Death Knell for America

Here are the opening paragraphs of a very good article by Nobel Prize-winning economics Joseph Stiglitz:

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. By 2011, the savings of those who had lost their jobs in 2008 or 2009 had been spent. Unemployment checks had run out. Headlines announcing new hiring – still not enough to keep pace with the number of those who would normally have entered the labor force – meant little to the 50 year olds with little hope of ever holding a job again.

This article goes on to spell out the dangers and horrors to be expected in 2012.

Here is his vision of the future:

Even before the crisis, there was a rebalancing of economic power – in fact, a correction of a 200-year historical anomaly, in which Asia’s share of global GDP fell from nearly 50% to, at one point, below 10%. The pragmatic commitment to growth that one sees in Asia and other emerging markets today stands in contrast to the West’s misguided policies, which, driven by a combination of ideology and vested interests, almost seem to reflect a commitment not to grow.

Tragic.

Misrepresenting Debt

Here is a bit from a NY Times op-ed by Paul Krugman that tries to explain why the political right's obsession with deficits and debt is wrong-headed:

Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.

This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.

But isn’t this time different? Not as much as you think.

It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction.

Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest.

And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan.

Of course, America, with its rabidly antitax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves.

So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.

It is utterly amazing how many times Krugman has made this point and those on the political right simply ignore him and continue with their lies and deceits. The media never call the Republicans to task for their lies. The poor people of America live in an intellectual ghetto because powerful forces conspire to treat them like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

An Indictment of Obama and Most Western Governments

Here is Paul Krugman in a NY Times op-ed laying bare the open secret: Obama and European governments are contemptuous of Keynes, rejecting his advise, and imperiling the tenuous "recovery" that countries have been experiencing by calling for "deficit reduction" which is just another name for austerity:

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as F.D.R. was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy — which had been steadily recovering up to that point — into a severe recession. Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.

Unfortunately, in late 2010 and early 2011, politicians and policy makers in much of the Western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again.

... the real test of Keynesian economics hasn’t come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels. It has, instead, come from European nations like Greece and Ireland that had to impose savage fiscal austerity as a condition for receiving emergency loans — and have suffered Depression-level economic slumps, with real G.D.P. in both countries down by double digits.

This wasn’t supposed to happen, according to the ideology that dominates much of our political discourse. In March 2011, the Republican staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee released a report titled “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.” It ridiculed concerns that cutting spending in a slump would worsen that slump, arguing that spending cuts would improve consumer and business confidence, and that this might well lead to faster, not slower, growth.

Sadly a generation will pay the price for this obtuse ideological refusal to accept standard economics in favour if the idiocies of right wing economics that created the deregulation fiasco leading to the S&L crisis, the dot.com bust, and the 2008 financial crisis. These are the failures of government by right wing politicians who have sold the public on the idea that "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem". For 30 years bad ideas pushed by right wing politicians have enriched the ultra-rich while the bottom 99% have been left to tread water. Wealth has increased but "trickle down" economics delivered nothing to the poor who are poorer now than since the Great Depression when the lot of the poor was to live in Hoovervilles and stand in bread lines.

The common people need to rise up and say "enough!" and vote in politicians who want to grow the economy for the benefit of the 99% and who want to see a profound redistribution of income so that those who work hard in the 99% get the kind of rewards that for the last 30+ years have only flowed to the ultra-rich. Stop the privatization of government for the bottom 99% with the cutting of services and the raising of "hidden" taxes. Stop the socialization of government for the top 1% with the quiet fraud that lets the rich milk the poor, demand and get sweetheart deals from government, and the continued policy of handouts and bailouts and tax cuts and special tax loop holes for those who can buy government via lobbyists.

Krugman perfectly characterizes the failures of politics today:

We entered 2011 amid dire warnings about a Greek-style debt crisis that would happen as soon as the Federal Reserve stopped buying bonds, or the rating agencies ended our triple-A status, or the superdupercommittee failed to reach a deal, or something. But the Fed ended its bond-purchase program in June; Standard & Poor’s downgraded America in August; the supercommittee deadlocked in November; and U.S. borrowing costs just kept falling. In fact, at this point, inflation-protected U.S. bonds pay negative interest: investors are willing to pay America to hold their money.

The bottom line is that 2011 was a year in which our political elite obsessed over short-term deficits that aren’t actually a problem and, in the process, made the real problem — a depressed economy and mass unemployment — worse.

For three years the political right has been screaming "inflation" and called for austerity to stop the devaluation of "fiat money". In truth, there has been no runaway inflation despite the trillions that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the monetary system.

Keynes called for a coordinated fight on both the monetary and fiscal fronts to fight depression. But since 2008 there has been only a monetary policy in place that is now being withdrawn and there was a very, very small fiscal policy with Obama's 2009 stimulus package. The tools that Keynes outlined have not been used. That is why the Great Recession continues to plague the United States.

Thinking about Debt

Here is a key bit from a post by Paul Krugman on his NY Times blog:

People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.

That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems — it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.

The political right has made a career out of packaging up bad politics as reasonable sounding phrases which don't hold up to scrutiny:

• running government is just like running a business, so the country needs a CEO not a politician


• government is not the solution, government is the problem


• the need to put "God back into the nation's schools", and they don't mean the loving Jesus, or Krishna, Odin, or Moloch, they know that God is that white haired old man sitting on a throne up there in the air somewhere, the avenger of the Old Testament, the guy who is the fixer of the political right


• what America needs is "family values" as laid down by the womanizing, sex-crazed, power hungry politicians of the political right who find time to sit in Congress between screwing their secretaries and divorcing the wives and refusing to pay child support


• get government off our backs by bringing back Joe McCarthy with his demand of "loyalty oaths", or Goldwater with his decision to bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age with nukes, or Reagan who wanted to stop the limousine liberals from giving money to welfare queens by putting up layer after layer of bureaucratic restriction of aiding the poor while ranting that the problem with government was that it needed to "cut regulations", or the 2000 George Bush who ranted that government had to get out of the business of "nation building" and then he started a couple of trillion dollar wars to bring "democarcy" and "good government" to Afghanistan and Iraq

Debt as a public policy is something that the economists understand but which gets twisted and distorted by right wing politicians into a lie on the same level as the 50 year lie that the United Nations was a front for Communism and that the US should "get out of the UN".

The Great Recession Continues

Here is a bit from the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds Summary Statistics for the Third Quarter 2011:

Household net worth—the difference between the value of assets and liabilities—was $57.4 trillion at the end of the third quarter, about $2.4 trillion less than at the end of the previous quarter.

This is nearly 4 years after the start of the current recession and 3 years after it "ended" and the news continues to be dreadful. Obama never took seriously the need to reflate the economy and get things moving. Worse, he was confronted by Republican politicians more interested in "gamesmanship" than in rescuing the economy. Tragic.

David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years"

This is an excellent speculative historical review of how debt, money, slavery, coinage, and government arose. It is chock-a-block full of obscure but interesting facts. The analysis is fresh and thought-provoking. I'm not in a position to assess the scientific validity of his reconstruction of ancient societies, but it rings true to me.

