Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Bernanke forecasts Low Interest Rates

Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, signaled on Wednesday that he did not plan to begin raising interest rates anytime soon, saying the economic recovery would remain halting for months to come. In presenting the Fed’s semiannual monetary report to Congress, Mr. Bernanke did not waver from the Jan. 27 statement of the central bank’s key policy making board, or from a Feb. 10 statement in which he explained to Congress the strategies for gradually reducing the vast sums that banks hold in reserves at the Fed.

When the Fed raised the emergency loan rate for banks, panic and forecasts flew out the Wall Street windows, founts of knowledge that entirely missed the financial crisis. What do they know now? About as much, I'd have to say.



Look at that chart in the background: Net worth of US households - $17.5 trillion of wealth destroyed from July 2007 to March 2009 on the downward trajectory. The perpendicular green arrow indicates when the stimulus bill was signed, February 17, 2009. The upward trajectory indicates $5 trillion recovered since the stimulus. That leaves a net of 12.5 trillion dollars of wealth lost. Surely it is not yet time to raise interest rates and put a brake on the economic recovery. Wonder why those sages who forecast for Wall Street firms can not figure that one out.

While Mr. Bernanke did not change his outlook on interest rates or the economy, he did announce two significant steps to improve transparency and accountability of the Fed, after a period in which the central bank has faced considerable criticism. Significantly, Mr. Bernanke said that the Fed would “support legislation that would require the release” of the names of borrowers that used the extraordinary lending programs the Fed created in 2008 to prop up the markets for commercial paper, money market funds and even consumer loans. The Fed lent to investment banks for the first time and helped arrange the sale of the investment bank Bear Stearns and the rescues of the American International Group and Citigroup.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Issues before Israel joins OECD

January 20, 2010
Issues Stand Before Israel in Joining Elite Group
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — Israel, which has catapulted in the past two decades from a minor state-dominated economy to a market-driven technology hothouse, is in the final stages of accession to the exclusive club of advanced countries, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But its secretive weapons trade, patent-bending drug industry and occupation of Arab lands are raising last-minute questions.

The secretary general of the O.E.C.D., Ángel Gurría, currently in Israel to discuss the issues with senior officials, said that he was confident they could be resolved and that Israel might miss the original target of May but would become a member this year. But he acknowledged that Israel, unlike other small countries in the process of accession — Chile, Slovenia and Estonia — might face objections unrelated to the technical questions still to be answered.


“We have to keep the substantive issues on the straight and narrow,” Mr. Gurría, a former Mexican finance minister, said in an interview held after meetings at the Bank of Israel. “We should not allow technical issues to be used as masks for something that is in reality a political issue.”

That political issue is Israel’s declining international reputation because of its Gaza war a year ago and its continuing construction of Jewish housing in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Professional staff employees of the O.E.C.D., which is based in Paris, say all 30 member states must approve the accession of a country, and it remained unclear if any would object. But the three technical issues all still needed to be solved.

Let those nations free of issues lead the charge of the pure.

The first involved the organization’s convention to combat bribery of foreign officials, which it considers one of its more significant accomplishments. Some years ago, bribes were tax-deductible in several European countries. Now, all of the organization’s members are required to fight bribery through domestic legislation and regulation.

The arms trade is notoriously filled with palm-greasing across the world, and Israel is a large arms trader. It has signed the antibribery convention as part of its accession process, but the way it handles the issue is causing difficulty, O.E.C.D. officials say.


The main concern is that Israel’s Defense Ministry has the power to censor the results of any investigation of bribes paid by Israeli companies to foreign officials on the grounds that the publicity could harm Israel’s national interests. The censor can ban publication and is under no obligation to tell the authorities about the investigations. The O.E.C.D. wants both practices changed.

The second concern, regarding intellectual property rights, involves the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest producers of generic drugs. Major American and Swiss companies have long accused Israel of insufficient regulation of the way Teva markets its products in the face of patent regulations in other countries.

Finally, the O.E.C.D. is unhappy with Israel’s definition of its territory in collating economic data. Israel includes activities in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both of them won in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; most of the world views those areas as occupied, but Israel considers them its own through annexation.

All three issues, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials say, are being addressed at the technical level and will be solved.

Israel’s candidacy got off to an unusual start. Mr. Gurría, the secretary general, said that four years ago Israel’s widely admired central bank governor, Stanley Fischer, began attending O.E.C.D. functions with large studies of Israel’s economy aimed at demonstrating its readiness for membership.


“It’s the only country that’s ever done that,” Mr. Gurría said. “They were actually using O.E.C.D. regulations to modify their practices so as to qualify. In May 2007 Israel was invited to join because of its good economic management focused on knowledge, technology and education. The O.E.C.D. can gain from its membership, and so can Israel.”

The O.E.C.D.’s purposes are to bring together market-oriented democracies, promote good business and economic practices, and increase employment and international trade. For Israel, membership would not only help it continue to modernize its economy but also fight efforts to delegitimize and ostracize it over its dispute with the Palestinians.

Tightening NYS's belt

Gov. David A. Paterson proposed on Tuesday what would be the largest cut to school aid in more than two decades and nearly $1 billion in new or increased taxes and fees as he unveiled his budget, a plan that is likely to be the first chapter in a prolonged battle with the Legislature.

Searching for new sources of tax revenue amid a fiscal crisis, the governor proposed legalizing mixed martial arts, allowing the sale of wine in grocery stores, taxing bottled soft drinks, taxing cigarette sales on Indian reservations and deploying speed-enforcement cameras in highway work zones.

He even proposed charging fees to many families that enroll in an early intervention program for children with autism, attention deficit disorder and other special needs, and delaying one of his signature achievements — a plan to increase monthly welfare allowances.


And everyone is howling. Library associations are calling it disastrous. No one wants to sacrifice anything.


But Mr. Paterson avoided harsher medicine. He has made no significant cuts to the state’s work force and even assured union leaders that he would not seek layoffs this year, a risky move as the state faces huge deficits in the coming years.

And some aren't being asked to sacrifice at all. Absurd.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Argentine Leader Fights Bank Move

Mrs. Kirchner and her husband and predecessor, Nestor, are fighting back, but their popularity is near an all-time low, they don't have much money in the till without the reserves, and only 21 months remain until elections in which Mr. Kirchner has been laying groundwork to run.

The Kirchners reacted fiercely when Judge María José Sarmiento on Friday barred the central bank from transferring reserves and reinstated the bank president Mrs. Kirchner had fired the day before for refusing to do so. Mr. Kirchner said that his wife was victim of a "permanent conspiracy" and said Judge Sarmiento was biased and the ruling "a shame" to the judiciary.



It is a little weird to keep reading about Peronists. The Kirchners are supposed to be Peronists, yet they are not the only ones to claim the mantle of Juan Domingo Perón, a fascist military dictator.



Part of the reason [for the erosion of presidential power and rising opposition thereto] is that Kirchners are exhausting the power of the purse, critical in the patronage-oriented Peronist political system. Total public spending grew from 29.5% of output in 2003 when Mr. Kirchner took office to around 37% in 2008, his wife's first full year in office. With a budget surplus withering away, Mrs. Kirchner tried to shore up funds in 2008 by raising the grain export tax. Nationwide protests by farmers led to a vote in the senate that torpedoed the tax increase.

