Category Archives: Politics

Geithner- U.S. Will Urge China to Boost Interest Rates

Posted on by

Even more confused than the usual out of paradigm nonsense from Geithner highlighted below:

U.S. Will Urge China to Boost Interest Rates in Washington Talks

By Rebecca Christie and Ian Katz

May 9 (Bloomberg) — Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will urge China to allow higher interest rates when he meets with Chinese leaders this week, as the U.S. extends its push for a stronger yuan.

Geithner will say China should relax controls on the financial system, give foreign banks and insurers more access and make it easier for investors to buy Chinese financial assets, said David Loevinger, the Treasury Department’s senior coordinator for China. Officials from both nations are meeting in Washington today and tomorrow as part of the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

The US Treasury shamelessly fronting for the financial sector.

The U.S. is pushing for greater market access for financial firms as part of its broader effort to persuade China to ease the restrictions blamed for fueling global imbalances. U.S. officials argue that a yuan kept artificially cheap to help exporters also makes it harder for China to lift interest rates and curb an inflation rate that hit a 32-month high in March.

Budget Deficits

Chinese officials, for their part, blame record U.S. budget deficits for contributing to lopsided global flows of trade and investment. China held $1.15 trillion in Treasuries at the end of February, more than any other country. The U.S. trade deficit with China came to $18.8 billion in February.

Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said on May 6 that China is paying “close attention” to U.S. efforts to reduce its budget deficit, and his country will focus on improving the quality of itsexchange-rate mechanism.

Yes, China is chiming in on US fiscal policy and no one of political consequence believes they are wrong.

Geithner and Vice Premier Wang Qishan will meet alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and State Councilor Dai Bingguo at this week’s meetings, which will draw about 30 top Chinese officials.

The Obama administration and U.S. lawmakers say China’s currency policy gives the nation’s exporters an unfair competitive advantage, costing U.S. jobs. Geithner is trying to convince Chinese officials that a stronger yuan has benefits for their economy.

‘Enhanced’ Ability

Geithner said last week that allowing the yuan to rise and making their financial system less dependent on government- controlled interest rates would give Chinese leaders an “enhanced” ability to damp inflation.

This just gets stupider and stupider with each out of paradigm iteration.

The Treasury argues that higher interest rates on deposits will also encourage consumer spending in China, another way to reduce imbalances.

Here he takes my position on monetary policy- depending on the institutional structure, higher rates add to aggregate demand via the income interest channels. But it’s totally confused in this context of fighting inflation, as higher demand adds to price pressures, and also adds to cost pressures via the cost of capital for businesses.

“We’re going to encourage China to move more quickly in lifting the ceiling on interest rates on bank deposits in order to put more money into Chinese consumers’ pockets,” Loevinger said at a briefing last week in Washington.

Investors are betting the yuan’s rise may be limited over the next 12 months. Twelve-month non-deliverable yuan forwards dropped 0.81 percent last week to 6.3520 per dollar on May 6, their biggest weekly loss of the year, on speculation that China won’t allow faster appreciation to reduce inflation.

Fundamentally, inflation and currency depreciation are pretty much the same thing. So ultimately inflation goes hand in hand with currency depreciation, as inflation removes the ability to ‘allow faster appreciation’.

17-Year High

The yuan closed little changed in Shanghai on May 6, ending a run of seven weekly gains that drove the currency to a 17-year high of 6.4892 on April 29, according to the China Foreign Exchange Trade System.

John Frisbie, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said support for a stronger yuan among Chinese leaders has increased in the past year.

Yes, looks like inflation is bad enough in their view to throw their exporters under the bus via currency appreciation (for as long as it can last) in what looks like a desperation move.

“The strong hand has switched over to those who are saying that the exchange rate can help us fight inflation,” Frisbie said in a telephone interview. He said his group, whose members include companies such as Apple Inc. (AAPL), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Coca-Cola Co. (KO), wants China to resume opening its financial services sector to allow more foreign investment.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China said in a report last month that foreign banks play an “insignificant role” in China.

