Fixing the economy is a matter of a few correct steps

I made a brief, flippant statement that simply making the Bush tax cuts permanent would get the economy back on track, and a negative comment on it cause me to clarify. My own comment got so detailed I think it deserves it own thread.

My basic point is:

We are in the tough economic situation because we are doing the wrong things, and all it takes to get out of the ditch is to start doing the right things. Those right things are not complicated nor unknown.

Let me clarify my statement:  I am not saying the recession can be averted now (it probably started in Q3), nor am I saying that we are not in serious economic straits. However, it really wouldnt be a challenge at all to get the economy back on track, if only we got our policies back on track.

And the #1 policy error of today is the threat to raise tax rates. A declaration to make the Bush tax cuts permanent would correct the #1 policy error of today.

Correct economic policies are not LIKELY in an Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime, but I think of it not being a challenge to know what those right policies are, we've known what the right policies are for decades, they've been tried and worked:

  • Weak monetary policy led to the bubble and the bubble bursting, and a strong dollar policy from 2004 to today would have averted much of the crisis - we would have neer seen gold at $1000 or oil above $100/barrel, never seen the housing bubble and the consequent aftermath. The solution is to get back to sound money and strong dollar.
  • On taxes, we must not estimate the huge magnitude of the tax increase, or the economy-deadening impact of letting such tax increases hang over us. They have killed business prospects for the future. Further, the asset values for everything - from commercial RE, housing, to stocks and bonds - are keyed off of future post-tax cash flow expectations. 2 days of post-Obama and the stock market loses 10% of its value, or about $1 trillion. Why? they know his higher taxes and other polices are harmful to the economy and will lower capital returns. We have had 2 years of Democrats in Congress threatening to raise taxes, passing tax increases, attacking business and CEOs. These attacks have toppled over the leveraged economy because the Dems policies have raised the price of risk capital (which you can see in the PE ratio changes from early 2007 to now). That price increase has killed highly leveraged investments. End the attacks and the threats of large tax increases by making the current tax system permanent, and the bloodbath of leverage investments ends too. That reverses the financial crunch, which is really a massive and global flight from risk.
  • The recession we are in would not have been as severe without the oil price bubble. Prick the energy bubble permanently with pro-energy policies that increase domestic supply and reduce energy imports and you would prick on element that dragged down the economy.
  • We have actually worsened the financial crisis with Government meddling and bailouts. These bailout costs harm our fiscal position, create a risk premium due to uncertainty in governments intervention (an example are the housing bailouts which by rewriting mortgages are in effect making new lending much riskier and less stable). End the bailouts, end the risk to contract law implicits in threats to rewrite bankruptcy law, and make moves to privatize Freddie and Fannie to end our huge liability exposure there.
  • The fiscal situation - it's the spending stupid (or the stupid spending) that is causing deficits. Those deficits are not a short-term detriment to the economy, but impair our ability to manage monetary policy and control our long-term economic destiny.

I don't see Obama going in the right direction on taxes, spending, financial services regulations, or energy. (Nor do I have confidence Bernake will be a sound money guy.)

Since Obama's policies are the wrong things, we will remain in the ditch.

A simple declaration to make Bush tax cuts permanent would have an immediate positive effect right now because it would increase after-tax cash flow projections, enough to make risk capital come back in -  to an extent that would increase risk capital flows as much as or more than the $700 billion TARP bailout. Yet such a declaration costs nothing to the budget today and will pay for itself later. Similar ideas like the Eric Cantor's capital gains tax holiday or the proposal to cut corporate tax rates, which are too high, would be high positive cost-benefit as well.

In another blog, I mentioned the situation of the great depression. FDR did not in any way 'solve' the Great Depression, in fact if you read "FDRs Folly" and some recent economic studies, FDR's policies lengthen it. We speak of the Great Depression as a historic inevitability, but surely you can realize that nothing is inevitable. The great depression was caused by a combination of tariff increases (Smoot Hawley) and various beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies, tight money, and raising tax rates massively. Had FDR reversed these immediately, the economic history of the 1930s would have been much better. Indeed had Hoover never implemented them, there would be no Great Depression.

At this point, I am not talking about averting the recession, that's baked in to the 3rd and 4th Q, although it could have been averted with foresight by correcting the issues wrt taxes and oil prices in the past 18 months. The GNP grew by 3% in the 2nd quarter, we actually had growth up until then, despite the fact that the housing sector recession and bubble had burst 12 months prior.  When Reagan came in, he DID fix and turn around the economy, but we went through a tough recession to wring out inflation. In our current economy, we have a lot of deleveraging to digest; we have digested much of in wrt housing and corporate balance sheets are mostly okay (so long as we dont screw up things further). So even the right policies would have us go through a recession before we move on to better things.

