Audio

Host Katherine Lanpher talks with TIME business and economics reporters to sort through the headlines, forecasts, news and numbers that will help you weather these challenging times.

Download | Subscribe

The Curious Capitalist Categories

Archive
September 2010
SMTWTFS
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Is red-hot India too hot?

While most of the world is worried about the prospects of a double-dip recession, India is facing just the opposite problem – managing supercharged growth. The Indian economy, oblivious to the meager recovery in the West, is roaring. GDP surged 8.8% in the April-June quarter, the fastest clip in two-and-a-half years. There's some debate among economists over what might happen next – some think growth has peaked for now, others think India may put up even bigger numbers in coming quarters. But either way, India's performance will remain stellar. Goldman Sachs forecasts India's GDP will surge 8.2% in 2010 and 8.7% in 2011. That's behind the 10% or so Goldman expects for China in both those years, but not by much.

In fact, as I've argued before, India's economy has actually emerged from the Great Recession is generally better shape than China's. India has achieved its lofty growth rates without the potentially dangerous stimulus shenanigans Beijing used to keep growth going during the downturn. To compensate for slumping exports, Chinese policymakers flooded the economy with credit -- building up possibly unsustainable levels of debt at local governments, potentially eating away at the health of the banking sector and fueling nosebleed-territory property prices. India didn't have to take such drastic steps to survive the Great Recession, and thus isn't suffering with the fallout. That's because the sources of India's growth are much more balanced than China's. India isn't as dependent on exports and investment as China, while private consumption in India plays a much bigger role in GDP growth.

Read More…

          

Fuld on the Offensive via Getty Images

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on Wednesday took on the question of what led to Lehman's failure and I'm not sure we came away with any answers. Although we did get a much better window into the lingering bad blood between Fuld and the Federal Reserve.

The FCIC is looking into the question of so-called "Too Big To Fail." The idea is that one of the causes of the financial crisis is that banks were allowed to get too big. In fact, they got so big that the federal government had no choice but to bail them out even after they did such dump things as buy up worthless real estate properties or lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, or hold onto billions of dollars of securities that were derived from those silly and ultimately doomed loans. You would expect that a government knowing it would have to bail out big banks if they made even the slightest mistake would have had a very watchful eye. But it didn't. It not only allowed these banks to finance bad loans, but with the used of derivatives they were allowed to finance each bad loan multiple times.

Lots of juicy stuff to dive into for the FCIC. Of course, as has been the case with the FCIC all along, the commission completely misses the pool. Instead of focusing on these issues, the commission spent a good portion of its time in the Lehman hearing on one issue: Was the Fed in the very last minutes of Lehman's life willing to save the ultimately doomed institution. Fuld says there were a number of things that the Fed could have done to save Lehman. The Fed officials testifying on Monday say the investment bank was toast no matter what the Fed did.

I'm not sure if this is the issue we really need to get to the bottom of. But, OK, if that's where the FCIC wants to go, I will play along. It's Fuld vs. Fed. Here's how the Curious Capitalist would call the fight:

Read More…

          

Stocks Rise on Bullish Economic Vibes

Just when it seemed clear that the economy was settling into a big-time slowdown, along comes the ISM report with surprisingly good news. The ISM report captures manufacturing activity, and the fact that it was up--economists had expected a decline-- sent Wednesday's stock market on a tear (it helped too that China also reported upbeat manufacturing news.)  By late morning the Dow Jones Industrials were up by 250 points.

Read More…

          

Escaping the middle income trap, part 2

A couple weeks ago, I mused a bit about how developing countries graduate into the leagues of the world's richest nations, specifically looking at the case of Malaysia. That country has been stuck at a moderate level of wealth for some time – in other words, it's caught in the “middle income trap.” There is one issue I wanted to explore in greater detail, which, though specific to Malaysia, can offer us another big lesson on achieving economic development.

The lesson: If you want to keep income growing, you must make that goal an absolute priority and implement the pragmatic policies necessary. Nothing short of that will do.

Read More…

          

Attack of the Clones

To the best of my knowledge, no where among the nearly 2,300 pages that is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the hundreds of proposed new regulations is there anything restricting human cloning. And that, it turns out, might be a bad thing.