Foreign lenders’ market share in China has dropped since the government first opened the industry in December 2006. Banks such as New York-based Citigroup Inc. (C) and London-based HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA) want to tap household and corporate savings that reached $10 trillion in January as China overtook Japan to become the world’s second-biggest economy.

Foxes into the hen house…

Foreign Exchange

The U.S. has delayed its semi-annual foreign-exchange report, which had been due on April 15, until after this week’s meetings. The previous report, due on Oct. 15, 2010, was released on Feb. 4 and declined to brand China a currency manipulator while saying the No. 2 U.S. trading partner has made “insufficient” progress on allowing the yuan to rise.

The yuan goes beyond the U.S. and China to become “a multilateral issue, in terms of the impact on Brazil, Korea, Thailand and India,” said Edwin Truman, a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official who is now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

‘Causing Trouble’

The “slow” appreciation of the yuan “relative to the dollar in an environment where the dollar is going down against other currencies is causing trouble for other countries and currencies,” Truman said.

Diplomats at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue also will discuss events in the Middle East, including military operations in Libya and the ramifications of the region’s popular uprisings.

Officials are likely to discuss efforts to revive six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program. Negotiations between the two Koreas, Russia, Japan, China and the U.S. stalled in December 2008 and tensions flared on the peninsula after North Korea’s Nov. 23 bombing of a South Korean island.

Yes, mistakenly believing we are dependent on China to fund our deficit spending has us kowtowing on human rights and nuclear weapons.

“We want to compare notes on where we stand with respect to North Korea, and we will be very clear on what our expectations are for moving forward,” Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said on May 5.

Share

Saudi oil production, Donald Trump, and President Obama

Posted on by

The Saudis operate by posting prices for their refiners and then filling all orders at their posted prices.

It looks like the spike in demand for Saudi crude due to Libya has pretty much passed, and Libya is not back to full production.

So look for Saudi production to fall further when Libya comes back on line.

Prices, however, will remain at whatever level the Saudis decide to post, much like Donald Trump has been proclaiming. And with Trump having the President’s ear, there’s at least an outside chance the President figures it out and lets the Saudis know he’s on to them and works out a price cut?

Share

Euro-Area Debt Reaches Record 85.1% of GDP as Crisis Festers

Posted on by

It’s hard to say from the headlines whether proactive deficit reduction measures are slowing the economies to the point where the slowing is causing their deficits to increase.

However, if that is the case, continuing their deficit reduction efforts will only make things worse, to the point of forcing social upheaval.

And the rising deficits will begin to weaken the euro, as the deficit reduction that initially worked to strengthen the euro reverse.

And higher rates from the ECB will only serve to further increase national government deficits via higher interest payments by those same governments.

This also makes euro ‘easier to get’ and thereby weakens the currency.

Yes, the euro zone is seeing ‘inflation’, as they define it, moving higher, but under current conditions I don’t see any channel from rate hikes to lower ‘inflation’, again as they define it. But I do see how higher rates can instead add to the general price level through income interest and cost channels. All of which would be exacerbated should this policy also cause the euro to depreciate.

With regards to funding, there is nothing operationally to stop the ECB from, for all practical purposes, funding/backstopping the entire banking system as well as the national governments.

The question is the political will, which is not quantifiable.

And the solution remains painfully simple- the ECB can simply announce an annual payment of 10% of the euro zone’s gdp to the national governments on a per capita basis.

This will have no effect on inflation as it won’t get spent. It will only serve to allow all of the national governments to borrow at the ECB’s target rate, which would lower funding costs for the nations currently paying premiums for funding.

This will also give the ECB a lever to control deficits- the threat of suspending a nation’s funding if it is not in compliance.

And by removing the threat of market discipline from funding, the region would be free to set their stability and growth pact deficit targets at levels designed to achieve their macro economic goals for employment, output, and price stability.

