We now live in a world where technology has triumphed, in many ways, over death. The problem with that is that it’s enormously expensive. And big pharmaceutical giants and big medical products companies have stopped working on stuff that could be extraordinary because they know they won’t be reimbursed, according to the common standards. We’re not only rationing today; we’re rationing our future. “
“If you project forward these horrific costs of treating everybody and you want to assume we are not going to respond to that by making the therapies better, simpler and cheaper and in some cases completely wiping out the [diseases], well you know what? We might actually get to that situation—if we stop investing in technology, if we stop believing that the future ought to be better than the past. “
“If somebody in this country wants to explain to me that we ought to be spending about twice as much supporting sports as on all of our pharmaceuticals, then stop spending.”
“I think this debate shows a fundamental lack of vision, a lack of confidence, a lack of understanding of what’s possible.
Politics and policy from inside Washington
Radical Islam has overplayed its hand again, creating popular resentment escalating to political backlash. … Why? Because the penetrating embrace of globalization is doing the truly profound damage to Al Qaeda, and we are globalization’s bodyguard. The flow of proliferating networks that offer ideas and conversations and products and expressions of individualistic ambition — especially with regard to women — offer radical Islamic groups no hope of gaining permanent political control. … The Middle East currently suffers from a destabilizing youth bulge around people between the ages of 15 and 30. In two decades time, the region’s demographic center of gravity will have shifted upward commensurately, meaning the Middle East will hit “middle age.” What do we know from this shift in other parts of the world? That criminal behavior wanes, meaning bin Laden and Al Qaeda do not have time on their side. … Globalization is not some elite conspiracy hatched in Manhattan or Davos; it’s now largely fueled by the ravenous demand for a decent lifestyle by an emerging — and huge — global middle class located overwhelmingly beyond our shores. That world-spanning force demands the Islamic world’s progressive integration into globalization’s vast universe.
Me: Another reason why American needs to stay open to the world, especially in terms of trade. But all the cross-border flows count: goods, services, ideas, capital, people.
Government revenue estimates of future tax hikes on the wealthy always overestimate how much dough they will bring in. This is certainly the case with the 1993 Clinton tax hikes. Now why is that? First up is my Reuters compadre, the so-smart-he’s-scary Christopher Swann:
It has been many years since the rich had a powerful incentive to test the limits of the tax code. The top rate of income tax has fallen with only minor interruptions since its vertiginous peak of 92 percent in 1953. But a foretaste of what might be expected was offered by Maryland’s ill-fated creation of a millionaires-tax bracket in 2008.
A year later 1,000 millionaires had disappeared — a third of the total — and revenues from this group had fallen by $100 million. Some may have left the state while others may have found ingenious ways to reduce their reported income.
And now Richard Rahn in the WaTimes:
Quite simply, upper-income people have options. History shows that when tax rates are raised, many will choose to work less (leisure is nontaxable), retire earlier than they had planned and save and invest less in taxable, productive activities. Those making more than $160,000 per year would need to have their taxes roughly tripled to take care of just this year’s deficit. (One merely has to look at the tax evasion practiced by the chairman of the congressional tax writing committee, the secretary of the Treasury and the former majority leader, et al. at today’s tax rates to know that they and their colleagues, as well as most everyone else, will find either legal or illegal ways to avoid paying the tax.
Well, that didn’t take long. Just four months ago, the Financial Accounting Standards Board wisely knuckled under to Ccongressional cajoling and decided to ease its market-to-market valuation rules. But now FASB Chairman Robert Herz and his obscure accountacrats in Norwalk, Conn. are enthusiastically re-embracing “fair value.” They want to expand their application as never before, to include all financial assets, even loans.
All that, despite evidence that the change made back in April enabled banks to claim billions in additional first-quarter earnings (more than $3 billion at 45 large firms) and helped instill a needed dose of confidence into wobbly markets. Thus this new effort by Herz & Co. represents a triumph of ideology — that transparency trumps all — over practicality and experience. What if an upgraded mark-to-market standard forced slowly healing banks to set aside huge sums to cover paper losses and further crimp lending? Not FASB’s problem.
