The S&P downgrade is simply a public statement of what everyone already knows -- Eurozone debt is unsustainable. That France was included in the downgrade should surprise no one. Sooner or later the French government will be forced to absorb the balance sheets of the major French banks. The French are in as much trouble as everyone else.
Really important news will come when sovereign debt auctions begin to falter. That will happen. That will be the beginning of the end.
Far better is to face reality now and begin the "workout" process. But, politicians are loath to face reality on their own watch. So, don't look for anything good on the European sovereign debt front anytime soon.
But, the markets surely know all of this.
Jumat, 13 Januari 2012
Capitalism Under Siege
What do Warren Buffett and Newt Gingrich have in common? Actually, quite a lot. They both relish being in the spotlight and both dote on the sound of their own voice. Now, they have both joined the Rick Perry choir denouncing private equity as some kind of evil pursuit. Strange since all three -- Perry, Gingrich, and Buffett -- have all benefitted financially in a big way from private equity activities (or it's equivalents).
What next? Why not condemn LaBron James since his existence, no doubt, led to a basketball player losing his job.
Where does this absurdity end?
It's beginning to look like Romney may be an attractive candidate, if only because only he (and Ron Paul) seem to favor capitalism over the alternatives.
What next? Why not condemn LaBron James since his existence, no doubt, led to a basketball player losing his job.
Where does this absurdity end?
It's beginning to look like Romney may be an attractive candidate, if only because only he (and Ron Paul) seem to favor capitalism over the alternatives.
Senin, 09 Januari 2012
Conservative Economists' Foolishness
Today's Wall Street Journal shows that right wing economists are no better than their left wing brethren at separating economics from politics. Professor Robert Barro of Harvard University and the conservative Hoover Institution of Stanford University opines today for the Wall Street Journal that the Euro should be abandoned and outlines a gradual policy to convert the Euro back into the original currencies of the countries presently in the Eurozone.
Why does Barro reach this remarkable conclusion? "In light of the ongoing fiscal and currency crisis -- which is leaning strongly toward a centralized political entity that will likely be even more unpopular than the common currency -- I would suggest it would be better to reverse course and eliminate the Euro." Politics is the reason!
So, toss aside the enormous benefits of a single currency union simply because of the "ongoing fiscal and currency crisis." Nowhere does Barro propose any economic solution to the crisis, although there are several good candidates available. Instead, he simply throws up his hands and says "drop the Euro." If Illinois and California get in fiscal trouble, will Barro advocate a separate currency for Illinois and California to avoid their "ongoing fiscal and currency crisis?"
The common currency is a good idea and should not be abandoned. What should be abandoned is the idea that creditors and debtors cannot sit down and readjust their unrealistic contracts with one another. Going back to separate currencies, with the implicit idea that weaker countries will inflate their way out of their debtloads is a cop out.
On the same editorial page, the WSJ has another conservative economist arguing for a wealth tax. Why? Because income is hard to define, according to Professor Ronald MacKinnon of Stanford University. "The basic problem is that defining 'income' becomes progressively more difficult as income and wealth rise." So, is wealth any easier to define? What is a piece of land worth? or an old building? or anything that isn't trading on an exchange every day. McKinnon looks like a shill for the appraisal industry in this piece. His proposal would simply lead to an enormous incentive to hide wealth or distort its value in various ways, much as takes place today with reported income for tax purposes.
Professor McKinnon might raise the more relevant question: why is there such an enormous need for revenue? Answering that question might spares us more inefficiencies and distortions in our economy than McKinnon's proposed strategy of creating a new bonanza for tax lawyers.
Why does Barro reach this remarkable conclusion? "In light of the ongoing fiscal and currency crisis -- which is leaning strongly toward a centralized political entity that will likely be even more unpopular than the common currency -- I would suggest it would be better to reverse course and eliminate the Euro." Politics is the reason!
So, toss aside the enormous benefits of a single currency union simply because of the "ongoing fiscal and currency crisis." Nowhere does Barro propose any economic solution to the crisis, although there are several good candidates available. Instead, he simply throws up his hands and says "drop the Euro." If Illinois and California get in fiscal trouble, will Barro advocate a separate currency for Illinois and California to avoid their "ongoing fiscal and currency crisis?"
The common currency is a good idea and should not be abandoned. What should be abandoned is the idea that creditors and debtors cannot sit down and readjust their unrealistic contracts with one another. Going back to separate currencies, with the implicit idea that weaker countries will inflate their way out of their debtloads is a cop out.
