Collecting news and discussions to feed your reservations on the US central bank

Federal Reservations



For Economy to Grow, Washington Must Get Out of the Way

On February 17, 2012 | 0 Comments

All things good and bad come to an end, and that is true of the long recession, which, according to the economic statisticians, we are in no longer.  When the jobs numbers for last month came in President Obama was quick to proclaim that the recovery is on track, and let us hope he is correct.  But the story can’t end there if the country is truly to be restored to economic health.

There are lessons to be learned about government policy actions, which have been adversely affecting the private sector where jobs are created. While employers are beginning to hire again, real and sustained growth historically has been stimulated by new business start-ups, especially among small businesses. While there has been an encouraging uptick in job creation, net of jobs lost, the level of new business start-ups still lags well behind pre-recession levels.  And while, as we stated in our last essay, the job creation numbers for the last couple of months have certainly been encouraging, we cannot lose sight of the reality that the share of working-age people in the labor force (the so-called participation rate) has declined to the lowest level in 29 years.

Fed Chairman Bernanke correctly stated last week that the technical improvement in the unemployment rate obscures the vulnerabilities in the job market. “It is very important to look not just at the unemployment rate, which reflects only people who are actively seeking work,” Bernanke said in response to a lawmaker’s question during testimony last week, “There are also a lot of people who are either out of the labor force because they don’t think they can find work” or who have taken part-time jobs.

As the headline for this essay opines, government needs to get out of the way of the recovery that, while still feeble, has the potential for quickened momentum. Those who invest in the establishment of new businesses need clarification and a higher degree of certainty regarding their healthcare costs, healthcare penalties, tax rates on returns on investment, new regulatory hurdles, etc. The current climate in Washington exudes uncertainty, which in turn creates a vacuum that sucks the willingness to take entrepreneurial risks out of the economy.  Either Steve Jobs was right when he lectured President Obama about why he took all of his manufacturing out of the country, or the President and his statist advisors know best.   Both political parties need to learn from the lessons our lackluster recovery is teaching us, and stop their efforts at short-term, politically motivated fixes.  That almost seems impossible in Washington, D.C

The Federal Reserve issued a report that the 2007-2009 recession, the affects of which still burden the recovery, was the longest one in the postwar period.  Most important was the magnitude of the decline in economic activity.  During the recession, employment fell by 6.3 percent and output fell by 5.1 percent.

The U.S. economy experienced 10 recessions from 1946 through 2006.  The 2007-2009 recession began in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009.  The 10 previous postwar recessions ranged in length from 6 months to 16 months, averaging about 10½ months.  The 2007‑09 recession was the longest recession in the postwar period having lasted, as we noted above, for 18 months.  In addition, the federal debt has increased by about $5 trillion–more than the total national debt of about $4.2 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

This increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $40,000 for every American household–or about $45,000 for every full-time private-sector worker.  When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion.

At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.2 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $5.0 trillion in new debt added during President Obama’s term.  This is all borrowed money, which will have to be paid back by future generations; generations of primarily private sector wage earners whose wages and benefits are substantially lower than those of government employees whose salaries they pay.

According to Adam Summers a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation:

“Average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers.  According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers - a difference of over 44 percent.  This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau similarly show that in 2007 the average annual salary of a California state government employee was $53,958, nearly 32 percent greater than the average private sector worker ($40,991)”.

The public debt of the U.S. now exceeds $15 trillion and will soon climb to $16.4 trillion as a result of the President’s latest request to raise the debt ceiling by another $1.2 trillion.  The increases in our national debt, during the Obama Administration have been staggering, and, by any rational assessment, have accomplished little.  Specifically, the debt was increased by $1 trillion in FY2008, $1.9 trillion in FY2009, and $1.7 trillion in FY2010. As of January 31, 2012 the gross debt was $15.356 trillion. The annual gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of 2011 was $15.087 trillion, with total public debt outstanding at a ratio of 101.8% of GDP. Public debt at 90% of GDP is widely accepted as a danger point beyond which economies begin to contract. On top of all the policy issues we have enumerated, the economy faces other major pitfalls.  Among them are,

  1. Unemployed who have given up returning to the labor market thereby technically lowering the unemployment rate. ;
  2. A huge rise in oil prices;
  3. Government risking inflation (“accommodating” Fed monetary policy);
  4. Small businesses bracing for tax increases;
  5. Higher income families bracing for tax increases;
  6. Business expecting new and restrictive regulations;
  7. Potential collapse of the Euro, setting up severe recession in Europe;
  8. Stronger dollar driving down U.S. exports;
  9. People who are living on dividends from stocks accumulated over a lifetime of sound retirement planning facing a tripling of their federal tax rate; and

10.  Lack of serious entitlement reform creating strong headwinds as baby boomers begin to retire.

The recession, put this nation in such a deep hole that our present rate of growth simply will not get us back to where we need to be.  At this point, our economy, consistent with all prior postwar recoveries should be growing by four to five percent on a sustained basis.  Given the hazards enumerated above, we fear a serious downturn is still something about which we need to worry.