Euro-Area Debt Reaches Record 85.1% of GDP as Crisis Festers

(Bloomberg) Euro-area debt reached a record in 2010. Debt rose in all 16 countries that were using the euro last year, lifting the bloc’s average to 85.1 percent of gross domestic product from 79.3 percent in 2009, the European Union’s statistics office said. Greece’s deficit topped expectations and debt ballooned to 142.8 percent of GDP, the highest in the euro’s 12-year history. Ireland’s debt surged the most, by 30.6 percentage points to 96.2 percent of GDP. Contingent liabilities from guaranteeing the banking system after the 2008 financial panic now amount to 6.5 percent of GDP, down from 8.6 percent in 2009, Eurostat said.

Share

MMT’s Professor L. Randall Wray makes the NY Times!

Posted on by

Ignore the Raters

By L. Randall Wray

April 18 (NYT)

L. Randall Wray is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. He is the author of“Understanding Modern Money,” and blogs at New Economic Perspectives.

In what appears to be an attempt to influence the political debate in Washington over federal government deficits, Standards & Poor’s rating firm downgraded U.S. debt to negative from stable. Yes, the raters who blessed virtually every toxic waste subprime security they saw with AAA ratings now see problems with sovereign government debt.

The best thing to do is to ignore the raters — as markets usually do when sovereign debt gets downgraded — but this time stock indexes fell, probably because of the uncertain prospects concerning government budgeting. After all, we barely avoided a government shutdown earlier this month, and with S.&P. joining the fray who knows whether the government will continue to pay its bills?

Mind you, this has nothing to do with economics, government solvency or involuntary default. A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.

Similarly Chairman Alan Greenspan said that Social Security can never go broke because government can meet all its obligations by “creating money.”

Instead, sovereign government spending is constrained by budgeting procedure and by Congressionally imposed debt limits. In other words, by self-imposed constraints rather than by market constraints.

Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid “crowding out” private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.

Strangely enough, the ratings agencies recognized long ago that sovereign currency-issuing governments do not really face solvency constraints. A decade ago Moody’s downgraded Japan to Aaa3, generating a sharp reaction from the government. The raters back-tracked and said they were not rating ability to pay, but rather the prospects for inflation and currency depreciation. After 10 more years of running deficits, Japan’s debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio is 200 percent, it borrows at nearly zero interest rates, it makes every payment that comes due, its yen remains strong and deflation reigns.

While I certainly hope we do not repeat Japan’s economic experience of the past two decades, I think the impact of downgrades by raters of U.S. sovereign debt will have a similar impact here: zip.

Share

Sen. John Kerry- read my book and lose the long face

Posted on by

MMT to Senator Kerry-

Read ‘The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy’,
Lose the long face, and save us from ourselves.

Taxes function to regulate the economy, not to bring in dollars to spend

The idea that US- the actual issuer of its own currency, can be the next Greece- a user of the currency like a US state, a business, or a household, is entirely inapplicable.

There is no looming US government funding crisis.

There is a massive shortage of aggregate demand.

It’s not silly, it’s tragic.

Sen. Kerry: Budget Deal Makes America Look ‘Silly in a Lot of People’s Minds’

By Nicholas Ballasy

April 12 (CNSNew.com) — Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the budget deal negotiated by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) and President Barack Obama makes America look “silly in a lot of people’s minds.”

“I think it’s no secret that I didn’t like the process,” Kerry said at a Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday. “I don’t think it served the United States Congress or Senate well to have that fraction of the budget, with 100 percent of the cuts coming from 12 percent of the budget, threaten to hold up the government of the United States to the point of shutdown.”

“I think it did all of us, frankly, I think that process did us all a disservice as Americans,” he said. “I think the country looks silly in a lot of people’s minds when we have so much bigger budget challenges in front of us.”