If you want a new perspective on how economic forces shape us and our societies, this is a "must read" book.

Here is just a tidbit from his chapter on the Axial Age (800 BC to 600 AD):

This is the key to Seaford's argument about materialism and Greek philosophy. A coin was a piece of metal, but by giving it a particular shape, stamped with words and images, the civic community agreed to make it something more. But this power was not unlimited. Bronze coins could not be used forever; if one debased the coinage, inflation would eventually set in. It was as if there was a tension there, between the will of the community and the physical nature of the object itself. Greek thinkers were suddenly confronted with a profoundly new type of object, one of extraordinary importance -- as evidenced by the fact that so many men were willing to risk their lives to get their hands on it -- but whose nature was a profound enigma.

Consider this word, "materialism." What does it mean to adopt a "materialist" philosophy? What is "material," anyway? Normally, we speak of "materials" when we refer to objects that we wish to make into something else. A tree is a living thing. It only becomes "wood" when we begin to think about all the other things you could carve out of it. And of course you can carve a piece of wood into almost anything. The same is true of clay, or glass, or metal. They're solid and real and tangible, but also abstractions, because they have the potential to turn into almost anything else -- or, not precisely that; one can't turn a piece of wood into a lion or an owl, but one can turn it into an image of a lion or an owl -- it can take on almost any conceivable form. So already in any materialist philosophy, we are dealing with an opposition between form and content, substance and shape; a clash between the idea, sign, emblem, or model in the creator's mind, and the physical qualities of the materials on which it is to be stamped, built, or imposed, from which it will be brought into reality. With coins this rises to an even more abstract level because that emblem can no longer be conceived as the model in one person's head, but is rather the mark of a collective agreement. The images stamped on Greek coins (Miletus' lion, Athen's owl) were typically the emblems of the city's god, but they were also a kind of collective promise, by which citizens assured one another that not only would the coin be acceptable in payment of public debts, but in a larger sense, that everyone would accept them, for any debts, and thus, that they could be used to acquire anything anyone wanted.

The problem is that this collective power is not unlimited. It only really applies within the city. The farther you go outside, into places dominated by violence, slavery, and war -- the sort of place where even philosophers taking a cruise might end up on the auction block -- the more it turns into a mere lump of precious metal.

The war between Spirit and Flesh, then between the nobile Idea and ugly Reality, the rational intellect versus stubborn corporeal drives and desires that resist it, even the idea that peace and community are not things that emerge spontaneously but that need to be stamped onto our baser material natures like a divine insignia stamped into base metal -- all those ideas that came to haunt the religious and philosophical traditions of the Axial Age, and that have continued to surprise people like Boesoou ever since -- can already be seen as inscribed in the nature of this new form of money.

It would be foolish to argue that all Axial Age philosophy was simply a meditation on the nature of coinage, but I think Seaford is right to argue that this is a critical starting place: one of the reasons that the pre-Socratic philosophers began to frame their questions in the peculiar way they did, asking (for instance): What are Ideas? re they merely collective conventions? Do they exist, as Plato insisted, in some divine domain beyond material existence? Or do they exist in our minds? Or do our minds themselves ultimately partake of that divine immaterial domain? And if they do, what does this say about our relation to our bodies?

I heartily recommend that you read this book.

The European Crisis

Here is a post by Paul Krugman on his NY Times blog. It is the latest in many attempts by him to get the European authorities to be sensible and do what economics requires rather than follow their emotions or "morality play" with counter-productive policies. Sadly, the Europeans are not listening:

Death By Hawkery

What the world needed in this global deleveraging crisis was deficit spending and higher inflation targets. What it got was fiscal austerity and obsessive concern with inflation risks that weren’t real. Hence the catastrophe now unfolding.

Judging from recent comments, many readers missed my earlier analyses on these issues — I’m still getting the “You idiot, debt got us into this mess, how can debt get us out?” type of comment. So let me re-repost my discussion of this whole issue in full, followed by a couple of brief notes on the European situation.

The original post:

Sam, Janet, and Fiscal Policy

One of the common arguments against fiscal policy in the current situation – one that sounds sensible – is that debt is the problem, so how can debt be the solution? Households borrowed too much; now you want the government to borrow even more?

What’s wrong with that argument? It assumes, implicitly, that debt is debt – that it doesn’t matter who owes the money. Yet that can’t be right; if it were, we wouldn’t have a problem in the first place. After all, to a first approximation debt is money we owe to ourselves – yes, the US has debt to China etc., but that’s not at the heart of the problem. Ignoring the foreign component, or looking at the world as a whole, the overall level of debt makes no difference to aggregate net worth – one person’s liability is another person’s asset.

It follows that the level of debt matters only if the distribution of net worth matters, if highly indebted players face different constraints from players with low debt. And this means that all debt isn’t created equal – which is why borrowing by some actors now can help cure problems created by excess borrowing by other actors in the past.

To see my point, imagine first a world in which there are only two kinds of people: Spendthrift Sams and Judicious Janets. (Sam and Janet who? If you’d grown up in my place and time, you’d know the answer: Sam and Janet evening / You will see a stranger … But actually, I’m thinking of the two kinds of agent in the Kiyotaki-Moore model.)

In this world, we’ll assume that no real investment is possible, so that loans are made only to finance consumption in excess of income. Specifically, in the past the Sams have borrowed from the Janets to pay for consumption. But now something has happened – say, the collapse of a land bubble – that has forced the Sams to stop borrowing, and indeed to pay down their debt.

For the Sams to do this, of course, the Janets must be prepared to dissave, to run down their assets. What would give them an incentive to do this? The answer is a fall in interest rates. So the normal way the economy would cope with the balance sheet problems of the Sams is through a period of low rates.

But – you probably guessed where I’m going – what if even a zero rate isn’t low enough; that is, low enough to induce enough dissaving on the part of the Janets to match the savings of the Sams? Then we have a problem. I haven’t specified the underlying macroeconomic model, but it seems safe to say that we’d be looking at a depressed real economy and deflationary pressures. And this will be destructive; not only will output be below potential, but depressed incomes and deflation will make it harder for the Sams to pay down their debt.

What can be done? One answer is inflation, if you can get it, which will do two things: it will make it possible to have a negative real interest rate, and it will in itself erode the debt of the Sams. Yes, that will in a way be rewarding their past excesses – but economics is not a morality play.

Oh, and just to go back for a moment to my point about debt not being all the same: yes, inflation erodes the assets of the Janets at the same time, and by the same amount, as it erodes the debt of the Sams. But the Sams are balance-sheet constrained, while the Janets aren’t, so this is a net positive for aggregate demand.

But what if inflation can’t or won’t be delivered?