As stated at the top of our essay, all recessions end.  That is the very essence of economic cycles.  Sooner or later they commence, and sooner or later they conclude.  Whoever is in the oval office when they commence will take the heat, and whoever is in the oval office when they end will take the credit.  We understand that.  But when a recession lasts so much longer than all prior postwar recessions, there are lessons to be learned.  And when government spends and borrows at unprecedented levels to tame a downturn with no discernible affect, then, too, there are lessons to be learned.  The current economic malaise is a product of Minsky’s Law; that is, prolonged infusion of easy money into the economy will always produce a bubble.  Years of terribly misguided public policy and a private sector all too willing to accommodate the government’s imperative to push home ownership at any cost got us where we are today.  The slow depletion of inventories throughout the economy as consumers zipped their wallets and spent very sparingly, and the current replenishment of those inventories has, at last, begun to stimulate positive economic activity.

The Obama Administration should (but won’t) immediately adopt the simplified tax proposals recommended by Simpson‑Bowles, and issue an executive order that new regulations on the private sector be halted except on an absolutely as needed basis.  That would provide the positive jolt the economy needs if it is to avoid being sandbagged by the substantial perils that still encumber the path to recovery.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Originally from Big Government

Is There No Longer a Shared ‘American Way of Life”?

On January 27, 2012 | 0 Comments

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the Fed’s interest rate announcement, the divided cultural experiences of America’s upper and lower class, and whether or not “the American way of life” still exists.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

U.S. Stocks Cheer Fed’s Rate Pledge
The New American Divide
Quiz: How Thick Is Your Bubble?

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Originally from Big Government

Analysis: Bernanke paves the way for QE3

On January 25, 2012 | 0 Comments
A few quick thoughts ...

• Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made it clear that no decision on additional asset purchases has been made and that any additional balance sheet expansion would be a "collective" decision, however ...

• Bernanke made it clear that maximum sustainable employment and stable prices (defined as 2% inflation of personal consumption expenditures) are on "equal footing".

• The current projections are for unemployment to be significantly too high for years and inflation to be at or below the Fed's target. That is a strong argument for additional monetary accommodation.

• In the Q&A, Bernanke made it clear that even if inflation moved above the target - and unemployment was still very high - the Fed would only slowly pursue policies to reduce the inflation rate.

• The minutes for the FOMC meeting will probably contain discussion of the outlook for the balance sheet and possible further asset purchases. Those minutes will be released in 3 weeks.

Although the FOMC might still wait until one of the two day meetings in April or June, the likelihood of QE3 being announced at the March 13th meeting has increased significantly.

Originally from Calculated Risk

Is This Any Way To Pick A President? Better Than Any Other!

On January 15, 2012 | 0 Comments

As the Republican presidential hopefuls slug it out debate after debate, and sound bite after sound bite, and President Obama endlessly drones on from the sidelines with his mantra that the wealthy must pay their fair share (according to CBO and IRS data, the top 10% of households pay more than 70% of all federal income taxes and nearly 50% pay none) we are reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s assessment of Democracy.  “It is,” he said, “the worst system there is except for all the others that have been tried.”

We believe the 2012 presidential election season, which really began last summer, is, as Sir Winston opined, the worst, but, we would hasten to add, also the best given the clear choices in direction the President on the left and the candidates on the right provide.  These are not the run-of-the-mill choices with which Americans are always presented at election time.  We are faced with truly transformative choices; choices that only a vibrant democracy could possibly provide.

President Obama represents a textbook example of one side of the Liberal/ Conservative divide. That is, collective equality versus individual liberty.  Domestically, President Obama is a strong proponent of a centrally managed, distributive economy and a muscular government forcefully asserting its regulatory authority over a wide swath of American business activity and personal life, greatly expanding its entitlement agenda and aggressively taxing (1) earned income (middle and upper), (2) capital and (3) returns on investment (dividends).  Perhaps, that’s the America to which a majority of Americans aspire.  We don’t think so.

