MacroScope

Americans are all too acquainted with the shouting-match politics that tends to accompany any debate over economic policy: everyone is yelling and nobody is listening. The toxic political discord in Washington has become so familiar it is almost a cliché.

It turns out high levels of income inequality, which the United States is also famous for, could be to blame. According to Anders Borg, the Finance Minister of Sweden, a large wealth gap makes it harder to achieve political consensus because the debate is poisoned by mistrust. Speaking at the Peterson Institute this week, Borg said high inequality in Southern Europe was a factor preventing those countries from achieving agreement as they struggle with a deep financial crisis:

You need to deal with the social cohesion issue. You cannot have a society where the conflicts that are built in become so strong that you undermine the political ability to deal with problems. If I compared Sweden with Spain or Italy or Greece, one of the reasons we have been able to these reforms is that our income differences are substantially lower which also means that the political tension is on a completely different level.

Focus for the euro zone is firmly on Washington with G20 policymakers gathering ahead of the IMF spring meeting. The Fund is seeking an extra $400 billion-plus in crisis-fighting funds which, tallied with the $500 billion euro zone rescue fund about to be established, adds up to a meaningful firewall for the markets to ponder before they consider pushing Spain and Italy to the edge.

But as many sage minds are saying – U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner among them – a firewall does not solve the root problems of the euro zone debt crisis. As our very own Alan Wheatley puts it, “It is not obvious why a stronger firewall should encourage anyone to enter a burning house”. Nonetheless, Reuters polling yesterday ascribed only a 25% and 13% chance respectively to Spain and Italy needing an international bailout.

If the IMF falls short, given the jittery mood in financial markets, that could be cue for a further sell-off. The IMF has pledges of $320 billion so far. The Chinese and British have yet to show their hands and the BRICS led by Brazil are demanding more power at the Fund before handing over extra cash. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told us earlier in the week that conflating those two issues was not acceptable so there is potential for a rift. The U.S. and Canada have already said they will provide no more funding. Finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 advanced and emerging economies had dinner on Thursday night, ahead of a longer session on Friday.

The Fed appears to have moved away from the notion of additional bond purchases in recent weeks, for a  mix of tactical and practical reasons including:

1. Policymakers worry about venturing any further into uncharted territory.

2. Growth isn’t weak enough to make a clear case for additional monetary easing.

3. Many officials think QE is better at thwarting deflation than boosting employment.

It’s something of a dissonant communications strategy: Fed officials are willing to tell us what they think will happen three years from now, but not what they discussed three years ago.

The Federal Reserve’s public relations arm holds up the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke as a model of transparency. And it’s true. Press conferences and federal funds rate forecasts are major steps forward for a central bank that until the mid-1990s didn’t even tell the markets what it was doing with interest rates.

Still, the old habits of secrecy die hard. Monetary policy transparency aside, the Fed has remained adamantly opaque in other ways – to the point that it took a Bloomberg News lawsuit for it to name the recipients of emergency era loans.

Just as Americans begin to regain some hope that the housing sector might be on the mend, we get another batch of data showing the sector’s not quite there yet.

Groundbreaking on homes fell unexpectedly in March to an annual rate of just 654,000, down from 694,000 in February and well short of the 705,000 Reuters consensus forecast. Some context: permits peaked above 2.2 million in early 2006, at the apex of the housing bubble. On the bright side, permits for future construction rose to their highest level in 3-1/2 years.



In other housing data this week, homebuilder sentiment deteriorated again after posting a pretty decent rebound from the very depressed levels seen in 2011.

Overseas investors have yet to sour towards U.S. assets despite high government debt levels, according the latest figures on capital flows.

Including short-dated assets such as bills, foreigners snapped up $107.7 billion in U.S. securities in February, following a downwardly revised $3.1 billion inflow for January. At the same time, the United States attracted a net long-term capital inflow of just $10.1 billion in February after drawing an upwardly revised $102.4 billion in the first month of 2012.

The data showed China boosted purchases of U.S. government debt for a second month in February, but also some waning of demand for longer-dated securities.

Thursday, April 12

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley speaks on regional and national economic conditions before the Center for Economic Development, 0715 EDT/1115 GMT. Audience Q&A expected.

ATLANTA – Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart moderates “Bridging the Border: Reinforcing Ties Between the U.S. and Mexico” panel discussion presented by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the World Affairs Council of Atlanta

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley speaks on regional and national economic conditions before students and faculty at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, 1100 EDT/1500 GMT.

OK, this time, maybe it was a mistake to do the math.

Concluding the Fed was cooler to more monetary easing by trying to tally policymakers who openly expressed support for further stimulus at the March meeting may have led to a distorted picture of where officials’ views stand. Weak March payrolls data underscore the shakiness of this analysis.

First, let’s run the numbers. Minutes of the Fed’s March meeting revealed that “a couple” participants on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee thought the economy would need more help from the Fed if things got worse. That head count was a lot smaller than the previous meeting. January minutes had shown “a few” participants thought there should be more easing if things continued as they were. “Other members” at the first meeting of the year had thought the Fed should act if the outlook got worse.

So, comparing the two meetings, some people, including this reporter, thought it was fair to assume that “a couple” was less than “a few” plus “other members.”

More than six years after its spectacular collapse, the U.S. housing market – the laggard of the struggling economic recovery – may be poised for pickup, driven in part by an upswing in remodeling, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch economist Michelle Meyer thinks.

Gains are likely to be modest at first, and are subject to volatility since overall economic growth may well slow in the second half of this year. Also, given the deep hole housing has fallen into, the market is still far from a robust recovery, Meyer wrote in a note to clients drawn from recent research.

Still, some evidence points to the beginnings of an upswing. For one, data already indicate a rebound in spending on renovations. Remodeling will pick up steam as investors convert foreclosed properties into rentals, and homeowners who have held off doing repairs or additions decide the time is ripe, Meyer said.

How bad is the U.S. employment situation? The Labor Department’s tally for March, which showed only 120,000 new jobs were created, raised doubts about the sustainability of a recent pick up in job growth. But to get a broader sense of what things are really like it helps to put things in a longer-term perspective.

Even with the 3.6 million new jobs created during the recovery, some 5 million more are needed just to make up for all of the jobs that were lost during the Great Recession. At March’s pace, it would take nearly four more years to get there – and that’s not accounting for population growth.

If job growth remains at tepid clip of around 150,000 a month, it would take five years for the jobless rate, which registered 8.2 percent in March, to fall to 6 percent, according to Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank economist Julie Hotchkiss.