Well, suppose a third character can come in: Government Gus. Suppose that he can borrow for a while, using the borrowed money to buy useful things like rail tunnels under the Hudson. The true social cost of these things will be very low, because he’ll be putting resources that would otherwise be unemployed to work. And he’ll also make it easier for the Sams to pay down their debt; if he keeps it up long enough, he can bring them to the point where they’re no longer so severely balance-sheet constrained, and further deficit spending is no longer required to achieve full employment.

Yes, private debt will in part have been replaced by public debt – but the point is that debt will have been shifted away from severely balance-sheet-constrained players, so that the economy’s problems will have been reduced even if the overall level of debt hasn’t fallen.

The bottom line, then, is that the plausible-sounding argument that debt can’t cure debt is just wrong. On the contrary, it can – and the alternative is a prolonged period of economic weakness that actually makes the debt problem harder to resolve.

European twists

The European mess is pretty well described by the story above, with the Sams mainly in the periphery and the Janets in the core; what we’re getting is forced austerity in the periphery with no offsetting expansion in the core, and now everyone is shocked, shocked that the whole continent seems headed for recession.

In Europe’s case, however, higher inflation is even more crucial than for the United States — because Europe also needs a large adjustment of relative prices that will be very hard if not impossible to achieve with low overall inflation.

So as of this morning, the 5-year German breakeven — an implicit forecast of inflation — is only 0.9%.

This is not going to work.

Sadly the American authorities are facing a similar deflationary situation and are just now embarking on the same idiocy as the Europeans: austerity. It will fail in the US just like it is failing in Europe. It is the standard "prescription" of the political right, but it is profoundly ignorant of economic reality and what is required. People will suffer and pay a very dear price for the idiocy of politicians. It is a lost decade just like the Japanese have suffered through. Tragic.

... and here is more despair by Krugman at the idiocy of the politicians (and the "serious people" in positions of authority like the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, and the European Central Bank):

Death By Accounting Identity

Martin Wolf has a somewhat despairing-sounding column this morning, in effect pleading with the Cameron government to admit that the laws of arithmetic must apply. Good luck with that.

Martin writes,

If the private sector is seeking to run down its debts, it is hard for the government to do so, too, because everybody cannot spend less than their income. That is the “paradox of thrift”. No, it is not a novel idea.

Ah, but for the past two years leaders in the Eurozone, Britain, and the US Republican party have subscribed to the following plan:

1. Slash government spending

2. ??????

3. Prosperity!

For a while ???? was framed in terms of the doctrine of expansionary austerity: slash spending and the confidence fairy would make private-sector spending rise. At this point, however, few still believe in this doctrine. Also, in the euro area it was hard to see how things would work even if the confidence fairy made an appearance; how was that supposed to resolve the large payments imbalances between the core and the periphery?

But even as the intellectual foundations, such as they were, for the austerity plan have been demolished, the plan itself remains unchanged.

I never thought I would live such an era of unrelieved idiocy. But knowing a little history, I was foolish to think I could avoid it. In my young adulthood I watched the US condemn an entire generation of young men to a meaningless and unwinnable war in Vietnam simply because no president had the courage to admit that the war was a mistake and end it. In my early childhood I watch as nutty right wing politicians tore the US to pieces in a mad witch hunt of "communists". I saw sleazy people like Nixon build a career on this evil enterprise. In my working years I watched as people fell in love with the rich and flocked to watch Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. These sad fools didn't realize they were idolizing the social parasites who were busy from 1980 until today sucking the life blood out of society so they could live a life of mad indulgence while the bottom 99% saw their lives stagnate, saw the economy enter a depression caused by fraud and criminality by the greed of bankers, and saw a hopeful new president be elected and fail to act because he too was madly in love with the rich and unable and unwilling to help the bottom 99%. My life has been lived in an unremitting horror story of cruelty, greed, fear, and ignorance. That is the history of humanity for the last 10,000 years. Tragic.

Where is the Economic Crisis?

The current fear roiling financial markets is the "debt problem" in Europe. But I have a hard time finding the problem. Look at this graph:

Click to Enlarge
Supposedly Greece, Italy, Spain, and Ireland are "hopeless debtors". But their debt isn't all that different from the debt of Germany or the United States.

Click to Enlarge
I'm suspicious that all the teeth gnashing and the howls of "we are all doomed!" are simply fear stirred up by financial ghouls who want to stampede markets so they can pick off the weak.

Governments should stand up to them. They should have a united policy of supporting their bonds to stop these financial attacks. Right now the only "winners" are those who feast of the fearful. The fact that governments around the world are letting fear stampede financial markets adds fuel to the flames. It only makes things worse. I simply don't understand why governments can't realize there is strength in numbers. The old Ben Franklin saying is relevant: "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Sadly, the world does not have leaders worthy of it. Instead, spineless sold-out fools have maneuvered into power on the hopes of money and glory when in fact, the world needs leaders of principle who can make tough choices, tell the people the truth, and in fact lead them out of this mess.

American Income Inequality 2011

Here is the data released today by the Congressional Budget Office: the rich get richer and the poor get left in the dust...

Click to Enlarge
The above is as old as the Bible since the rich over time got richer and the poor poorer. That was why there was a jubilee to remit debts, because the rich will constantly grab more, and without pushback from government power or religious power, this leads to the collapse of society. The OWS movement is the modern evidence of this ancient problem and the need, yet again, of a remedy.

Saving Your Honour by Committing Suicide

The Europeans have painted themselves into a corner. They have created a European bank that has no tools to deal with the current mess. Worse, the elite of Europe refuse to admit the mess they are in. They refuse to think creatively about a solution. It is as if the crew over a sinking ship is fighting for control of the pilot's wheel. But steering isn't the problem. The ship has a big hole and is taking water and now quickly sinking. But the crew is too busy trying to "take charge" of the situation of "piloting" to bother with "sinking".

Here are key bits from a NY Times op-ed by Paul Krugman:

If it weren’t so tragic, the current European crisis would be funny, in a gallows-humor sort of way. For as one rescue plan after another falls flat, Europe’s Very Serious People — who are, if such a thing is possible, even more pompous and self-regarding than their American counterparts — just keep looking more and more ridiculous.

...

Think about countries like Britain, Japan and the United States, which have large debts and deficits yet remain able to borrow at low interest rates. What’s their secret? The answer, in large part, is that they retain their own currencies, and investors know that in a pinch they could finance their deficits by printing more of those currencies. If the European Central Bank were to similarly stand behind European debts, the crisis would ease dramatically.

Wouldn’t that cause inflation? Probably not: whatever the likes of Ron Paul may believe, money creation isn’t inflationary in a depressed economy. Furthermore, Europe actually needs modestly higher overall inflation: too low an overall inflation rate would condemn southern Europe to years of grinding deflation, virtually guaranteeing both continued high unemployment and a string of defaults.

But such action, we keep being told, is off the table. The statutes under which the central bank was established supposedly prohibit this kind of thing, although one suspects that clever lawyers could find a way to make it happen. The broader problem, however, is that the whole euro system was designed to fight the last economic war. It’s a Maginot Line built to prevent a replay of the 1970s, which is worse than useless when the real danger is a replay of the 1930s.

