Thursday, December 15, 2005
Spurred by the Housing Bubble Americans Pile on Debt
An analysis of the Fed’s Flow of Funds (December 8, 2005) report by the Financial Markets Center finds that Americans continue to go deeper into debt:
1) "New debt outstripped the growth of income and the rise of home values in the second quarter of the year."
2) "During the third quarter, Americans debt outstanding rose 12.8% as Americans added $1.24 trillion in new net borrowing. This amount equaled an unprecedented 13.3% of disposable income. At the same time, the ratio of outstanding debt ($10.96 trillion) to total household assets ($62.49) remained at a peak of 17.5%.".
(It appears that a 10.4 % rise in household worth, the bulk of which was a 13.2% rise in home values, during the third quarter spurred the spending.)
3) "As a result of this mismatch in debt accumulation and income growth, household debt-service ratios–payments on outstanding mortgage and consumer debt as a percentage of disposable income–also remained at a historic peak...13.55%."
The report noted that the rise in debt continued to be primarily through the growth of home mortgages.
This is further proof that Fed Head Alan Greenspan's easy money policy has created a housing bubble and put average Americans at risk.
To read the report: http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/{DFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339}/HFC_dec05.pdf
1) "New debt outstripped the growth of income and the rise of home values in the second quarter of the year."
2) "During the third quarter, Americans debt outstanding rose 12.8% as Americans added $1.24 trillion in new net borrowing. This amount equaled an unprecedented 13.3% of disposable income. At the same time, the ratio of outstanding debt ($10.96 trillion) to total household assets ($62.49) remained at a peak of 17.5%.".
(It appears that a 10.4 % rise in household worth, the bulk of which was a 13.2% rise in home values, during the third quarter spurred the spending.)
3) "As a result of this mismatch in debt accumulation and income growth, household debt-service ratios–payments on outstanding mortgage and consumer debt as a percentage of disposable income–also remained at a historic peak...13.55%."
The report noted that the rise in debt continued to be primarily through the growth of home mortgages.
This is further proof that Fed Head Alan Greenspan's easy money policy has created a housing bubble and put average Americans at risk.
To read the report: http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/{DFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339}/HFC_dec05.pdf
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Greenspan Over the Top–Says Capitalism a Force for Peace
With only a few months left in his tenure as Fed Head alan Greenspan has rachet-ed up his propaganda. In accepting an honorary degree at NYU on December 14, 2005 he implied that Capitalism is a source for peace.
Greenspan is just reiterating his old argument that free markets bring about competition and open up economies and thereby raise the standard of living of the countries citizenry. The last time I looked poverty has not budged much in the USA and the bulk of America’s are still in debt. So much so for telling the truth.
The fact is the free markets foster, not reduce, violence. A few years back I did a study that found that the Freest countries in the world, as gauged by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage foundation through their Index of Economic Freedom, were also often the most violent countries as registered through violent crimes and murder.
The idea that the market is based upon trust and that the market weeds out the untrustworthy is a marketing concept meant to dupe the innocent into thinking that everything is fair and square. If that were not the case then there would be no need for lemon laws for the sale of used cars or any such similar laws.
History shows that the freer markets get, a.k.a. business/corporate power rises, the number of scandals increases. Charles Kindleberger in his epic, Mania’s Panics and Crashes noted that scandals are always symptomatic of a market top (peak in stock prices) and hence signal the end of the power rise of corporations. Meaning implicitly that the rise of corporate power brings with it the rise in the number of scandals (the rape and pillaging of the people.) We need only look to Congress, the President and the likes of Enron, Worldcom, etc.. to see the consequences of 30 years of free market policies in the USA. No thanks.
Let’s hope Fed Head to be Ben Bernanke is better at telling the truth.
To read the speech click on the following link:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20051214/default.htm
"Open and free markets are the antithesis of violence. They rest not only onYikes. It is clear that Fed Head Greenspan has never spoke to anti-globalization protesters, whom he has called "wrong-headed." He probably has not talked to the poor in the third world that are suffering from neo-liberal policies and corporate giants. I am imagine that they would have something to say about faith and trust.
voluntary exchange but also on a necessary condition of voluntary exchange:
trust in the word of those with whom we do business."
