SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/9/2009 1:54:37 AM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
Behind the Curve
_______________________________________________________________

By Paul Krugman
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
March 9, 2009

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

To see how bad the numbers are, consider this: The administration’s budget proposals, released less than two weeks ago, assumed an average unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the whole of this year. In reality, unemployment hit that level in February — and it’s rising fast.

Employment has already fallen more in this recession than in the 1981-82 slump, considered the worst since the Great Depression. As a result, Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise — his economists used solidly mainstream estimates of the impacts of tax and spending policies. But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.

“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. To be sure, leaders are supposed to sound calm and in control. But in the face of the dismal data, this remark sounded out of touch.

And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.

A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan, so it was good to hear that Mr. Obama spends at least an hour each day with his economic advisors, “talking through how we are approaching the financial markets.” But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from “blogs” (actually, they’re coming from many other places, including at least one president of a Federal Reserve bank), and suggested that critics want to “nationalize all the banks” (something nobody is proposing).

As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.

Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

The broader public, by contrast, favors strong action. According to a recent Newsweek poll, a majority of voters supports the stimulus, and, more surprisingly, a plurality believes that additional spending will be necessary. But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?

Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/9/2009 10:33:54 PM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
The bottom has got to be close. The markets continue to behave like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because the global response to date has been too little, too late. China did the right thing with a stimulus package amounting to 16% of GDP over two years. But the US has so far come up with a package worth 6% of GDP over three years, which is clearly not enough. $881 billion sounds like a lot of money, but in this world it is only the down payment. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson promised to ring fence toxic assets but never delivered, buying into the banks instead. Policy makers are not equipped to deal with the globally synchronized nature of this melt down. In 1988 world trade accounted for only 5% of GDP. Last year it was 33%, but is going to hell in a hand basket with stunning speed. More global coordination is necessary, no matter how distasteful that may be.

By The Mad Hedge Fund Trader Mar 09 11:59 am

seekingalpha.com



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/10/2009 4:10:51 AM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 306849
 
Joseph Stiglitz calls for decisive action while Geithner tries to muddle through

dailykos.com



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/11/2009 3:04:08 PM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
JPMorgan’s Dimon Calls for ‘Systemic Risk Regulator’ (Update1)

By Elizabeth Hester

March 11 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said the U.S. needs a “systemic risk regulator” and should set up procedures to deal with potential failures of large financial institutions.

“Failure is fine as long as it’s orderly, controlled, leads to resolution and doesn’t cause systemic failure,” Dimon, 52, said at a conference hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Dimon said at a Feb. 3 conference that he believed the Federal Reserve should have the authority to regulate all companies within the banking system.

JPMorgan received $25 billion from the government’s first round of investments as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Dimon said the program was a “major” step to stabilize the financial system. His New York-based bank made $46 billion in new loans and credit lines during January, Dimon said.

The bank slashed its dividend 87 percent last month to 5 cents, the first time since 1990 the lender or its predecessors made a cut. The move was not “directly related” to receiving TARP money and was aimed at protecting the bank if the economy deteriorates “significantly,” Dimon said at the time.

Dimon’s firm has taken $33.3 billion in losses, writedowns and credit provisions since the start of the financial crisis. That’s a fraction of the $88.3 billion taken by Citigroup Inc. and $55.9 billion by Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Hester in New York at ehester@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 11, 2009 13:47 EDT



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/13/2009 10:23:11 AM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Stiglitz Enabled Obama With Nobel Ideas to Scorn Them (Update1)

By Matthew Benjamin

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Stiglitz’s 2003 book “The Roaring Nineties” is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s blueprint to reshape the U.S. economy. Yet the Nobel Prize- winning economist says “there’s no natural position for somebody like me” in the new administration.

A plan Obama was considering to buy illiquid assets on banks’ balance sheets amounted to swapping taxpayers’ “cash for trash,” Stiglitz, 66, said in January interviews at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I’m hopefully shaping some of the debate and some of the policies and framing the discussion.”

Like fellow Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who writes a column for the New York Times, Stiglitz has his own forum, contributing regularly to Vanity Fair magazine. His articles, with titles including “Capitalist Fools,” are spread through the Internet via sites such as DemocraticUnderground.com and DailyKos.com.

Stiglitz’s work is cited in economic papers by more people than that of any of his peers, according to a February ranking by Research Papers in Economics, an international database. Obama adviser Lawrence Summers is 11th on the list and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke 34th.

While Stiglitz’s long-held views on the drawbacks of unfettered markets are proving prophetic in the global recession, his outspokenness excludes him from government, said David Ellerman, who worked with the economist at the World Bank in the 1990s.

Self-Control

“If you’re going to function well in a big bureaucracy, you’ve got to have a sort of self-control that Joe doesn’t have,” said Ellerman, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Riverside.

“The Roaring Nineties” (W.W. Norton & Company, 432 pages, $15.95) argued that the deregulation and market excesses of the 1990s laid the seeds of later crises. It inspired a speech by Obama a year ago, said a top aide from the Obama campaign, who spoke on the condition he wouldn’t be identified. The address laid out the president’s plan to reinstate and modernize regulation of Wall Street to avoid further crises.

Stiglitz also mentored several members of Obama’s economic team, including budget director Peter Orszag, 40, and Jason Furman, 38, deputy director of the National Economic Council.