And this turn of events is, as I said, tragic.

The story of postwar Europe is deeply inspiring. Out of the ruins of war, Europeans built a system of peace and democracy, constructing along the way societies that, while imperfect — what society isn’t? — are arguably the most decent in human history.

Yet that achievement is under threat because the European elite, in its arrogance, locked the Continent into a monetary system that recreated the rigidities of the gold standard, and — like the gold standard in the 1930s — has turned into a deadly trap.

Now maybe European leaders will come up with a truly credible rescue plan. I hope so, but I don’t expect it.

The bitter truth is that it’s looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed. And the even more bitter truth is that given the way that system has been performing, Europe might be better off if it collapses sooner rather than later.

This is the kind of blindness you get from ideology. An ideologue doesn't look outside to see if it is sunny. He consults his horoscope because he "knows" that the horoscope captures everything essential about his future. You can't convince the fool that the horoscope was written days or weeks ago, that an astrologer has no knowledge of the future, and that the easiest way to check the weather is to look out the window. Europe is going down and it will take the whole world just like the US took the world down when it refused to rescue the Lehman investment house in September 2008. What an incredibly stupid world.

I foolishly thought that humanity was slowly getting "smarter" as we got wealthier and better educated. I failed to realize that if you can't fix the idiocy of ideology, then the craziness of people who "know" things because their ideology tells them it is so will destroy the world. I've always puzzled how powerful civilization in the past could commit suicide. I now realize it comes about by the elite of those societies getting deeply committed to their ideology and refuse to peek out the window to see whether the sun is shining or not. Incredible!

Sadly nobody will win this prize:

“Lord Wolfson, a prominent eurosceptic . . . is offering £250,000 to the person who comes up with the best plan for winding up the euro in an orderly way. The Wolfson Economics Prize . . . will be the second-largest cash prize for an academic economics after the Nobel Prize.” – Financial Times, October 19

Why? Because the ideologues in Europe refuse to accept that there is a problem with the euro, with deficits, and with the European bank. Sure they will admit to "problems" but not enough to actually address the oncoming catastrophe. This big prize won't be won because you can't "solve" a problem when the problem is stupid people blind to their own stupidy and refusing to even listen to the voice of reason!

Putting Your Own Head into the Hangman's Noose

The crazy right wing in the US has many schemes to make life more miserable for the poor and ease "the burden" on the rich.

Here's a bit by Robert Reich on the idiotic economic austerity plan of the political right:

Can we just put ideology aside for a moment and be clear about the facts? Consumer spending (70 percent of the economy) is flat or dropping because consumers are losing their jobs and wages, and don’t have the dough. And businesses aren’t hiring because they don’t have enough customers.

The only way out of this vicious cycle is for the government – the spender of last resort – to boost the economy. The regressives are all calling for the opposite.

But even without these hare-brained Republican plans, we’re heading in their direction anyway. Unless Republicans agree to a budget deal before the end of the year (don’t hold your breath), the temporary payroll tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits we have now will end.

The result will be the most stringent fiscal tightening of any large economy in the world.

Together with ongoing cuts at the state and local government level, the scale of this fiscal contraction would be almost unprecedented.

It will come at a time when 25 million are Americans looking for full-time work, median incomes are dropping, home foreclosures rising, and a record 37 percent of American families with young children are in poverty.

To call this economic lunacy is to understate the point.

And if you think 2011 is bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Even if you’re a deficit hawk this is nuts. Instead of reducing the ratio of debt to the size of the overall economy, this strategy increases the ratio because it causes the economy to shrink.

Call it the austerity death trap.

Under these circumstances, the harder a country works to cut its debt, the worse the ratio becomes — because the economy shrinks even faster.

Here's the only effective way to solve the problem:

At the start of the Clinton administration the annual budget deficit was almost $300 billion. But rather than take a meat-axe to spending, we pushed for growth, as did the Fed. The expansion of the 1990s made it easy to get the budget under control. By 2000 we had a $226 billion surplus.

You grow out of a depression. You don't use austerity to dig the hole even deeper!

Free Spending Liberals and Tight-Fisted Conservatives

Here's the real lay of the land. From a blog post by Barry Ritholtz on his The Big Picture blog:

The actual budgets of the Presidents and their deficits — that’s what this is about, right? — are as follows:

George W. Bush is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2001:

10/1/2001: Bush starting deficit – $5.8 trillion

9/30/2009: Bush ending deficit – $11.9 trillion

Bush debt contribution: $6.1 trillion

Barack H. Obama is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2009:

10/1/2009: Obama starting deficit – $11.9 trillion

9/30/2011: Obama ending deficit – $14.8 trillion

Obama debt contribution: $2.9 trillion

Of the $14.8 trillion in total debt as of September 30, 2011, the Bush budgets generated $6.1 trillion in deficits versus the $2.9 trillion of Obama deficits. That’s 41.2% vs 19.6% by a reasonable methodology of measuring presidential debt.

For those who don't believe the above and have seen "other numbers". Here's the explanation:

The data was assembled in the original post is not by each President’s first day in office to his last, but rather, by the budgets each President submits to Congress that gets passed. (Congress may change the budget, but rarely appropriates more than what the President requests). I cannot imagine that any fair-minded person would look at this data any other way: The debt each President creates is a function of the budgets each President submits to congress. It is not based upon the literal time they spend in office. Therefore the only objective way to view the data is BY EACH PRESIDENTS BUDGET.

This is not an insignificant point. So, rather than indulge in irrelevant measures that mislead the reader, let’s go to the actual fiscal numbers of each President’s budgets to see what there is to see.

On January 20th, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn into office – but the budget for most of the rest of that year was Bill Clinton’s, passed by the prior Congress. Barack Obama was sworn in on January 20th, 2009 – but the budget for most of that year was that of George W. Bush. Why are these so? Because the Federal government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 (of the previous calendar year) to September 30. Hence, the FY 2001 is Clinton’s and FY 2002 is Bush’s. FY2009 is Bush’s, FY 2010 is Obama’s.

If you don't go by presidential budget, but use "day of inauguration", then you get this skewed representation of reality:

Click to Enlarge
The above shows a big debt under Obama, but this is the debt committed to by Bush under a Bush budget and a Republican Congress. This wasn't Obama's budget.

You have to be very careful of your "facts". It is all too easy to pick and choose "facts" and distort reality.

Here is the honest accounting of debt under presidents using each president's budget as passed by Congress:

Click to Enlarge

Sylvia Nasar's "Grand Pursuit"

This book is an intellectual history of economics with a focus on a handful of names: Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, Beatrice Webb, Irving Fisher, Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Joan Robinson, Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, and Amartya Sen.

As you can see, those choices are idiosyncratic. Most modern economists would not include Marx, Webb, and Robinson since they are off in the dead end of Marxist "economics". But for me they are part of the spice of this book. This isn't a text to teach you economics. It is really more of a history of personalities and circumstances. The stories are delightful. The sketches of economics are thin gruel, so don't come here to understand economic theory. Come to savour history, personalities, and ideas.

