Obama does not need international help


[Skip to the end]

Obama Needs ‘Yes We Can’ Abroad to Help End Global Recession

by Rich Miller

Jan 19 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. led the global economy into its worst recession in at least a quarter century. Now the rest of the world is looking to Barack Obamato lead the way out. The trouble is, even the incoming commander-in-chief of the biggest economy can’t do it alone.

Yes he can!

And we would be better off if we did it ourselves.

With industrial nations suffering their first synchronous decline since World War II, Obama needs policy makers in other countries to pull their weight.

No he doesn’t!

He also requires a resurrection of animal spirits — among investors, banks, companies and consumers — if his government-led effort to revive growth is to succeed.

No he doesn’t!

“We’re facing a more pervasive, more widespread downturn in the global economy than ever before,” says Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics in New York. “It cries out for other countries to stimulate their economies, and stimulate them strongly, rather than to rely on a U.S. upturn to recover.”

No it doesn’t!

‘Sweeping Effort’

Obama has said the budget package won’t solve all America’s ills.

Right, but the right fiscal package can solve the current financial ill- lack of domestic demand- in a matter of weeks.

In a Jan. 8 speech, he called for a “sweeping effort” to help people who face foreclosure remain in their homes. He pledged to prevent “catastrophic failures” of banks and promised to overhaul “weak and outdated” financial regulation.

That won’t do much for the macro economy in the immediate future.

While Obama, 47, may be trying to temper expectations in the U.S., “hopes are high in Asia” that the U.S. stimulus will help countries there weather a collapse in exports, says Tim Condon, head of Asia research at ING Groep NV in Singapore. “They were pushed into trouble by an external shock and so want another one to help them accelerate their way out.”

Let’s give it to them and thereby improve our real terms of trade dramatically!

Condon says he doubts the Obama plan will be much help to the region. About $550 billion of the program consists of spending on such things as roads, bridges, education, health care and other domestic projects that would do little to boost America’s imports from Asia or elsewhere.

Agreed, the fiscal package needs to be larger/better:

  1. Complete payroll tax holiday would add $20 billion per week to employees and employers.
  2. $300 billion to the state pro-rata based on population with no strings attached.
  3. Federal funding for national service jobs at $8 per hour that includes health care.
  4. Pitching In

    No matter how much governments do, it won’t generate a lasting recovery unless companies, banks and consumers also pitch in.

    Yes it will!

    “Fiscal expansion can’t be the answer forever,” says Peter Hooper, a former Federal Reserve official who’s now chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York.

    The right fiscal balance always has been and always will be ‘the answer’.

    “You need to get private spending going again. You need to get the financial sector working again.”

    No you don’t.

    That may take a while. U.S. retail sales fell for the sixth straight month in December, the longest string of declines in records going back to 1992, as the credit crunch led Americans to cut back on everything from eating out to buying cars.

    For his part, Obama says he is under no illusion that things can be turned around anytime soon.

    “There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis,

    Yes there are!

    which has been many years in the making, and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better,” he said last month. “But now is the time to respond with urgent resolve to put people back to work and get our economy moving again.”

    A mid February package from Congress is not urgent resolve.

    Congress has been dragging its feet since it was clear in October that something had gone very wrong with aggregate demand.

    Randall Wray, Research Director for the Center for Full Employment
    and Price Stability and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute writes:

    It is amazing that the media keeps going back to pundits who got it wrong during the boom and continue to get it wrong in the bust. The US does not need foreign help to restore its economy. It does not need to resolve problems in the banking sector before it can restore its economy. All it needs is a sufficient fiscal stimulus to create jobs, restore consumer demand, and improve private sector balance sheets. This will pull along the financial sector and the foreign sector. US banks will not work their way out of insolvency and begin lending again until the economy starts to recover. While it is in the interest of sovereign foreign nations to use their own fiscal stimulus to restore growth, their governments wrongly depend on export-led growth models thus will wait until the US recovers. So the solution is fiscal stimulus in the US, likely on a scale that is at least twice as big as what Obama is pushing. And there is no need to get into a fight about whether it ought to be tax cuts or spending increases–the answer is that we need both: a payroll tax holiday, public infrastructure, direct job creation, and help for state and local governments.


    [top]

An email exchange with Martin Wolf regarding Obama deficits


[Skip to the end]

(an email to Martin Wolf, FT columnist)

 
 
From your recent article:

The bigger point, however, is not that the package needs to be larger, although it does.

Agreed.

It is that escaping from huge and prolonged deficits will be very hard.

Why the notion of ‘escape’?