Greenspan is just reiterating his old argument that free markets bring about competition and open up economies and thereby raise the standard of living of the countries citizenry. The last time I looked poverty has not budged much in the USA and the bulk of America’s are still in debt. So much so for telling the truth.
The fact is the free markets foster, not reduce, violence. A few years back I did a study that found that the Freest countries in the world, as gauged by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage foundation through their Index of Economic Freedom, were also often the most violent countries as registered through violent crimes and murder.
The idea that the market is based upon trust and that the market weeds out the untrustworthy is a marketing concept meant to dupe the innocent into thinking that everything is fair and square. If that were not the case then there would be no need for lemon laws for the sale of used cars or any such similar laws.
History shows that the freer markets get, a.k.a. business/corporate power rises, the number of scandals increases. Charles Kindleberger in his epic, Mania’s Panics and Crashes noted that scandals are always symptomatic of a market top (peak in stock prices) and hence signal the end of the power rise of corporations. Meaning implicitly that the rise of corporate power brings with it the rise in the number of scandals (the rape and pillaging of the people.) We need only look to Congress, the President and the likes of Enron, Worldcom, etc.. to see the consequences of 30 years of free market policies in the USA. No thanks.
Let’s hope Fed Head to be Ben Bernanke is better at telling the truth.
To read the speech click on the following link:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20051214/default.htm
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Fed Raises Rates
The Fed raised its target funds rate a quarter point to 4.25%. Let’s hope that this is the last rate hike. As I have been saying for some time the Fed should be cutting not raising interest rates. The wording in the FOMC statement indicates that this may be the last hike. To read the statement: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2005/20051213/default.htm
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Scrutinize Bernanke Like a Supreme Court Nominee
Mr Two faced, Fed Head Alan Greenspan, was up to his old tricks when he gave a speech, ‘Budget Policy’, before the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Policy Forum (December 2, 2005) and sounded the alarm about the ballooning budget deficit. His solution–cut entitlements; "[I]f at all possible, to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side." http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20051202/default.htm
An Opportunity to Turn the Tide
While this may be old hat to Fed Watchers with Ben Bernanke, slated to take over the reins of the Federal Reserve on February 1, 2006 it presents an interesting challenge. Does Bernanke agree that cuts in entitlements are necessary to reduce the budget deficit? Or does he think that repealing Bush’s tax cuts, that were passed with Greenspan’s blessings, is the way to reduce the deficit?
This is a critical question for anyone concerned about the state of those less fortunate in our country today. The USA’s twin imbalances, the budget deficit and current account deficit, have reached levels that Chairman Greenspan himself said have historically brought rapid and painful adjustments. There is no end in sight. So the deficit(s) debate is going to become an increasingly dominant subject in the political discourse in the years ahead.
Holding much sway over this debate will be the Fed Head. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is suppose to put him/herself above politics. That all changed with Greenspan. Greenspan assumed God like stature among politicians. Senator McCain said that if Greenspan died, he would prop him up in his seat to maintain order. Several have argued that President Bush would never have been able to pass tax cuts if Greenspan had not endorsed them. Can we assume that Bernanke, who maintains he will be above board, do so?
With the a new Fed Head slated to take office there is a new opportunity to set things straight. Greenspan has consistently argued for less government meddling and lower taxes. In his in Philadelphia speech Greenspan dismissed tax hikes to balance the budget as being counter productive.
So far Bernanke has been diplomatic stating that fiscal policy is not his bailiwick:"I'm going to begin now, I think, the practice of not making recommendations on specific tax or spending proposals."
There are reasons to believe that Bernanke, like Greenspan believes that lower taxes is always the solution. As the Chairman of Bush’s CEA he promoted Bush’s tax plan. Some have dismissed such comments as part of the job because it was a political appointment. Recent comments during testimony would argue that Bernanke is in fact in favor of Bush’s tax cuts: "I think it's important that we make the tax cuts permanent."
