Business hires to service customers and expand when there’s enough aggregate demand to sustain sales at profitable prices. With or without Obamacare.

Small Business on Obamacare: No Reason to Hire or Invest

By Patricia Orsini

June 28 (CNBC) — Small business owners, who have been waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare before hiring and investing, say the ruling raises more questions than it answers.

After weak April and May numbers, I’ve been on the lookout for possible hints that euro zone economies may now be flattening.

Austerity tends to drive down demand which also causes deficits to increase to the point where they stabilize GDP.

Therefore, if the euro zone just leaves their fiscal policies alone at some point those automatic fiscal stabilizers work to prevent further declines.

Meanwhile, no euro zone banks have had liquidity cut off by the ECB, and it doesn’t look like any euro zone govt will be missing any payments any time soon, so govt deficit spending will continue to add income and ‘savings’ to their real economies.

French Consumer Confidence Stalls as Hollande Readies Budget

June 26 (Bloomberg) — French consumer confidence stalled as President Francois Hollande prepared tax increases and spending cuts to help reduce the nation’s budget deficit.

Household sentiment was unchanged at 90 in June, national statistics Insee said today in a release from Paris. Economists expected a reading of 89, according to the median of 14 estimates gathered by Bloomberg News.

Broadbent Says Indicators Suggest U.K. GDP Growth May Be Flat

June 26 (Bloomberg) — Bank of England policy maker Ben Broadbent said that indicators suggest the U.K. economy may be broadly flat in the next quarter or two.

“The near-term indicators suggest that, abstracting from the various short-term distortions (the effect of the Golden Jubilee holiday, for example), output is broadly flat in the next quarter or two, as it has been for the past 18 months,” he said in answers to a questionnaire from the U.K. Treasury Committee published today in London.

Until they all get ‘in paradigm’ the 99% don’t have a chance.

Germany rebuffs Obama’s advice on euro crisis

June 25 (AP) — Germany’s finance minister is rejecting U.S. President Barack Obama’s calls on Europe to move faster in fighting its debt crisis, telling him to get the American deficit under control instead.

Wolfgang Schaeuble told public broadcaster ZDF in an interview late Sunday that “people are always very quick at giving others advice.”
He says: “Mr. Obama should first of all take care of reducing the American deficit, which is higher than in the eurozone.”

Doesn’t seem to me ‘avoiding market turbulence’ is actually of any particular concern in the euro zone:

EU Leaders Urged to Set Timetable for Action (Again)

By Catherine Boyle

June 20 (CNBC) — Ahead of two key European policymaker meetings on the credit crisis Friday, politicians are yet again being urged to set out a clear timetable for action to avoid further market turbulence.

And all evidence shows President Obama agrees.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

The mission to restore America begins with getting our fiscal house in order. President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will grow to the size of our entire economy this year.

As President, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and bring much-needed reforms to entitlement programs. Mitt will work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the federal government, and returning power to states and the people.

Policy

Exercise fiscal responsibility to restore economic opportunity.
Washington is addicted to deficit spending. As President, Mitt Romney will cut spending to finally move our nation toward a balanced budget.

During the Bush years, the nation’s deficit—the gap between what Washington collects and spends each year—hovered between 2 percent and 4 percent of GDP. These levels were already problematic and a cause for concern. During the Obama administration, however, the deficit exploded to 10 percent of GDP.

One major problem with sky-high deficit spending is that it necessarily leads to another practice that undermines the nation’s fiscal foundation: borrowing unhealthy sums to pay for what we already cannot afford. America is on an unsustainable path that, within just a few short years, will cripple the economy and foreclose any opportunity for recovery.

Mitt Romney will bring fiscal restraint to Washington by placing a hard cap on federal spending to force our government to live within its means and put an end to deficit spending.

Mitt will also curb federal spending by repealing Obamacare, the federal takeover of health care that is scheduled to cost taxpayers one trillion dollars over the next ten years. He will also focus on eliminating wasteful government spending and right-sizing the federal government to save taxpayer dollars.

