Mortgage Applications Fell Last Week

Looks like those low rates aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Once again, we need:
a FICA suspension
$500 per capita fed distribution to the state govts
$8/hr federally funded transition job for anyone willing and able to work

And institutional structure that facilitates GDP growth with less energy consumption

Mortgage Applications Fell Last Week

May 25 (Reuters) — Applications for U.S. home mortgages fell last week, pulled lower by a decline in refinancing demand, an industry group said Wednesday.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity, which includes both refinancing and home purchase demand, fell nearly 4 percent in the week ended May 27.

The MBA’s seasonally adjusted index of refinancing applications lost 5.7 percent, even as interest rates tumbled.

“The last time mortgage rates were this low, refinance volume was more than twenty percent higher,” Mike Fratantoni, MBA’s vice president of research and economics, said in a statement. “It is likely that many borrowers still cannot qualify to refinance given the lack of equity in their homes.”

The refinance share of mortgage activity fell to 65.7 percent of total applications from 66.8 percent the week before. The gauge of loan requests for home purchases was essentially unchanged.

Fixed 30-year mortgage rates averaged 4.58 percent in the week, down from 4.69 percent the week before.

Geithner’s Letter to G-20 on ‘External Imbalances’

They’ve always been completely out of paradigm on domestic federal budgets. But this time around their ignorance has already been costly beyond imagination and looks to only get more so.

Geithner is just symptomatic of all that’s wrong with the mainstream’s understanding of monetary operations.

And I haven’t heard a single mainstream economist who’s got it right on the budget issue or the trade issue.

With the hawks and doves agreeing that federal deficits are a long term problem the obvious fundamental that imports are real benefits and exports real costs gets no consideration.

The trade war is a direct result of not understanding that domestic demand can always be continuously sustained by fiscal adjustments to the direct benefit of that economy.

The rest of the world’s desire to net export to us opens the door for unimagined US prosperity. With a full payroll tax (FICA) suspension we’d probably have enough domestic demand to buy all the goods and services we could produce at full employment plus all we wanted to buy from the rest of the world. And, if not, taxes could be lower still.

Geithner’s Letter to G-20 on ‘External Imbalances’: (Full Text)

Oct. 22 (Bloomberg) — The following is a reformatted
letter dated Oct. 20 from U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F.
Geithner to other officials in the Group of 20 industrial and
emerging economies. G-20 finance ministers and central bankers
are meeting today and tomorrow in Gyeongju, South Korea.

Dear G-20 Colleagues:

I am writing to offer some suggestions for our meeting later
this week. We are obviously at a moment where the world is
looking to the G-20 to provide a stronger commitment to work
together to address the major challenges to a sustainable global
recovery. I know that some of you will want to reserve any
substantive agreement until the November Leaders’ Summit, but I
think we should take advantage of the presence of the central
bank governors to try to reach agreement on the broad elements
this weekend, and put those in a report to our Leaders.

Building on Pittsburgh’s Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and
Balanced Growth and Toronto’s commitments on addressing
sovereign debt sustainability, here are three specific
suggestions designed to provide a stronger framework of
cooperation on international financial issues:

First, G-20 countries should commit to undertake policies
consistent with reducing external imbalances below a specified
share of GDP over the next few years, recognizing that some
exceptions may be required for countries that are structurally
large exporters of raw materials. This means that G-20 countries
running persistent deficits should boost national savings by
adopting credible medium-term fiscal targets consistent with
sustainable debt levels and by strengthening export performance.
Conversely, G-20 countries with persistent surpluses should
undertake structural, fiscal, and exchange rate policies to
boost domestic sources of growth and support global demand.
Since our current account balances depend on our own policy
choices as well as on the policies pursued by other G-20
countries, these commitments require a cooperative effort.

