Re: Mike Masters on oil on CBS


[Skip to the end]


Watch CBS Videos Online

(email exchange)

>   
>   On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Russell
>   wrote:
>   
>   Very compelling argument. Still believe it is the
>   Saudis controlling price?
>   

Has to be, within a range of net demand.

Notice their ‘production increase’ right before the big sell off in July?

>   
>   Makes sense: I remember the Kuwait oil
>   minister saying that he could not explain $140
>   oil. He was not seeing any new demand to
>   drive up price. Everyone said he was lying.
>   
>   A friend was telling me that there was no
>   shortage. In March he was trying to find
>   storage along the Mississippi River. There was
>   no. All tanks full.
>   

Right, never has been a shortage. Just price setting. And the price setters were happy to accommodate the run up until it cut demand, as they were running out of capacity as well.

>   
>   So today we have global demand declining 1
>   million barrels per day.
>   

Right, no big deal. Nothing OPEC hasn’t already adjusted for.

The problem has been the inventory liquidation as prices fell. No telling when that has run it’s course. Futures markets are saying not yet, but getting closer to the end.

The Masters Inventory Liquidation is probably the largest inventory liquidation of all time.

Hopefully it leads to pension funds not being allowed to use passive commodity strategies as investments, but not sure it won’t all come back. There’s still a lot of it going on. I’d vote to have it outlawed.

>   
>   Supply is being cut back. We have the Chinese
>   economy tanking. So are we looking at $25 oil?
>   

Not impossible until the inventory liquidation has run its course. It took about this long in 2006. I didn’t think it would last that long this time, but the liquidation has been a lot larger than back then.

>   
>   If so, we are going to see a violent world at a
>   time of global economic weakness. Russian is
>   struggling, so is Venezuela and Iran. Potential
>   uprisings there.
>   

Yes.

>   
>   Here is the USA it is a true blessing. Without
>   lower oil prices, we would be a serious
>   economic quandary.
>   

It’s already pretty serious! While consumers are being helped, the energy related companies have gotten hurt and helped bring stocks down. Lower crude also makes stronger/USD harder to get overseas, so they stop buying our stuff like they were before. Domestics should pick up that slack as their oil bills go down, but there’s a big lag due to rising unemployment general economic disruption.

>   
>   Who said markets were understandable let
>   alone logical.
>   

Can’t remember. Probably me!


[top]

Economists in favor of payroll tax holiday


[Skip to the end]

Thanks, at least it got a mention.

The bang for the buck thing is pathetic. That has nothing to do with anything.

>   
>   On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   FYI, the below has only copied in those
>   economists specifically naming a payroll tax
>   holiday. Many of the comments here and in
>   the proposals not included demonstrate an
>   unfortunate lack of understanding of sovereign
>   money. On the other hand, those copied
>   below demonstrate that the payroll tax holiday
>   is supported by at least some economists from
>   just about every political and economic
>   persuasion.
>   

The Ideal Stimulus Package

by Catherine Rampell

Dec 16 (Economix) &#8212 President-elect Barack Obama and members of Congress are considering a fiscal stimulus package that’s reportedly in the ballpark of $500 billion. How should that money be spent?

We asked a group of economists how they would use the money if they had their druthers. For simplicity’s sake, we gave them the condition that they had to use every penny of the $500 billion on government spending or tax cuts or both. A collection of their responses is below.


Tyler Cowen, professor at George Mason University: “I would modernize the few critical bottleneck airports in the U.S., most of all La Guardia and Kennedy. That would not cost a fortune.

“I would try to ensure that state and local governments do not cut funding which they will later restore. To me that is more important, and more conducive to macroeconomic stability, than embarking on new and potentially dubious programs. That will cost most of the money. It’s not that I think state and local governments are always so efficient and wise, but rather this is a very simple and direct way to prevent the economy from being hit by yet another sectoral shock when it is already reeling.

“There are many good ideas, such as electronic medical records, that will not benefit the economy as macroeconomic stimulus. And so they do not make the list as you have phrased the question.

“If there is money left over I would spend it on cutting the Social Security payroll tax for specified groups of lower- to middle-income workers, thus encouraging the resumption of hiring.”


Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com:

“The package includes $300 billion in government spending and $200 billion in tax cuts. Government spending provides the largest economic bang for the buck, particularly infrastructure spending, as it immediately adds to output and jobs here in the U.S. Aid to state governments will also forestall immediate cuts in programs and jobs that states have to undertake to satisfy their balanced budget requirements. Infrastructure spending will take time to benefit the economy, and a tax cut is necessary to provide some quick support to the economy. A payroll tax holiday and a permanent payroll tax credit would be effective tax cuts, particularly if designed to help harder-pressed lower- and middle-income households and smaller businesses. If I had my druthers, however, the recovery package would be measurably larger than $500 billion. It is important for policy makers to send a strong and clear signal that they will do whatever is necessary to revive the economy. Only a concerted, comprehensive and consistent policy response stands between a severe recession and another depression.”


Edward L. Glaeser, professor at Harvard University:

  • “(1)…I would certainly put money into scholarships, but you can’t spend 500 billion that way. I haven’t even tried to cost it out. I would — by the way — accompany these things with a certain amount of living assistance that would be conditional on good performance in the program (getting a degree if appropriate).
  • “(2) There must be good transportation and infrastructure projects out there — I would do this probably with states proposing things that are then evaluated by an independent committee to look at cost/benefit analysis. Then make the money contingent on getting highly rated by this group. I presume broadband makes sense.
  • “(3) Aid to states, as a form of revenue-sharing, is O.K. I would also tie this to good performance in other areas…
  • “(4) Ramp up the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • “(5) Temporarily have the federal government pay the Social Security taxes of poorer Americans. The key is to get money in the hands of people who will spend it — both for that reason and conventional equity grounds — it makes sense to target money towards the poor. They aren’t paying regular taxes (mostly) — the only taxes that can be cut for this group are the S.S.D.I.-type payments — so let’s cut these. Obviously, it needs to be done in such a way that minimizes any distortions not to work.”

Laura Tyson, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business and chair of the National Economic Council and President’s Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton: “The U.S. economy is caught in three related crises that are reinforcing one another in a downward spiral: a crisis in the housing and mortgage market; a credit crisis; and a crisis of collapsing private demand. These three crises are not self-correcting. They are self-reinforcing. They can be mitigated and reversed only with bold government policies that include: a fiscal economic stimulus package of government spending and tax cuts to fill the gap caused by the shortfall in private demand; policies to stem the mortgage and foreclosure crisis; and policies to stem the credit crisis by recapitalizing the banks and acquiring assets not currently trading among private actors.

“There are three broad goals of fiscal stimulus measures: to reduce the depth and severity of the recession caused by the sharp fall in private demand; to help those most hurt by the recession; and to encourage economic activity that provides a basis for sustainable growth and prosperity in the future.

“Four principles should guide the choice of stimulus measures:

  • “They should be timely in the sense that they increase demand as quickly as possible: examples include federal grants and loans to state and local governments and temporary tax relief.
  • “They should have a significant impact on spending and employment: examples include extended jobless benefits and infrastructure spending on already approved projects.
  • “They should provide relief for those who are most adversely affected by the recession: examples include extended jobless benefits and food stamps and support for state Medicaid programs.
  • “They should focus on growth-enhancing investments in education, infrastructure and alternative/green energy development: examples include: increased support for work-study programs and Pell grants; infrastructure spending on mass transit programs; and enhanced tax credits for the production and utilization of alternative energy.

“The size of the stimulus package depends on how deep and long the recession turns out to be. A 4 percent reduction in G.D.P. indicates a stimulus package of about $600 billion spread out over two years, with the lion’s share spent in the first two quarters of 2009. Based on current economic forecasts, I think a stimulus package of at least this magnitude is warranted. Given the sharp drop in economic activity, I think the dangers of doing too little outweigh the dangers of doing too much.

“For a $500 billion stimulus package, I would include the following policies:

  • $40 billion for additional UI and food stamp benefits
  • $175 billion of infrastructure spending, including about $90 billion for alternative energy and green initiatives
  • $120 billion for grants and loans to state and local governments
  • $165 for household and business tax relief (including a temporary payroll tax holiday)

“I would also support additional government spending of $40-$50 billion for a foreclosure relief/loan modification program. According to scholars at the Center for American Progress, this amount could prevent more than 3 million foreclosures on $640 billion of mortgages and help ease overall credit market conditions. This amount of foreclosure relief could be financed out of the TARP program or included in a larger stimulus package.

“Finally, I would also support a bridge loan for the auto companies in the range of $15-$20 billion. This could also be financed out of the TARP program or included in a larger stimulus package.”


[top]

Re: Auction result history in Germany


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

Thanks, Dave, as we thought, the ECB isn’t involved. The CB is an arm of the national government, so, when they do sell the excess securities, the government is then and thereby funded without ECB involvement of any kind. A more serious ‘failure’ would be when the dealers won’t/can’t buy the excess from the CB.