Now in a Greenspanian dream world of perpetual economic moderation, a mark-to-market may well be the ideal one-decision regulatory approach. Just set it and forget it. Whereat’s the risk in a pro-cyclical policy, after all, when the business cycle seems stuck firmly on “gentle”?
But stormy economic times can turn fair value into foul policy. Great Depression-era regulators, according to a 2008 Securities and Exchange Commission report, abandoned mark-to-market in 1938 because of “serious concerns” over how it was affecting systemic financial stability. And had money center banks in the 1980s been forced to mark those loans to market prices, argues former FDIC chairman William Isaac, “virtually every one of our money center banks would have been insolvent.”
Now let’s be clear. Fair value didn’t spark America’s financial crisis. Rather, as Warren Buffett aptly put it, mark-to-market was “gasoline on the fire.” (Though, as a purely historical matter, it should be pointed out that mark-to-market coincided nicely with two major U.S financial panics.) As such, a mid-crisis reevaluation of the standard should have been an easy call for FASB. It clearly wasn’t.
Not true for others, though. Earlier this year, the Group of 30 – an international body of banking and academic biggies – recommended that “fair value accounting principles and standards should be reevaluated [when] dealing with less liquid instruments and distressed markets.” Paul Volcker, himself a member, questioned the suitability of “across-the-board application of mark-to-market accounting,” which sounds exactly like what FASB is proposing. Even the International Standards Accounting Board seems hesitant to go as far as its American cousin.
But neither historical precedent nor present-day analysis seems to much matter to the Gnomes of Norwalk. The changes to mark-to-market didn’t further destabilize shaky credit markets. And those toxic asset-laden “zombie” banks are slowly earning their way to health, needing neither nationalization nor more government money.
Yet none of this has prompted even a tacit admission by FASB that every few generations rules may need to be massaged just a wee bit. Fair value is neither good nor evil; it’s just another tool in the toolbox, appropriate for some economic times perhaps and not for others. And with fragile credit markets still in recovery mode, now is not the time for FASB to try and bring it back with a vengeance.
So Team Obama is considering a truly horrible plan: to re-imagine Freddie and Freddie as new entities that are just like the current failed ones, but with government taking over all the toxic stuff . Tell it to me WaPo:
The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip the mortgage finance giants of hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled loans and create a new structure to support the home-loan market, government officials said. The bad debts the firms own would be placed in new government-backed financial institutions — so-called bad banks — that would take responsibility for collecting as much of the outstanding balance as possible. What would be left would be two healthy financial companies with a clean slate.
Me: Well, that is one approach. Or perhaps …. we could just break up and replace them with a larger number of smaller private companies — ones with no implied government guarantees. They would be left to thrive or fail or get taken over or whatever. Then again, as this posts says, no one is going to be buying houses anyways.
That is the contention of former White House budget official James Capretta who does the math:
CBO expects the spending in the bill would grow at a rate of least 8 percent annually into the indefinite future, while the revenue to pay for it will only grow at about 5 per cent per year. Hence the “substantial increases” in federal budget deficits beyond 2019.
Although CBO declined to specify any actual deficit numbers beyond 2019, they can be easily calculated, in rough terms, from the information provided in Elmendorf’s letter.
By 2030, if the spending associated with the coverage provisions rises 8 percent per year after 2019 and the revenue rises by 5 percent, the bill would add more than $200 billion per year to currently projected budget deficits. By 2048, the annual deficit increase would top $1 trillion — and only go up from there.
A University of Utah study predicts that the percentage of U.S. households that own homes — a number which peaked at 70.4 percent in 2004 and 2005 and is now at 67.4 percent — will drop to about 63.5 percent by 2020. That would be the lowest level since 1985. The reasons are a) smaller households, b) tighter credit, c) green desires thatare pro-renting.