Presidenta  Kirchner nationalized pensions, and now is trying to use currency reserves to service national debt, so to have more funds free for her own purposes. Her line of defense is to say, in snippets of speeches and news conferences I've seen on Spanish-language news (Anglo news utterly ignore anything that is not an acute crisis in Latin America), that when the opposition were in power they did not govern well, thus they should now stop their opposition to her programs and let her govern.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Ay, Cristina (Kirchner)

Martín Redrado, the chief of Argentina's Central Bank who is in an increasingly tense political dispute with President Cristina Fernandez, talks to reporters as he leaves the bank's headquarters in Buenos Aires on Friday. A court issued two rulings Friday, blocking the use of foreign-currency reserves to pay debt, and revoking her dismissal of the central-bank chief.


This is a contest of wills. President Kirchner, the current one, supported, of course, by the previous President Kirchner (Cristina and Nelson, respectively), is demanding that about $7 billion (or, about, 26 billion Argentinian pesos) be released from the central bank-controlled reserves, and used to service foreign debt. Señor Redrado refused. He got sacked.

A federal judge blocked President Cristina Kirchner from using foreign-currency reserves to pay Argentina's national debt and revoked her dismissal of the central-bank chief who opposed that policy.

The twin legal defeats for the government injected further uncertainty in the battle for control of the central-bank reserves. The dispute, which has put Argentina on the verge of a constitutional crisis and placed the president and the opposition-controlled Congress at loggerheads, led to a selloff in the country's bond and stock markets.



A selloff? I don't know who the hell owns any Argentinian securities. Talk about speculation.


Mr. Redrado said he was motivated by the principle of central-bank independence. "It's necessary to keep working for ideas," he said. "We have shown commitment to maintaining the prestige of the Central Bank."

Mrs. Kirchner defended using a portion of the $48 billion in reserves to pay debt.

"It's much better to use the reserves than to take loans at 15% interest," President Kirchner said in remarks at a political event. She added that Mr. Redrado had been guilty of misconduct, and she was within her rights to dismiss him.



I think the expression at loggerheads is apt.


Roberto Sifon Arevalo, a director in the Latin America Sovereign Ratings Group at Standard & Poor's said compromising central-bank authority is disturbing to investors.

"There is a conceptual reason why people focus on the independence of the central bank," he said. "In a context where you already have inflationary pressures, if you don't have that independence and you have a central bank that starts financing current expenditures, then that's going to get significantly worse."


The  US Congress is walking the same way, proposing to curb the Fed's independence.

Friday, January 8, 2010

To Slow Growth, China Raises an Interest Rate

Workers demolishing a house to make way for a residential area in Changzhi, Shanxi Province, last month. Real estate construction is rising briskly, thanks to a surge in lending by government-controlled banks.









China’s central bank raised a key interest rate slightly Thursday for the first time in nearly five months, in what economists interpreted as the beginning of a broader move to tighten monetary policy and forestall inflation.

After breaking stride a year ago during the global economic slowdown, the Chinese economy resumed galloping growth over the summer. Government investments, real estate construction and consumer spending are all rising briskly, thanks to a surge in lending by government-controlled banks.

Even exports have begun to recover despite continued economic weakness in the European Union and the United States, China’s two biggest overseas markets.


How? Other Asian markets?

More Photos

Victor Fung, the nonexecutive chairman of Li & Fung, a Hong Kong-based trading and supply chain management company that is one of the world’s largest, said that overseas demand had not been strong enough to sustain the strength in China's shipments seen last month. But he added that his own staff was somewhat more optimistic than he is, as are some investment bank economists.






A Booming Economy in ChinaSlide Show
A Booming Economy in China

Shorting China

James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock.











James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.


 The very next post (above) is a discussion of ginancial steps China took to slow growth.

As America’s pre-eminent short-seller — he bets big money that companies’ strategies will fail — Mr. Chanos’s narrative runs counter to the prevailing wisdom on China. Most economists and governments expect Chinese growth momentum to continue this year, buoyed by what remains of a $586 billion government stimulus program that began last year, meant to lift exports and consumption among Chinese consumers.

He thinks China might be overstating its growth rate ("cooking its books") , and that it has excess credit available ("Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses.")

Still, betting against China will not be easy. Because foreigners are restricted from investing in stocks listed inside China, Mr. Chanos has said he is searching for other ways to make his bets, including focusing on construction- and infrastructure-related companies that sell cement, coal, steel and iron ore.

 Uh-oh. Cemex.

Mr. Chanos, 51, whose hedge fund, Kynikos Associates, based in New York, has $6 billion under management, is hardly the only skeptic on China. But he is certainly the most prominent and vocal.

For all his record of prescience — in addition to predicting Enron’s demise, he also spotted the looming problems of Tyco International, the Boston Market restaurant chain and, more recently, home builders and some of the world’s biggest banks — his detractors say that he knows little or nothing about China or its economy and that his bearish calls should be ignored.

Easy to dismiss bears, when one wants to see sunshine.

“I find it interesting that people who couldn’t spell China 10 years ago are now experts on China,” said Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros and now lives in Singapore. “China is not in a bubble.”

;Cowboy Jim had written that he'd be moving. He also predicted an unending bull market for commodities.

“The Chinese,” he warned in an interview in November with Politico.com, “are in danger of producing huge quantities of goods and products that they will be unable to sell.” In December, he appeared on CNBC to discuss how he had already begun taking short positions, hoping to profit from a China collapse.

In recent months, a growing number of analysts, and some Chinese officials, have also warned that asset bubbles might emerge in China.


The nation’s huge stimulus program and record bank lending, estimated to have doubled last year from 2008, pumped billions of dollars into the economy, reigniting growth. But many analysts now say that money, along with huge foreign inflows of “speculative capital,” has been funneled into the stock and real estate markets. A result, they say, has been soaring prices and a resumption of the building boom that was under way in early 2008 — one that Mr. Chanos and others have called wasteful and overdone.

“It’s going to be a bust,” said Gordon G. Chang, whose book, “The Coming Collapse of China” (Random House), warned in 2001 of such a crash.

2001? Guess he didn't get that one right.

Friends and colleagues say Mr. Chanos is comfortable betting against the crowd — even if that crowd includes the likes of Warren E. Buffett and Wilbur L. Ross Jr., two other towering figures of the investment world.

That is contrarian.

“His record is impressive,” said Byron R. Wien, vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Services. “He’s no fly-by-night charlatan. And I’m bullish on China.”

Mr. Chanos often responds to critics of short-selling by pointing to the critical role they played in identifying problems at Enron, Boston Market and other “financial disasters” over the years.

“They are often the ones wearing the white hats when it comes to looking for and identifying the bad guys,” he has said.

Monday, December 14, 2009

'Titan of Economics'

Yale Joel/Time & Life Pictures — Getty Images - Paul A. Samuelson at M.I.T. in 1950, where he used mathematics to analyze complex economic theories.





















Paul A. Samuelson received the National Medal of Science as former President Bill Clinton looked on in Washington in 1996.
(They couldn't find a better picture?)


































December 14, 2009
Paul A. Samuelson, Economist, Dies at 94
By MICHAEL M. WEINSTEIN

Paul A. Samuelson, the first American Nobel laureate in economics and the foremost academic economist of the 20th century, died Sunday at his home in Belmont, Mass. He was 94.

His death was announced by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which Mr. Samuelson helped build into one of the world’s great centers of graduate education in economics.

In receiving the Nobel Prize in 1970, Mr. Samuelson was credited with transforming his discipline from one that ruminates about economic issues to one that solves problems, answering questions about cause and effect with mathematical rigor and clarity.