>   
>   Warren,
>   
>   In terms of Germany’s failed auction, the
>   German Central Bank at their discretion will call
>   up one of leading primary dealers and sell the
>   bonds they bought at the auction directly to
>   the dealer. According to ML, they hold bonds
>   back in every auction so they have quite a bit
>   of flexibility to sell other bonds they hold in
>   their portfolio in order to meet the auction
>   shortfall if necessary. I am getting some
>   history for the last year on German auction
>   results and will pass it along when I get it.
>   

>   
>   On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Dave wrote:
>   
>   Average amount of bonds bought by German
>   Central Bank (BBK) over last 12-15 auctions:
>   
>   2yr: 1.2 bb vs. average announced
>   issue size of 7.2 bb, 17%
>   5yr: 0.7 bb vs. average announced issue
>   size of 5.3 bb, 13%
>   10yr: 1.5 bb vs. average announced issue
>   size of 6.7 bb, 22%
>   30yr: 0.7 bb vs. average announced issue
>   size of 5.1 bb, 14%
>   
>   Bonds were bought by BBK at every one of
>   these auctions and for each maturity
>   
>   The 2yr auction has failed total bids
>   (announced issue size) 2x in the last 13
>   auctions, the 5yr has failed 2x in the last 15
>   auctions, the 10yr auction has failed 5x in the
>   last 11 auctions (note that the last 2 auctions
>   have failed), and for the 30yr 3x in the last 12
>   auctions.
>   
>   DV
>   


[top]

S&P cuts Republic of Ireland OTLK from stable to negative


[Skip to the end]

Thanks!

The ratings agencies could be the catalyst that destabilizes finance for the eurozone national governments, driving up spreads, rates, and ultimately, the ability limiting their ability to fund at any cost.

Downgrades can also do the same for banks in the eurozone.

This would come as a surprise as downgrades of Japan, for example, didn’t alter their ability to issue JGBs as if they were still AAA.

Meanwhile, eurozone economic performance seems to be worsening by the day, as the lack of aggregate demand takes its toll.

>   
>   On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Dave wrote:
>   
>   One bit of news explaining why there 3yr bond
>   came at L+90 when Austria also a AAA rating
>   came at L+15
>   
>   DV
>   

*S&P CUTS REPUBLIC OF IRELAND OTLK FROM STABLE TO NEGATIVE
*S&P CUTS REPUBLIC OF IRELAND OTLK FROM STABLE TO NEGATIVE
*S&P: IRELAND OTLK TO NEG ON CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCES


[top]

Re: Unemployment!


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

Thanks,

It’s all coming apart.

Need that full payroll tax holiday now!

(Treasury makes all contributions for employees and employers to keep the accounting in order)

>   
>   On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Morris wrote:
>   
>   It seems the problems with unemployment
>   claims system overload this week is even more
>   severe than we thought. To recap, NY state’s
>   internet and phone systems went down on
>   Monday due to unusually high applicant
>   volumes. Ohio and North Carolina had volume-
>   related problems that caused their internet
>   system to go down, Kentucky’s system
>   crashed, Massachusetts reported problems
>   getting through for thousands of callers and
>   internet filers and New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
>   Oklahoma and Washington all added additional
>   operators to deal with the spike in call volumes.
>   
>   To recap, all of these problems happened this
>   week, so they will affect next Thursday’s
>   report, not this morning’s. They suggest an
>   unusual spike in layoffs which suggests the
>   difficulty seasonally adjusting data around the
>   year-end holidays may have caused the claims
>   data of the past two weeks to be understated.
>   
>   Based on a quick web search, we could not
>   find any evidence of similar problems in the
>   past.
>   
>   Thanks to all of you who sent links.
>   


[top]

Credit card risks


[Skip to the end]

