Fed Economists Laugh It Off

A new graph is making its way around the Internet that charts the amount of laughter recorded by Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) stenographers during meetings between 2001 and 2006 – during the ramp-up to the recession. The graph shows that committee members had increasingly more fun as the years passed, and suggests they could have been doing more to keep an eye on the growing housing bubble that would soon burst. The FOMC is expected to announce a new initiative regarding interest-rate projections and future impact, and many are wondering how many will be laughing. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

The Federal Reserve transcripts from 2006 released ten days ago continue to reverberate around the internet as the central bank has become a laughing stock for being so unaware of the U.S. housing bubble that was inflating to dangerous levels throughout the year.

Dean Baker’s Alan Greenspan’s ship of fools from last week is well worth reading if for no other reason than to learn what former Fed governor Frederic Mishkin was thinking late that year and I recently came across this item at The Daily Staghunt blog that charted how much laughter appeared in the transcripts over the years.

While Fed economists are purportedly a funny lot, it does look pretty bad to see increasing joviality at a time when they could have been doing something about the housing bubble.

The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) meets this week and they are expected to announce of a new communication initiative with two key features – expanded interest-rate projections and an explanation of their objectives for inflation and employment. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will surely discuss these in detail in the press conference after the meeting and, though normally keen on audience engagement, he’ll probably be hoping that he’s not asked about the 2006 transcripts.

If we’re really lucky, someone will ask him about this chart.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Stiglitz Forecasts Financial Doom, Gloom

Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz is not optimistic about the prospect of the American Dream as the country moves into 2012. Stiglitz waxes philosophical about the country’s growing wage gap, terminal unemployment and financial crises that have erupted in multiple areas of the world. He opines that working on long-term problems like fiscal debt could actually solve short-term problems like unemployment if the world’s power players were not rooted in politics as usual. The fear, Stiglitz says, is that the system will cataclysmically right itself before cooler heads prevail. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

I think it would be fair to say that Joe Stiglitz isn't predicting a return to general prosperity anytime soon:

The Perils of 2012, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, Project Syndicate: The year 2011 will be remembered as the time when many ever-optimistic Americans began to give up hope. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. But now, in the receding tide, Americans are beginning to see not only that those with taller masts had been lifted far higher, but also that many of the smaller boats had been dashed to pieces in their wake.

In that brief moment when the rising tide was indeed rising, millions of people believed that they might have a fair chance of realizing the “American Dream.” Now those dreams, too, are receding. ...

This year is set to be even worse. It is possible, of course, that the United States will solve its political problems and finally adopt the stimulus measures that it needs to bring down unemployment to 6% or 7% (the pre-crisis level of 4% or 5% is too much to hope for). But this is as unlikely as it is that Europe will figure out that austerity alone will not solve its problems. ...

Meanwhile, long-term problems – including climate change and other environmental threats, and increasing inequality in most countries around the world – have not gone away. Some have grown more severe. ...

I'm not sure it was intended as a joke, but this part made me laugh: "It is possible, of course, that the United States will solve its political problems and finally adopt the stimulus measures that it needs..."

This article was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Fed Backs Conversion of Foreclosures into Rentals

The Federal Reserve’s latest report on the U.S. housing market indicates its advocacy for the bundling and selling of government-owned foreclosed homes to investors who can then convert the homes into rental properties. The report notes that the market is not expected to improve and that interest in rentals will continue to increase, thereby opening the door to a government investment opportunity. Some critics believe, however, that the ulterior motive here is to neutralize an area (rental costs) that accounts the for the Fed’s “core” inflation rate by placing more rentals on the market, thereby providing more room to print money in the event of a new fiscal emergency. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

The Federal Reserve’s new white paper about the U.S. housing market released just yesterday – The U.S. Housing Market: Current Conditions and Policy Considerations (.pdf) – contains the following paragraph and a good deal of supporting rationale for their recommendation to sell GSE-owned foreclosed properties in bulk to investors so that they can be converted in bulk into rentals.