When economists “sit down with a piece of paper to calculate or analyze something, you would have to say that no one was more important in providing the tools they use and the ideas that they employ than Paul Samuelson,” said Robert M. Solow, a fellow Nobel laureate and colleague of Mr. Samuelson’s at M.I.T.

Mr. Samuelson attracted a brilliant roster of economists to teach or study at the university, among them Mr. Solow as well as others who would go on to become Nobel laureates like George A. Akerlof, Robert F. Engle III, Lawrence R. Klein, Paul Krugman, Franco Modigliani, Robert C. Merton and Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Mr. Samuelson wrote one of the most widely used college textbooks in the history of American education. The book, “Economics,” first published in 1948, was the nation’s best-selling textbook for nearly 30 years. Translated into 20 languages, it was selling 50,000 copies a year a half century after it first appeared.

“I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws — or crafts its advanced treatises — if I can write its economics textbooks,” Mr. Samuelson said.

His textbook taught college students how to think about economics. His technical work — especially his discipline-shattering Ph.D. thesis, immodestly titled “The Foundations of Economic Analysis” — taught professional economists how to ply their trade. Between the two books, Mr. Samuelson redefined modern economics.

The textbook introduced generations of students to the revolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who in the 1930s developed the theory that modern market economies could become trapped in depression and would then need a strong push from government spending or tax cuts, in addition to lenient monetary policy, to restore them. Many economics students would never again rest comfortably with the 19th-century view that private markets would cure unemployment without need of government intervention.

That lesson was reinforced in 2008, when the international economy slipped into the steepest downturn since the Great Depression, when Keynesian economics was born. When the Depression began, governments stood pat or made matters worse by trying to balance fiscal budgets and erecting trade barriers. But 80 years later, having absorbed the Keynesian teaching of Mr. Samuelson and his followers, most industrialized countries took corrective action, raising government spending, cutting taxes, keeping exports and imports flowing and driving short-term interest rates to near zero.

Lessons for Kennedy

Mr. Samuelson explained Keynesian economics to American presidents, world leaders, members of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board, not to mention other economists. He was a consultant to the United States Treasury, the Bureau of the Budget and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

His most influential student was John F. Kennedy, whose first 40-minute class with Mr. Samuelson, after the 1960 election, was conducted on a rock by the beach at the family compound at Hyannis Port, Mass. Before class, there was lunch with politicians and Cambridge intellectuals aboard a yacht offshore. “I had expected a scrumptious meal,” Mr. Samuelson said. “We had franks and beans.”

As a member of the Kennedy campaign brain trust, Mr. Samuelson headed an economic task force for the candidate and held several private sessions on economics with him. Many would have a bearing on decisions made during the Kennedy administration.

Though Mr. Samuelson was President Kennedy’s first choice to become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he refused, on principle, to take any government office because, he said, he did not want to put himself in a position in which he could not say and write what he believed.

After the 1960 election, he told the young president-elect that the nation was heading into a recession and that Kennedy should push through a tax cut to head it off. Kennedy was shocked.

“I’ve just campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets and here you are telling me that the first thing I should do in office is to cut taxes?” Mr. Samuelson recalled, quoting the president.

Kennedy eventually accepted the professor’s advice and signaled his willingness to cut taxes, but he was assassinated before he could take action. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, carried out the plan, however, and the economy bounced back.

Adding Bite to Academia

In the classroom, Mr. Samuelson was a lively, funny, articulate teacher. On theories that he and others had developed to show links between the performance of the stock market and the general economy, he famously said: “It is indeed true that the stock market can forecast the business cycle. The stock market has called nine of the last five recessions.”

His speeches and his voluminous writing had a lucidity and bite not usually found in academic technicians. He tried to give his economic pronouncements a “snap at the end,” he said, “like Mark Twain.” When women began complaining about career and salary inequities, for example, he said in their defense, “Women are men without money.”

Remarkably versatile, Mr. Samuelson reshaped academic thinking about nearly every economic subject, from what Marx could have meant by a labor theory of value to whether stock prices fluctuate randomly. Mathematics had already been employed by social scientists, but Mr. Samuelson brought the discipline into the mainstream of economic thinking, showing how to derive strong theoretical predictions from simple mathematical assumptions.

His early work, for example, presented a unified mathematical structure for predicting how businesses and households alike would respond to changes in economic forces, how changes in wage rates would affect employment, and how tax rate changes would affect tax collections.

His relentless application of mathematical analysis gave rise to an astonishing number of groundbreaking theorems, resolving debates that had raged among theorists for decades, if not centuries.

An Economic Theorem

Early in his career, Mr. Samuelson developed the rudimentary mathematics of business cycles with a model, called the multiplier-accelerator, that captured the inherent tendency of market economies to fluctuate.

The model showed how markets magnify the impact of outside shocks and turn, say, an initial one dollar increase in foreign investment into a several dollar increase in total domestic income, to be followed by a decline.

Mr. Samuelson provided a mathematical structure to study the impact of trade on different groups of consumers and workers. In a famous theorem, known as Stolper-Samuelson, he and a co-author showed that competition from imports of clothes and similar goods from underdeveloped countries, where producers rely on unskilled workers, could drive down the wages of low-paid workers in industrialized countries.

The theorem provided the intellectual scaffold for opponents of free trade. And late in his career, Mr. Samuelson set off an intellectual commotion by pointing out that the economy of a country like the United States could be hurt if productivity rose among the economies with which it traded.

Yet Mr. Samuelson, like most academic economists, remained an advocate of open trade. Trade, he taught, raises average living standards enough to allow the workers and consumers who benefit to compensate those who suffer, and still have some extra income left over. Protectionism would not help, but higher productivity would.

Mr. Samuelson also formulated a theory of public goods — that is, goods that can be provided effectively only through collective, or government, action. National defense is one such public good. It is nonexclusive; the Navy, for example, exists to protect every citizen. It also eliminates rivalry among its many consumers; that is, the amount of security that any one citizen derives from the Navy subtracts nothing from the amount of security that any other citizen derives.

The features of public goods, Mr. Samuelson taught, stand in direct contrast to those of ordinary goods, like apples. An apple eaten by one consumer is not available to any other. Public goods, he concluded, cannot be sold in private markets because individuals have no incentive to pay for them voluntarily. Instead they hope to get a free ride from the decisions of others to make the public goods available.

A Predictive Principle

Mr. Samuelson pushed mathematical analysis to new levels of sophistication. For example, economists routinely write mathematical models of market economies that assume consumers and producers make choices to maximize their well-being. The question arises when such economies are stable: if disturbed by, say, droughts or wars or technological change, will the economy return to appropriate levels of prices and output or, instead, fly out of control? What Mr. Samuelson’s “correspondence principle” shows is the theoretical link between the behavior of individuals and the aggregate stability of the entire economic system. Information about individual responses, Mr. Samuelson’s theorem holds, shapes predictions about overall economic stability.

He analyzed the evolution of economies with a mathematical model, called an overlapping generations model, that scholars have since used to study, for example, the functioning over time of the Social Security system and the management of public debt.

He also helped develop linear programming, a mathematical tool used by corporations and central planners in socialist countries to calculate how to produce pre-set levels of various goods and services at the least cost.

Late in his career, Mr. Samuelson laid out the mathematics of stock price movements, an analysis that became the basis for Nobel Prize-winning research by his student Mr. Merton and Myron S. Scholes. They designed formulas that Wall Street analysts use to trade options and other complicated securities known as derivatives.