But beyond a 2 to 3 quarter recession, in what way is continued economic misery inevitable? It is NOT!  what would be truly mind-boggling is to believe the lie that Govt policy doesnt impact the economy, or that higher or lower tax rates dont matter (they do). Dont be so superstitious or fatalistic to believe that economic misery under Obama is pre-ordained. It is not.the only thing that would make it inevitable is the inevitability of bad policies coming from Pelosi Reid and Obama led Government. It will merely be a consequence of his decisions and his policies.

PS. If you think a declaration to make the Bush tax cuts permanent is 'simplistic' consider how simplistic Paulsen's blank check was. 3 pages, and in the end the stated use of the money - to buy bad assets, was changed after the law was passed! Bottom line: If the issue is risk capital that is fleeing to the sidelines, you get it back in the investment pool by taking away external risks, and the #1 risk today is the risk of future tax increases.

 

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

economy

Economy always every 5 to 7 years has recession involved.   The problem with this recession is banking industry has created systemic economic problems that recessions in 2001 and 1991 did not have.  The problem with banking industry and housing was a 15 year problem in the making.  The Bush and Adminstration along with Frank and Dodd prevented state attonery generals from resricting the use of subprime mortgages. 

First, mortgages should not be tax deductle because it encourage overinvestment in housing like we saw.  Second,  subprime mortgages should not be allowed or NINJA loans.  Third,  regradless of economic thoery have to stimulate the economy the get it moving again via tax cuts or spending.   Forth, pragamtism is needed here becauase were dealing with systemic economic issuses and populist solutions like tarriffs,  trade barriers will slow down the recovery or put in deeper recession.  

The Federal Reverse people think the bank is evil but thier job is to provide economic stability.  Bernake has studied the great depression in detail and know exactly what made the problem worse.   Bailing out companies is against market rules but during the great depression they did bailout banks and recapatlize them because Hoover did nothing to help the Great Depression.   The Federal Reverse in 1928 tighten up on lending and thru 1929 to 1932 the tighting made normal recession into a deep recession.  Bernake did not tighten up in 2007 he started chopping interest rates from 5.25% to 1.5% today that alone acutally made things bearable.   The bailout was needed to prevent systemic collaspe in financial markets.  

 

The Fed's bubbles

Thanks for your good comment. I agree on most points, in particular "pragamtism is needed here becauase were dealing with systemic economic issuses and populist solutions like tarriffs,  trade barriers will slow down the recovery or put in deeper recession.  "

And your point on mortgage deduction is well taken, although that might be long-term issue (doing it now could worsen falling housing prices). We should repeal CRA.

Economy always every 5 to 7 years has recession involved.  

This is less a matter of economic certainty than a fact that credit cycles invariably go to excess after some time, and so an outside shock event or the retracing of a bubble or over-investment cycle leads to a recession.  In fact, the late Clinton excesses were in some ways worse (the internet bubble), but as you note the excess was in stock market not in banking, so banking system stayed stable during 2001 recession. But in 1990-1991, banking was a factor. If you recall it was the S&L crisis, and a lot of  S&Ls failed then and housing in places like Texas went through a slump (as is happening in Cali, NV and Florida today). Also Citicorp got real cheap - like it did this year.

Right now the Fed is doing the right thing. They had to ease and add liquidity. My issue with Bernake was that he was on the Greenspan-led Fed board back in 2003 -2005 when they kept the taps open and didnt respond to the signal that the price of gold and weak dollar was giving them. With the combination of Sarbanes-Oxley restricting business IPOs and the cheap money, a lot of investment (ie hedge fund) money went in the direction of commodity and CDS & CDO instruments, in effect underwriting asset and commodity inflation and inciting  the easy lending and subprime mortgages. The Fed should have seen this and handled it a lot sooner. if they had, the credit cycle woudnt have gone boom and bust like it did and we would have had more stable growth and a longer economic expansion.

oh, and based on my above comment you can add Sarbanes-Oxley itself as a minor proximate cause of the current economic crisis. It should be repealed. Newt Gingrich was also making this correct point  in interviews back when the wall st bailout was being debated.

The bailout was needed to prevent systemic collaspe in financial markets. 