Mitt Romney’s goal is to put the federal government on a course toward a balanced budget and true fiscal responsibility.

Reform entitlement programs to keep them solvent and put America on a path to prosperity.
Federal spending on entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security has not only spiraled out of control, but has placed their very solvency in danger. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed in his fundamental responsibility to articulate a serious vision and plan for the future of these programs. At present, the total cost of U.S. entitlement programs accounts for more than half of all federal spending. Combined with interest payments on the national debt, so-called “mandatory” spending is over 60 percent of all federal spending.

Many of our fellow citizens have no idea that our growing entitlement spending has created a looming crisis. This is because politicians have a habit of hiding our country’s long-term liabilities. Mitt Romney believes that the federal government should publish a balance sheet each year—just as it requires public companies to do—so that Americans can understand the burden that future entitlement spending will place on our budget and economy. Over the course of his campaign, Mitt will propose the specific steps he will take as President to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. While reforms are needed, Mitt also believes that these changes should not reduce benefits for current seniors or break the promises they have relied upon for their economic security in retirement.

Mitt knows that our economic future—along with the future of entitlement programs—depends on fundamental reform. If we wisely begin to reform entitlements and commit to live within our means, we can bestow on the next generation an America that is stronger and even more prosperous than the one we know today.

CLINTON SLAMS OBAMA: ‘I’M THE ONLY GUY WHO GAVE YOU FOUR SURPLUS BUDGETS’

Last night in New York City Obama and Clinton held a joint fundraiser. Bill Clinton had to reminded everyone of the difference between his presidency and Obama’s

“And, I care about the long term debt of the country a lot. Remember me, I’m the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”

Not to mention taking $500 billion out of the medicare budget to give to the insurance companies and then declaring victory on healthcare. And the early statement about needing to first fix the financial sector before the real sector can recover.

And, of course, it would be nice if Professor Krugman would reverse his errant and highly counterproductive contention that the federal deficit presents a long term economic or financial problem per se.

This Republican Economy

By Paul Krugman

June 3 (NYT) — What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.

So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.

For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

The banks need, and I propose, ECB deposit insurance for all euro zone banks.

Currently the member governments insure their own member bank deposits and do the regulation and supervision.

So to get from here to there politically they need to turn over banking supervision to the ECB.

Let me suggest that’s a change pretty much no one would notice or care about from a practical/operational point of view?

The political problem would come from losses from existing portfolios that, in the case of a bank failure due to losses in excess of equity capital, currently would be charged to the appropriate member nations.

So under my proposal, for the ECB to suffer actual losses a member bank that it supervises and regulates would have to suffer losses in excess of its capital.

And none of the member governments currently think that their banks have negative capital, especially if they assume member governments don’t default on their debt to the banks.

And this ‘fix’ for the banking system would help insure the member governments don’t default on their obligations to their banks.

The euro zone has three financial issues at this point. One is bank liquidity which this proposal fixes. Second is national government solvency, and third is the output gap.

They need to allow larger government deficits to narrow the output gap, but that first requires fixing the solvency issue.

The solvency issue can be addressed by having the ECB guarantee all of the member government debt, which then raises the moral hazard issue.

The moral hazard issue can be addressed by giving the EU the option of not having the ECB insure new government debt and forbidding its banks to buy new government debt as a penalty for violators of the debt and deficit limits of the Stability and Growth Pact.

Venice video link here.

Also, Trichet Friday, the German elections, and G8 reports seem to be setting the tone for the euro zone to do something about the solvency issue. This is very good for equities and the rest of the credit stack.

At the same time it does not seem likely that any growth proposals will include fiscal relaxation, so the euro zone will have to get by the best it can with the deficits it has, which I’d guess should mean flat GDP, +/- 1% or so.

The US should also continue to muddle through with modest top line growth, and inflation low enough and the output gap wide enough to keep this Fed from hiking any time soon.

US economy muddling through, growing modestly, particularly given the output gap, but growing nonetheless.

Lower crude prices should also help some.