But beyond his astonishing array of scientific theorems and conclusions, Mr. Samuelson wedded Keynesian thought to conventional economics. He developed what he called the Neoclassical Synthesis. The neoclassical economists in the late 19th century showed how forces of supply and demand generate equilibrium in the market for apples, shoes and all other consumer goods and services. The standard analysis had held that market economies, left to their own devices, gravitated naturally toward full employment.

Economists clung to this theory even in the wake of the Depression of the 1930s. But the need to explain the market collapse, as well as unemployment rates that soared to 25 percent, gave rise to a contrary strain of thought associated with Keynes.

Mr. Samuelson’s resulting “synthesis” amounted to the notion that economists could use the neoclassical apparatus to analyze economies operating near full employment, but switch over to Keynesian analysis when the economy turned sour.

Midwestern Roots

Paul Anthony Samuelson was born on May 15, 1915, in Gary, Ind., the son of Frank Samuelson, a pharmacist, and the former Ella Lipton. His family, he said, was “made up of upwardly mobile Jewish immigrants from Poland who had prospered considerably in World War I, because Gary was a brand new steel town when my family went there.”

But after his father lost much of his money in the years after the war, the family moved to Chicago. Young Paul attended Hyde Park High School, where as a freshman he began studying the stock market. At one point he helped his algebra teacher select stocks to buy in the boom of the 1920s.

“Hupp Motors and other losers,” he remembered in an interview in 1996. “Proof of the fallibility of systems,” he said.

He left high school at age 16 to enter the University of Chicago. “I was born as an economist on Jan. 2, 1932,” he said. That was the day he heard his first college lecture, on Thomas Malthus, the 18th-century British economist who studied the relation between poverty and population growth. Hooked, he began taking economics courses.

The University of Chicago developed the century’s leading conservative economic theorists, under the later guidance of Milton Friedman. But Mr. Samuelson regarded the teaching at Chicago as “schizophrenic.” This was at the height of the Depression, and courses about the business cycle naturally talked about unemployment, he said. But in economic-theory classes, joblessness was not mentioned.

“The niceties of existence were not a matter of concern,” he recalled, “yet everything around was closed down most of the time. If you lived in a middle-class community in Chicago, children and adults came daily to the door saying, ‘We are starving, how about a potato?’ I speak from poignant memory.”

After receiving his bachelor’s degree from Chicago in 1935, he went to Harvard, where he was attracted to the ideas of the Harvard professor Alvin Hansen, the leading exponent of Keynesian theory in America.

As a student at Chicago and later at Cambridge, Mr. Samuelson had at first reacted negatively to Keynes. “What I resisted most was the notion that there could be equilibrium unemployment” — that some level of unemployment would be impossible to eliminate and have to be tolerated. “I spent four summers of my college career on the beach at Lake Michigan,” he said. “It was pointless to look for work. I didn’t even have to test the market because I had friends who would go to 350 potential employers and not be able to get any job at all.”

Eventually he was converted. “Why do I want to refuse a paradigm that enables me to understand the Roosevelt upturn from 1933 to 1937?” he asked himself.

Mr. Samuelson was perceived at the outset of his career as a brilliant mathematical economist. He shot to academic fame as a 22-year-old prodigy at Harvard when he began a boldly sweeping and highly technical doctoral dissertation, published as a book in 1947 by Harvard University Press.

At Harvard, as at Chicago, he was not shy about criticizing his professors — “respecting neither age nor rank,” according to James Tobin, a Nobel laureate of Yale University. The young Mr. Samuelson’s chief complaint against economists was that they preoccupied themselves with finer economic principles while all around them people were being thrown into bread lines.

A Bold Dissertation

His attitudes did not endear him to the austere chairman of the economics department at Harvard, Harold Hitchings Burbank, with whom he had a rocky relationship.

But the publication of his dissertation was an immediate success. It won him the John Bates Clark Medal awarded by the American Economic Association to the economist showing the most scholarly promise before the age of 40; it would eventually help him win his Nobel, and it was frequently reprinted despite the heavy resistance of Professor Burbank, selling to economists around the world for more than 20 years. (“Sweet revenge,” Mr. Samuelson said.)

Among Mr. Samuelson’s fellow students was Marion Crawford. They married in 1938. Mr. Samuelson earned his master’s degree from Harvard in 1936 and a Ph.D. in 1941. He wrote his thesis from 1937 to 1940 as a member of the prestigious Harvard Society of Junior Fellows. In 1940, Harvard offered him an instructorship, which he accepted, but a month later M.I.T. invited him to become an assistant professor.

Harvard made no attempt to keep him, even though he had by then developed an international following. Mr. Solow said of the Harvard economics department at the time: “You could be disqualified for a job if you were either smart or Jewish or Keynesian. So what chance did this smart, Jewish, Keynesian have?”

During World War II, Mr. Samuelson worked in M.I.T.’s Radiation Laboratory, developing computers for tracking aircraft, and was a consultant for the War Production Board. After the war, having resumed teaching, he and his wife started a family. When she became pregnant the fourth time, she gave birth to triplets, all boys.

Marion Samuelson died in 1978. Mr. Samuelson is survived by his second wife, Risha Clay Samuelson; six children from his first marriage: Jane Raybould, Margaret Crawford-Samuelson, William and the triplet sons, Robert, John and Paul; and 15 grandchildren. Mr. Samuelson is also survived by a brother, Robert Summers, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Pennsylvania and father of Lawrence H. Summers, director of President Obama’s National Economic Council and former secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton and former president of Harvard.

A Keynesian Textbook

The birth of the triplets doubled the number of children in the Samuelson household, which soon found itself sending 350 diapers to the laundry each week. His friends suggested that Mr. Samuelson needed to write a book to earn more money.

He decided to write an economics textbook, but one that would not only be compelling for students but also sophisticated and comprehensive. And he wanted to center it on the still poorly understood Keynesian revolution. President Herbert Hoover, he noted, had never referred to Keynes other than as “the Marxist Keynes.”

“I never quite understood that venom,” Mr. Samuelson said.

He said he “sweated blood” writing his book, employing detailed charts, color graphics and humor. He wrote: “Economists are said to disagree too much but in ways that are too much alike: If eight sleep in the same bed, you can be sure that, like Eskimos, when they turn over, they’ll all turn over together.”

It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of “Economics.” Business Week, taking note of the textbook’s publication in Greek, Punjabi, Hebrew, Russian, Serbo-Croatian and other languages, once said that it had “gone a long way in giving the world a common economic language.” Students were attracted to its lively prose and relevance to their everyday lives. Many textbook authors began to copy its presentation.

“Economics,” together with shrewd investing, made Mr. Samuelson a millionaire many times over.

Friendship With a Rival

A historian could well tell the story of 20th-century public debate over economic policy in America through the jousting between Mr. Samuelson and Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel in 1976. Mr. Samuelson said the two had almost always disagreed with each other but had remained friends. They met in 1933 at the University of Chicago, when Mr. Samuelson was an undergraduate and Mr. Friedman a graduate student.

Unlike the liberal Mr. Samuelson, the conservative Mr. Friedman opposed active government participation in most areas of the economy except national defense and law enforcement. He thought private enterprise and competition could do better and that government controls posed risks to individual freedoms.

Both men were fluid speakers as well as writers, and they debated often in public forums, in testimony before Congressional committees, in op-ed articles and in columns each of them wrote for Newsweek magazine. But Mr. Samuelson said he always had fear in his heart when he prepared for combat with Mr. Friedman, a formidably engaging debater.