David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff give his two cents on what it all means:
At a time when there are still some 800,000 units in excess that are vacant AND for sale, this secular decline in demand spells one thing and one thing only — a secular deflation in residential real estate. The periodic months of “green shoot” stability will very likely prove to be little more than noise along a fundamental downtrend in pricing.
What sort of recovery will the American economy have? With estimates of 3Q growth rising on Wall Street — along with the Dow — here is why the optimism may be overstated. First up is David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff (outline by me):
1. The foundation for any durable recovery in a modern industrial economy rests with the organic dynamism of the private sector. Ask anyone in Japan as to how repeated rounds of fiscal stimulus played out over the past two decades.
2. We are still in a post-bubble credit collapse world and there are still too many uncertainties associated with the outlook for the economy, corporate earnings, financial stability and fiscal rectitude (or recklessness is more like it).
3. Wages are deflating at a record rate and credit in the banking system is still contracting as banks continue to shrink their balance sheets.
4. Three-quarters of the corporate universe have no revenue growth to speak of.
5. Only one-third of the ISM industries posted growth in July and barely more than one in ten were adding to payrolls.
Now here is former bond guru David Goldman on why the recession “will last forever” (a bit tongue in cheek and in reverse order of importance):
10. No innovation. As Nobel Prize Laureate Edmund Phelps [put it recently]: “I’m not convinced that there’s going to be another wave of innovation in the offing.”
9. Speaking of innovation, the US isn’t getting the clever immigrants it used to.
8. China will hold its own but its economy is too small to act as a locomotive for the rest of the world (maybe for Korea).
7. If the rest of the economy starts competing with the Treasury for capital, interest rates rates will rise immediately and suppress economic activity.
6. The rest of the world is full up on US Treasury securities … the US is on its own financing the deficit.
5. The US consumer can’t get out of a hole.
4. American demographics look suspiciously like Japan’s in 1990, at the beginning of the “Lost Decade.” Japan’s elderly dependent ratio jumped from 18% to 26% over the 10 years; between 2010 and 2020, America’s will rise from 19% to 25%. … They have no savings to speak of and what they thought was their nest egg (home equity) just vaporized. … . The combination of demographic and wealth shocks should produce a loop-de-loop in the “marginal propensity to save” such as we have never seen before, except, of course, in Japan.
3. More taxes are en route, to pay for health care, the interest on the federal debt, or whatever. No country ever taxed its way out of a rececession.
2. The rule of law has been severely weakened in financial transactions, through heavy-handed White House intervention into the bankruptcies of the auto sector, through mortgage renegotiation, and so forth.
1. Barack Obama! … . Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. … The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities … Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness.
Here is some fun tax information: The top five percent of tax filers in terms of adjusted gross income earned $3.3 trillion and paid $676 billion in taxes in 2007. (That accounted for 61 percent of taxes, by the way.) So if we doubled their average tax rates, America would still be running a budget deficit for years to come. And that assumes no economic impact from the higher tax rates.
Strategist Andy Busch of BMO Capital Markets provides some interesting insights on the situation in North Korea:
While the Obama administration denies this, the fact Clinton was allowed to go signals a major shift in foreign policy by the US towards the rogue regime. It could be laying the groundwork for good relations during a power transfer from Kim Jung-Il to his son which may happen sooner than most think.It’s this transitional period that will be extremely dangerous and may see NK become more belligerent with missile launches and fishing boat seizures. Internally, North Korea could implode and their nuclear material may be at risk. An incident would garner world-wide attention and a response from either China or the US. China’s biggest concern would be for a mass of North Koreans coming into their country as refugees. Japan and South Korea’s biggest concern would be for a missile to be launched towards them.
While I was at the Pacific Economic Conference in Vladivostok, Russia, attendees were very concerned over the developments in North Korea. Everyone was worried about what would happen to Russian oil and natural gas exports should North Korea explode.North Korea is inherently unstable. During a power transition, it will be even worse and more difficult to predict the outcome. Markets should have a strong risk off reaction with equities sold, bonds bought, and US dollar bought. Watch for it.