I had guessed the Saudis would hold prices at the $120 Brent level, given their output of just over 10 million bpd showed strong demand
and their capacity to increase to their stated 12.5 million bpd capacity remains suspect. And so with the Seaway pipeline now open (last I heard)
to take crude from Cushing to Brent priced markets I’d guessed WTI would trade up to Brent.

But what has happened is the Saudi oil minister started making noises about lower prices and when ‘market prices’ started selling off the Saudis ‘followed’ by lowering their posted prices, sustaining the myth that they are ‘price takers’ when in reality they are price setters.

So to date, contrary to my prior guess, both wti and brent have sold off quite a bit, and cheaper imported crude is a plus for the US economy. Which is also a plus for the $US, as a lower import bill makes $US ‘harder to get’ for foreigners.

But the trade for quite a while has been strong dollar = weak US stocks due to export pricing/foreign earnings translations, and also because US stocks have weakened on signs of euro zone stress, which has been associated with a weaker euro. So when things seem to be looking up for the euro zone, the euro tends to go up vs the dollar, with US stocks doing better with any sign of ‘improvement’ in the euro zone.

It’s all a tangled case of cross currents, which makes forecasting anything particularly difficult.

Not to mention possible dislocations from the whale, which may or may not have run their course, etc.

And then there’s the news from Greece.

First, they made a full bond payment yesterday of nearly 500 million euro to bond holders who did not accept the PSI discounts. This is confounding for the obvious reasons, signals it sends, moral hazard, credibility, etc. etc. But it’s also a sign the politicians are doing what they think it takes to keep the euro going as the currency of the euro zone. Same goes for the decision to fund Greece as per prior agreements even when there is no Greek govt to talk to, and lots of signs any new govt may not honor the arrangements.

Even if that means tricking private investors out of 100 billion, rewarding those who defy them, whatever. Tactics may be continuously reaching new lows but all for the end of keeping the euro as the single currency.

It also means that while, for example, 10 year Spanish yields may go up or down, the intention is for Spain, one way or another, to fund itself, even if short term. Doesn’t matter.

And more EFSF type discussions. The plan may be to start using those types of funds as needed, keeping the ECB out of it for that much longer, regardless of where longer term bonds happen to trade.

As for the euro zone economy, yes, growth is probably negative, but if they hold off on further fiscal adjustments, the 6%+ deficit they currently are running for the region is probably, at this point, enough to muddle through around the 0 growth neighborhood. The upside isn’t much from there, as with limited private sector credit growth opportunities, and substantial net export growth unlikely, and strong ‘automatic stabilizers’ any growth could be limited by those automatic fiscal stabilizers. Not to mention that this type of optimistic scenario likely strengthens the euro and keeps a lid on net exports as well.

And sad that this ‘bullish scenario’ for the euro zone means their massive output gap doesn’t even begin to close any time soon.

For the US, this bullish scenario has similar limitations, but not quite as severe, so the output gap could start to narrow some and employment as a percentage of the population begin to improve. But only modestly.

The US fiscal cliff is for real, but still far enough away to not be a day to day factor. And it at least does show that fiscal policy does work, at least according to every known forecaster with any credibility, which might open the door to proactive fiscal? Note the increasing chatter about how deficits don’t seem to drive up interest rates? And the increasing chatter about how the US, Japan, UK, etc. aren’t like the euro zone members with regards to interest rates?

Same in the euro zone, where discussion is now common regarding how austerity doesn’t work to grow their economies, with the reason to maintain it now down to the need to restore solvency. This is beginning to mean that if they solved the solvency riddle some other way they might back off on the austerity. And now there is a political imperative to do just that, so things could move in that direction, meaning ECB support for member nation funding, directly or indirectly, which removes the ‘ponzi’ aspect.

Romney: Debt is like ‘prairie fire’

Repatriation made it to Romney’s platform:

– Allow for a tax holiday for repatriated corporate profits held overseas

So I’ve been asking this question for as long as I can remember:

‘Name one company holding off on investment because it has some of its excess cash in a Citibank London account vs a Citibank New York account?’