While it was sold that way, this I believe was only true from a self-reinforcing perspective. that is to say - once Paulson publicly said, 'we need this or the sky is falling' every single investor, bank and fund went into utter panic. But NOW we know that his plan, to buy troubled assets, was actually a bad idea that most economist said would be ineffective. And it wasnt even necessary as the Eric Cantor insurance proposal would have covered the asset issues with much less cost and govt exposure. In the end TARP is underwriting recapitalizion, which is far more effective ... BUT, they forced banks like Wells Fargo, who DIDNT WANT IT, to buy into it. This is heavy hand of Govt. In 20/20 hindsight what this really means is that Paulson made a huge huge mistake in letting Lehman fail, because the cost of saving Lehman from BK was miniscule compared to all the world went through in the 30 days after that.

Last point: They actually didnt recapitalize banks with Federal money during the Great Depression. Maybe they should or shouldnt have, but the TARP bill has no real precedent in US history. Even RTC (resolution Trust Corp) of 1990 era was about govt takeover of bankrupt assets, not recapitalization.

Thanks for the clarification; can you provide some details?

Thanks for the clarification, FT, but I guess I still find them lacking specifics. You say that the bailouts have caused more harm than good.

We have actually worsened the financial crisis with Government meddling and bailouts. These bailout costs harm our fiscal position...

Can you apply this to the specific case of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy? Paulson, over Bernanke's objections, let Lehman fail. At the time (Monday, September 15th, 2008), many analysts thought Lehman was on the hook for $10-$20 billion in the almost completely unregulated Credit Default Swap (CDS) market. By mid-week, after Lehman was allowed to go into bankruptcy, it became apparent that the estimate was off by a factor of 10 and Lehman was holding liabilities in the $100-$200 billion range. Part of the problem here was that due to the paucity of regulations requiring reporting of activities in this market there was no way for any disinterested party to determine what Lehman's liabilities were. In fact, we still don't know the full extent.

At the same time, AIG had issued CDSs to Lehman's counterparties requiring AIG to step in should Lehman be unable to make its own CDSs good. This along with other factors led very quickly to a solvency crisis at AIG on Tuesday the 16th. It was in response to these events that Paulson et al decided a comprehensive solution was needed rather than a crisis by crisis approach; so was born the TARP (a.k.a. the bailout).

The consensus in the financial and economic communities is that letting Lehman fail was a really big mistake. You would seem to be arguing that letting Lehman fail was the one good move Paulson made.

Can you provide a detailed argument for how the government's actions worsened this specific situation? Because, while I have some issues with Paulson's approach, I can barely bring myself to imagine where we would be today if all those firms had failed and all the assets on their balance sheets had been allowed to vanish overnight.

Can you say specifically what would have happened in the financial markets such that the situation would have been better had there been no bailout?

Extra credit:

  1. why are Credit Default Swaps called "swaps" and not "insurance"?
  2. which is bigger US GDP (2008) or the CDS market (notional 2007)?
  3. how much bigger?

 

bailout stuff

First: Letting Lehman fail was a mistake, and I've said as much if not here on my discussion on this on other blogs. It could have been done a la Bear Stearns, with a minimal govt exposure, but Paulson then overreacted after it failed and its failure cascaded into a credit freeze.

The bailout costs are now over $1 trillion and counting and I am using it generically - Freddie, Fannie, stimulus checks, TARP, Housing bailout, and whatever Pelosi comes up with.

It's late so I dont have time to go into details on why the bailouts Congress keeps passing are mistaken overall but a general point:

What's the common theme of the bailouts? We are feeding failures! And how do we pay for it? By starving (ie taxing) success!  Show me a business textbook and they will tell you that feeding failure and starving success is a good way to run a business into the ground.

The point on taxes of course is that you feed the success and via that success, you lift up asset values. Higher asset values will mean the underwater exposure in the credit/mortgage markets is eased and thereby you save the exposed banks etc.

I will say that recapitalizing banks and increasing FDIC limits are more benign then most of the other things being done, but a lot of the other things are useless to our long-term economic health and therefore, due to their cost, counterproductive or at least inferior to other approaches. The idea of buying bad assets was not a good idea, and after the bailout bill passed the stock market had its worst week in a century - NOT a vote of confidence!

I had various comments about it during the crisis period here:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com

Recapitalize banks, offer govt backing on insurance on assets (for a price/discount, not the fannie bailout deal).