The price signals in the owner-occupied and rental housing markets–that is, the decline in house prices and the rise in rents–suggest that it might be appropriate in some cases to redeploy foreclosed homes as rental properties. In addition, the forces behind the decline in the homeownership rate, such as tight credit conditions, are unlikely to unwind significantly in the immediate future, indicating a longer-term need for an expanded stock of rental housing.

While, on the surface, this makes a good deal of sense after the nation painfully learned a few years ago that home ownership wasn’t what it was cracked up to be and, ever since, home prices have been falling while demand for rental properties has grown, a massive conversion of REO properties into rental properties would also have the convenient side effect of helping the Fed keep inflation low, giving it more leeway to print up another trillion dollars or so for the greater good, should the need arise.

How so?

Recall that, part of the reason that the housing bubble grew so big was that the inflation statistics include rental prices as a proxy for the cost of home ownership, a change that was made all the way back in 1983 and that forever changed how inflation is reported and how high home prices could rise (see this Seeking Alpha article on the subject from a few years back that still ranks quite high on a search of “owners’ equivalent rent”).

After years of being subdued because everyone wanted to own a home (and nearly did), lately, rents have been rising – up about 2 percent over the last year – and, since rents account for 40 percent of the Fed’s “core” inflation rate, you can see why lower rental prices might be in the central bank’s interest.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Farmland Values Soar in Heartland

Tim Iacono comments on a Brian Williams news segment detailing the rising prices of farmland across America’s heartland, particularly in Iowa, where Republican presidential candidates so recently debated. Prices in the area have risen more than 30% in Iowa and 25% on average throughout the Midwest. One land auction featured in the report resulted in a sale for more than $13,000 per acre – more than double the value from five years ago. Experts say the increases are driven by the rarity with which farmland comes on the market and the growing demand for agricultural products, particularly corn for the surging (and subsidized) ethanol market. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

After today, we won’t be hearing much about Iowa anymore as aspiring presidential candidates pack up and leave town following today’s caucuses, but, this NBC report on the farmland boom there puts things in a slightly different perspective than you may have heard after listening to talking heads on MSNBC and Fox News for the last few months.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are some pretty impressive statistics associated with the boom – per acre prices in Iowa up over 30 percent from last year and, across the entire Midwest, up about 25 percent … and you thought the real estate bubble was over.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

China Showing Signs of Economic Weakness

Economist Paul Krugman takes an unflinching look at China’s current economic position, and believes what he sees is a mirror image of Japan in the 80s or the U.S. in 2007: a country that has relied on shady banking practices to sustain a boom in growth that now cannot be supported by domestic consumption or financing. Now, as the bubble is set to burst, the country seems ready to dig in its heels, particularly by issuing punitive tariffs on foreign trade partners. Krugman rightly notes that the last thing the global economy needs is another crisis point, but he also believes that is the direction in which the country is headed. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Uh-oh?:

Will China Break?, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Consider the following picture: Recent growth has relied on a huge construction boom fueled by surging real estate prices, and exhibiting all the classic signs of a bubble. There was rapid growth in credit — with much of that growth taking place not through traditional banking but rather through unregulated “shadow banking” neither subject to government supervision nor backed by government guarantees. Now the bubble is bursting — and there are real reasons to fear financial and economic crisis.

Am I describing Japan at the end of the 1980s? Or am I describing America in 2007? I could be. But right now I’m talking about China, which is emerging as another danger spot in a world economy that really, really doesn’t need this right now. ...

The most striking thing about the Chinese economy over the past decade was the way household consumption, although rising, lagged behind overall growth. At this point consumer spending is only about 35 percent of G.D.P., about half the level in the United States.

So who’s buying the goods and services China produces? Part of the answer is, well, us:... China increasingly relied on trade surpluses to keep manufacturing afloat. But the bigger story from China’s point of view is investment spending, which has soared to almost half of G.D.P.

The obvious question is, with consumer demand relatively weak, what motivated all that investment? And the answer, to an important extent, is that it depended on an ever-inflating real estate bubble. ...