“If you looked at a transcript afterward, it might seem clear that you had won the debate on points,” he said. “But somehow, with members of the audience, you always seemed to come off as elite, and Milton seemed to have won the day.”

Mr. Samuelson said he had never regarded Keynesianism as a religion, and he criticized some of his liberal colleagues for seeming to do so, earning himself, late in life, the label “l’enfant terrible emeritus.” The experience of nations in the second half of the century, he said, had diminished his optimism about the ability of government to perform miracles.

If government gets too big, and too great a portion of the nation’s income passes through it, he said, government becomes inefficient and unresponsive to the human needs “we do-gooders extol,” and thus risks infringing on freedoms.

But, he said, no serious political or economic thinker would reject the fundamental Keynesian idea that a benevolent democratic government must do what it can to avert economic trouble in areas the free markets cannot. Neither government alone nor the markets alone, he said, could serve the public welfare without help from the other.

As nations became locked in global competition, and as the computerization of the workplace created daunting employment problems, he agreed with the economic conservatives in advocating that American corporations must stay lean and efficient and follow the general dictates of the free market.

But he warned that the harshness of the marketplace had to be tempered and that corporate downsizing and the reduction of government programs “must be done with a heart.”

Despite his celebrated accomplishments, Mr. Samuelson preached and practiced humility. The M.I.T. economics department became famous for collegiality, in no small part because no one else could play prima donna if Mr. Samuelson refused the role, and, of course, he did. Economists, he told his students, as Churchill said of political colleagues, “have much to be humble about.”



December 14, 2009: The Wall Street Journal

Paul Samuelson: 1915-2009
'Titan of Economics'
Nobel Prize-Winning Theorist Revolutionized the Field

By Justin Lahart and Jon Hilsenrath

Paul Samuelson, whose analytical work laid the foundation for modern economics, died Sunday in Belmont, Mass., after a brief illness. He was 94.

Mr. Samuelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics and the author of a ubiquitous college textbook, was "one of the greatest teachers that economics has ever known" and "a titan of economics," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former student of Mr. Samuelson's at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mr. Samuelson, who was actively publishing into the 2000s, had a career in economics that spanned eight decades. As a high school student in 1932, he wandered into an economics lecture at the University of Chicago and was enamored. But attending Chicago as an undergraduate during the Great Depression, he became acutely aware, he said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this year, of the differences between what was being taught in the classroom and "what I heard out the windows and I heard from the street."

Remembering Samuelson

'One of the Greatest Teachers That Economics Has Ever Known'

From the Archives

How a Modern Depression Might Look -- If the U.S. Gets There
3/30/09

After graduating from Chicago in 1935 he went to Harvard University for his graduate work. His 1941 doctoral thesis, later published as "Foundations of Economic Analysis," examined the mathematical structure underlying economics. The approach revolutionized the field, to the point where economists today are often consumed in the mathematical proofs of their theories.

"For me, it is a special bereavement," said Princeton University economist Avinash Dixit. "My whole style of research, and the techniques that support almost all of my own papers, derive from his foundational articles."

Mr. Samuelson started teaching at MIT in 1940, the beginning of a lifelong association with the university that helped its economics program become the most highly regarded in the world.

Through his "Economics" textbook, first published in 1948 and for years the most widely used college textbook on any topic, his analytical approach became the standard for undergraduate courses. Mr. Bernanke keeps a copy signed by Mr. Samuelson on the shelves in his office at the Fed.

"There's just an enormous amount of what every undergraduate learns that we take for granted that Paul played an absolutely critical role in codifying and uncovering," said MIT economist and National Bureau of Economic Research president James Poterba, who remembers carrying around Mr. Samuelson's textbook as a high school student. "It's like trying to envision how did people do mechanics before Newton."

In 1970, Mr. Samuelson was the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics, the second year the prize was offered. "Samuelson's contribution has been that, more than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science," wrote the Nobel prize committee. "He has in fact simply rewritten considerable parts of economic theory."
[Samuelson] Associated Press

Paul Samuelson at a program in 1998 in Chicago to mark the 50th year and the 16th edition of his textbook "Economics," which for years was the most widely used college textbook on any topic.

Mr. Samuelson, a lifelong Democrat, acted as an adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, though he refused to take an official position in government. Mr. Samuelson hailed from a family of well-known economists, including brother Robert Summers, sister-in-law Anita Summers and nephew Lawrence Summers, who runs President Barack Obama's National Economic Council.

"Above all else, Paul Samuelson was a scholar," Mr. Summers said Sunday. "He used to proudly remark that he had never spent a full week in Washington. But through his research, teaching and writing he had more impact on the economic life of this country and the world than any government economic official and many presidents."

Mr. Samuelson, in a March interview with The Wall Street Journal, took aim at those trying to quell the financial crisis. "The typical pundit today would be somebody who might have been my student at MIT 25 years ago. I have great admiration for Ben Bernanke. But having been born in 1956 he did not have a feel for what it was like. If you were born after 1950, you really don't have the feel of that Great Depression in your bones," he said. "Being a bright boy at MIT, it's not really a substitute for that.

An economics column Mr. Samuelson wrote for Newsweek from 1966 to 1981 brought his views on economics to a wider audience. One of his columns also included his most widely repeated quip.

"To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions," he wrote in 1966. "That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties."

Mr. Samuelson remained intensely interested in what was happening in the economy through this year, holding forth on the worst economic crisis since the one that marked the start of his career in the 1930s.

"I thought from the beginning this was going to be very serious because it was people like me—people at MIT and Chicago—who created all these wonderful derivatives," he said. "The way they were formulated by financial engineers, they were not understood by any CEO. They didn't even know who they were in the bathtub with."
A Lifetime in Economics

1932: Paul Samuelson attends an economics lecture at the University of Chicago. "I was born again at 8:00 a.m., January 2, 1932, when I first walked into the University of Chicago lecture hall," he said in 2003.

1935: Graduates from the University of Chicago, enters Harvard University. "My revered Chicago mentors—Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Henry Simons, Paul Douglas… —without exception said, 'Pick Columbia.' Never one to blindly accept adult advice, I picked Harvard. I picked it by miscalculation, expecting that it would be a little oasis on rolling green hills," he said in 2003.

1940: Begins teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

1941: Receives his doctorate at Harvard. His dissertation, published in 1947 as "Foundations of Economic Analysis," examines the mathematical underpinnings of economics, revolutionizing the field.

1947: Becomes the first winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, given to the top American economist under 40.

1948: Publishes "Economics: An Introductory Analysis," which goes on to be the most widely used undergraduate economics textbook of its time. "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treaties—if I can write its economics textbooks," he said in 1990.

1970: Is the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics, the second year the prize was offered. "Samuelson's contribution has been that, more than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science," writes the prize committee.

In his speech at the Nobel banquet, Mr. Samuelson thanks the Nobel foundation on behalf of the economics profession for letting "our subject tag along in your festivities."

1996: Awarded National Medal of Science.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Curbing size of bog firms

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, separating commercial and investment banking.

And Bill Clinton signed the bill that repealed the Act.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

After the Caudillo

President Michelle Bachelet of Chile danced in front of the presidential palace in Santiago last month as part of independence anniversary celebrations.













After the Caudillo (November 18, 2007)


At first, breaking the gender barrier in South America did not go smoothly for Michelle Bachelet.