With convertible currency and a floating foreign exchange policy, all that matters is sustaining demand to support output and employment.

Why does the size of the deficit matter?

As long as the private sector seeks to reduce its debt and the current account is in structural deficit, the US must run big fiscal deficits if it is to sustain full employment.

Fine, so what? There is no operational constraint to doing this. And as long as it’s ‘filling a hole’ in domestic demand, what difference does it me?

That leads to the third point Mr Obama’s advisers must make. This is that running huge fiscal deficits for years is indeed possible.

Of course it’s not.

But the US could get away with this only if default were out of the question.

Forced default is out of the question.

The US government makes any and all USD payments via data entry into its own spreadsheet. What are the possible default conditions?

And when a government security matures, the Fed debits the holder’s security account and credits its bank reserve account.

The risk of too much deficit spending is inflation, not solvency, and when filing a hole in domestic demand, the inflation risk is no more than it normally is when the private sector has the same amount of aggregate demand for any other reason.

 
Warren Mosler


And the Wolf responds..

 
>   
>   On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Martin Wolf wrote:
>   
>   
>   Inflation is default.
>   

I respectfully do not agree.

Default is failure to make payment as agreed.

There is no zero inflation contract.

In fact, most every currency has inflation most years.

>   
>   Surely that is obvious to everybody.
>   

Credit default contracts don’t include inflation, nor does any other default provision.

>   
>   When the economy finally recovers, the government will end up with a very large debt.
>   

It will be some % of GDP that you may consider ‘very large’.

>   
>   Such debt is owed to bond-holders and serviced by taxpayers.
>   

In the first instance it is serviced by crediting accounts on the Fed’s own spread sheet.

If aggregate demand is deemed too high at that time future governments may opt to raise taxes.

If future govts desire to alter the distribution of real output to those then alive they will be free to do that via the usual fiscal and monetary measures.

>   
>   Politicians who are elected by the latter will want to default on liabilities to the former
>   (particularly if many of them are foreigners) and provide taxpayers with goodies, instead.
>   

Very possible!

>   
>   A burst of inflation is how they have always done it.
>   

Yes.

>   
>   End of story.
>   

As above. If you mean to say deficits will cause inflation, then do that.
Default is the wrong word for an international financial column.
Surely that’s obvious to everyone.

>   
>   I suggest you study the history of Argentina or indeed of the post-first-world-war inflations.
>   

And you can study what the ratings agencies have considered to be defaults.

 
All the best,
Warren

>   
>   Martin Wolf
>   


[top]

Obama and the deficit


[Skip to the end]

Obama Says Deficit Likely to Approach $1 Trillion

by Julianna Goldman and Roger Runningen

Jan 6 (Bloomberg) — President-elect Barack Obama said he expects to inherit a $1 trillion budget deficit and that similar shortfalls are in store “for years to come” as the government grapples with a recession and other spending demands.

A “trillion dollar deficit will be here before we even start the next budget,” Obama said after meeting in Washington with his economic advisers, including Peter Orszag, who has been designated as director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Potentially we’ve got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery we are working on.”

Obama said he wants his budget and economic teams to craft a stimulus plan that stabilizes the economy and begins the process of “getting our budget under control.” That includes barring lawmakers from inserting pet spending projects, known as earmarks, into the legislation, he said.

‘Unsustainable’ Spending
Some congressional Democrats, including Senate Budget Committee ChairmanKent Conrad of North Dakota, are calling the incoming administration to come up with a long-term plan to cut the deficit. Conrad said today on Bloomberg TV that the nation’s financial situation is “unsustainable for the long term.”

A plan for dealing with budget imbalances “has to be put in place” as the new administration and Congress craft a stimulus plan, he said.

Obama said he agrees.

“It’s not just Democratic or Republican colleagues on the Hill that are concerned about this, I’m concerned about this,” Obama said. “I’m going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a handle on this deficit.”


Advisers

Along with Orszag, those who took part in the session were Timothy Geithner, Treasury secretary-designate; Christina Romer, director-designate of the Council of Economic Advisors and Lawrence Summers, director-designate of the National Economic Council.


[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]

Obama in no rush for fiscal package?


[Skip to the end]

Obama Has No Timetable for Stimulus Package

by Steve Leisman

President-elect Barack Obama does not have a timetable to develop and pass an economic stimulus package, according to one of his aides on the transition team.

Still, Obama wants to get a plan in place as soon as possible given the deteriorating economy, this person said.

Wait until the December unemployment report comes out…

However, it is important to get the stimulus plan right in order to get the maximum impact from the effort.

What’s that all about? Lower multiple fiscal adjustments just mean you can do more of them.