Kerry appeared with Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the press conference where they announced their legislation, “The Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011,” which they said would protect individuals’ personal information from being sold by companies without their knowledge.

Kerry commented on the budget process at the end of the conference.

“John McCain would agree with me and, as I think so many of our colleagues do now, there’s no way to resolve our budget challenge unless we put everything on the table,

” said Kerry. “That means Medicare, Medicaid, fix Social Security without cutting benefits and, obviously, look at the Defense Department spending, procurement and other things. Everything has to be on the budget.”

The budget compromise reached late on Friday (and to be voted on this Thursday) to avoid a government shutdown cuts federal spending by $38.5 billion for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

Share

Death by 1000 cuts: The economics of innocent subversion

Posted on by

Even NY Fed Chief Bill Dudley, well aware of his role as a manager of expectations, is worried:

Dudley Headlines:

DUDLEY SAYS IMPORTANT NOT TO OVERREACT TO RISING INFLATION
DUDLEY ATTRIBUTES LOSS OF MOMENTUM TO RISING OIL PRICES
DUDLEY SAYS U.S. ECONOMY LOST SOME MOMENTUM IN PAST TWO MONTHS

Last I heard Congress agreed cut $38 billion in spending from this year’s budget as a ‘down payment’ on reducing the federal deficit.

Followed by every economic forecaster on Wall St. and Main St. reducing estimates for this years’s GDP by maybe 1/2% or more. (These are people who get paid to be right, and not to produce propaganda.)

I have no problem with cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending, but when we have this kind of shortage of aggregate demand said cuts would be more than matched with either tax cuts and/or other spending increases, to sustain aggregate demand.

(Aggregate demand is the total spending, private and public, that supports employment and output).

The proposals are now to get to work on more serious deficit reduction- maybe $5 trillion over the next 10 years, or about $500 billion or so per year.

Ask your favorite forecasters what that does to GDP. I’ll guess they’ll tell you it would be a proactive reduction of more than 3% per year. Plus multipliers. And maybe a 50% increase in unemployment as the output gap skyrockets from already insanely high levels.

In other words, maybe 10 years of negative growth, unless private sector (including non residents) spending somehow increases at least by that much.

For domestic sector spending to increase to fill what my mate Bill Mitchell likes to call the spending gap, there would need to be an increase in private sector debt (which is likewise measured as a drop in private sector savings).

With today’s credit conditions, I don’t see where that could possibly come from. Borrowing to spend on houses and cars- the traditional engine of consumer growth- rising to levels sufficient to close the output gap seems highly unlikely. Particularly when federal deficit reduction is cutting incomes and savings.

For the foreign sector (non residents) to fill that spending gap, the trade gap would have to somehow stop going up and suddenly drop down by that amount. Not impossible, but a very ugly process (for us)- massive decline in our real terms of trade, etc.- should that actually happen.

So why is this happening? Why are we drinking the hemlock?

Because both sides- Democrats and Republicans- have it all dead wrong.

They both agree the federal deficit is too large and is a dire threat to our well being.

When, in fact, the exact opposite is the case- the output gap/unemployment is telling us- screaming at us- that the federal deficit is too small, and that Congress should be arguing over whether they should cut taxes and/or increase spending.

(And throw in an energy policy, and fast, but that’s for another post).

But because they think we could be the next Greece and face a federal funding crisis, they continue to work to turn us into the next Japan with two lost decades- and worse.

It’s either ignorance or subversion, so let me take the liberty to again borrow from John Kenneth Galbraith and call it innocent subversion.

“The worst part is that, because both sides have no clue about the real functioning of the monetary system, they have both been hard at work misinforming the public. And, since they both watch and react to daily polling numbers, unless something is done, they will continue to react to the reflections of their own ignorance.”

Atty Donovan Hamm

Share

Obama and McConnell

Posted on by

Stupid headline and stupid response.

Unemployment is a macro problem, and cutting spending does’t create jobs.

It’s the continuing saga of the blind leading the blind.

