbying, supplying expertise to the councils of government, casual conversation at dinner parties, the potential for jobs after government service, the power to run media advertisements that influence public opinion. Indeed, MIT economist Simon Johnston, writing in The Atlantic asserted that the U.S. is now run by an oligarchy:

  The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated [from
  1983 to 2007] gave bankers enormous political weight–a weight not seen
  in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man) … Of course, the U.S. is
  unique. And just as we have the world’s most advanced economy, military,
  and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.

The new inequality data suggests that the potential problems for the nation associated with the concentration of wealth and power are even more severe than previously recognized. Two weeks ago, I wrote that “Once income concentration becomes a reinforcing cycle of the kind we are witnessing, it is never stopped by pure market forces.” This mechanism is now in full swing. The market forces associated with the Great Recession, which many economist had expected to stem the growing, corrosive gap between the rich and the poor, appear to have become ineffective.

The great strength of American democracy has always been its capacity for self-correction. However, Robert Dahl, the eminent political scientist, recognized that political power fueled by wealth may ultimately neutralize this central aspect of our democracy. In his 2006 book, On Political Equality, Dahl wrote:

  As numerous studies have shown, inequalities in income and wealth are
  likely to produce other inequalities..

  The unequal accumulation of political resources points to an ominous
  possibility: political inequalities may be ratcheted up, so to speak, to
  a level from which they cannot be ratcheted down. The cumulative
  advantages in power, influence, and authority of the more privileged
  strata may become so great that even if less privileged Americans
  compose a majority of citizens they are simply unable, and perhaps
  even unwilling, to make the effort it would require to overcome the
  forces of inequality arrayed against them.

In the chapter following this quote, Dahl notes “that we should not assume this future is inevitable.” He’s right. But, was clearly concerned. Three years late, we should be even more concerned.

Many current Executive Branch initiatives deserve our support and praise: However, nothing proposed to date will effectively halt growing economic inequality, and its corrosive impact on our economy and the long-term future of the nation. (In a future post, I will explicitly discuss the proposed regulatory reform of the financial sector.)

My analysis in It Could Happen Here concludes that without a vibrant middle class, the the American democracy as we know it, is not sustainable. Before the Great Recession, the middle class was in far worse shape than was generally acknowledged. In an economy with a record number of job seekers for every available job, the potential for nearly one-half of all home mortgages to be underwater, and increasing foreclosures, the collapse of the middle class will accelerate. With each job loss and each foreclosure, another family becomes a member of the former middle class.

America has never been a society sharply divided between have’s and have not’s. Unfortunately, this new data says to me we continue to head in that direction. Economists assumed that the Great Recession would be a circuit breaker that would halt this advance, at least temporarily. It did not.

With no new legislation, it appears we are potentially on course for 13 million foreclosures, almost one in every four mortgages in the nation, from the end of 2008 through 2014. Do we really believe that we can turn such huge numbers of Americans out of their homes with no consequences for the health of our system of governance? Could our democracy survive a transformation into a nation composed principally of a privileged upper class and an underclass which struggles from paycheck to paycheck and lacks basic economic security?

We will only stop the growth of economic inequality if the President and the Congress are ready to fight in the style of Franklin Roosevelt. FDR was a divider not a conciliator. Before World War II, he fought an all-out war at home. Today, “There’s class warfare, all right,” as Warren Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

I fervently hoped that we have not passed the point of no return, described by Professor Dahl. The recent news shows we are one step further on this road. If we continue down it, our nation may be on the path to becoming a House divided against itself, which ultimately cannot stand.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Yet another regressive proposal that punishes lower income earners disproportionately, as the Obama administration seemingly continues to pursue policies that shift real wealth from the bottom to the top, as Europe has done for decades. It’s also highly contractionary as it reduces aggregate demand, and the higher prices add to headline inflation and get passed through to CPI indexed contracts:

Podesta Says Value-Added Tax ‘More Plausible’ as Deficits Grow

By Heidi Przybyla

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) — John Podesta compared the nation’s current budget crisis to the situation former President Bill Clinton faced in 1993 and said some form of a value-added tax is “more plausible today than it ever has been.”

“There’s going to have to be revenue in this budget,” said Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff and co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s transition team, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing today.

A so-called consumption tax would “create a balance” with European and Japanese economies and “could potentially have a substantial effect on competitiveness,” said Podesta. Value- added taxes in Europe and Japan encourage savings by taxing consumption.

Podesta said such a tax may be regressive, but can be balanced by exempting some products and using “the money to support low-wage workers.”

Response:

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Wells wrote:
>   
>   I am totally with you on this Warren. This VAT is a truly regressive tax.
>   

right.

>   
>   People like Forbes pushed for this a new years ago but it went nowhere.
>   After studying it I was left feeling that it hides the true cost of
>   government by burying it in the many stages of production with the end
>   product being just the tip of the tax iceberg. No doubt it probably does
>   encourage savings, as if savings are the be all, end all.
>   

Reducing consumption also reduces ’savings’- the old paradox of thrift.

The only way it could increase savings is if it threw people out of work and the federal deficit went up, as savings of net financial assets of the non govt sectors can only come from govt. deficit spending.

It’s also a transaction tax, which serves to make transactions more expensive and thereby reduce them. This reduces our real standard of living as it discourages specialization of labor and economies of scale as people tend to do more things themselves rather than do them for each other.

[top]