Mark WeisbrotEsquerda.net, 2 de abril de 2015Al Jazeera America, 30 de março de 2015

Charles Lane doesn't want the Postal Service to get involved in banking. That much is clear from his column, even if his argument doesn't necessarily support the case.

The argument seems mostly that the government can't compete with the dynamic private sector, although he also seems to worry about the opposite:

"(Yes, postal banking also undermines check-cashing liquor stores and pawn shops, a desirable goal if you buy into the stereotype that these are unscrupulous exploiters, as opposed to family-run small businesses, that the government would be crushing.)"

Hmmm, some of these operations are sizable chains. But yes, some are also family run, like the juice loan racket. Not sure of the point here exactly, but certainly a well-run postal bank would put a lot of sleazy operators out of business.

In a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, Andy Kessler argues that for private equity, the glory days are over.  It’s not that PE funds are having trouble raising money. With the stock market hovering near recent highs, PE funds – in the words of Apoll

Deborah JamesAlterNet, March 31, 2015

Image from internal USAID document, caption reads: “Site flooding due to improper drainage”

On March 25, 2015, USAID suspended CEEPCO Contracting – which had been working on shelter programs in Haiti –from receiving further government contracts, pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation. CEEPCO joins Thor Construction, which was suspended in early February. The investigation concerns faulty construction practices related to 750 houses built in Caracol, Haiti by USAID. CEPR Research Associate Jake Johnston reported in February for VICE News:

CEEPCO's CEO is Harold Charles, a Haitian-American who was formerly one of the Haitian government's representatives to the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission (IHRC), run by Bill Clinton and meant to be in charge of the $10 billion in earthquake relief. The IHRC had initially approved the USAID shelter program back in December 2010.

Charles also enjoys a close, personal relationship with Haitian President Michel Martelly. In an interview in 2013, Charles said, "I do know and have very close friends up through the highest ranks of government," adding, "Martelly is a childhood friend of mine." One former government official in Haiti said in an interview, "this was seen as a deal that would please Martelly."

Despite the initial assessment in August, 2014 that revealed the construction problems, USAID extended CEEPCO's contract for work at other shelter sites in Haiti this past January. CEEPCO’s contract for the Caracol site was awarded without competition. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the justification document is ongoing. A FOIA request for the initial assessment documenting the problems with the houses was recently responded to, but USAID withheld the entire document that was sought, citing the ongoing legal investigation.

Though the investigation continues, many thousands of Haitians continue to live in the poorly constructed houses. A contracting document from November, 2014, stated that repairs must be “carried out immediately in order to prevent possible harm to residents.” But it is unclear if meaningful remediation efforts have taken place.  An internal document reveals that many of the identified problems would require serious structural work to the houses.

In November, Tetra Tech, another U.S.-based firm, received a $5 million contract to oversee the repair efforts. The firm has been performing structural evaluations of the houses in anticipation of a future legal suit. One draft document, prepared by Tetra Tech and obtained by HRRW, details 29 instances “of material substitutions, field design changes, lack of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and lack of quality workmanship.”

Dean Baker
Truthout, March 30, 2015

Dean Baker
Al Jazeera America, March 30, 2015

Mark WeisbrotAl Jazeera America, March 30, 2015

Yes, once again Robert Samuelson stresses the urgency of cutting Social Security and Medicare. It's the usual pox on both your houses story, but as usual he leaves his thumb on the scale. In discussing the Republicans' proposals to save money by cutting spending, he says that their budget saves $2 trillion over the next decade (@ 0.9 percent of GDP) by repealing Obamacare. This is not quite right. The Republican proposal repeals the spending in the program, but leaves most of the revenue that paid for the spending in place. 

In making the case for cutting Social Security and Medicare he suggests raising the retirement age to 69 or 70 over 15 years. By comparison, in 1983 the normal retirement age was raised from 65 to 67 over a 40 year period, so Samuelson is proposing a very abrupt increase in the retirement age. (The increase from age 66 to 67 is being phased in over the years 2016-2022, so Samuelson's rise would overlap with this rise.) More accurately, this should be thought of as a cut in benefits of almost 20 percent over a 15 year period. In addition, Samuelson also wants to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 69 or 70, implying large increases in health care costs for people between age 65 and 70.

The median retiree will have virtually no income other than Social Security in retirement. The average Social Security benefit is a bit less than $1,300 a month, yet somehow Samuelson views these cuts as being progressive. He does also want to cut benefits for "wealthier" retirees. In order to get any notable savings it would be necessary to have a cutoff for benefit cuts at around $40,000 of non-Social Security income. This gives a whole new definition to the term "wealthier."

For some reason economics reporters and economists seem to have a really hard time understanding deflation. There are two lessons for today. First, we get the standard lesson: crossing zero means nothing, the problem is too low a rate of inflation.

As I've written a few thousand times, inflation is an aggregate measure that combines price changes of hundreds of thousands of goods and services. When the inflation rate gets near zero it means that than many of the price changes are already negative. Going from a near zero positive to a near zero negative just means a higher ratio of negative price changes to positive price changes (or the negative ones are larger). How can going from 45 percent negative price changes to 55 percent negative price changes be a disaster? That makes zero sense.

Furthermore, since these are all quality adjusted price changes it may not even be the case that prices are actually falling for the goods themselves. The price index for new cars in the United States is less than 3 percent above its 1998 level, yet the average new car costs considerably more in 2015 than it did in 1998. The difference is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) attributes most of the price rise to quality improvements. The story would be even more dramatic with computers where BLS reports that prices have fallen by more than 95 percent since 1997. Does anyone believe that an economy faces disaster just because its cars and computers are getting better?