What I found delightful is that the book reinforced my prejudices. Economics is not a "science". It is a liberal art with the pretension of science through its mathematicization of its arguments. The formalism doesn't make the models and arguments any more right. They do provide a bit more formal clarity but they also lead to obscurantism with dithering over details and ridiculous "simplifying" assumptions. I had a mathematician as a friend who made this point by arguing about cows by first stating "consider a sphere". Yep... mathematics does some wonderful leaps in simplification to make the mathematics "tractable".

Here are some snippets to give you a feel for the writing style:

Before resuming his journey north to the Scottish highlands, Alfred Marshall, a twenty-four-year-old mathematician and fellow of St. Hohn's College in Cambridge, spent hours walking through factory districts and the surrounding slums "looking into the faces of the poorest people." He was debating whether to make German philosophy or Austrian psychology his life's work. These were his first steps away from metaphysics and the beginning of a dogged pursuit of social reality. He later said that these walks forced him to consider the "justification of existing conditions of society."

In Manchester, Marshall found the smoky brown sky, muddy brown streets, and long piles of warehouses, cavernous mills, and insalubrious tenements -- all within a few hundred yards of glittering shops, gracious parks, and grand hotels -- that novels such as Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South had led him to expect. In the narrow backstreets he encountered sallow, undersized men and stunted, pale factory girls with thin shawls and hair flecked with wisps of cotton. The sight of "so much want" amid "so much wealth" prompted Marshall to ask whether the existence of a proletariat was indeed a "necessity of nature," as he had been taught to believe. "Why not make every man a gentleman?" he asked himself.

...

He took great pains to demolish Socialists' claim that but for oppression by the rich, the poor could live in "absolute luxury." England's annual income totaled about £900 million, he told the women. The wages paid to manual workers amounted to a total of £400 million. Most of the remaining £500 million, Marshall pointed out, represented the wages of workers who did not belong to the so-called working classes: semiskilled and skilled workers, government officials and military, professionals, and managers. In fact, an absolutely equal division of Britain's annual income would provide less than £37 per capita. Reducing poverty required expanding output and increasing efficiency; in other words, economic growth.

One of the points that Nasar makes is that modern societies organized around liberal economic principles has unleashed productivity and wealth. But as I read the above I keep picturing the billionaire tycoons on Wall Street and the masses in the street with their Occupy Wall Street protests. Sure there has been progress, but the economic injustice is still just as bad. The greed and indifference is there which exacerbates the pain. The fact that the billionaires can buy the politicians means that nothing will ever change. The fact that the rich are pushing to cut education and social services while cutting taxes on the rich as their "solution" to the current Lesser Depression is very depressing.

Sylvia Nasar's story points out that the same humbug and foot-dragging that blocked a real solution to the Great Depression was very, very similar to the humbug and foot-dragging of today:

Despite his financial straits, damaged reputation, and advancing age, the sixty-five-year-old Fisher seemed more energized than depressed by the economic calamity. In 1932 he published an extraordinary number of scientific papers and newspaper pieces. He bombarded the Hoover administration and the Federal Reserve with advice and organized other economists to do the same. His chief objective was to convince President Hoover to take the United States off the gold standard, if not de jure then de facto by having the Federal Reserve do nothing to prevent the foreign exchange value of the dollar from falling. He met with the bankers at the Federal Reserve to urge them to adopt an aggressive program to buy bonds from the banks and the public in order to pump money into the banking system. To his frustration, the "Federal Reserve men thought it would be 'safer' if they waited!" as he later complained. "That waiting, in my opinion, cost the country the major part of the depression."

In January 1932, Fisher attended a second meeting of monetary experts at the University of Chicago. This time, he organized a telegram urging the president to permit the federal budget deficit to rise, pump reserves into the crippled banking system, slash tariffs, and cancel inter-allied debts. Thirty-two prominent economists from Chicago, Wisconsin, and Harvard universities signed the statement, in which Fisher pointed out that Sweden, Japan, and Britain were recovering after going off gold the previous year. The signatories reflected the extent to which Fisher and Keynes's view of the crisis with its emphasis on its global nature, monetary causes, forecasts of its future course, and the need for concerted monetary intervention had gained adherents. On the other hand, theirs was still a minority view.

Sadly, today Obama ignores neo-Keynesian solutions. He shows himself to be uneducated about economics and has surrounded himself with the same fanatical deregulation libertarian economists who created this Lesser Depression. There has been absolutely no progress in economic "science" in 80 years. The same humbug and "morality play" rationalizing goes on to protect bondholders at the expense of the 25 million unemployed, the 10 million who are losing their homes, the youth who have given up on education because it is too expensive, and those nearing retirement who are desperate because their savings are exhausted. It is a social disaster, but Obama is acting like a modern Hoover and the 2012 Republican presidential candidates would make Hoover look like a bleeding-heart liberal. Tragic.

Sylvia Nasar traces out Keynes' thinking:

As the Great Depression dragged on, Keynes's faith in the effectiveness of monetary policy ebbed further. By the time A Treatise on Money appeared, he was beginning to pose a theory of the causes of unemployment. Cambridge undergraduates were his first audience. The nub of the new theory was that, as he put it in an article published in the American Economic Review in December 1933, "circumstances can arise, and have recently arisen, when neither control of the short-rate of interest nor control of the long-rate will be effective, with the result that direct stimulation of investment by government is a necessary means."

In a severe depression, prices fell even faster than interest rates. So reductions in nominal rates did not prevent real rates from climbing. Once nominal rates fell to zero, there was nothing further that the central bank could do to make borrowing cheaper or to ease debt burdens and thus to end the depression -- with incalculable political consequences, what Keynes called The Liquidity Trap. As he had once observed, "The inability of the interest rate to fall has brought down empires." Once monetary policy was rendered ineffectual, the only option for shoring up demand was getting money into the hands of those who could spend it.

...

As Herbert Stein, the economist, pointed out, Keynes asked a very different question from the one posed by Hayek and Schumpeter. In explaining depressions, in terms of the preceding booms, the Austrians were trying to figure out how the economy had gotten there. Keynes was less interested in the genesis of slumps than in the more basic puzzle of how high unemployment and slack capacity could persist for long in a free market economy with unrestricted competition.

...

Thus what made the General Theory so radical was Keynes' proof that it was possible for a free market economy to settle into states in which workers and machines remained idle for prolonged periods of time -- that there were depressions that, unlike the garden-variety ones, were not brief and didn't end of their own accord as a result of falling prices and interest rates, or, at an extreme, that free market economies tended naturally to stagnate even when there were idle workers and machines available. In such depressions, unfreezing credit flows through monetary policy didn't provide a sufficient stimulus, because even zero-percent interest rates could not tempt businesses to borrow while prices were falling and there was [no] reason to think that demand would recover. The only way to revive business confidence and get the private sector spending again was by cutting taxes and letting businesses and individuals keep more of their income so that they could spend it. Or, better yet, having the government spend more money directly, since that would guarantee that 100 percent of it would be spent rather than saved. If the private sector couldn't or wouldn't spend, then the government had to do it. For Keynes, the government had to be prepared to act as the spender of last resort, just as the central bank acted as the lender of last resort.