While Bernanke may remain above the political fray the Fed’s policy decisions will interact with other government policies. Also the stature and power of the Federal Reserve, that controls monetary policy, has increased geometrically over the last thirty years as the country has shifted decision making to the market by default. A lot of what government used to do has been privatized and the role of fiscal policy has been reduced. In some ways Congress and the President are at the mercy of the Fed because it can counter whatever they decide to do through its policy actions.
Trouble Ahead
In another speech on the same day (‘International Imbalances’, London, England)Greenspan sounded a strong warning about our other imbalance, the massive current account deficit; "If...the pernicious drift toward fiscal instability in the United States and elsewhere is not arrested and is compounded by a protectionist reversal of globalization, the adjustment process could be quite painful for the world economy.." (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200512022/default.htm )
For a man known for mincing his words it is clear that he believes our fate has been cast.
When a crisis is precipitated it will have international investors running away scared. What little confidence they have in politicians will be eroded. They will instead look to Federal Reserve for direction. Rapid adjustment will mean balancing the books to make ends meet. In such an environment stringent IMF like policies may have to be set in place. Clearly all will suffer but what policy choices will be made will determine who suffers more? Will the burden placed primarily on the revenue side with increased taxes, or will the spending side bear the brunt with massive cuts in programs and entitlements?
Congress has already indicated that it will act to cut outlays when trouble hits. When faced with having to pay for the relief of Katrina it voted to keep the occupation of Iraq going and cut spending. Any cuts we have seen so far will pale in comparison to what a crisis might call for.
The Powerful Fed
Progressives get in huff over Supreme Court nominations, as they should. Yet they ignore the appointment of the Federal Reserve as just a financial markets and economy thing. The Greenspan legacy, like the Rehnquist record, is very clear. The rich have benefitted and the poor have suffered as we have lost control of government to money. Wealth and income inequality have mushroomed to record levels. Credit card debt has tripled. Bankruptcies have also tripled. The booming stock market has made corporations and right wing initiatives/think tanks flush with cash. A new financial industry catering to the poor, fringe banking (payday loans/rent to own stores/pawn shops/etc), has come into existence whose outlets now outnumber the number of banks in America. A ‘plutocracy’ of wealth and power, as Kevin Phillips notes, has taken over Washington in a way hereto not seen before. All of this and much more were wrought by Fed Head Alan Greenspan!
Can we afford another Greenspan? Especially at a time when a financial crisis appears imminent. Should a crisis be precipitated how it is resolved and dealt with will reverberate for generations to come. The last time a major storm hit America progressivism was strong and FDR was the President. That led to the New Deal and the advance of many progressive issues. What if there had a turn in the other direction?
Unless we are more diligent in scrutinizing Federal Reserve appointments we will continue to pay the price by having money and special interests increase their hold on government. Arguably if we had been more diligent in the past we would not have to be battling the agenda of special interests–Iraq, Alito, environmental concerns.....
It is time we give Bernanke the same scrutiny that we have given Alito, Roberts, Bork and all the other Supreme Court nominees lest we fall further under the influence of money.
An Opportunity to Turn the Tide
While this may be old hat to Fed Watchers with Ben Bernanke, slated to take over the reins of the Federal Reserve on February 1, 2006 it presents an interesting challenge. Does Bernanke agree that cuts in entitlements are necessary to reduce the budget deficit? Or does he think that repealing Bush’s tax cuts, that were passed with Greenspan’s blessings, is the way to reduce the deficit?
This is a critical question for anyone concerned about the state of those less fortunate in our country today. The USA’s twin imbalances, the budget deficit and current account deficit, have reached levels that Chairman Greenspan himself said have historically brought rapid and painful adjustments. There is no end in sight. So the deficit(s) debate is going to become an increasingly dominant subject in the political discourse in the years ahead.
Holding much sway over this debate will be the Fed Head. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is suppose to put him/herself above politics. That all changed with Greenspan. Greenspan assumed God like stature among politicians. Senator McCain said that if Greenspan died, he would prop him up in his seat to maintain order. Several have argued that President Bush would never have been able to pass tax cuts if Greenspan had not endorsed them. Can we assume that Bernanke, who maintains he will be above board, do so?