Looking for $31 billion in federal spending cuts this week.
And that’s just a down payment.

Obama: Shift From Foreign Oil Will Help Create More Jobs

April 2 (AP) — President Barack Obama says shifting the U.S. away from imported oil and toward cleaner forms of energy will add momentum to a trend that has led to 1.8 million new jobs in the past 13 months.

Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to promote his ideas for bringing down gasoline prices by decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. A blueprint he outlined in a recent speech calls for increasing domestic oil exploration and production, making cars and trucks more energy efficient and building vehicles that run on alternative fuels or electricity.

Noting that the U.S. doesn’t have enough oil reserves to meet its needs, he set a goal of reducing imports by one-third by 2025.

“By doing so, we’re going to make our economy less vulnerable to wild swings in oil prices,” Obama said. “We’re going to use cleaner sources of energy that don’t imperil our climate. And we’re going to spark new products and businesses all over the country by tapping America’s greatest renewable resource: our ingenuity.”

The address was Obama’s third in recent days on the issue. On Wednesday, he travels to the Philadelphia area to visit an arm of the Spanish company Gamesa, maker of giant turbines that generate electricity from wind.

Oil prices have climbed because of increasing demand in China and instability in some oil-producing countries in the Middle East. That, in turn, has pushed U.S. gasoline prices to new highs. The national average for a gallon of gas hit $3.619 on Friday, the highest price ever for this time of year, according to AAA and other sources. Prices have climbed 23.2 cents in the past month and more than 81 cents in the past year.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell agreed with Obama on encouraging more domestic energy production. But he accused the administration of stifling that industry’s growth by canceling drilling leases, halting drilling off the Gulf Coast after last summer’s oil spill and increasing permit fees.

“As a result, thousands of U.S. workers have lost their jobs, as companies have been forced to move their operations overseas. That must end,” the Kentucky Republican said. “We must do more to find energy here at home, and the jobs that go with it.”

Obama said that sparking new products and businesses during a transition away from imported oil will help create jobs. The government reported Friday that 230,000 private sector jobs were created in March, bringing the total number created in the past 13 months to 1.8 million. The national unemployment rate also dipped to a two-year low of 8.8 percent last month.

“That’s a good sign,” Obama said. He recorded the address at a UPS shipping facility in suburban Maryland, where he examined all-electric and hybrid vehicles used by AT&T, Verizon, PepsiCo and other companies.

“But we have to keep up the momentum, and transitioning to a clean energy economy will help us do that,” Obama said.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, focused his party’s weekly message on steps he said the government must take to encourage small businesses to create jobs. Among those steps are continuing to cut spending, blocking tax increases, reducing the bureaucracy and eliminating regulations. Boehner once owned a small plastics and packaging business in Ohio.

Boehner said Congress also needs to pass a bill funding the government through Sept. 30, when the budget year ends, and avoid a shutdown. The government’s authority to spend money expires next Friday.

“Washington’s inability to get spending under control is creating uncertainty for our job creators,” Boehner said. “It’s discouraging investment in small businesses and eroding confidence in our economy. To put it simply, the spending binge in Washington is holding our country back and keeping our economy from creating jobs.”

Share

Wall of Shame

Posted on by

Unsustainable budget threatens nation

March 24 (Politico) — Repeated battles over the 2011 budget are taking attention from a more dire problem—the long-run budget deficit.

Divided government is no excuse for inaction. The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, under co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, issued a report on the problem in December supported by 11 Democrats and Republicans — a clear majority of the panel’s 18 members.

As former chairmen and chairwomen of the Council of Economic Advisers, who have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, we urge that the Bowles-Simpson report, “The Moment of Truth,” be the starting point of an active legislative process that involves intense negotiations between both parties.

There are many issues on which we don’t agree. Yet we find ourselves in remarkable unanimity about the long-run federal budget deficit: It is a severe threat that calls for serious and prompt attention.