This is the same intellectual landscape that has policy makers hung up today. Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have been too timid in using monetary policy and now the only tool left is fiscal stimulus, but you have right wing nuts screaming about "inflation!" and "debt!". Obama is too timid to properly stimulate the economy and instead falls into the trap of Hoover and FDR in 1937 of worrying about deficits and debts. They ignore the ruined lives and the lost production that can never be retrieved while the country stays mired in a depression. The arguments of 80 years ago are lost to policy makers today because they are illiterate about history and economics. Oh, and they are blinded by their ideology, an ideology bought and paid for by the billionaire ultra-rich who are quite happy to leave the system just as it is, a system that has let them exploit it for billions in personal gain. This is a tragedy for the bottom 99%. The top 1% are laughing, but the bottom 1% are paying in ruined lives... and they will also pay through taxes to cover the lost monies and even provide the billionaire bonuses for the frauds and cheats who created the mess. Sorrows heaped on woes, and smothered with injustice.

This is a good read and it is highly relevant. This book will give you useful background to understand the economic arguments of today and the tragedy that today is a maddening repeat of the 1930s.

A Day Late and a Dollar Short

The "poltics" in America is pathetic. Nobody is addressing the real needs. The major parties are playing a three card monte game with posturing and distractions. This day late and a dollar short politics has got to end.

Here's a bit from a relevant Robert Reich post:

Republicans are debating again tomorrow night. And once again, Americans will hear the standard regressive litany: government is bad, Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, “Obamacare” is killing the economy, undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs, the military should get more money, taxes should be lowered on corporations and the rich, and regulations should be gutted.

Four years ago the most widely-watched TV debate among Republican aspirants attracted 3.2 million viewers. This year it’s almost twice that number. And for every viewer assume a multiplier effect as he or she shares what’s heard with friends and family.

Americans are listening more intently this time around because they’re hurting and they want answers. But the answers they’re getting from Republican candidates – tripping over themselves trying to appeal to hard-core regressives – are the wrong ones.

The correct ones aren’t being aired.

That’s partly because there’s no primary contest in the Democratic party. So Republicans automatically get loads of free broadcast time to air their regressive nonsense while the Democrats get none.

But even if the President had equal time, the debate about what to do about the crisis would still be frighteningly narrow.

That’s because the President’s answers don’t nearly match up to the magnitude of the crisis.

Without bold alternatives, Americans desperate for big solutions are attracted to bold crackpot ideas like Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” proposal, which would raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich.

This is where the inchoate Occupy Wall Street movement could come in. What’s needed isn’t just big ideas. It’s people fulminating for them – making enough of a ruckus that the ideas can’t be ignored. They become part of the debate because the public demands it.

The biggest thing the President has proposed is a plan to create 2 million jobs. But that’s not nearly big enough. Today, 14 million Americans are out of work, and 11 million more are working part-time who’d rather be working full time.

The nation needs a real jobs plan, one of sufficient size and scope to do the job – including a WPA and a Civilian Conservation Corps, to put the millions of long-term unemployed and young unemployed to work rebuilding America.

I'm reading material from the 1930s and we've been down this path before. The politics is a distraction. We know how to fix the economy. It takes a big jolt of spending to fix the huge number of people caught in a credit squeeze. Pussyfooting around only stretches out the pain. Most politicians know this, but they aren't honest with the public. They would rather play their games and go for personal gain rather than do their duty and build a better tomorrow.

The New Right's Drive to Starve Us All to Death... for our Benefit

The crazy right has this moralistic vision of economics. They feel that the "free market" is the hand of God and God's divine judgement. They feel that money is filthy lucre and that debts are evil. They want a new Puritanism.

Here is a bit from an interview with Paul Allen McCulley, a former managing director at PIMCO. He coined the terms Minsky moment and Shadow banking system which became famous during the Financial crisis of 2007-2009:

Click to Enlarge

Of course, the proponents of austerity are worried that this country’s debt load is already too much for future generations to handle.

“We have to go on a diet for our long-term well-being. The only question is how severe of a diet?” — That is the question being asked. As opposed to what we should be discussing, which is, “Gosh, we’re talking about someone who is underweight here! Why do we need to be on a diet? Maybe we should have more food!” Incredibly, to suggest such a thing is to be considered a heretic these days. Paul actually gets more wound up about it than I do. I enjoy reading him now with the luxury of doing it whenever I get around to it during the day. I just smile. Though on any given day, I have to admit to a bit of envy, from the standpoint of thinking Paul’s piece was really good, but that if I were still in the arena, I could have upped his ante. But his is a really good ante, in just calling out the silliness. That’s what worries me the most about the domestic economic scene — and the global economic scene, too — this presumption that seems to be in currency that government is the problem. Therefore, if we can simply reduce the government, the problem will go away. That is not the case at all, when the problem is actually the combination of a liquidity trap and the paradox of thrift. If you take the government out of the picture, you exacerbate the pre-existing conditions. Yet that seems to be where the body politic conceptually has gone.

Are you implying that the Tea Party has been sold a bill of goods?

Yes, they have. I mean, the historical parallel that a lot of us point to would be 1931, when Andrew Mellon said, essentially, liquidate, liquidate, liquidate and assets will be transferred to moral hands, and we’ll live a more moral life.

Until we starve to death.

Right — but we will live a moral life.

Mellon was quite the Austrian—

Absolutely, that was in 1931. Then in 1937, when it looked like the economy might have been having “a decent” economic recovery, we decided to slap it in the face with monetary and fiscal policy tightening.

And it only took World War II to lift us out of that extension of the Depression.

Yes. What I mean is that the war in effect forced the application of the government’s balance sheet to a deficiency of aggregate demand — and it worked. Some might call that Keynesianism, and I would. But you could describe it more simply by saying that the government’s balance sheet — including the central bank’s balance sheet (because the Fed was subordinate to the fiscal authority during WWII) — was used to stimulate aggregate demand. And it absolutely worked, although I don’t think anyone would applaud going to war to accomplish that. However, it is interesting that after World War II the biggest concern in economic policy circles was that we would fall back into a depression because we were taking away all of the government demand, for the war machine. But what we found out was that this didn’t necessarily have to be the case. Partly, the postwar recovery came about because of the infrastructure and the technologies, etc., that had been developed during the war. But another important ingredient after the war was the GI Bill.

The GI Bill and the Marshall Plan basically saved the West.

And they both used the government’s balance sheet, I’ll point out. My dad went to college on the GI Bill. He was one of the youngest WWII veterans — he’s 85 now but he went into the service in ’44.

Same as mine.

So he went to college on the GI Bill, bought his first house on the GI Bill — and he didn’t consider either one of those to be welfare.