In 2006, she had just captured the world’s attention, becoming the first woman to be elected president of this deeply conservative country. And she had done it alone, without the famous husbands that had propelled other female presidents in Latin America.

But one month after taking office, Ms. Bachelet faced huge student demonstrations across the country. Her support fell further when a new public transportation system turned chaotic, leading critics to lampoon her with an image of her riding atop a city bus toward the edge of a cliff.

But with only five months until she leaves office, Ms. Bachelet is increasingly likely to be remembered as one of her country’s most popular leaders. Polls this month show her public approval to be above 70 percent, and in recent weeks she has recorded the highest levels since Chile went from dictatorship to democracy in 1990.

Analysts and pollsters attribute her stunning turnaround to her handling of the economy during the global financial crisis and to her decision to save billions of dollars in revenues from copper sales during the last commodity boom. That aggressive saving gave the country money to spend on pension reform and Ms. Bachelet’s ambitious program of social protections for women and children, despite the financial crisis.

Ms. Bachelet resisted the cries of politicians to use revenues from copper sales to try to close Chile’s inequality gap, one of the world’s worst. Instead, during her first three years in office, her government set aside $35 billion in revenue from the boom. When the global financial crisis hit, the value of Chile’s exports sank by more than 30 percent. But by then Chile had nearly $20 billion invested in overseas sovereign wealth funds alone.

Ms. Bachelet, a pediatrician, said, “I believe that if you want to fight inequality you have to do it starting at infancy.”

Opposition politicians who once criticized her social-protection efforts as a retreat to an era of big government are now saying they will try to expand her programs to the middle class.

If it works, it becomes popular. In the US it has happened with Social Security and Medicare.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Fed Is Split Over Timing of Rate Rise


The Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, told economists in Washington on Thursday night that the central bank had the tools to reverse course on rates but gave no hint when he planned to begin.


October 9, 2009
Fed Is Split Over Timing of Rate Rise
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON — Fissures are developing among policy makers at the Federal Reserve as they debate how and when to start raising the benchmark interest rate from its current level just above zero.

With Fed officials forecasting that unemployment will average 9.8 percent in 2010, nobody appears to be arguing that monetary policy should be tightened anytime soon. The central bank’s official mantra continues to be that the overnight federal funds rate will remain “exceptionally low” for “an extended period.”

But Fed officials have hinted at new disagreement in recent weeks. The arguments go beyond the traditional split between hawks, who worry that easy money will stoke inflation, and doves, who contend that unemployment is the top problem.

The more devilish debates are about how fast to act once the decision has been made, and how to carry it out. Beyond raising the overnight federal funds rate, the Fed also has to unwind $2 trillion in special programs that prop up paralyzed banks and credit markets.

Where Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, stands in the emerging argument is a question mark. At a conference held by the Fed on Thursday evening, he assured economists that the central bank had a detailed list of tools to reverse course but offered no new hint of when he planned to begin his exit strategy.

“When the economic outlook has improved sufficiently, we will be prepared to tighten the stance of monetary policy and eventually return our balance sheet to a more normal configuration,” Mr. Bernanke promised.

Any move to tighten monetary policy over the next year or so could set the stage for a clash between the Fed and the White House. The Obama administration has been outspoken in saying it does not want a quick end to stimulus policies, whether fiscal or monetary.

Policy makers are haunted by the results of previous miscalculations. Mr. Bernanke and others have warned that the central bank should not repeat its error in 1937, when it raised interest rates too early and helped extend the Depression for several years.

At the same time, officials at the Fed are acutely aware that it has been widely blamed for contributing to the housing bubble and the financial collapse by keeping the cost of borrowing too low for too long after the recession of 2001.

One hint of the discord came Tuesday, in a speech by Thomas M. Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Though he stopped short of calling for immediate rate increases, Mr. Hoenig made it clear that he was getting impatient.

“My experience tells me that we will need to remove our very accommodative policy sooner rather than later,” he told an audience of business executives. “Even if we were to start immediately, much time would pass before incremental increases could be considered tight or even neutral policy.”

Mr. Hoenig is not currently a voting member of the Fed’s policy committee, on which the regional Fed presidents hold rotating seats, but he presents his views at all meetings.

And he is not alone.

Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, sent a similar message in a speech on Sept. 29. “That wind-down process needs to begin as soon as there are convincing signs that economic growth is gaining traction,” he told a business group.

Other Fed officials with similar views include Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; Charles I. Plosser, president of the Philadelphia Fed; and Kevin M. Warsh, an influential Fed governor.

By contrast, some top Fed officials in Washington and New York have repeatedly emphasized that the economy is still extremely weak and that unemployment, already at its highest level since the early 1980s, will probably climb above 10 percent and remain high for several years.

“The turnaround is certainly welcome, but it shouldn’t be overstated,” Daniel K. Tarullo, a Fed governor, said on Thursday in an address to a civic group in Phoenix. “The employment situation continues to be dismal.”

William C. Dudley, president of the New York Fed, presented a detailed case that seemed aimed at responding to those calling for a quick end to low rates.

“Some observers are concerned that this expansion will ultimately prove to be inflationary,” he told an audience at the Corporate Law Center at Fordham University. “This concern is not well founded.”

Mr. Dudley noted that unemployment among working-age men was 10.3 percent — higher than in any other downturn since World War II.

On top of that, he said consumers were reeling from the “wealth shock” caused by the collapse in home prices and by losses to their stock portfolios. That could cause people to increase their saving rate, meaning less consumer spending in the short run.

Finally, Mr. Dudley cautioned that banks faced another wave of losses from loans tied to commercial real estate.

Beyond the disagreements about the relative dangers of rising prices versus rising joblessness, Fed officials are grappling with how to decide on the need for higher interest rates.

Mr. Bernanke and other officials want to see evidence that the economic recovery is self-sustaining, strong enough to generate jobs without the crutch of extremely low interest rates.

But Mr. Warsh, as a Fed governor, has begun arguing that the central bank cannot afford to wait for irrefutable evidence of a solid expansion. Mr. Warsh recently argued that the Fed should take at least some of its cue from stock prices and other financial indicators, which turn around earlier and more quickly than the underlying economy.

“If policy makers insist on waiting until the level of real activity has plainly and substantially returned to normal,” he warned in a speech on Sept. 25, “they will have almost certainly waited too long.”

Mr. Warsh and some other Fed officials also argue that when the time does come to change gears, the central bank may have to raise rates almost as fast as it slashed them when the crisis began.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Bernanke agrees with that idea, though he and other Fed officials have emphasized that they have planned carefully for the Fed’s exit strategy and have all the tools in place to reduce the special support programs quickly.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Avoiding another bubble

Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve face a number of very difficult challenges in the years ahead. They include:

• Resisting pressure to monetize deficits, which would eventually cause high inflation.

• Implementing an exit strategy from the massive monetary easing of the past year.

• Maintaining the Fed's independence, which has been compromised by the direct and indirect bailout of financial institutions and congressional attempts to micromanage the central bank.

• Properly calculating asset prices and the risk of asset bubbles according to the Taylor rule, an important guideline central banks use to set interest rates.

• Supervising and regulating the financial system more effectively, particularly in the role of "systemic risk" regulator.

From 2002 to 2006, the Fed moved slowly because the recovery appeared anemic and because of significant deflationary pressures. This time around, the recession is more severe—unemployment is at 9.8% and is expected to peak above 10%, and we are experiencing actual deflation. Therefore, the incentive not to exit too soon will be greater and the risk of creating another bubble is greater. Indeed, the sharp increase in the stock market and commodities, and narrowing of credit spreads since March, are partly due to a wall of global liquidity chasing assets and already causing asset inflation.