This is just plain wrong, of course, but look at the list of supporters, below, disgracing themselves.

While the actual deficit is likely to shrink over the next few years as the economy continues to recover, the aging of the baby-boom generation and rapidly rising health care costs are likely to create a large and growing gap between spending and revenues. These deficits will take a toll on private investment and economic growth. At some point, bond markets are likely to turn on the United States — leading to a crisis that could dwarf 2008.

There is absolutely no applicable theory or evidence to support any of this. Any presumed supporting evidence or theory always applies to a gold standard or other fixed rate regime, but is always entirely inapplicable to our current non convertible currency/floating exchange rate regime.

“The Moment of Truth” documents that “the problem is real, and the solution will be painful.” It is tempting to act as if the long-run budget imbalance could be fixed by just cutting wasteful government spending or raising taxes on the wealthy. But the facts belie such easy answers.

The commission has proposed a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. But even this requires cuts in useful programs and entitlements, as well as tax increases for all but the most vulnerable.

All this can do is lower aggregate demand, which means reduced real output and higher unemployment in general. How do any of these economics professionals think that producing less, including less real investment, addresses our very real needs?

The commission’s specific proposals cover a wide range. It recommends cutting discretionary spending substantially, relative to current projections. Everything is on the table, including security spending, which has grown rapidly in the past decade.

So do they think that current Social Security payments result in a too high standard of living for our seniors? I don’t see any of them flying on private jets to sporting events on their Social Security? In fact, current levels of Social Security payments are just barely enough to keep them from needing to eat out of garbage cans. And there certainly is no shortage of the real goods and services they consume, particularly with unemployment so high and the output gap in general so wide?

It also urges significant tax reform. The key principle is to limit tax expenditures—tax breaks designed to encourage certain activities—and so broaden the tax base. It advocates using some of the resulting revenues for deficit reduction and some for lowering marginal tax rates, which can help encourage greater investment and economic growth.

The commission’s recommendations for slowing the growth of government health care expenditures — the central cause of our long-run deficits — are incomplete. It proposes setting spending targets and calls for a process to suggest further reforms if the targets aren’t met. But it also lays out a number of concrete steps, like increasing the scope of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board and limiting the tax deductibility of health insurance.

How about taking a look at the real goods and services we devote to actual health care, and making decisions accordingly? Seems that used to be what economists did, before they got lost in finance to the point of absurdity?

To be sure, we don’t all support every proposal here. Each one of us could probably come up with a deficit reduction plan we like better. Some of us already have. Many of us might prefer one of the comprehensive alternative proposals offered in recent months.

Yet we all strongly support prompt consideration of the commission’s proposals. The unsustainable long-run budget outlook is a growing threat to our well-being. Further stalemate and inaction would be irresponsible.

Do any of them see the current budget leading to an irreversible excess of aggregate demand? If they do they never mention it. In fact, I’ve yet to see a long term inflation forecast from anyone that shows an excess of aggregate demand looming.

We know the measures to deal with the long-run deficit are politically difficult. The only way to accomplish them is for members of both parties to accept the political risks together. That is what the Republicans and Democrats on the commission who voted for the bipartisan proposal did.

Because they are afraid we could become the next Greece they are trying to turn us into the next Jonestown.

Feel free to repost and distribute, thanks.

We urge Congress and the president to do the same.

I urge them to recognize taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to raise revenue per se.

Martin N. Baily

Martin S. Feldstein

R. Glenn Hubbard

Edward P. Lazear

N. Gregory Mankiw

Christina D. Romer

Harvey S. Rosen

Charles L. Schultze

Laura D. Tyson

Murray L. Weidenbaum

Share

Haley Barbour’s ‘innanity’

Posted on by

Barbour slams Obama on taxes, economy

By Jillian Harding

March 26 (CNN) — Mississippi Republican Gov. Haley Barbour on Saturday criticized President Obama’s economic policies and urged fiscal discipline in Washington.

Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, to a crowd of conservative activists, the potential 2012 GOP presidential contender said, “When the government sucks all the money out of the economy, how is the private sector supposed to create jobs?”

Spending $1.5t more than taxing ADDS that much income and $financial assets to the economy

Barbour slammed the Obama administration’s tax policies for placing an extra burden on taxpayers and inhibiting job growth.

“The president from the beginning has been calling for the largest tax increase in American history,” Barbour said, adding “the policies of this administration in every case have made it harder to create jobs.”

What tax increases? Just talking about them?

Barbour also struck out at taxes placed on the oil industry, saying they would be passed on to consumers.

“Who’s he think is going to pay that? Exxon?” Barbour said, “That’s going to be paid by the people who are pumping gas and diesel fuel into their cars & trucks.”

Citing the need to jumpstart the economy, Barbour told the crowd that reducing spending would be key.

“I urge you to remember the most important thing, cutting spending is the means to an end, the end is to continue to grow our economy,” he said.

What sense does that make???

He’s a menace.

Share

Dean Baker: Krugman Is Wrong: The United States Could Not End Up Like Greece

Posted on by

Krugman Is Wrong: The United States Could Not End Up Like Greece

By Dean Baker

March 25 — It does not happen often, but it does happen; I have to disagree with Paul Krugman this morning. In an otherwise excellent column criticizing the drive to austerity in the United States and elsewhere, Krugman comments:

“But couldn’t America still end up like Greece? Yes, of course. If investors decide that we’re a banana republic whose politicians can’t or won’t come to grips with long-term problems, they will indeed stop buying our debt.”

Actually this is not right for the simple reason that the United States has its own currency. This is important because even in the worst case scenario, where the deficit in United States spirals out of control, the crisis would not take the form of the crisis in Greece.

Yes, precisely!

Greece is like the state of Ohio. If Ohio has to borrow, it has no choice but to persuade investors to buy its debt. Unless Greece leaves the euro (an option that it probably should be considering, at least to improve its bargaining position), it must pay the rate of interest demanded by private investors or meet the conditions imposed by the European Union/IMF as part of a bailout.

However, because the United States has its own currency it would always have the option to buy its own debt. The Federal Reserve Board could in principle buy an unlimited amount of debt simply by printing more money. This could lead to a serious problem with inflation, but it would not put us in the Greek situation of having to go hat in hand before the bond vigilantes.

This is also true under current institutional arrangements.

However, with regards to inflation, for all practical purposes the fed purchasing us treasury securities vs selling them to the public is inconsequential.

This distinction is important for two reasons. First, the public should be aware that the Fed makes many of the most important political decisions affecting the economy. For example, if the Fed refused to buy the government’s debt even though interest rates had soared, this would be a very important political decision on the Fed’s part to deliberately leave the country at the mercy of the bond market vigilantes. This could be argued as good economic policy, but it is important that the public realize that such a decision would be deliberate policy, not an unalterable economic fact.

True! And, again, for all practical purposes the decision is inconsequential with regards to inflation.

The other reason why the specifics are important is because it provides a clearer framing of the nature of the potential problem created by the debt. The deficit hawks want us to believe that we could lose the confidence of private investors at any moment, therefore we cannot delay making the big cuts to Social Security and Medicare they are demanding. However if we have a clear view of the mechanisms involved, it is easy to see that there is zero truth to the deficit hawks’ story.

Agreed!

Suppose that the bond market vigilantes went wild tomorrow and demanded a 10 percent interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds, even as there was no change in the fundamentals of the U.S. economy. In this situation, the Fed could simply step in and buy whatever bonds were needed to finance the budget deficit.

Correct.

And this would result in additional member bank reserve balances at the Fed, with the Fed voting on what interest is paid on those balances.