No doubt, he thought he earned it.

Yes, and the payoff to society of the Marshall Plan and the GI Bill were absolutely monstrous. The private sector simply can’t internalize the rate of return on that sort of thing. So this presumption that somehow government investment is bad and private sector investment is good—

Hold on, you’re using the term “investment” and that’s not politically correct. You’re supposed to call it, “spending, waste and fraud.”

Okay, so my dad’s education and the house that I grew up in were, what were those words? “Waste and fraud”?

Yes, according to the conservative meme, it was “wanton government spending” allowing your family to live above your means. The argument that a family has to live within a budget and therefore so does the government, is so specious—

Absolutely. The irony of all this is that I now hear my dad ranting and raving about “big government” at 85 years old— and it was big government that paid for his education and put him into his first home. The real notion that people have is that government is bad — unless it’s helping me!

That’s clearly endemic and epidemic. My dad did the same, until he passed away.

There obviously are a lot of inconsistencies that we have to deal with in a democratic society. But what really puzzles me is how the concept of public investment is being perceived as an oxymoron. That’s just wrong. The notion that if we just would quit subsidizing idleness, that the unemployed would go to work, is another thing that is just ludicrous. I don’t know a lot of people who want to be subsidized in idleness. Nor do I know a lot of who want to subsidize it. But there are just no jobs out there. There aren’t jobs because we had a bubble in housing. We went from 2 million housing starts to half a million housing starts. The notion that you could monetize equity in your home with a second mortgage is an oxymoron. Nonetheless, we had a housing sector bubble and everything that goes with it. Actually, if housing starts were our only problem, that wouldn’t be a big deal. But the house became the magic genie that made up for the fact that we’ve had stagnant real wages in our country for a long time — and then the genie died.

The housing ATM is definitely busted!

It ain’t there anymore. And now, if you happen to have a factory job making boat trailers, you’ve got a problem. Because the guy who had been buying a boat trailer was able to buy it — and the boat that went on it — only because he took a second on his “appreciating” home. He could have never afforded a boat otherwise. Now most likely the guy at the trailer factory has lost his job because people can’t buy boats in that fashion. That’s reality. And we’re not going to restimulate the housing market so that people can take out seconds to buy boats.

Not when the problem is too much debt.

That’s true. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense. We need to deleverage the private sector and we can do that without a depression if we are not afraid of levering the government sector. And from my perspective, there’s no reason to be afraid because we have a huge output gap and the risk that public investment will overheat our economy is a risk that I’m more than happy to underwrite. Overheating of our economy and too few workers for available jobs would be very high-quality problems. So I’m not worried about overheating from an inflation perspective at all.

What? Despite all the money that’s been created? All the debt we’re piling on future generations?

Monetary claptrap! Money is as money does, as the famous economist Forrest Gump once sort of said. And it ain’t doing nothing. So I don’t worry about inflation and I don’t worry about interest rates. In fact, the lower the interest rates go, the more I worry — because the easiest way to have super-low interest rates is to have a depression. Interest rates are low, but they’re low in many respects for unhealthy reasons. There’s absolutely no private-sector demand for credit and so there is no crowding out. I mean, that’s the old textbook notion —you aren’t supposed to want to add government debt because that supposedly would crowd private sector investment out of the market. But, excuse me, exactly what are we crowding out right now? Where is the evidence that the marketplace for credit is tight and that government borrowing is displacing private sector borrowing? There’s zero evidence for it. Yet this “crowding out” dogma keeps being invoked when people claim that we can’t have government deficits because they’re going to crowd out private sector investment. God, I wish it were so, because that would mean that private sector investment was doing fine, just fine. And that we were going to overheat the labor market. As I said, that would be a very high-quality problem.

What about the argument that our foreign creditors are going to stop lending to us?

That’s the notion that if we run deficits, the rest of the world will refuse to fund us. But we have a shortage of global aggregate demand and nobody wants their currency to go up. Therefore, the idea that we are going to suffer a buyer’s strike for dollar-dominated debt is preposterous.

...

So tell me, is there a way to address the housing problem within this liquidity trap?

I think there is. It’s been pretty clear cut for a long time that we need to reset the mortgages that are massively under water. This is sometimes known as “principal forgiveness” and the words are usually uttered with a pejorative lisp.

But wouldn’t that be terribly unfair to everyone who has faithfully made their mortgage payments?

Yes, exactly. I can’t argue with the proposition that it would be unfair. But the only way that I can respond is that life is not necessarily always fair.

Indeed, sometimes foolishness is rewarded.

It is — and as long as we hold to the existing pretense that a large chunk of our housing stock is worth the debt on it, we’re going to be stuck in this liquidity trap. So the reason we’re going to be stuck here is this issue of moral hazard. There’s a reluctance to do anything because, you know, restriking mortgage terms would be letting people off the hook. There’s a moral overtone that we can’t deal with, so therefore we will just live with it. Actually, in that camp, you also have those who are genuine liquidationists. But society is not going to stand for the wholesale liquidation of 25 million families in America, so they’re not going to follow the Mellon prescription. In other words, if you’re not going to recast the mortgages to get rid of the negative equity, and you’re not going to force people out of their homes and liquidate them, then the market gets stuck in suspended animation. And that’s where we are.

Go read the whole interview. Instead of getting your "economics" from the Tea Party fanatics or billionaire ideologues (the Koch brothers). It is worthwhile to listen to a guy who actually worked in the industry and knows where the bodies are buried.

I'm currently reading Ron Suskind's Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President. It is pathetic how timid and incompetent Obama has been in dealing with the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. He had a chance to be a great leader but has shown himself to be a clever fool, a guy who spends more time debating himself and analyzing the angles than actually confronting real problems and leading a desperate people to a better tomorrow. I highly recommend the book to anybody who wants to understand the mess we are in. The complaints about the "accuracy" of the book are overblown. The book is sound. It gets the outline of the story right and most of the details. He miffs a bit here or there but that's to be expected when you are trying to follow such a complex tale in real time.

What the Republicans Have Wrought

It is amazing how effective the right wing politicians in the US have been in wrecking their own economy. They are doing this to plump up their chances of election because they reason that making things bad will cause the public to turn on the party that talk about sharing wealth and building up the economy. With enough despair they expect the public to turn to the party that talks about keeping your wealth and giving more to those very rich "job creators" in the hopes that you can bribe them into creating more jobs.

Here are some bits from an article by Robert Shiller in The Project Syndicate:

It might not seem that Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis and growing concern about the United States’ debt position should shake basic economic confidence. But they apparently have. And loss of confidence, by discouraging consumption and investment, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing the economic weakness that is feared. Significant drops in consumer-confidence indices in Europe and North America already reflect this perverse dynamic.