Recently, a nearly decade old paper on the economic effects of human cloning by a French economics professor has been getting some attention. The paper argues that rather than an army of low-level cloned workers or fighters as is predicted in Huxley's Brave New World or Star Wars, cloning will lead to more and more higher skilled workers. That's because the returns of cloning people who can make a lot of money will be higher than cloning average Joes. And when it comes to cloning, we're in it for the money, just like everything else. What's more, it will probably be only the rich who will be able to afford to clone themselves at the start.

The result, at least at first, will be a rapid rise in our already disturbing levels of income inequality. Clones will earn more and more money, and those of us who reproduce the old fashion way will likely have poorer and poorer offspring. Recently, Barbara Kiviat wrote two posts for this blog on how income inequality was a major contributor to the financial crisis. So you do the math. If cloning leads to income inequality and income inequality leads to financial crises, then we've got a problem. Here's why:

Read More…

          

Home Prices Rise---Is It a Mirage?

The Case-Shiller index of home prices in 20 different markets rose briskly in June, according to Standard  & Poor's. This may give a nice boost to the stock market but it's a pretty meaningless statistic because the data is two months old. That puts it right at the tail end of the buying flurry that came with the Homebuyer Tax Credit. Though the credit required  that homebuyers have a signed contract by the end of April, they had another two months to close the deal. Thus June becomes the busy wind-up month for the credit. And guess what happened when the credit officially expired. That's right, we saw that stunning decline in existing home sales in July. When the prices are released for July expect to see the wind come out of the sails.

Here is the text of the Case Shiller report:

Data through June 2010, released today by Standard & Poor's for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the U.S. National Home Price Index rose 4.4% in the second quarter of 2010, after having fallen 2.8% in the first quarter. Nationally, home prices are 3.6% above their year-earlier levels. In June,17 of the 20 MSAs covered by S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices and both monthly composites were up; and the two composites and 15 MSAs showed year-over-year gains. Housingprices have rebounded from crisis lows, but other recent housing indicators point to more ominous signals as tax incentives have ended and foreclosures continue.

All that said, there is a bottom taking shape in housing in most areas of the country. Darius Bozorgi, President of Veros, a realty tracking firm, was telling Bloomberg this morning that his firm expects to see depreciation in home prices over the next 12 months, but beyond that point there should be improvement. The one area that  may  continue falling due to a huge inventory glut is Florida, he said.

Even though it's a bit of a (federal stimulus) mirage, the improvement in home prices is nice to see, and certainly better than if the tax credit had not lifted prices. Here is a chart of the Case-Shiller home price changes for both its 10-city and 20-city markets:

          

What if Tax Rates Were Set by Lottery?

One of the big reasons people argue against raising taxes for the richest Americans is that higher taxes make people less inclined to work. The result is that raising taxes at some point doesn't raise any more tax income for the government. This is in effect the famous Laffer Curve.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think people, particularly rich ones, work for a lot of reasons, and absolute wealth is only one of them. Nonetheless, a study that I found on the National Bureau of Economic Research website, argues just the opposite. A working paper from 2000 co-authored by Berkeley tax expert Emmanuel Saez and Jonathan Gruber, found that for marginally rich people (those making more than $100,000) tax rates do seem to matter. They tended to either work less or hide more of their income when tax rates rose. People making less than $100,00 did not seem to change their behavior much. That suggests that the richer you are the more you care about tax rates, though I wonder if we would see the same change in behavior for people making more or less than $500,000.

But what if it's not the tax rates that matter when it comes to how much you will work, but rather the knowledge of tax rates. That brings me to an interesting suggestion that a reader jimtobias had in reaction to a recent post I wrote about what would happened if the top tax rate was raised to 99.99%. How about we have a tax rate lottery?

Here's another idea. Let's say that all income below $500K was subject to taxation as it currently is, and that income above that level was subject to a tax rate lottery, held after the income is declared. Some of it gets taxed at, say, 75%, and some is not taxed at all. The goal is to increase revenue from this segment by, say, 10%. Quite a few $B. Maybe the "losers" are exempted from next year's lottery; they'll be taxed at the current rate.

Both categories of rich folks get a sociocultural benefit. The "winners" get to splurge and tell the tale of escaping from the clutches of the taxman; the "losers" get to carp about carrying their weight of the poor and the undeserving public sector. They already tell stories like this, but now they can do it with more public confirmation. There's drama, sport, opportunities for character development, and of course, an intensification of media fascination with the doings of the rich.