Corporate America is currently ‘cash rich’ with all the funding they could possibly want for investment. If investment is low, it’s because they don’t see sufficiently profitable investments, and not because of lack of funding.

The funds have piled up in these ‘offshore’ accounts for one reason- the income isn’t taxed by the US until it is ‘moved’ to the ‘US books’ of the corporations. So these corporations could have either made their profits from offshore operations and paid their US taxes immediately, or made their profits and deferred taxation by leaving those profits in offshore accounts.

I understand the argument that corporations should not be taxed in the first place, as corporate taxes are all passed through to consumers, directly or indirectly.

I don’t understand the argument that repatriation somehow ‘creates jobs’ and helps the economy.

I do understand the desire for corporations to support candidates on this issue, to the point of misrepresenting the ‘job creation’ aspect.

In fact, there’s new proposal coming out of Puerto Rico that appears to be a ‘back door’ route to unlimited repatriation for US corporations.

President Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Vision Would Bankrupt Nation

April 11 (IBD) — Economy: In two recent high-profile policy speeches, President Obama has struggled to make a case for his big-government, high-tax vision for the economy. But his comments reveal just how bankrupt his vision is.

Last I read, he’s actually reduced govt head count for maybe the first time in history, and spending as a % of GDP is up only because of transfer payments due to the recession, with taxes as a % of GDP reaching extremely low levels as well.

It’s ironic that President Obama would make two speeches this week in Florida about “fairness,” sandwiched as they were between $10,000-a-plate fundraising dinners. But that’s the level of hypocrisy coming from the White House these days.

To be polite, most of the comments Obama makes these days about the economy, taxes and, especially, “fairness” stretch all credibility. Hearing the large number of outright falsehoods and partial truths he uses to support his argument, it’s impossible not to believe it’s simply a ploy to get votes from those who envy the rich and the successful.

A full unpacking of Obama’s whoppers would require a much larger space than we have here. Here are just a few examples:

“I believe the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.”

If he believed that, he would not have signed the $787 billion stimulus bill.

That helped the private sector and ‘free markets’ even though I didn’t like the details.

He wouldn’t have imposed onerous new green regulations on businesses.

Without federal pollution regulation the states get into a race to the bottom where whoever allows the most pollution gets the most businesses.

He wouldn’t have taken over the auto and banking industries.

Banking with FDIC deposit insurance makes banking a 90/10 public private partnership. And he didn’t take over banking in any case.

Nor would he seek massive new tax hikes on businesses, or use the frightening power of government — including thousands of new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare — to pursue his utopian vision of “fairness.”

First, I’m against corporate taxes in general. But even so, he cut payroll taxes for business and the proposed increases were about closing loopholes. And Obamacare took 500 billion out of medicare to give to insurance companies- hardly pro govt/anti business.

If Obama truly believed in the free market,

And remember, there is no ‘free market’ as by definitions markets operate only within institutional structure including contract law and enforcement.

he’d eliminate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the EPA, the Energy Department and many other federal departments and agencies that distort free markets.

All govt and all taxation necessarily distorts markets. All govt works on coercion. Nor are there competitive markets when there is limited competition and monopoly power, which means some form of govt regulation is required.

He would roll back thousands of costly, ineffective regulations that estimates say cost the U.S. $1.8 trillion a year.

I’d have to see the specifics, which the rest of this article makes me doubtful of.

“The gap between those at the very, very top and everybody else keeps growing wider and wider and wider and wider.”

In fact, the top 1% have a lower share of total household income than they did in 1920 — just after World War I.

So maybe 1920 was a particularly high year because of the war? Don’t know his point, except pointing to 1920 is a smokescreen to disguise the fact that the share of income has been rising dramatically for a long time.

Though the top 1% have recently boosted their share, that’s largely due to the tech boom of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, which made all Americans richer.

I thought it was the financial sector??? But even so, a tech boom doesn’t necessarily do that to income distribution. It doesn’t explain why the football coach earns $10 million while the professor who cured cancer gets $100,000. It’s all about institutional structure.

Even so, the so-called Gini Coefficient — the federal government’s own measure of income inequality — is today lower than it was during the Clinton era.