On the same editorial page, the WSJ has another conservative economist arguing for a wealth tax. Why? Because income is hard to define, according to Professor Ronald MacKinnon of Stanford University. "The basic problem is that defining 'income' becomes progressively more difficult as income and wealth rise." So, is wealth any easier to define? What is a piece of land worth? or an old building? or anything that isn't trading on an exchange every day. McKinnon looks like a shill for the appraisal industry in this piece. His proposal would simply lead to an enormous incentive to hide wealth or distort its value in various ways, much as takes place today with reported income for tax purposes.
Professor McKinnon might raise the more relevant question: why is there such an enormous need for revenue? Answering that question might spares us more inefficiencies and distortions in our economy than McKinnon's proposed strategy of creating a new bonanza for tax lawyers.
Minggu, 08 Januari 2012
The Drag from Minimum Wage Laws
When the economy is struggling to create new jobs and pull itself back up by its bootstraps, it is not helpful to have laws that make it illegal to create jobs. Minimum wage laws are exactly those kinds of laws. Someone who would like to make $ 6 per hour, rather than remain among the unemployed cannot legally do so anywhere in the United States. In San Francisco, it is not legal to take a job that pays $ 10 per hour! In many states, it is illegal to take a job making $ 9 per hour. It is also unlawful to offer anyone a job at these various rates in these various localities. That is what minimum wage legislation mandates.
What these laws are saying is that until the economy has made a dramatic recovery, those of our citizens at the bottom of the pile will have the boot heel of big government on their necks. Once unemployment rates are small and the boom is on, if that day ever comes again, then and only then can folks at the bottom of the talent pool have the legal right to work. Because only at the peak of the boom will wage rates for many jobs began to exceed the minimum wage levels that various states and municipalities, not to mention the federal government, have imposed.
This is unfair and economically absurd. When will politicians remove this obstacle from the hopes, dreams and aspirations of our citizenry at the bottom of the economic pile?
What these laws are saying is that until the economy has made a dramatic recovery, those of our citizens at the bottom of the pile will have the boot heel of big government on their necks. Once unemployment rates are small and the boom is on, if that day ever comes again, then and only then can folks at the bottom of the talent pool have the legal right to work. Because only at the peak of the boom will wage rates for many jobs began to exceed the minimum wage levels that various states and municipalities, not to mention the federal government, have imposed.
This is unfair and economically absurd. When will politicians remove this obstacle from the hopes, dreams and aspirations of our citizenry at the bottom of the economic pile?
Jumat, 06 Januari 2012
200,000 New Jobs -- Nothing New Here
The unemployment report this morning showed the unemployment rate is down to 8.5 percent. This is being celebrated by the Obama Administration as stupendously good news.
Well, it's not bad news. It's just more of the same -- a slow, sluggish economic recovery consistent with 2 percent GDP growth continues to trudge along.
The only reason the unemployment rate is down to 8.5 percent, is that so many people (and this is the only real record that Obama has been able to set) have simply given up looking for work and have disappeared from both the numerator and denominator that makes up the unemployment rate. That's why Congress periodically extends unemployment benefits (also an Obama Administration record).
A good month would be 350,000 plus jobs. That's not going to happen with this Administration in the driving seat.
Well, it's not bad news. It's just more of the same -- a slow, sluggish economic recovery consistent with 2 percent GDP growth continues to trudge along.
The only reason the unemployment rate is down to 8.5 percent, is that so many people (and this is the only real record that Obama has been able to set) have simply given up looking for work and have disappeared from both the numerator and denominator that makes up the unemployment rate. That's why Congress periodically extends unemployment benefits (also an Obama Administration record).
A good month would be 350,000 plus jobs. That's not going to happen with this Administration in the driving seat.
Another Academic Economist in Action
Today's example of absurd economics coming from academia is Professor Uwe Reinhardt's blog post in this morning's NY Times entitled "What Price Pluralism in Health Insurance?"
It is really hard to believe that Professor Reinhardt put pen to paper with this nonsense. Here is his argument: In the US, people have a tough time figuring out which health insurance plan to buy because there is such a diversity of plans. No such problem exists in some European countries through the simple expedient of requiring everyone to purchase identical plans. "Premium shopping among insurers is easy, because the standard benefit package is common to all."
Why not apply this logic to cars, television sets, fitness centers, etc? If the government would simply mandate that only one type of car, only one type of television set, only one type of fitness center, etc, can exist, think how easy it would be for consumers to comparison shop! Consumers would no longer have to make the difficult decision between a Chevrolet and a Ford. Now, the government would require that Chevys and Fords be identical. What a boon for consumers, according to Professor Reinhardt.
