Blog

(Click to enlarge.) See the blue line in the upper half of the figure above? That line shows the portion of personal income made up of wage and salary disbursements, as a percentage of total personal income.  (As the figure notes, I’ve subtracted social insurance contributions such as Social Security taxes. Also, employer contributions to Social Security, private pensions, etc., have been completely ignored in my calculations.) I have been looking into the possible effects on consumer spending of changes in the composition of income. Please click on figure if you want to see a larger version.

(cross posted at EconoMonitor) Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has long been skeptical of the negotiations by the State Attorneys General and the banksters over the foreclosure frauds (see here). And while I had held out some hope that California and New York would either refuse to join, or would insist on good terms, today’s announcement of the settlement makes it clear that the banksters had their way. I expect that the US Attorney General, Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan played important roles in making sure the bank frauds would only get little slaps on the wrist. Some of the details are not clear, but apparently the 750,000 people who had their homes stolen from them will get a mere $2000 a piece in compensation. That is how this Administration values homeownership. Yep, a bankster can take your home and you might get two thousand bucks–and with that you can pay first and last month’s rent on a cheap, run-down apartment if you are willing to live in a low rent city. It also gives you some idea of the cost of buying out 49 states: $2.75 billion. Yep, that is all that the states get out of this settlement. They’ll look the other way and let you move in, completely destroy property records and proceed to steal the homes of your citizens… Read More

To provide a little more perspective on the news of the just-announced Greek bailout agreement, I point you to this CNN Money piece from yesterday in which Dimitri Papadimitriou notes how abysmal the underlying economic growth trends remain (Greek employment depends a lot on shipping, which is faring poorly) and reminds us that the package, containing some brutal measures like a 25 percent cut in the minimum wage, would still need to be approved by the Greek parliament: “It’s a cautious euphoria because investors are only looking at the short-term. Of course, there should be an agreement between the troika and the Greek government,” Papadimitriou said. “But you can’t assume that a Parliament that is in disarray will approve more austerity measures.” Voting on the package in the Greek parliament is scheduled for Sunday.  Stay tuned.

Well then.  Apparently not everyone agrees that the Federal Reserve is having trouble balancing its dual mandate.  Rather, I should say that not everyone agrees about the nature of the imbalance.  From the Boston Globe‘s reporting of Ben Bernanke’s appearance in front of the Senate Budget Committee, we find this: “It seems to me that you care more about unemployment than about inflation,’’ said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “I want to disabuse any notion that there is a priority for maximum employment,’’ Bernanke responded. Bernanke deserves credit here for refraining from hitting himself over the head with a frying pan in response.  (Is this just a cynical form of “working the ref” or does the Senator really believe it?  If the latter, what more could possibly disabuse him of this notion?)  I suggested yesterday that you “don’t need to look very hard” to see that the Federal Reserve is doing much better at keeping inflation in check than at controlling unemployment—but you do need to look. I’ll outsource the rest to the The Economist (where Ryan Avent performs the literary equivalent of hitting himself over the head with a frying pan): During the second half of 2010, annual inflation stood at its lowest level in over half a century. Unemployment, by contrast, peaked at 10.0%. Only once… Read More

The latest chapter in the “why was the original stimulus so small?” story is a memo from December 2008 that reveals Larry Summers’ assessment as to why the stimulus (ARRA) had to be limited to around $800 billion—about half of what was necessary, in Summers’ estimation.  There are various conclusions you can draw from this memo, but the aspect I’d like to focus on is this:  Larry Summers’ suggestion that $225 billion of “actual spending on priority investments” is all that the government could get out the door over a two year time span (and so the rest had to be made up of tax cuts, aid to states, etc.). Let’s grant for the sake of argument that Summers is correct about this “shovel ready” figure.  The question is:  what can we do about it?  If you’re looking for short-term results, the answer is probably “not much.”  Even things like speeding up environmental impact assessments for infrastructure projects wouldn’t have much effect (at the link, Brad Plumer tells us that only 4 percent of highway infrastructure projects even require such environmental reviews). But looking ahead, there is more we could and should be doing.  Back in 2009 Martin Shubik sketched out a plan in a Levy Institute policy note for creating a “Federal Employment Reserve Authority“—a kind of Fed for… Read More