As the nation watches and listens to the spectacle, which constitutes the race for the Republican nomination many spectators, especially among the Democratic left, are, we believe, misreading the edginess and the stridency of the on-going Republican free-for-all as a reflection of uniquely Republican temperament.  We beg to differ.

Recent polling data indicates that 87% of all Americans believe we will fall into another recession within the next two years, and nearly 75% of all Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction.  Only six percent of the people approve of the job their national legislature is doing. These polls tell us that the electorate has a collective bad feeling about the economic outlook for the country, and that they feel that neither the Administration nor our Congress is taking us in the right direction.  Even more disturbing, a recent Gallup Poll finds that 50% of Americans believe that government has gotten too big and now represents an immediate threat to individual liberty. Gallup also finds that Americans, on average, believe that 51 cents of every dollar the government spends is wasted.

While the Republican debates are providing an impressive, indeed an exhaustive, array of positions and opinions that, at first blush, might seem a colossal free-for-all in the marketplace of ideas, Republicans are not the only voters watching and listening.  Independents and, not a few, disappointed Democrats are part of the surprisingly large viewing audiences these debates are attracting.  Some, no doubt, tune in to scoff at the verbal give and take of what is, essentially, political theater. Others representing that strong swath of voters described by the polling data referenced above tune in to ponder the conflicting messages to determine if they find greater comfort or confidence in what they hear from any of the these candidates compared to what they have been hearing and experiencing from Washington.

Among the Republicans, we have an array of candidates each of whom stresses his or her conservative credentials (they want to promote economic growth at home, reduce taxes on all Americans, and support our allies abroad) while also offering interesting and significant variations on the conservative agenda.  Their message is largely informed by the pervasive discomfiture poll after poll has begun to detect within the American body politic.

Mitt Romney is touted as the most electable of the Republican candidates.  Romney is clearly a man of substance (although he could have been sent into the fray from central casting). He has an impressive record of business success as CEO of Bain Capital, and has demonstrated substantial leadership skills.  He was drafted to rescue the failing and scandal-ridden Salt Lake City Olympics and swiftly and successfully turned around the mess the original organizers had left.  He was a successful Republican governor of one of the nation’s most liberal states.  His signature accomplishment, RomneyCare is also his biggest headache (no pun intended). While it can be argued that ObamaCare largely apes RomneyCare, Romney’s retort is that because it made sense for Massachusetts, doesn’t mean it should be imposed nationally.  He is pledged to repeal ObamaCare immediately upon entering the oval office.   The art of compromise was essential if he was to govern the democratically controlled Bay State, and his willingness to compromise and his skill at working a legislature made up largely of the political opposition has become an albatross he must carry as he fights for his party’s nomination.  Correctly or incorrectly, Romney (and Huntsman) are viewed as the most centrist of the Republican candidates, which may be a major plus in the general election, but which is a distinct negative in the fight to become their Party’s standard bearer.

Rick Santorum, whose campaign momentum has soared after fighting from single digits to a virtual draw with Romney in Iowa, has the wind at his back. He has been articulate and unequivocal on a wide range of issues.  He is an orthodox conservative, socially, fiscally (earmarks aside) and politically.  While all of the Republican candidates give the obligatory nod to being pro life, Santorum goes a step further. No exceptions! A zygote resulting from forcible rape must be allowed to develop to term.   It is the rapist who should be punished, he says, not the egg the rapist fertilized. Well, no one can argue over his pro-life bonafidies.

Ron Paul, a libertarian, who most liberals consider the archconservative among the Republican candidates is a crusader for individual liberty, as he believes the founding fathers intended when they crafted our Constitution.  He has, however, articulated a stand on a number of issues that would have made Abbie Hoffman stand up and cheer. Opium, cocaine, heroin, marijuana?  He explains that we got along for over 100 years without federal anti-drug laws, and nothing good has been accomplished since the feds stepped in. The feds should step out, he tells us.  Prostitution?  If it’s okay with the states, well, then, its okay.  Gay marriage? Why is that any of the Feds business? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? If a homosexual in the military is doing his or her job and not disrupting others, leave him or her alone. Abortion? Ron Paul strongly opposes abortion, but believes the issue is totally misplaced at the federal level.  He believes it is up to the individual states to allow or to abolish abortion.   He is a hard-money fiscal conservative who believes that paper money isn’t worth more than the paper on which it is printed if it isn’t backed by gold.  The supply of gold is, of course, fixed which places unrealistic limits on economic growth, accumulation of wealth and the funding of emergencies such as war and natural disasters.  Paul espouses not only a less expansive foreign policy, but also a policy tantamount to a retreat from history.