Second, to facilitate the orderly rebalancing of global demand,
G-20 countries should commit to refrain from exchange rate
policies designed to achieve competitive advantage by either
weakening their currency or preventing appreciation of an
undervalued currency. G-20 emerging market countries with
significantly undervalued currencies and adequate precautionary
reserves need to allow their exchange rates to adjust fully over
time to levels consistent with economic fundamentals. G-20
advanced countries will work to ensure against excessive
volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates. Together
these actions should reduce the risk of excessive volatility in
capital flows for emerging economies that have flexible exchange
rates.

Third, the G-20 should call on the IMF to assume a special role
in monitoring progress on our commitments. The IMF should
publish a semiannual report assessing G-20 countries’ progress
toward the agreed objectives on external sustainability and the
consistency of countries’ exchange rate, capital account,
structural, and fiscal policies toward meeting those objectives.

With progress on these fronts, we should reach final agreement
on an ambitious package of reforms to strengthen the IMF’s
financial resources and its financial tools, and to reform the
governance structure to increase the voice and representation of
dynamic emerging economies.

Sincerely,

Timothy F. Geithner

Obama speech- not your father’s Democrats

There is a quick fix, a full payroll tax holiday for employees and employers.

His small business proposals show he and the rest of Congress still don’t understand that employment is a function of sales.

There is nothing in their proposals to support consumption, which is the only point of any economy.

I suspect they are afraid of the trade gap and fear domestic consumption will hurt net export growth.

Their goal is to have us be the world’s slaves via rising net exports.

This is all very good for business and the stock market, not so good for people who need to work for a living.

These are not your father’s Democrats.

Payroll taxes and value of the currency

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:18 AM, wrote:
>   
>   A payroll tax holiday would be tantamount to a currency devaluation, no? As Warren’s
>   rightfully described the current US dollar as being merely a tax credit at the end
>   of the day, a reduction in tax burdens will reduce the demand for dollars, all else
>   equal.
>   

Valuation with a floating fx currency is what it can buy, aka the price level. (different with fixed fx/gold standard, etc.)

Anything that is inflationary is ‘devaluing’

Increased demand may or may not be inflationary or even deflationary as the payroll tax holiday reduces costs for business which, in competitive markets, reduces prices.

low wage workers hit hardest by the recession

Fits annecdotally with the macro statistics that showed real GDP up 5.7% in Q4 while unemployment also went up.

Nothing that a full payroll tax holiday in Q3 08 wouldn’t have prevented.

This is not what the administration was hoping for, but it is the result of their policies.

‘No Labor Market Recession For America’s Affluent,’ Low-Wage Workers Hit Hardest: STUDY

By Ryan McCarthy

Feb. 10 (Huffington Post) —It’s truly been a tale of two unemployment crises.

Though the national unemployment rate dipped slightly in January to 9.7 percent, a new study suggests that not only have low-income workers been the hardest hit by the jobs crisis — but, shockingly, there has been “no labor market recession for America’s affluent.”

The study from Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada and Sheila Palma at Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies suggests that the unemployment problem is largely a problem for low-wage workers (hat tip to the Curious Capitalist).

From the study:

At the end of calendar year 2009, as the national economy was recovering from the recession of 2007-2009, workers in different segments of the income distribution clearly found themselves in radically different labor market conditions. A true labor market depression faced those in the bottom two deciles of the income distribution, a deep labor market recession prevailed among those in the middle of the distribution, and close to a full employment environment prevailed at the top. There was no labor market recession for America’s affluent.

At the New York Times, Bob Herbert delved into the study and noted, “The point here is that those in the lower-income groups are in a much, much deeper hole than the general commentary on the recession would lead people to believe.” Here’s more from Herbert:

The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.

Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That’s more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.

According to the study, approximately 50 percent of households in the bottom decile of American income distribution are underemployed; in the second lowest decile, 37 percent of households can’t find enough work. The authors write: “These extraordinarily high rates of labor underutilization among these two income groups would have to be classified as symbolic of a True Great Depression.”