It’s about aggregate demand, not governments ability to pay.

Previously, there had been talk of a Jan. 20 deadline for passage of an economic plan. But this is looking increasingly unlikely.

Wonderful…


[top]

Obama package smaller than expected


[Skip to the end]

Obama team dismisses reports of trillion dollar stimulus

ByJessica Yellin

(CNN) – An Obama transition official says reports that the president-elect will release a stimulus plan with a trillion-dollar price tag are overblown, and that the actual figure being discussed is far smaller.

Some outside economists have pushed the trillion-dollar figure. One recent report suggested the transition team was working with an $850 billion plan. But this official describes the amount Obama advisors are currently considering as significantly lower than both.
Obama and his economic team met for four hours yesterday. They are still working on the package, which will not be announced before the president-elect returns from Hawaii later this month.


[top]

Orszag again


[Skip to the end]

Obama picks Orszag to run budget office

By Jeanne Sahadi

President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated Peter Orszag to head the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the president’s chief number-crunching department.

As OMB director, Orszag, 40, would prepare the president’s federal budget proposals for Congress and analyze the effectiveness of government programs and policies, as well as have a big role in determining funding priorities for federal dollars.
Orszag has also been a frank voice on the growth in the country’s deficit and the shortfalls in the Social Security and Medicare programs.

“The nation is on an unsustainable fiscal course,” Orszag said in September, before the Treasury and Federal Reserve committed over a trillion dollars to stem the credit crisis, at least some of which the government is expected to make back over time.


[top]

Re: Orszag to head OMB


[Skip to the end]

(email exhange)

Hopefully it’s something like 3 steps forward and only 1 or 2 steps back…

>   
>   On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   Looks like Orszag’s the man to get the long run budget “under control”
>   and this is why Obama waited till Tuesday to talk about it in detail. Bad
>   news–the fiscal gap and generational accounting come to the White
>   House (Orszag already incorporated them into CBO reports). As I said
>   before, they may never get to the “long run” with this approach.
>   

Orszag expected to join Obama team Tuesday

Two sources close to the transition tell CNN that on Tuesday, President-elect Barack Obama will officially unveil Peter Orszag as his nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget at a press conference in Chicago.

Obama hinted at this at an event Monday, when he suggested his Tuesday event would focus on finding cuts in the federal budget to help dig the nation out of the fiscal crisis.

“Full recovery will not happen immediately,” Obama told reporters. “And to make the investments we need, we’ll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices as well, something I will be discussing further tomorrow.”


[top]

Re: Obama on fiscal policy


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

And how about this:

Obama: costly stimulus needed to jolt U.S. economy

By Jeff Mason and Ross Colvin

Obama said the country would see a substantial budget deficit next year, which he described as “bigger than we’ve seen in a very long time.”

“American taxpayers are understandably concerned, if we already have a big deficit, and now we’re added an additional stimulus, how are we going to pay for all that?” he said.

“The right answer is that we have to first focus on getting the economy back on track.”

Obama said he would discuss steps toward a “sustainable and responsible budget scenario” at a news conference on Tuesday at which he is expected to announce further members of his economic team.

“We’ll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well, something I’ll be discussing further tomorrow,” he said.

>   
>   On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   Looks like Obama wanted her precisely because of her work on the
>   history of the depression and WWII era, and her work at NBER
>   analyzing business cycles. So far, everyone on the team (except I
>   don’t know Geithner’s views on this, but assume he’s pretty
>   mainstream) views long run deficits as bad for interest rates, capital,
>   and growth. Not good, but they may never get the chance to worry
>   about the long run in that case!
>   


[top]

Congress to send Obama stimulus bill first day


[Skip to the end]

Whether or not you like the details, $700 billion of actual, front loaded spending will quickly turn things around.

Equities could easily double from current levels over the next year.

The credit machine will turn back on with a vengeance.

And without an energy policy that immediately cuts gasoline consumption, CPI could quickly be back over 5%.

Obama Will Get Stimulus Bill First Day, Democrats Say (Update1)

By Daniel Whitten

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) — Congress will send President-elect Barack Obama an economic stimulus package the day he takes office Jan. 20, two Democratic lawmakers said today.

Senator Charles Schumer of New York told ABC “This Week” today the package will be between $500 billion and $700 billion. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, of Maryland, said on “Fox News Sunday” that he believed the Inauguration Day goal would be met, but he declined to put a price tag on it.

“I think Congress will work with the president elect starting now and will have a major stimulus package on his desk by Inauguration day,” Schumer said. “I think it has to be deep. My view it has to be between 5 and $700 billion.”


[top]