“At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003.”

The rich, with everyone else, did get their top tax rates cut. But the actual taxes they paid rose sharply.

Right, because their incomes rose that much more. This is out of context writing throughout, laced with lies of omission.

Don’t believe it? Just before those tax cuts were passed, the top 1% earned 18% of all adjusted gross income and paid 34% of all federal taxes.

Only because they conveniently don’t include FICA when they talk about taxes like this. But they do include it when it’s going up or down- tax cut or tax hike. And it’s something approaching half of all federal income taxes.

By 2009, the last full year for which there are data, the top 1% share of AGI had fallen to 17%, according to IRS data. But they paid 37% of all taxes.

Not including FICA

As for the bottom 50% of income earners: In 2009 they took home 13% of income but paid less than 3% of federal income taxes. And today, nearly half of all Americans don’t pay taxes at all.

Not including FICA which is 7.6% of income from dollar one, with a cap at something like $105,000. Including FICA it could be something like 30% paid by lower income earners.

In short, during the 2000s, top earners took home a smaller share of the income pie but paid a larger share of the taxes. Is that what Obama means by “fairness?”

Does leaving out FICA count as fairness?

As for the so-called Buffett Rule that Obama wants, it would impose a minimum tax of 30% on millionaires to make them pay their “fair share.” It’s premised on investor Warren Buffett’s assertion that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Nonsense. Those with incomes over $1 million pay about 30% in taxes on average, about twice the average for those with middle incomes, like Buffett’s assistant.

Not counting FICA.

Simply put, this is class warfare. The tax would only raise $47 billion over the next decade — a drop in the bucket compared to the $45 trillion in spending and $9.6 trillion in deficits under Obama’s budget.

And just under $1 trillion per year of FICA taxes

Unfortunately, by raising the capital gains tax from 15% to over 30%, it would kill millions of American jobs and send small business creation into a tailspin.

Any tax hike can reduce aggregate demand. And not having income taxes and cap gains at the same rate merely causes income to shift to the lowest taxed category, and provide massive fees for the accounting firms and financial sector as well.

Who would that help?

“We tried (free market economics) for eight years before I took office. … We were told the same thing we’re being told now — this is going to lead to faster job growth, it’s going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn’t.”

Obama has repeatedly suggested all the economy’s problems are due to President Bush.

But Bush, like Obama, entered office during a recession. Not only did he take over after the biggest stock market crash since the Depression, but the Fed had more than doubled interest rates, killing growth.

The Fed doubled rates from very low levels after the economy started growing from the combo Bush proactively expanding the deficit and from the up leg of the sub prime adventure. It ended with the shrinking of the deficit and the down leg of the sub prime adventure.

Worse, within eight months of entering office, the U.S. was hit with the 9/11 terrorist attacks — the first on the American homeland since World War II. Within the space of just 90 days, a million jobs were lost.

Jobs were lost because private sector credit expansion ended after being stretched past it’s limits during the late 90′s, with the govt budget surplus draining off hundreds of billions of dollars of net financial assets as well.

Obama’s right. President Bush did cut tax rates. What was the result? We had 52 straight months of job growth, with 8 million new jobs over six years.

Propelled by the larger deficit and the expansion phase of the sub prime adventure.

For Bush’s entire presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3%. Under Obama, it’s not been below 8%.

Yes, because the deficit is too small, and both sides want to make it smaller. Good luck to us…

Real after-tax income per person rose more than 11% under Bush, while real GDP from 2000 to 2007 grew $2.1 trillion, or 17%. In 2007, the deficit fell to $162 billion — roughly 1% of GDP.

Yes, not large enough to support aggregate demand after support from the sub prime expansion phase ended.

Does Obama really want to compare himself to that? Since he’s entered office, we’ve lost 1.7 million jobs, and unemployment has averaged over 8%.

His deficits have averaged $1.4 trillion — about 8% of GDP, a record. On his watch, debt has soared from $10.7 trillion to $16 trillion. America now has more debt than the entire euro zone and Great Britain — combined.