BTW When a company goes BK, its assets dont disappear, it goes to the creditors. Since I owned a bit of LEH, I got wiped out on my investment, but you can still buy the bankrupt shares for a few pennies. Your Qs:

#1 - I guess because they are trades with two sides to them and not regulated insurance

#2 - comparing an income (GDP) with a balance sheet item is apples v oranges, its not a meaningful comparison. US assets are around $50 trillion, so if every asset in the US had an insurance policy, the "insurance exposure" number would be $50 trillion. Its only scary  if there is a NET exposure that has to be paid off. When they unwound the Lehman BK CDS in the sale oct 10, the net exposure on the bonds, which got swapped at around 8 cents on dollar, was (from my memory) something like $6 billion for the largest exposed firm. Net-wise its not as large as those scary multi-trillion notional numbers suggest.

I'm an investor but not world's expert on it so take it as JMHO.

My point is only that it is not easy or simple...

My point is only that it is not easy or simple to fix the financial system. I think this discussion demonstrates that to some extent. I don't disagree very substantially with your suggestions, etc. but I think the financial system is an extremely complex and interconnected web that we are not well-served to think of as responsive to simple large-scope fixes like "no more bailouts" etc.

As for extra credit: credit default swaps are essentially insurance contracts, however, they were not called "insurance" so that they wouldn't tempt regulators to become interested.

CDS market size is estimated at $40 trillion which is approximately 3x US GDP. I agree it is apples to oranges, but it is a helpful comparison just to get an idea of the sheer size of this market against a figure that people have some sense of (GDP).

2 keys points on the CDS market size:

  1. $40tn is really just a WAG; no one, and I mean no one, knows how big this thing really is because there are literally no regulations on reporting, monitoring, capital reserves, etc. This situation will be the text book rejoinder to the "markets are self-regulating" argument for the foreseeable future. Anyone who is serious about thinking through how markets self-regulate will have to come to terms with this problem. Greenspan who has been a leading free-market fundamentalist has thrown in the towel on this.
  2. Warren Buffet does not trade CDS because he says in his usual no-nonsense way "nobody knows what they are". Every one of us participates in the financial system wittingly or unwittingly -- we are all at risk -- and sitting in the middle of that system is a $40tn pile of mystery meat.

Markets only work as well as they are transparent. No investor or trader wants to be on the wrong end of an asymetrical information exchange. Paramount is risk transparency: what am I putting myself on the hook for in this transaction? Yet, on the sell-side, risk is the part of the story that will always be played down because it is the hardest sell. Therefore, to the extent that counterparty confidence can be increased by regulation, the right regulations properly enforced can make markets more fluid, reliable and, dare I say, efficient. When have a high level of confidence that I know what I'm getting myself into and that the other guy is following a mutually understood set of rules, I am much more likely to participate in the market than I am when this is not the case.

Markets needs honest brokers. The question is where do they come from? Can the marketplace itself create them?

Economy is riddle

Markets only work as well as they are transparent. No investor or trader wants to be on the wrong end of an asymetrical information exchange. Paramount is risk transparency: what am I putting myself on the hook for in this transaction? Yet, on the sell-side, risk is the part of the story that will always be played down because it is the hardest sell. 

That is perfectly logical comment.   CDOs and CDs in laymens terms are complex instruments to understand. 

Figure out Credit Default Swaps were packages chopped up into different catergoies of risk.   The investors  wanting lower risk got paid first, then moderate risk paid second,  gamblers get what is remaining.  I understand of Credit Default Swap the problem was Fannie and Freddie well rubber stamping these products to get more people to own homes.  

 

I just hope the fallout does not result in nationalization of broad swaths of the economy because that alone would take 15 years to undo that damage.  Economists from all politcal specturm know this banking crisis is complex and the solution to repair it may come from trail and error.   The reason for trail and error apporach to the crsis is the derivitaites, and CDS, CDO are not most transparent insturments in investment. 

Question is did overegulation create this new preverted risky investment scheme with Derivaties or did underegulation create this mess.  The answer very murkey as is CDS, CDO derivatites itself.

I figure this Financial Enigneering that will require people with Phycists and with PHD in Math to untangle this beast.

 

$40tn is really just a WAG; no one, and I mean no one, knows how big this thing really is because there are literally no regulations on reporting, monitoring, capital reserves, etc. This situation will be the text book rejoinder to the "markets are self-regulating" argument for the foreseeable future. Anyone who is serious about thinking through how markets self-regulate will have to come to terms with this problem. Greenspan who has been a leading free-market fundamentalist has thrown in the towel on this.

That alone makes my head explode trying work it out conceptaully in my head????