Newt Gingrich, after a somewhat poorly organized and sloppy beginning was catapulted to frontrunner status following a series of very impressive debate appearances. He has pledged to make firing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke his first order of business upon assuming office, notwithstanding that the President has no authority to fire the Chairman of the Fed.  He is probably the best “idea man” in politics today, but has clearly been hobbled by an excess of overweight baggage.

Rick Perry presents a mixed message.  He has an impressive record as Governor of Texas.  Texas leads the nation in jobs creation, low taxes and strong economic growth.   He has shown a less conservative orthodoxy on immigration, offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, a practice frontrunner Romney refers to as providing a magnet that attracts illegal immigration. Perry also issued an executive directive (later withdrawn) making vaccinations for HPV mandatory for girls entering their teenage years.  He is smarter than his debate appearances would suggest, but he suffers from one too many “oops” moments.

Jon Huntsman, who has staked everything on a yet to materialize strong showing in New Hampshire, pledged in a recent debate, not to sign any “silly pledges”, a not-so-veiled, but risky rebuff to the anti-tax Norquist Pledge not to support any measure that raises any taxes.  His credentials as a successful business executive, a popular two-term governor and as a Chinese-speaking diplomat are impressive.  His ability, thus far, to inspire any sustained following or to gain any traction among Republican voters has, however, been less impressive.

Given the proportional allocation of delegates in the GOP nominating process, a decision on who will lead the Party seems a long way off.  That’s both a positive and a negative for the Republicans.  The seemingly endless energy, time and money the candidates are spending to diminish one another does little to advance the conservative cause.  The sooner the candidate cannibalization phase of the Republican selection process ends and the campaigns gets back to attacking the policies that have lavished trillions on programs and initiatives that have produced shamefully few, if any, positive results, the sooner the electorate can focus on the alternatives available to them through the 2012 election.  For the sake of the nation, the sooner, the better.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Originally from Big Government

The Way to Occupy a Bank is to Own One

On December 17, 2011 | 0 Comments
The campaign to "move your money" has gotten a groundswell of support. Having greater impact would be to "move our money" -- move our local government revenues out of Wall Street banks into our own publicly-owned banks. Occupy Wall Street has been both criticized and applauded for not endorsing any official platform.  But there are unofficial platforms, including one titled the 99% Declaration which calls for a "National General Assembly" to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia.  The 99% Declaration seeks everything from reining in the corporate state to ending the Fed to eliminating censorship of the Internet.  But none of these demands seems to go to the heart of what prompted Occupiers to camp out on Wall Street in the first place – a corrupt banking system that serves the 1% at the expense of the 99%.  To redress that, we need a banking system that serves the 99%. 

Originally from The Market Oracle

The Way Out of Our Economic Mess

On October 06, 2011 | 0 Comments
Terry Coxon, Casey Research writes: "A rock and a hard place" is a long-running theme of Casey Research publications. It refers to the dilemma the US government has wandered into with its continued policy of rescue inflation. The "rock" is what will happen if the Fed pauses for long in printing still more money – the collapse of an economy burdened by an accumulation of mistakes that rescue inflation has been keeping at bay. The "hard place" is the disruptive price inflation that becomes more likely (and likely more severe) with every new dollar the Fed prints to keep the effects of those mistakes suppressed.

Originally from The Market Oracle

Operation Twist Paves the Way for QE III

On September 24, 2011 | 0 Comments
Earlier this week the Federal Reserve ignited a firestorm in the global markets by admitting that the U.S. economy is facing downside risks. Although it continues to sugar coat the unpleasant reality, never has such a stunningly obvious statement resulted is so much turmoil.

Originally from The Market Oracle

The Fed: Inflation is on its way down, Bernanke says

On September 08, 2011 | 0 Comments
The Federal Reserve chairman says he’s not worried that the pickup in inflation earlier this year will persist, but doesn’t outline whether or how the central bank could ease borrowing costs further.

Originally from MarketWatch

The Fed: Inflation is on its way down, Bernanke says

On September 08, 2011 | 0 Comments
The Federal Reserve chairman says he’s not worried that the pickup in inflation earlier this year will persist, but doesn’t outline whether or how the central bank could ease borrowing costs further.

Originally from MarketWatch

The Fed: Inflation is on its way down, Bernanke says

On September 08, 2011 | 0 Comments
The Federal Reserve chairman says he’s not worried that the pickup in inflation earlier this year will persist, but doesn’t outline whether or how the central bank could ease borrowing costs further.

Originally from MarketWatch



↑ Top