And still not nearly enough to restore aggregate demand.

Under Obama spending has surged. The federal government now accounts for 25% of the economy, vs. the long-term average of 20%.

Due mainly to automatic counter cyclical transfer payments, not expanded regular spending.

Through his big-government policies, Obama took a bad recession and made sure our recovery would be the worst ever — and then blamed it on everyone but himself.

Meanwhile, get ready for “taxmageddon” — the $494 billion tax hike that hits in 2013 as the Bush tax cuts expire, something Obama is doing nothing about.

Wasn’t it the opposition trying to not allow the extension this year?

Our economy, in short, will never regain its old vitality until a new president is elected, and Obama’s top-down, government-centered policies are laid to rest.

I’ve been a harsh critic of Obama’s policies all along, but this is all a pile of intellectually dishonest propaganda.

• Austerity everywhere keeps domestic demand in check and export channels muted
• Non govt credit expansion pretty much stone cold dead in the US and Europe
• Rising oil energy prices subduing global aggregate demand
• US federal deficit just about enough to muddle through with modest GDP growth
• Rest of world public deficits also insufficient to close output gaps, including China which has calmed down considerably
• Zero rate policies/QE/etc. in the US, Japan, and Europe doing their thing to keep aggregate demand down and inflation low as monetary authorities continue to get that causation backwards
• All good for stocks and shareholders, not good for most people trying to work for a living
• Europe still in slow motion train wreck mode, with psi bond tax risk keeping investors at bay and ECB waiting for things to get bad enough before intervening

So still looking to me like a case of

‘Because we fear becoming the next Greece, we continue to turn ourselves into the next Japan’

The only way out at this point is a private sector credit expansion, which, in the US, traditionally comes from housing, but doesn’t seem to be happening this time. Past cycles have seen it come from the sub prime expansion phase, the .com/y2k boom, the S&L expansion phase, and the emerging market lending boom.

But this time we’re being more careful of ‘bubbles’ (just like Japan has done for the last two decades). So I don’t see much hope there.

Still watching for the euro bond tax idea to surface, which I see as the immediate possibility of systemic risk, but no real sign yet.

The President had repeated demonstrated that he’s the ‘hunter/killer’ type when it comes to foreign policy, so best to be prepared for what this policy might lead to.

>   
>   It’s absolutely clear that the president’s policy is to prevent Iran from having nuclear
>   weapons capability.
>   

Hillary Clinton told the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, when asked whether the US would allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state.

Comes back to the idea that resolving solvency issues in the euro zone doesn’t fix the economy.

And with negative growth the solvency math doesn’t work for any of the euro members.

And what’s with the ECB threatening to back away on liquidity support for the banking system?

So looks to me like the Greek resolution is not the end of the solvency issues, but that the focus simply moves on to the next weaker sister.

And, as previously discussed, the risk remains elevated that if Greece gets to haircut its obligations and gets funding, others will ask for the same, triggering a general, global, catastrophic financial meltdown.

My first order proposal remains an ECB distribution on a per capita basis to the euro member nations of maybe 10% of euro zone GDP per year to put the solvency issue behind them. Along with relaxed budget rules, maybe allowing deficits up to 6% of GDP annually, further supported by the ECB funding a transition job at a non disruptive wage to facilitate the transition from unemployment to private sector employment. I might also recommend deficits be increased by suspending VAT as a way to increase aggregate demand and lower prices at the same time.

Alternatively, the ECB could simply guarantee all national govt debt and rely on the growth and stability pact for fiscal discipline, which would probably require enhanced authorities.

And rather than trying to bring Greece’s deficit down to current target levels, they could instead relax the growth and stability pact limits to something closer to full employment levels. And, again, I’d look into suspending VAT to both increase aggregate demand and lower prices.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in today’s world news:

The likes of Ford adding to pension funds makes the point of the increasing and ongoing demand leakages putting a damper on GDP.

And oil prices have now crept up enough to materially cut into aggregate demand as well.

Nor are banks adding to capital to meet expanding demand for credit, which remains anemic.