I wonder if anyone has studied it. My quick search on NBER on "tax rate lottery," didn't turn up any papers. With a few caveats, I think this is an interesting idea. Here's why:

Read More…

          

Housing Market: What's Ahead?

Are housing prices near a bottom?  It's not just policymakers, realtors and bankers who  yearn for the turn. Anyone who owns a house, a condo or coop is surely wishing for some modest improvement.  Not the least of these hopefuls is homeowner-in-chief Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who just this past Friday lamented the heavy toll that tumbling housing prices are having on residential investment.

Read More…

          

Farewell

That homeownership story I've been going on and on about is the cover story of the magazine coming out today. You can read the first few paragraphs here. Unfortunately, to read the entire thing you have to either buy a paper copy or subscribe on the iPad. We've been over our feelings about this set-up before. In a couple of weeks, you'll also be able to read the whole story online. Mark your calendars so that you don't forget.

In other news, I'm leaving Time. I'm heading off to the exciting world of public policy on the premise that it would be nice to do something for a while, instead of writing about other people doing things. We'll see how that works out for me. But fear not: I plan to keep up with my journalism as a freelancer, and I may even guest blog here from time to time.

In the meantime, if you'd like to be in touch, please reach me at barbarakiviat AT gmail DOT com. It would be great to hear from you. I am endlessly amazed at how much I learn from blogging at the Curious Capitalist--you guys are some of the best readers on the Internet. You have kept me in line and taught me immensely. Thank you.

          

Is Bernanke Worried about Deflation?

Bernanke made a speech this morning to other central bankers, economists and journalists at an annual forum in Jackson Hole. There were a number of key phrases Fed watchers were expecting to hear and, hopefully, not hear. And here's the tally. Bernanke used some variation of the work "slow" seven times.  So, as expected, Bernanke was trying to make the point that he believes the recovery is turning out to be weaker than expected. Here a piece from the conclusion of his speech:

In sum, the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed somewhat in recent months, in part because of slower-than-expected growth in consumer spending, as well as continued weakness in residential and nonresidential construction. Despite this recent slowing, however, it is reasonable to expect some pickup in growth in 2011 and in subsequent years.

Bernanke wants to make the case that it is right to leave interest rates near zero for the rest of this year and beyond. So he is doing his best to convince people the economy, as he sees it, is weak. As to how long rates will stay low, he only used the phrase "extended" twice. That was another one of those buzz terms I was looking for. How do I read that?

I don't think that means Bernanke is planning on raising rates soon. What I think it means is that Bernanke is trying to take the focus away from rate policy and toward the other methods of stimulus that he is contemplating. One of the things that I think could be a good way for the Fed to boost bank lending is to end interest payments on bank reserve kept at the Fed. Bernanke talked about that option, but he questioned how much effect lowering the IOER rate (which is what it is technically called) would have on bank lending.

On the margin, a reduction in the IOER rate would provide banks with an incentive to increase their lending to nonfinancial borrowers or to participants in short-term money markets, reducing short-term interest rates further and possibly leading to some expansion in money and credit aggregates. However, under current circumstances, the effect of reducing the IOER rate on financial conditions in isolation would likely be relatively small.

Ben, we will have to agree to disagree.

Bernanke did say that he thinks the Fed Reserve in the future will have to buy more long-dated Treasury bonds and other securities. That's another way the Federal Reserve can boost the economy and increase lending. By buying bonds, the Federal Reserve puts more money into the system and at the same time makes it cheaper to lend by driving down the interest rates on those bonds. Clearly, the folks over at Calculated Risk think more "quantitative easing," or QE, which is what it is called when the Fed uses its (or our) money to buy bonds and other investments. They are saying he is planning a new round of quantitative easing or cutely QE2:

I think Bernanke is paving the way for QE2, although he probably feels he needs more evidence of a slowing economy or further disinflation to persuade other members of the FOMC. A warning from a large tech company is probably significant at this point, . . . . Or perhaps the unemployment rate ticking up in the August employment report next Friday might be enough. There will be plenty of data released before the September 21 FOMC meeting (and if the data is weaker, the meeting might be expanded to two days). Or perhaps the FOMC will wait until November, but it does appears Bernanke is preparing everyone for QE2.

The big surprise in the speech was how many times he mentioned deflation. The D-word popped up six times in his speech. Still I don't think that means deflation is coming. Here's why:

Read More…