And there was another parallel with U.S. experience: as credit boomed, much of it came not from banks but from an unsupervised, unprotected shadow banking system..: in China as in America a few years ago, the financial system may be much more vulnerable than data on conventional banking reveal.

Now the bubble is visibly bursting. How much damage will it do to the Chinese economy — and the world? ...

For what it’s worth, statements about economic policy from Chinese officials don’t strike me as being especially clear-headed. In particular, the way China has been lashing out at foreigners — among other things, imposing a punitive tariff on imports of U.S.-made autos that will do nothing to help its economy but will help poison trade relations — does not sound like a mature government that knows what it’s doing. ...

I hope that I’m being needlessly alarmist here. But it’s impossible not to be worried: China’s story just sounds too much like the crack-ups we’ve already seen elsewhere. And a world economy already suffering from the mess in Europe really, really doesn’t need a new epicenter of crisis.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Eurozone Crisis Overshadows U.S. Debt Concerns

The U.S. media and market analysts have been focusing so much attention on the Eurozone debt crisis that similar problems brewing at home in domestic credit markets are not getting any attention, say some critics. Now that the presidential election is in full swing, many argue that the growing U.S. debt debacle will go unattended as politicians focus all their time and energy on staying in – or getting into – office. With the Federal Reserve’s latest announcement that Treasury borrowing rates will remain at historical lows, it appears that policymakers are intent on letting the problem fester rather than making the tough decisions that represent sound fiscal sense. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

Former Kansas governor Mark Parkinson appeared on CNBC yesterday and made the point that you don’t hear too much anymore these days with European credit markets being such a mess – that the U.S. will someday have a similar crisis.

Unfortunately, with the election season now well underway, officials in Washington are not likely to take any action to make the looming U.S. debt crisis any less menacing, in fact, with borrowing rates so low for the Treasury Department, you get the feeling that we’re whistling past the graveyard louder than ever.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Consumer Credit Trends Shifting

Tim Iacono reviews data compiled on EconomPicData that reveals American consumers are ratcheting down their use of credit cards, dropping toward 15% of personal income. Consumer debt has been rising for decades, but now it is being replaced by student loan debt, which has increased dramatically in the last 10 years to approach 5% of personal income. Iacono believes this will likely cause problems in the long term as getting an education begins to look less appealing and eventually impacts U.S. competitiveness in the global market. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

From this item at Jake’s EconomPicData blog the other day comes the graphic below depicting dramatic changes in consumer credit trends over the years. Racking up revolving credit (e.g., credit cards) is not nearly as popular as it was for decades, what I’ve long called “the real Reagan Revolution” as individuals dramatically increased their use of credit cards to fuel consumption (i.e., buying things you don’t need with money you don’t have).

Taking up the slack for falling credit card balances are higher student loan balances that, already, are further separating the nation into have and have-nots (a.k.a. debt serfs) while making the whole idea of higher education less appealing when this is one the the things the country needs most to remain competitive with emerging economies in Asia.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Eurozone Eyes Questionable Bailout Strategy

Talks in the Eurozone turn on who is going to accept the loss in a debt restructuring deal, and now architects of the plan are saying private-sector bondholders may not have to take a haircut in the event of a bailout. The news has fueled a short-term rally, but experts criticize the measure as one that will result in the same kind of catastrophe that befell Ireland when it granted banks a blanket bailout that pushed the debt onto Irish citizens and resulted in a staggering collapse of the economy. As European countries scramble to guarantee one another’s debt and lenders seek to avoid paying for bad decisions, ratings agencies are poised to downgrade the entire region. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Felix Salmon:

The eurozone’s terrible mistake, by Felix Salmon: The FT is reporting today that the new fiscal rules for the EU “include a commitment not to force private sector bondholders to take losses on any future eurozone bail-outs”. If this principle really does get enshrined into some new treaty, it will be one of the most fiscally insane derelictions of statesmanship the world has seen — but it certainly helps explain the short-term rally that we saw today in Italian government debt.

Right now, the commitment is still vague...