Headlines:

Data Suggests Euro Zone May Slide Back Into Recession
German Manufacturing Slows as New Export Orders Fall
China’s Factory Activity Shrinks for Fourth Month
ECB Preparing to Close Liquidity Floodgates
Ford Pours $3.8 Billion Into Pension Plan
Oil Could Turn to Headwind as Dow Flirts With 13,000
UBS to Issue More Loss-Absorbing Capital
Iran ‘Winning’ on Oil Sanctions: Top Trader
Greek Bailout Puts Focus Back on Credit Default Swaps
Iran Fuels Oil-Price Rally—And Prices Could Keep Rising

For immediate release:

Warren Mosler, candidate, Delegate to Congress, USVI

Christiansted, St. Croix-  Warren Mosler has released part I of his 3 part Action Plan for the USVI.  ”With closing of Hovensa, we face the catastrophic loss of thousands of jobs, a drop in population of perhaps 3,000 people, loss of an estimated $100 million of annual revenue for our government, untold private sector business closings, a substantial drop of enrollment in our schools, and many other negative social and economic consequences” said Mosler. ‘I have organized a three part Action Plan that I will be releasing–one part at a time as they are completed.  If we act now, we can mitigate some of the potential negative consequences and begin building a prosperous future for our Virgin Islands.”

Action Plan, USVI

Part I:  Hovensa Response
1.  I propose that we inform Hovensa that if they close the USVI will not permit anyone to reopen the refinery.  This will cause Hovensa to reconsider their decision to close the refinery.  However, and more important, if they do close, the possibility of the refinery reopening will impede the effort to bring new businesses to St. Croix.  That’s because there are many businesses that would not want to be located on a small island like St. Croix with the possibility that the refinery might resume operations.  Refineries make an island like St. Croix less valuable.  I’m sure, for example, no one would think a refinery opening on St. Thomas or St. John would add value to those islands.
2.  I propose that we require that the cleanup begin immediately, even with the oil storage facility in operation.  It is important for the territory’s recovery that the unused portion of the facility be brought back to its original condition as specified in the contract with the USVI government as soon as possible.
3.  I propose that we require that current employees of the refinery and residents of the USVI be given priority for the cleanup jobs.  This will provide a multiyear transition period for the qualifying Hovensa employees and the USVI.
4.  I propose that we determine whether there is any residual equipment at Hovensa that might be useful to the USVI and arrange for its purchase.  The prices should be very attractive.

Part II and Part III will be released over the next several days.

Contact:  Reginald Perry, 340 692 7710

My proposals remain:

1. A full FICA suspension:

The suspension of FICA paid by employees restores spending which supports output and employment.
The suspension of FICA paid by business helps keep costs down which in a competitive environment lowers prices for consumers.

2. $150 billion one time distribution by the federal govt to the states on a per capita basis to get them over the hump.

3. An $8/hr federally funded transition job for anyone willing and able to work to assist in the transition from unemployment to private sector employment.

Call me an inflation hawk if you want. But when the fiscal drag is removed with the FICA suspension and funds for the states I see risk of what will be seen as ‘unwelcome inflation’ causing Congress to put on the brakes long before unemployment gets below 5% without the $8/hr transition job in place, even with the help of the FICA suspension in lowering costs for business.

It’s my take that in an expansion the ‘employed labor buffer stock’ created by the $8/hr job offer will prove a superior price anchor to the current practice of using the current unemployment based buffer stock as our price anchor.

The federal government caused this mess for allowing changing credit conditions to cause its resulting over taxation to unemploy a lot more people than the government wanted to employ. So now the corrective policy is to suspend the FICA taxes, give the states the one time assistance they need to get over the hump the federal government policy created, and provide the transition job to help get those people that federal policy is causing to be unemployed back into private sector employment in a more orderly, more ‘non inflationary’ manner.

I’ve noticed the criticism the $8/hr proposal- aka the ‘Job Guarantee’- has been getting in the blogosphere, and it continues to be the case that none of it seems logically consistent to me, as seen from an MMT perspective. It seems the critics haven’t fully grasped the ramifications of the recognition of the currency as a (simple) public monopoly as outlined in Full Employment AND Price Stability and the other mandatory readings.