Over time, once the fed-funds rate is normalized, incorporating asset prices into monetary policy making is also necessary to ensure financial stability. While it is correct that the fed-funds rates may not be the most effective instrument at controlling asset and credit bubbles, excessively cheap money is always a source of such bubbles. So faster normalization of the fed-funds rate will eventually be important.

The Fed also needs a greater regulatory backbone. The Fed had the power to regulate mortgage markets but failed to use this power out of a misplaced deference to laissez-faire attitudes and Wall Street. Regulating mortgage markets requires a careful balance: short-term regulatory forbearance to avoid a greater credit crunch, along with medium-term countercyclical supervisory actions in order to prevent the emergence of further asset and credit bubbles.

Establishing financial stability—in addition to price stability and growth—is the essential role of the central bank. Achieving this goal in a way that avoids moral-hazard distortions, as with the too-big-to-fail finance institutions, and prevents another bubble in the next years will surely be one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the Fed.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Chinese economic juggernaut gaining on Japan

The lights of Tokyo, where some are asking whether Japan is destined to be the next Switzerland: rich and comfortable, but of little global import


















Catching Up to JapanGraphic Catching Up to Japan

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Palin Speaks to Investors in Hong Kong

Jonathon Stone, the chairman and CEO of CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, with Sarah Palin at a meeting in Hong Kong on Wednesday.





Just yesterday I was wondering what'd happened to her, and to day I wonder what she could have said of interest to this audience.


''I'm going to call it like I see it and I will share with you candidly a view right from Main Street, Main Street U.S.A.,'' Palin told a room full of asset managers and other finance professionals, according to a video of part of the speech obtained by The Associated Press. ''And how perhaps my view of Main Street ... how that affects you and your business.''

Main Street? Gimme a break.

It marked Palin's first major appearance since she resigned as governor in July, and the speech's location and international scope could help boost her credentials ahead of a possible bid for president in 2012. While she's thought to be considering that, her Hong Kong trip bore no political overtones, said Fred Malek, a friend and Palin adviser.

Going to Hong Kong is foreign policy experience?

In her speech -- closed to reporters -- Palin argued that many average Americans are uncomfortable with health care reforms that infringe on private enterprise, Chris Palmer, an American fund manager for Gartmore Investment Ltd., told reporters.

They need her to know that? Why not just watch or read some news?

In an apparent reference to tensions between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese that have led to riots, Palin mentioned China's ethnic problems, arguing they are ''a sign that China lacks mechanisms to deal with regional issues,'' Palmer said.

They'll love that in Peking (oops, my age shows: Beijing).

She also criticized the U.S. Federal Reserve's intervention in the economy over the last year and praised the conservative economic policies of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, according to another attendee who declined to be named because he didn't want to be seen as speaking on behalf of his company.

It is so easy to praise Ronald Reagan for his economic policies while ignoring their true impact and actual effects: he conducted deficit spending (Keynisian), cut taxes for the wealthy and threw the US into recession.

Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Tuesday the group knew little about Palin's speech.

''We're curious as to what she's willing to say in private but not in public,'' Sevugan said. ''Are there other countries that she can see from her window that she doesn't want us to know about?''

Touche.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

a Joie de Vivre Index

From now on, to gauge the economy's health, France will consider well-being in addition to the classic measure of gross domestic product, Mr. Sarkozy said Monday in a speech at the Sorbonne, part of the University of Paris.

In the speech presenting the findings of a committee headed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the president said new measures are needed in the wake of the financial crisis, which was triggered by an overreliance on free-market principles. "If the market was the solution to all problems and was never wrong, then why are we in such a situation?" asked Mr. Sarkozy. "We need to change criteria."

These past two years have certainly been rough. GDP might have contracted a few percentage points, but the quality of life has deteriorated far more for many people.

Mr. Sarkozy isn't the first politician to criticize GDP, which measures a country's aggregate output, as the dominant yardstick of economic performance. In 1968, Robert Kennedy complained during his U.S. presidential campaign that GDP "counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads." Since then, many economists have said GDP isn't a fully adequate way to measure growth, but no one has come up with a viable alternative.

Taking into account well-being would likely paint a rosier picture of the economy in France [compared to the 3% GDP contraction expected for 2009], where workers take long vacations and have generous social-security benefits.

Healthy and Wealthy

Nicolas Sarkozy is suggesting gauges of economic health
encompass well-being in addition to GDP. Measures could include:

  • Employment levels
  • Health care
  • Vacation
  • Household assets and income
  • Consumption
  • Education
Well, there is much to be said for this approach

Friday, September 4, 2009

Greenback’s new father

Mathew Brady — Wikipedia: Elbridge G. Spaulding drafted the Legal Tender Act, which let the government print paper money and pay for the Civil War.

Six months after the financial world seemed to be coming to an end, the world’s economies appear to be recovering. Banks that seemed to be on the brink of failure less than a year ago are now able to pay back investments made by the Treasury.

It is too early to declare victory, but the world looks much safer than it did only a few months ago. Credit markets are recovering, to the point that the junk bond market will have its best year ever if it manages not to lose any money over the rest of 2009. The stock market has just finished its best six months since 1938.

If victory is to be had, it will owe a lot to the willingness of American policy makers to set aside cherished policies and simply create money. And that is one reason it is appropriate to pause and celebrate an unheralded bicentennial: The father of the greenback, Elbridge Gerry Spaulding, who was born 200 years ago, in 1809.

Spaulding was that rarest of creatures, a man who succeeded in both business and politics; a congressman who saw a problem coming and had a solution ready. It was he who, at the end of 1861, figured out that the American government simply needed to print money to pay for the Civil War. It was economic heresy then, but without it this country might not have survived.

Today Spaulding is largely forgotten. Civil war generals are remembered with monuments and even colleges; Spaulding has a dormitory named for him at the University of Buffalo.

A dorm?

But some deem him a hero. “If Wall Street had saints, then the college of financial cardinals would surely canonize Elbridge G. Spaulding,” wrote T. J. Stiles in his insightful new biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, “The First Tycoon.”

A congressman from Buffalo, and a banker before and after he was a politician, he was chairman of a House Ways and Means subcommittee when the government was in danger of running out of money to pay for the Civil War. He wrote a law that allowed the government to print money and declare it had to be accepted as legal tender.

To opponents, Spaulding’s plan was simply immoral. “It will infinitely damage the national credit,” warned Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, adding that it was “a breach of the public faith” that would lead to rampant inflation.

Wonder what other brilliant nuggets the gentleman from Vermont has to his credit.

Mr. Bernanke’s eventual reputation is likely to be determined by how well he succeeds in his vow to right the economy without prompting a major devaluation of the dollar.

Some doubt he can do it. “The Fed, which saw none of this coming, now asks us to believe that it will see clearly enough into the future to remove this massive monetary stimulus before it becomes harmful,” said James Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.

Maybe Chairman Ben didn't see the crisis looming, but he sure reacted quickly and forcefully, unlike his predecessor.

If Mr. Bernanke does manage to accomplish that, he, like Elbridge Spaulding, will have earned financial canonization.

Monday, August 24, 2009

All the President's zombies

August 24, 2009 - Op-Ed Columnist

All the President’s Zombies

By PAUL KRUGMAN


The debate over the “public option” in health care has been dismaying in many ways. Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction — in Congress, if not with the broader public — simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program.