“…while Europe’s leaders haven’t hit upon a way to forestall a years-long span of catastrophically high unemployment and falling living standards, they do appear to be really really really really committed to saving banks.”  That’s Slate‘s Matthew Yglesias, who notes that this (seemingly exclusive) focus among European elites on saving their banks likely ends up protecting the US economy from eurozone contagion more effectively than would policies focused on growth and easing the plight of those whose wellbeing depends on the “real” economy. The reason is that, as Gennaro Zezza points out here, the US economy is not overly exposed to a slowdown in European growth; not overly exposed, that is, compared to the fallout from a European financial panic.  As Dimitri Papadimitriou and Randall Wray indicate, US finance is still entwined with the fate of European finance; at least in part due to the roughly $1.5 trillion invested in European banks by US money market mutual funds. In other words, comparatively speaking, the US economy will not suffer much from European policy elites’ apparent relative disinterest toward the fate of their people, but may dodge a bullet if current efforts to save the European banking system work out.  (At least in the short run.  In the longer run, Ryan Avent is probably right to worry that this LTRO stuff… Read More

(click to enlarge)

Dimitri Papadimitriou and Randall Wray deliver a second installment of their joint assessment of the risks that a renewed global financial crisis might be triggered by events in Europe or the United States.  In their latest one-pager they move past disputes over etiology and lay out their solutions for both sides of the pond:  addressing the basic flaws in the setup of the European Monetary Union (“the EMU is like a United States without a Treasury or a fully functioning Federal Reserve”) and outlining how to place the US financial system and “real” economy on more solid foundations. Read the newest one-pager here. Their first one-pager focused on the reasons it is unhelpful to label the turbulence in Europe a “sovereign debt crisis.”  This way of framing the situation obscures more than it enlightens.  To recap:  prior to the crisis only a couple of countries had debt ratios that significantly exceeded Maastricht limits.  For most, the economic crisis was the cause of rising public debt ratios, rather than the other way round.  What we really need to look at, Papadimitriou and Wray suggest, are private debt ratios and current account imbalances within the eurozone.  And as for current public insolvency concerns, this has far more to do with the flaws in the institutional setup of the European Monetary Union than… Read More

Some indigestible food for thought:  there is not a single state in the Union—not one—in which the top 1% of income earners pay a higher rate of state taxes than the bottom 20%.  For the majority of states, it’s not even close:  the poorest 20% pay somewhere between double and six times the tax rate of the richest 1%.  In Florida, those who make the least pay 13.5% of their income in state taxes, while those who make the most pay 2.1%. This comes to us from Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, who dug into the comprehensive “Assets and Opportunity Scorecard” recently produced by the The Corporation for Enterprise Development.

Marshall Auerback appeared on the Business News Network to give his take on the latest developments in the eurozone crisis; specifically with respect to the ongoing negotiations over the proposed (now 70 percent) haircut on Greek debt.  Auerback also addressed the LTRO (noting the rather dramatic increase in the ECB’s balance sheet) and the credit default swaps on Greek debt (on this, see also Micah Hauptman’s take on the process for determining when these CDS payments are triggered:  “murky, unregulated, and replete with conflicts of interest“). You can watch a clip of Auerback’s interview here. (credit to Mitch Green at NEP)

Michael Hudson is giving a talk titled “The Road to Debt Deflation, Debt Peonage, and Neofeudalism” at the Levy Institute on Friday, February 10 at 2:00 p.m. Hudson is a research associate at the Levy Institute and a financial analyst and president of the Institute for the Study of Long Term Economic Trends. He is distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and an honorary professor of economics at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. The abstract for the presentation is below the fold.

In his General Theory, J.M. Keynes argued that substandard growth, financial instability, and unemployment are caused by the fetish for liquidity. The desire for a liquid position is anti-social because there is no such thing as liquidity in the aggregate. The stock market makes ownership liquid for the individual “investor” but since all the equities must be held by someone, my decision to sell-out depends on your willingness to buy-in. I can recall about 15 years ago when the data on the financial sector’s indebtedness began to show growth much faster than GDP, reading about 125% of national income by 2006—on a scale similar to nonfinancial private sector indebtedness (households plus nonfinancial sector firms). I must admit I focused on the latter while dismissing the leveraging in the financial sector. After all, that all nets to zero: it is just one financial institution owing another. Who cares? Well, with the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight, we all should have cared. Big time. There were many causes of the Global Financial Collapse that began in late 2007: rising inequality and stagnant wages, a real estate and commodities bubble, household indebtedness, and what Hyman Minsky called the rise of “money manager capitalism”. All of these matter—and I think Minsky’s analysis is by far the most cogent. Indeed, the financial layering and leveraging that… Read More