This is, of course, the identical system that Russia and China once had in place. Consumer choice is "inefficient' and "expensive," according to Professor Reinhardt, who teaches this stuff to young folks at Princeton University.
Your tax dollars and tuition dollars at work.
It is really hard to believe that Professor Reinhardt put pen to paper with this nonsense. Here is his argument: In the US, people have a tough time figuring out which health insurance plan to buy because there is such a diversity of plans. No such problem exists in some European countries through the simple expedient of requiring everyone to purchase identical plans. "Premium shopping among insurers is easy, because the standard benefit package is common to all."
Why not apply this logic to cars, television sets, fitness centers, etc? If the government would simply mandate that only one type of car, only one type of television set, only one type of fitness center, etc, can exist, think how easy it would be for consumers to comparison shop! Consumers would no longer have to make the difficult decision between a Chevrolet and a Ford. Now, the government would require that Chevys and Fords be identical. What a boon for consumers, according to Professor Reinhardt.
This is, of course, the identical system that Russia and China once had in place. Consumer choice is "inefficient' and "expensive," according to Professor Reinhardt, who teaches this stuff to young folks at Princeton University.
Your tax dollars and tuition dollars at work.
Senin, 02 Januari 2012
The Biggest Myth About The Euro
You hear it all the time. "They created a monetary union without a fiscal union." What complete nonsense that is. There is absolutely no need for a fiscal union in the Eurozone.
Those who push this notion: 1) completely ignore the US experience where, at least at the national level, there is a monetary union and fiscal union and, nonetheless, sovereign US debt is spiraling out of control; 2) if there was a "fiscal union," things would be far worse due to logrolling and moral hazard problems.
What is missing in the Eurozone is that those who owe money should sit down with their creditors and work out a repayment schedule that involves a substantial foregiveness of principal -- a partial (or perhaps nearly complete) default. Each country is and should be on its own.
If country A is profligate and spends money it doesn't have and if someone is foolish enough to lend them the money to do that, then why should country B be involved at all. Country B may have lived within its means and has no reason to bail out country A.
Markets will learn if country A defaults. Lenders will demand better behavior by country A and they will get it. It is the only way that country A will ever enact serious reforms. Country A will never bind itself to a serious austerity program for the sake of their creditors. It just will not happen, regardless of what Merkel-Sarcozy think.
The Eurozone is a great idea and should be preserved. A single currency union eliminates many of the bottlenecks of trade and finance and enhances economic growth. In the case of the Euro since 1997, lenders have blinded themselves to the differences between the credit-worthiness of the various countries that make up the Eurozone. Not any more. Thanks goodness. It is high time lenders woke up.
The very idea that somehow there is some political solution to this (using a bazooka to quote Hank Paulson) is ridiculous. The "print Euros" solution will destroy the European union as well as the Eurozone. Much simpler is to preserve the Euro and begin the process of writing down European sovereign debt -- country by country. Creditors deserve their fate in this one.
Those who push this notion: 1) completely ignore the US experience where, at least at the national level, there is a monetary union and fiscal union and, nonetheless, sovereign US debt is spiraling out of control; 2) if there was a "fiscal union," things would be far worse due to logrolling and moral hazard problems.
What is missing in the Eurozone is that those who owe money should sit down with their creditors and work out a repayment schedule that involves a substantial foregiveness of principal -- a partial (or perhaps nearly complete) default. Each country is and should be on its own.
If country A is profligate and spends money it doesn't have and if someone is foolish enough to lend them the money to do that, then why should country B be involved at all. Country B may have lived within its means and has no reason to bail out country A.
Markets will learn if country A defaults. Lenders will demand better behavior by country A and they will get it. It is the only way that country A will ever enact serious reforms. Country A will never bind itself to a serious austerity program for the sake of their creditors. It just will not happen, regardless of what Merkel-Sarcozy think.
The Eurozone is a great idea and should be preserved. A single currency union eliminates many of the bottlenecks of trade and finance and enhances economic growth. In the case of the Euro since 1997, lenders have blinded themselves to the differences between the credit-worthiness of the various countries that make up the Eurozone. Not any more. Thanks goodness. It is high time lenders woke up.
The very idea that somehow there is some political solution to this (using a bazooka to quote Hank Paulson) is ridiculous. The "print Euros" solution will destroy the European union as well as the Eurozone. Much simpler is to preserve the Euro and begin the process of writing down European sovereign debt -- country by country. Creditors deserve their fate in this one.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)