Does anyone believe that this would lead to inflation in the current economic situation? If so, then we should probably have the Fed step in and buy huge amounts of debt even if the bond market vigilantes don’t go on the warpath because the economy would benefit enormously from a somewhat higher rate of inflation. This would reduce the real interest rate that firms and individuals pay to borrow and also alleviate the debt burden faced by tens of millions of homeowners following the collapse of the housing bubble.

However not to forget that the Fed purchases also reduce interest income earned by the economy, as evidenced by the Fed’s ‘profits’ it turns over to the treasury.

The other part of the story is that the dollar would likely fall in this scenario. The deficit hawks warn us of a plunging dollar as part of their nightmare scenario. In fact, if we ever want to get more balanced trade and stop the borrowing from China that the deficit hawks complain about, then we need the dollar to fall. This is the mechanism for adjusting trade imbalances in a system of floating exchange rates. The United States borrows from China because of our trade deficit, not our budget deficit.

True, but with qualifications.

China didn’t start out with any dollars. They get their dollars by selling things to us. When they sell things to us and get paid they get a credit balance in what’s called their reserve account at the Fed.

What we then call borrowing from China- China buying US treasury securities- is nothing more than China shifting its dollar balances from its Fed reserve account to its Fed securities account.

And paying back China is nothing more than shifting balances from their securities account at the Fed to their reserve account at the Fed.

Which account China keeps its balances in is of no further economic consequence,

And poses no funding risk or debt burden to our grandchildren.

Nor does it follow that the US is in any way dependent on China for funding.

Nor is balanced per se trade desirable, as imports are real economic benefits and exports real economic costs.

This also puts the deficit hawks’ nightmare story in a clearer perspective. Ostensibly, the Obama administration has been pleading with China’s government to raise the value of its currency by 15 to 20 percent against the dollar. Can anyone believe that China would suddenly let the yuan rise by 40 percent, 50 percent, or even 60 percent against the dollar? Will the euro rise to be equal to 2 or even 3 dollars per euro?

And, with imports as real economic benefits and exports as real economic costs, in my humble opinion, the Obama administration is negotiating counter to our best interests.

Also, inflation is a continuous change in the value of the currency, and not a ‘one time’ shift which is generally what happens when currencies adjust.

This story is absurd on its face. The U.S. market for imports from these countries would vanish and our exports would suddenly be hyper-competitive in their home markets. As long as we maintain a reasonably healthy industrial base (yes, we still have one), our trading partners have more to fear from a free fall of the dollar than we do. In short, this another case of an empty water pistol pointed at our head.

The deficit hawks want to scare us with Greece in order to push their agenda of cutting Social Security, Medicare and other programs that benefit the poor and middle class. This is part of their larger agenda for upward redistribution of income.

We should be careful to not give their story one iota of credibility more than it deserves. By implying that the United States could ever be Greece, Krugman commits this sin.

Agreed!

Addendum: In response to the Krugman post, which I am not sure is intended as a response to me, I have no quarrel with the idea that large deficits could lead to a serious problem with inflation at a point where the economy is closer to full employment. My point is that the problem with the U.S. would be inflation, not high interest rates, unless the Fed were to decide to allow interest rates to rise as an alternative to higher inflation.

Agreed!

Nor would today’s size deficits necessarily mean inflation should we somehow get to full employment.

It all depends on the ‘demand leakages’ at the time.

This point is important because the deficit hawk story of the bond market vigilantes is irrelevant in either case. In the first case, where we have inflation because we are running large deficits when the economy is already at full employment, the problem is an economy that is running at above full employment levels of output. The bond market vigilantes are obviously irrelevant in this picture.

In the second case, where the Fed allows the bond market vigilantes to jack up interest rates even though the economy is below full employment, the problem is the Fed, not the bond market vigilantes.

We have to keep our eyes on the ball. The deficit hawks pushing the bond market vigilante story are making things up, as Sarah Pallin would say, their arguments do not deserve to be treated seriously.

Agreed.

They should be unceremoniously refutiated!

Share