Socialism! Nazism!

Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism — by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

Yeah, we sure learned that lesson. Let the free market reign, then, when it gets in trouble, and it pleads for help, don't get in its way. Cut taxes. Let capitalism work. So say the Republicans.

Call me naïve, but I actually hoped that the failure of Reaganism in practice would kill it. It turns out, however, to be a zombie doctrine: even though it should be dead, it keeps on coming.

Hell, even Democrats invoke Regan's memory now, even if they think his policies a failure and his reign a disaster: too many people idolize the Gipper to let the right wing monopolize his memory.

Let’s talk for a moment about why the age of Reagan should be over. First of all, even before the current crisis Reaganomics had failed to deliver what it promised. Remember how lower taxes on high incomes and deregulation that unleashed the “magic of the marketplace” were supposed to lead to dramatically better outcomes for everyone? Well, it didn’t happen.

Yet even the people hurt by Reaganomics want the Democrats to cut taxes for the rich, to allow corporations to hold sway over the economy, and to keep government out of everything (except for their favorite tax loopholes, mortgage interest deduction chief among many).

To be sure, the wealthy benefited enormously: the real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007. But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years.

27 years of Reagan (8), Bush 41 (4), Clinton (8) and Bush 43 (8).

Moreover, most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years. President George W. Bush, who had the distinction of being the first Reaganite president to also have a fully Republican Congress, also had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains.

But he was a good ole Texas boy (by way of Groton and Yale, but never mind).

And then there’s the small matter of the worst recession since the 1930s.

An inconvenient detail the Democrats and liberals bring up because they hate America and want to give aid and comfort to its enemies.

There’s a lot to be said about the financial disaster of the last two years, but the short version is simple: politicians in the thrall of Reaganite ideology dismantled the New Deal regulations that had prevented banking crises for half a century, believing that financial markets could take care of themselves. The effect was to make the financial system vulnerable to a 1930s-style crisis — and the crisis came.

Clinton deregulated with a vengeance, too.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937. “We know now that it is bad economics.” And last year we learned that lesson all over again.

Socialist, that Roosevelt.

Or did we? The astonishing thing about the current political scene is the extent to which nothing has changed.

And now the right wing is screaming socialism, painting Hitler moustaches on the President, and scaring the hell out of the Democrats, who can not get their stuff together long enough to pass some legislation. Not yet, anyway.

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option — not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson — have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.

The sky might fall.

But it’s much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation — this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.

Lobbying spending has been furious.

So why won’t these zombie ideas die?

Part of the answer is that there’s a lot of money behind them. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, I would add, his campaign contributions — “depend upon his not understanding it.” In particular, vast amounts of insurance industry money have been flowing to obstructionist Democrats like Mr. Nelson and Senator Max Baucus, whose Gang of Six negotiations have been a crucial roadblock to legislation.

Or on pushing the lies and distortions that allow hsi benefactors to reap in great profits.

But some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary, and hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism. That’s ironic, in a way, since a large part of what made Reagan so effective, for better or for worse, was the fact that he sought to change America’s thinking as well as its tax code.

Thus far, the effort seems lackluster, though it may yet prove to be too early to call.

How will this all work out? I don’t know. But it’s hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we’re at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn.

September and October will prove the President's mettle: will he be able to knock heads together and have legislation passed? We'll see.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Gates' Appalling Entitlement

Yet one more take on the imbroglio. This is a different view than most that I've seen. It appeared in The Daily Beast.


Gates' Appalling Entitlement
by Edward Hayes
July 26, 2009

This controversy shouldn’t be about race. It’s about class, and it’s Henry Louis Gates Jr. who is in the wrong.

Read other takes on Gates' arrest from Daily Beast writers.

Sergeant Crowley works in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It appears his area of patrol includes the residences of a lot of Harvard faculty and employees. I bet that the Cambridge PD spends an awful lot of time making sure Harvard and its workers are treated with the dignity they think they deserve. Let me put it differently—the sense of class entitlement in this case runs entirely the other way. It’s Gates down to Sgt. Crowley and they both know it.

Policemen take abuse and walk away. However, almost none of them will take abuse from someone who follows them into the street in front of others. At this point, everyone on that sidewalk has been interviewed and the consensus, I bet, is that Gates is a loudmouth who behaved badly. Just look at the picture of him yelling when the cops bring him out of the house. By the way, it’s not Crowley who is bringing him out; it’s a bunch of cops. At least one is African American. I promise you that there was someone there with a higher rank than Crowley who made the decision to arrest Gates and hold him for four hours.

Crowley, by the way, looks fit and tough. Gates, who does not, probably resented that as well, because Crowley was not afraid when Gates said, in effect, “I’m a big shot.”

There are a couple of reasons why policemen don't like to be followed:

1) It is wrong; nobody is supposed to be abused. Every place makes it a petty crime to follow other people and yell at them. Otherwise, how would you stop them from doing it? You ask them to stop, they keep doing it, you put handcuffs on them.
2) It creates a lack of respect for the police.
3) It is a bad lesson for children who see it or hear about it.

Gates did a lot more abusing than Crowley. Crowley, by the way, looks fit and tough. Gates, who does not, probably resented that as well, because Crowley was not afraid when Gates said, in effect, “I’m a big shot.”

In any case, cops are supposed to ask why you are in a house when they get a call that you pushed your way in—99 out of a 100 people will say: "Officer, I forgot my keys, thanks for making sure everything was all right." If, heaven forbid, somebody does break into Gates’ house while he is there, he'd be very glad to have Crowley come through the door. Gates should have no beef about anything. He is a very privileged man, knows it, and throws his weight around.

Edward Hates is a trial lawyer in New York City who has represented the chiefs of the New York, Los Angeles, and Miami police departments. He is author of the book Mouthpiece.

I took the book off the shelf and began to read it. Hayes grew up poor in Jackson Heights. The jacket blurbs and Tom Wolfe's introduction make clear Hayes became a very successful lawyer; pictures in the middle of the book also show his strong ego and significant wealth. Interesting.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Fortress on Both Sides of Talks

A specialty of Wall Street:

Multipronged Fortress

The Issue: Fortress is both an equity investor in and lender to real-estate
and railroads firm Florida East Coast Industries Inc.

The Conflict: The company is trying to restructure a $1.5 billion loan,
pitting the interests of Fortress clients against one another.

The Future: Private-equity firms are facing new conflicts as they buy up
the debt of companies they own.

This forms invests in and lends to

Futures Climb on Goldman Results

The best on the Street seems to be back.

Goldman Sachs shares were hovering around the flat line on Tuesday. The bank's profit smashed through analyst estimates after its fixed income, currency and commodities unit posted record quarterly revenue. Goldman posted income of $3.44 billion, or $4.93 a share, up from $2.09 billion, or $4.58 a share, a year earlier. The latest results included a $426 million dividend related to the company's paying back its TARP funds. Excluding that, earnings were $5.71 a share, which beat analyst estimates by more than $2 a share. Net revenue jumped 46% to $13.76 billion.

Read: The latest results included a $426 million dividend related to the company's paying back its TARP funds. So the Treasury made money on its investment: $426 million on $10 billion. On June 19 a story confirmed that GS was one of the institutions that had repaid the Treasury (on 17 June). So perhaps GS had TARP funds for six months; the Treasury made about 8.5% in such a case. Not bad.

But many in the market had expected Goldman to post a strong quarter, and in fact stock futures moved off their best levels of the day after the bank's results.