With the a new Fed Head slated to take office there is a new opportunity to set things straight. Greenspan has consistently argued for less government meddling and lower taxes. In his in Philadelphia speech Greenspan dismissed tax hikes to balance the budget as being counter productive.
"Addressing the government's own imbalances will require scrutiny ofDoes Bernanke similarly believe that tax hikes would be counter productive?
both spending and taxes. However, tax increases of sufficient dimension to deal
with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic
growth and the revenue base."
So far Bernanke has been diplomatic stating that fiscal policy is not his bailiwick:"I'm going to begin now, I think, the practice of not making recommendations on specific tax or spending proposals."
There are reasons to believe that Bernanke, like Greenspan believes that lower taxes is always the solution. As the Chairman of Bush’s CEA he promoted Bush’s tax plan. Some have dismissed such comments as part of the job because it was a political appointment. Recent comments during testimony would argue that Bernanke is in fact in favor of Bush’s tax cuts: "I think it's important that we make the tax cuts permanent."
While Bernanke may remain above the political fray the Fed’s policy decisions will interact with other government policies. Also the stature and power of the Federal Reserve, that controls monetary policy, has increased geometrically over the last thirty years as the country has shifted decision making to the market by default. A lot of what government used to do has been privatized and the role of fiscal policy has been reduced. In some ways Congress and the President are at the mercy of the Fed because it can counter whatever they decide to do through its policy actions.
Trouble Ahead
In another speech on the same day (‘International Imbalances’, London, England)Greenspan sounded a strong warning about our other imbalance, the massive current account deficit; "If...the pernicious drift toward fiscal instability in the United States and elsewhere is not arrested and is compounded by a protectionist reversal of globalization, the adjustment process could be quite painful for the world economy.." (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200512022/default.htm )
For a man known for mincing his words it is clear that he believes our fate has been cast.
When a crisis is precipitated it will have international investors running away scared. What little confidence they have in politicians will be eroded. They will instead look to Federal Reserve for direction. Rapid adjustment will mean balancing the books to make ends meet. In such an environment stringent IMF like policies may have to be set in place. Clearly all will suffer but what policy choices will be made will determine who suffers more? Will the burden placed primarily on the revenue side with increased taxes, or will the spending side bear the brunt with massive cuts in programs and entitlements?
Congress has already indicated that it will act to cut outlays when trouble hits. When faced with having to pay for the relief of Katrina it voted to keep the occupation of Iraq going and cut spending. Any cuts we have seen so far will pale in comparison to what a crisis might call for.
The Powerful Fed
Progressives get in huff over Supreme Court nominations, as they should. Yet they ignore the appointment of the Federal Reserve as just a financial markets and economy thing. The Greenspan legacy, like the Rehnquist record, is very clear. The rich have benefitted and the poor have suffered as we have lost control of government to money. Wealth and income inequality have mushroomed to record levels. Credit card debt has tripled. Bankruptcies have also tripled. The booming stock market has made corporations and right wing initiatives/think tanks flush with cash. A new financial industry catering to the poor, fringe banking (payday loans/rent to own stores/pawn shops/etc), has come into existence whose outlets now outnumber the number of banks in America. A ‘plutocracy’ of wealth and power, as Kevin Phillips notes, has taken over Washington in a way hereto not seen before. All of this and much more were wrought by Fed Head Alan Greenspan!
Can we afford another Greenspan? Especially at a time when a financial crisis appears imminent. Should a crisis be precipitated how it is resolved and dealt with will reverberate for generations to come. The last time a major storm hit America progressivism was strong and FDR was the President. That led to the New Deal and the advance of many progressive issues. What if there had a turn in the other direction?
Unless we are more diligent in scrutinizing Federal Reserve appointments we will continue to pay the price by having money and special interests increase their hold on government. Arguably if we had been more diligent in the past we would not have to be battling the agenda of special interests–Iraq, Alito, environmental concerns.....
It is time we give Bernanke the same scrutiny that we have given Alito, Roberts, Bork and all the other Supreme Court nominees lest we fall further under the influence of money.