So yes, we can simply restore aggregate demand with the FICA suspension and funds for the states, but if I were running things I’d include the $8 transition job to improve the odds of both higher levels of real output and lower ‘inflation pressures’.

Also, this is not to say that I don’t support the funding of public infrastructure (broadly defined) for public purpose. In fact, I see that as THE reason for government in the first place, and it should be determined and fully funded as needed. I call that the ‘right size’ government, and, in general, it’s not the place for cyclical adjustments.

4. An energy policy to help keep energy consumption down as we expand GDP, particularly with regard to crude oil products.

Here my presumption is there’s more to life than burning our way to prosperity, with ‘whoever burns the most fuel wins.’

Perhaps more important than what happens if these proposals are followed is what happens if they are not, which is more likely going to be the case.

First, given current credit conditions, world demand, and the 0 rate policy and QE, it looks to me like the current federal deficit isn’t going to be large enough to allow anything better than muddling through we’ve seen over the last few years.

Second, potential volatility is as high as it’s ever been. Europe could muddle through with the ECB doing what it takes at the last minute to prevent a collapse, or doing what it takes proactively, or it could miss a beat and let it all unravel. Oil prices could double near term if Iran cuts production faster than the Saudis can replace it, or prices could collapse in time as production comes online from Iraq, the US, and other places forcing the Saudis to cut to levels where they can’t cut any more, and lose control of prices on the downside.

In other words, the risk of disruption and the range of outcomes remains elevated.

Mitt Romney’s Ridiculous Comparison of US to Greece

By John Carney

Dec 21 (CNBC) — I realize that Republicans want the United States to accumulate less debt. That’s a fine policy position to take. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that debt can drag down the economy.

But there’s no need to start saying crazy things like the U.S. is about to become Italy or Greece if Obama is elected for another term. This simply isn’t in the cards.

The problems faced by Greece and Italy are nowhere near comparable to those faced by the United States. We have far more dynamic economies — and far lower tax rates — than those countries. More important, our government can indirectly self-finance by having the Federal Reserve buy Treasurys on the secondary market.

As we’ve seen, the Fed has an unlimited balance sheet, something that Greece and Italy do not enjoy.

Our government will never run out of money. Greece and Italy can definitely run out of money.

So it’s a shame to see Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for president, spouting this nonsense.

From The Hill:

Mitt Romney said that the United States would experience a financial crisis similar to that of Greece or Italy if President Obama were elected to a second term, and hit rival Newt Gingrich’s plan for the federal judiciary as unconstitutional during an interview Monday night with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

“I think we hit a Greece-like wall. I think before the end of his second term, if he were re-elected, there’s a very high risk that we would hit a financial crisis that Greece or Italy have faced,” Romney said.

This is worse than ignorant. It is actually malfeasant. Having one of the leading politicians in the country talk like this can only induce further economic panic.

(Hat tip: Warren Mosler)

In case you had any respect whatsoever for Romney’s understanding of monetary operations and fiscal policy.

In fact, no one has been invoking Greece since the S&P downgrade when interest rates went down, and pundits from both sides pointed out the difference is we ‘print our own money.’

Romney: US could face ‘financial crisis’ like Greece, Italy if Obama is reelected

By Justin Sink

Dec 20 — Mitt Romney said that the United States would experience a financial crisis similar to that of Greece or Italy if President Obama were elected to a second term, and hit rival Newt Gingrich’s plan for the federal judiciary as unconstitutional during an interview Monday night with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

“I think we hit a Greece-like wall. I think before the end of his second term, if he were reelected, there’s a very high risk that we would hit a financial crisis that Greece or Italy have faced,” Romney said.

“I think it’s also very possible that we would continue to see very high levels of unemployment. I think you would see industry in this country, entrepreneurs, big and small, decide to go elsewhere, to take their investment dollars to other nations. This president has put together the most anti-investment, anti-growth and anti-job series of policies that I’ve seen since Jimmy Carter,” he added.