Still, Stiglitz is critical of how the president plans to rescue the economy and questions his appointment of Summers as his top economic adviser.

It’s “a real concern” that people such as Summers, “who have been openly on the side of deregulation,” are back in positions of power, said Stiglitz. The presidential adviser helped secure passage of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed longstanding banking regulations.

Stiglitz Clashes

“Larry Summers has made clear that the events of the last several years make sweeping reform of our financial regulatory system absolutely necessary,” said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

“He has been a top adviser to the president on this issue as he has repeatedly called for swift government action,” she said.

When Stiglitz last worked in Washington, as chief economist at the World Bank, he clashed with Summers at Treasury and with the lender’s president, James Wolfensohn, by criticizing International Monetary Fund policies. Stiglitz said the IMF was hurting poor countries by demanding they cut budgets, raise interest rates and open capital markets.

When Stiglitz resigned from the bank in early 2000, his staff drew up a mock list of reasons for his departure. At the top: “Had Just Seen One Too Many Hot Summers in Washington.” Another entry: “To Find a Vaccine for Foot-in-Mouth Disease.”

“Remaining silent when people are pursuing wrong ideas would have been a form of complicity,” the New York Times quoted Stiglitz as saying of his departure.

“Rather than muzzle myself, or be muzzled, I decided to leave,” he said, according to the Times.

Speaking Up

Stiglitz receives more than 50 requests from the media each week for comments, travels constantly, and delivers a speech almost every day, said his wife, Anya Schiffrin.

He won the Nobel in 2001 for showing that markets are inefficient when all parties in a transaction don’t have equal access to critical information, which is most of the time.

“Adam Smith’s invisible hand -- the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces -- is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there,” Stiglitz wrote in a 2002 article in The Guardian newspaper.

The idea implies that there’s an important role for government to play in the economy, he wrote.

“This is Joe’s moment in time,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden.

Bernstein, who calls himself a Stiglitz “disciple,” said the economist “understood the tendency for markets to fail in ways that nobody else did. He was way ahead of the rest of us.”

Teacher’s Son

The son of a schoolteacher and an insurance salesman, Stiglitz grew up in Gary, Indiana, when the local steel industry was beginning to decline. He was student-government president and debate-team member in high school and went on to Amherst College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

At the World Bank, Stiglitz repeatedly criticized IMF handling of the financial crisis that swept Asia in the late 1990s. He claimed austerity measures the fund demanded from nations looking for help risked pushing them into severe recessions.

Stiglitz also questioned the IMF’s motives. “I worry a little bit about organizations whose function is to deal with crises,” he said in September 1999. “What are their incentives?”

Soon after leaving the bank, Stiglitz wrote in The New Republic magazine that fund staffers were “third-rank students from first-rate universities.”

‘Harsh’ Critic

“There was probably nothing worse he could have said about them,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research in Washington.

“When he wrote about the IMF, he didn’t make any efforts to be polite,” Baker said, “he was harsh.”

Stiglitz’s bestselling 2002 book “Globalization and Its Discontents,” (W.W. Norton & Company, 304 pages, $16.95) denounced World Bank and IMF policies, along with the way trade liberalization was being pursued by Washington officials.

His writings and criticism of the IMF prompted an open letter from Kenneth Rogoff, then research director at the fund.

“Joe, as an academic, you are a towering genius,” Rogoff wrote. “As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.”

Stiglitz, who’s been a professor at Columbia University since 2001 and chaired the Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester in the U.K. since 2005, shows no signs of curbing his tongue. Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science.

Failing ‘Giveaway’

The Treasury’s program to inject capital into financial institutions in return for warrants was “not only a giveaway, but a giveaway that was designed not to work,” he said.

The financial industry, which has run up more than $1.2 trillion in losses and writedowns since mid-2007 and whose cooperation Obama needs to resolve the economic crisis, is “ethically challenged,” he said.

Stiglitz continues to win praise from his peers, however.

“Joe is just one of the most immensely popular economists,” said George Akerlof, 68, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who shared the 2001 Nobel Prize with Stiglitz and economist Michael Spence, 65, an emeritus professor at Stanford University. “Stiglitz is tremendously generous with his ideas,” said Akerlof.

‘Talk Freely’

Stiglitz said he prefers the liberty of his current jobs to the shackles of politics.

“In my position in life, it’s much better to be in academia, to be able to talk freely,” he said.

Even academia isn’t prepared to accept some Stiglitz habits. His first academic job offer, an assistant professorship at MIT in 1966, came with the proviso that he remember to wear shoes and not spend nights in his office, he said.

It was one more position on which the economist refused to back down.

“It saved on commuting time,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Benjamin in Washington at Mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 13, 2009 07:46 EDT



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (189516)3/15/2009 11:13:21 AM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 306849
 
Wall Street Economics --

Great bit from Blog For Our Future:

ourfuture.org

Young Chuck, moved to Texas and bought a donkey from a farmer for $100.

The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. The next day he drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news. The donkey died."

Chuck replied, "Well, then just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Chuck said, "Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey."

The farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Chuck said, "I'm going to raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Chuck said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead."

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Chuck said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898.00."

The farmer said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Chuck said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Chuck now works for Morgan Stanley in their OTC Default Derivative Department.