>   
>   Matt writes;
>   
>   …But as far as credit card debt, I think that
>   the negative reporting may be overblown by
>   debt doomsday types. Ive always suspected
>   so, and may finally have found the proof in a
>   column I read by Gene Epstein in Barrons back
>   in October. Excerpt: “…But according to a
>   source at CreditCards.com, approximately
>   $400 billion of the nearly $1 trillion in
>   outstanding credit- card debt is paid down
>   completely each month, essentially used as a
>   short-term interest-free loan. More than $500
>   billion of the rest is owed by users who pay
>   somewhere between the full amount and the
>   minimum due. Only about 6% of the total is
>   owed by customers who pay only the
>   minimum.”
>   
>   The $500B he identifies as carry over debt is
>   the real credit card debt (to me), and is
>   equivalent to about only 6 weeks of US retail
>   sales. It also probably includes much business
>   wholesale trade as many businesses are using
>   AMEX Corp Card and VISA Business for small
>   purchasing nowadays, often for the “rewards”
>   programs.
>   
>   I think the government and media reports on
>   credit card debt are only taking a snapshot of
>   balances at a given time in a month, and as
>   monthly closing dates on the cards can vary
>   from one cardholder to another, and the cards
>   are continuously used throughout the month,
>   the number looks larger ($900B) than what I
>   think they are trying to track, which I think is
>   the $500B amount (true credit card “debt”).
>   $500B is about $1650 per capita. I dont think
>   this will be a much of a drag for the US
>   economy.
>   
>   Perhaps this perspective will give you some
>   hope that the large stimulus package is going
>   to help improve the economy this year.
>   


[top]

Stimulus package


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>   
>   Mauer wrote:
>   
>   My main worry about the efficacy of the fiscal
>   stimulus–aside from the international
>   spillovers in case it is not supported by equally
>   ambitious fiscal plans elsewhere–is this:
>   households that face considerable employment
>   uncertainty, and hence about their to future
>   income prospects, are unlikely to go on a big
>   spending spree. Just as banks are hoarding
>   cash, households will try to preserve wealth
>   by increasing saving at the margin. This
>   reduces the marginal propensity to consume,
>   and renders the fiscal boost rather ineffective.
>   
>   Why not try to deal with the looming
>   unemployment problem, and the huge sense of
>   risk and uncertainty it creates, more directly?
>   What I have in mind is subsidizing employment
>   directly by providing employers incentives to
>   keep people on the job.
>   

I look at it this way- if people want to work and earn/save/not spend their paychecks, the output can be directed to public goods and services (goods and services not re-offered for sale) without ‘inflation’.

This is done via federal deficit spending, which adds exactly that amount to non-government ‘savings.’

Trying to increase output that needs to be bought on the market when the desire to consume isn’t there requires that much more deficit spending to eventually induce more spending.

This can/does work, and with government solvency not an issue, it’s a viable political option.

However, seems public purpose is better served via deficit spending, producing public goods and services when the desire for private goods and services is suppressed?

For a narrow example to make the point, why try to induce more car production and employment building cars and marketing cars when the demand isn’t there due to desires to save rather than spend? Instead employ people to fix the roads and bridges until demand for vehicles picks up?

That said, my best guess is that given more income, spending will go up substantially and in short order, due to delayed purchases due to lack of income.

Warren


[top]

Re: Obama gas tax?


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

And this is even worse than the conservation motive:

“Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren’t raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

That has the federal commission that oversees financing for transportation talking about increasing the federal fuel tax.

A 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission to finance highway construction and repair until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads. “

>   
>   On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Deep wrote:
>   
>   Hi Warren, Karim,
>   
>   I heard talk of a possible gas tax to make
>   consumers change habits / retain the good
>   ones gained over the last 6 months.
>   
>   It sounds like they want to keep price of gas
>   at the pump high either directly by Crude
>   being high (increase in demand, decrease in
>   supply) or through these artificial measures
>   and thus force a change in Oil consumption
>   patterns. If implemented I can only see
>   negative impacts over the 6m timeframe –
>   
>   a) crimp consumption further by removing $
>   from the consumer
>   
>   b) hurt US Car manufacturer jobs whose
>   bottom line seems more leveraged to high gas
>   prices than foreign manufacturers
>   
>   c) accelerate headline inflation possibly forcing
>   the Fed to tighten
>   

Yes, and worse. Using a gas tax to allocate by price is highly regressive. It means the upper income Americans can have any size SUV they want for safety and prestige and drive all they want, while lower income Americans have to car pool to work in tiny cars.

Seems a Democratic administration would not use allocation (rationing) by price but instead use other, non regressive means of allocation.

Either the Dems don’t know any better or they are now controlled by upper income Americans as the Reps are?

>   
>   All this, together with a delayed fiscal package
>   will likely hit any recovery in consumption.
>   

Yes, it would mean we need a larger fiscal package. But not so large to allow all to afford the new gas tax.

>   
>   Would love to get your thoughts.
>   

Seems the political logic remains convoluted, at best!

>   
>   Thanks, Deep
>   


[top]