To understand just how stupid this is, all you need to do is go back and read Michael Lewis’s Ireland article. The fateful decision in Ireland was to take the insolvent banks and give them a blanket bailout, with the banks’ creditors all getting 100 cents on the euro. That only served to put a positively evil debt burden onto the Irish people, forcing a massive austerity program and causing untold billions of euros in foregone growth, while bailing out lenders who deserved no such thing.

Are we really going to repeat — on a much larger scale — the very same mistake that Ireland made? ...

On Ireland, see: Despite Praise for Its Austerity, Ireland and Its People Are Being Battered.

This article was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Ron Paul Talks Gold Standard

Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke with Judge Andrew Napolitano, host of FOX Business News “Freedom Watch”, about his belief in the gold standard and the current state of U.S. monetary policy. Paul discusses the transition from fiat currency back to the gold standard by legalizing gold and silver tender without having a fixed exchange rate between the two currencies. Judge Napolitano questions whether there is a possibility of a true gold standard that allows exchange between the two, and Paul responds that while that scenario is a long way off, the current system cannot sustain itself and that an audit of the Federal Reserve is a good place to begin reform. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) appeared on Fox Business News yesterday to talk about the nation’s money and a return to the gold standard in the unlikely event that he’s elected president.

His discussion of the U.S. dollar throughout American history reminded me of a Wall Street Journal book review yesterday by James Grant that, from what I could tell, was a lot better than the book – Greenback Planet by H.W. Brands. From the book review:

“Greenback Planet” is the story of this amazing monetary transformation. The narrative begins in the 18th century and races to the present, pausing to catch its breath at some of the great American monetary landmarks: Andrew Jackson’s veto, in 1832, of legislation rechartering a predecessor to the Federal Reserve; Abraham Lincoln’s recourse to greenbacks, or fiat currency, to finance the Civil War; resumption of the gold standard in 1879, with which it once more became possible to exchange gold for paper and vice-versa at a fixed and statutory rate; J.P. Morgan quelling the Panic of 1907; the Federal Reserve not quelling, never mind preventing, the Great Depression; the crazy-quilt monetary improvisations of the 1930s; the halfway gold dollar of the post-World War II era; and the creation, in 1971, of the pure paper (later digital) model of today.

Mr. Brands is a paper-money man, though the subtitle of his book—”How the Dollar Conquered the World and Threatened Civilization as We Know It”—seems to betray some reservations.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Economist Recommends Tax Increases

Economist Paul Krugman writes in The New York Times that it’s a good thing the Congressional “supercommittee” has failed to agree on federal budget cuts. A more helpful approach, he says, is to raise taxes on the rich and to start taxing financial transactions. He takes on naysayers who argue taxing the rich will not help the bigger picture by pointing out that the combined income for the top 0.1% of earners is more than $1 trillion, and claims the vast increase in financial transactions over the years could result in a significant source of tax revenue. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View.

Increased in revenue from taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions should be part of the long-term deficit reduction plan:

Things to Tax, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The supercommittee was a superdud — and we should be glad. Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?

And I don’t just mean a return to Clinton-era tax rates. ... The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?

Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in earnest...: taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.

About those high incomes: In my last column I suggested that the very rich ... should pay more in taxes. I got many responses from readers ... that even confiscatory taxes on the wealthy couldn’t possibly raise enough money to matter.

Folks, you’re living in the past. ... The IRS reports that in 2007 ... the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and ... taxes ... would raise a significant amount of revenue...

For example,... before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. ... I’ve extrapolated ... using Congressional Budget Office projections, and what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit. ...

So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.

And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions... Because there are so many transactions, such a fee could yield several hundred billion dollars in revenue over the next decade. Again, this compares favorably with the savings from many of the harsh spending cuts being proposed in the name of fiscal responsibility.

But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests not — if anything,... to the extent that taxing financial transactions reduces the volume of wheeling and dealing, that would be a good thing. ...

Now, the tax ideas I’ve just mentioned wouldn’t be enough, by themselves, to fix our deficit. But the same is true of proposals for spending cuts. The point I’m making here isn’t that taxes are all we need; it is that they could and should be a significant part of the solution.

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist’s View.