We now have a daily index for the US, the Gallup Economic Confidence Index, so we can pinpoint changes in confidence over time. The Gallup Index dropped sharply between the first week of July and the first week of August – the period when US political leaders worried everyone that they would be unable to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling and prevent the US from defaulting on August 2. The story played out in the news media every day. August 2 came and went, with no default, but, three days later, a Friday, Standard & Poor’s lowered its rating on long-term US debt from AAA to AA+. The following Monday, the S&P 500 dropped almost 7%.

Apparently, the specter of government deadlock causing a humiliating default suddenly made the US resemble the European countries that really are teetering on the brink. Europe’s story became America’s story.

Changes in public confidence are built upon such narratives, because the human mind is very receptive to them, particularly human-interest stories. The story of a possible US default is resonant in precisely this way, implicating as it does America’s sense of pride, fragile world dominance, and political upheavals.

...

The timing and substance of these consumer-survey results suggest that our fundamental outlook about the economy, at the level of the average person, is closely bound up with stories of excessive borrowing, loss of governmental and personal responsibility, and a sense that matters are beyond control. That kind of loss of confidence may well last for years.

That said, the economic outlook can never be fully analyzed with conventional statistical models, for it may hinge on something that such models do not include: our finding some way to replace one narrative – currently a tale of out-of-control debt – with a more inspiring story.

Not since the Germans elected the Nazi party because of their promise to revive the economy and remove the stain of losing WWI has a political party so cynically lied to an electorate to gain power. The Nazis willing wrecked the German state in their mad bid to become rulers of the world. The Republicans are willing to wreck their own economy in order to toss out the Democrats and "rule" over America. I would have thought the disaster of Hoover in the early 1930s or the more recent disaster of George Bush in the early 2000s would have disqualified the Republicans from ruling anything more than a cesspit.

The Continuing Mistakes of the Obama Administration

Here is a bit from an article by Joe Weisenthal in the Business Insider that looks at why Obama put together a stimulus that fell so far short of what was needed. This bit which looks at who had Obama's ear (and Obama's own proclivity for conservative economic ideology) spells out the problem:

Brad DeLong posts another revealing aspect of the book: The index listings for the top people who advised Obama:

133 Lawrence Summers
131 Tim Geithner
59 Peter Orszag

On the other hand, check out economists who have been super-forceful advocates of big spending...

11 Paul Krugman
6 Robert Reich
5 Joe Stiglitz
4 Jared Bernstein

Bottom line: From the very beginning, Obama was advised by those favoring a "balanced," deficit-mindful approach, while he himself bought into self-defeating structural arguments. And so the stimulus turned out to be a wet blanket that leaves the economy faltering today.

And really, not much has changed in terms of the administration's thinking. They're still ceding ground on deficit reduction, failing to make the forceful case for stimulus (much to the chagrin of sidelined economists like Krugman and Bernstein).

What truly amazes me is that a smart guy like Obama shows himself to be such a slow learner. Has his brain atrophied since his Harvard Law School days or did he fake his way to high marks and great praise in the university?

Modern Magical Thinking

You have to be really powerful to cling to magical thinking and get away with it. Medieval doctors with their leeches succeeded for hundreds of years. Politicians and right wing economists have ignored all the evidence about economies since the Industrial Revolution began and use magical thinking about "confidence" and getting evils like "deficits" under control as the modern magic of economic growth.

Here is the opening bit of a NY Times op-ed in which Paul Krugman lays out the idiocy of modern magical thinking by politicians and self-appointed "experts" on the economy:

Doctors used to believe that by draining a patient’s blood they could purge the evil “humors” that were thought to cause disease. In reality, of course, all their bloodletting did was make the patient weaker, and more likely to succumb.

Fortunately, physicians no longer believe that bleeding the sick will make them healthy. Unfortunately, many of the makers of economic policy still do. And economic bloodletting isn’t just inflicting vast pain; it’s starting to undermine our long-run growth prospects.

Some background: For the past year and a half, policy discourse in both Europe and the United States has been dominated by calls for fiscal austerity. By slashing spending and reducing deficits, we were told, nations could restore confidence and drive economic revival.

And the austerity has been real. In Europe, troubled nations like Greece and Ireland have imposed savage cuts, even as stronger nations have imposed milder austerity programs of their own. In the United States, the modest federal stimulus of 2009 has faded out, while state and local governments have slashed their budgets, so that over all we’ve had a de facto move toward austerity not so different from Europe’s.

Strange to say, however, confidence hasn’t surged. Somehow, businesses and consumers seem much more concerned about the lack of customers and jobs, respectively, than they are reassured by the fiscal righteousness of their governments. And growth seems to be stalling, while unemployment remains disastrously high on both sides of the Atlantic.

Read the whole article and weep. These modern day Andrew W. Mellon's still howl for blood:

…liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

Here is Paul Krugman's summary of the current situation:

What we really need, however, is to convince a substantial number of people with political power or influence that they’ve spent the last year and a half going in exactly the wrong direction, and that they need to make a U-turn.

It’s not going to be easy. But until that U-turn happens, the bleeding — which is making our economy weaker now, and undermining its future at the same time — will continue.

Obama could start by firing Timothy Geithner and get busy filling the empty positions in the Federal Reserve with people who live in the 21st century and not in the 19th century.

Robert Reich Calls Out Six Lies

Reich is speaking at the "Summit For A Fair Economy" in Minneapolis, Minnesota on September 10, 2011. He attacks are the foundational lies that have allowed Republicans to distort the economy for the last 30 years to the benefit for the ultra-rich:



The lies Reich debunks:

1) Tax cuts to the rich and corporations trickle down to the rest of us. (No it doesn't and it never has.)

2) If you shrink government you create jobs. (No, you get rid of jobs that way.)

3) High taxes on the rich hurts the economy. (No, the economy grew when the US did this under Eisenhower.)

4) Debt is to be avoided and it is mostly caused by Medicare. (No, if debt is properly used to grow the economy, it becomes a smaller part of the budget because of increased revenue and Medicare has the lowest overhead of any health insurance plan out there.)

5) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (No, its solid for 26 years. Social Security is solid beyond that if the rich pay the same percentage in social security taxes as the rest of us do.)

6) We need to tax the poor. (This is what Republicans have been proposing when they say any "tax reform" needs to involve all Americans because poor people pay no income tax. The poor have no money and taxing them will not solve our budget problems.)

I'm impressed by the strong approval of this youthful audience for the message that Reich presents. This gives me hope for the future.

Robert Reich is Perplexed

Robert Reich spots an oddity in Obama's behaviour:

On Monday the President will offer ways to pay for his $467 billion American Jobs Act mostly by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

I’m all in favor, but it’s an odd strategy. If any Republican was prepared to vote for the jobs bill, this will send him or her scurrying.

So if the President was never really serious about getting Republican votes in the first place — if his jobs bill and the tax increase on the wealthy were always going to be part of his 2012 election year pitch — why didn’t he make his jobs bill big enough to do the job?

I think the solution is that Obama is a closet Republican. He ran as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but in reality he is centre-right in a lot of his thinking. When he said "change you can believe in" he really meant "change that the Republicans have been believing in".