Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s too bad that so many people in public life aren’t old enough to remember all the way back to 2008. That is the only explanation for the rush to remove down payment minimums for a risk retention requirement on mortgages placed in mortgage backed securities.
This is the topic of an excellent column by Floyd Norris on how the banking and housing industry, with the support of some consumer groups, managed to remove any down payment requirements. The idea was that banks would have to keep a portion of the risk on all but the safest loans, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would not issue bad loans.
However the rules in the Dodd-Frank bill have been watered down so that even loans with no down payment could be put into mortgage pools even though they have more than four times the default risk of loans with 20 percent down payments. It is also worth pointing out that the cost of requiring that banks retain risk on low down payment loans did not mean that people could not get loans without large down payments as often claimed.
In fact, the only issue was whether they would pay somewhat higher interest rates in the form of mortgage insurance. This would add roughly 0.6-0.7 percentage points to the cost of a typical loan, reflecting the higher default risk. This issue has been hugely misrepresented by the banking industry and its allies so that they can freely return to the practices of the bubble years.
It’s too bad that so many people in public life aren’t old enough to remember all the way back to 2008. That is the only explanation for the rush to remove down payment minimums for a risk retention requirement on mortgages placed in mortgage backed securities.
This is the topic of an excellent column by Floyd Norris on how the banking and housing industry, with the support of some consumer groups, managed to remove any down payment requirements. The idea was that banks would have to keep a portion of the risk on all but the safest loans, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would not issue bad loans.
However the rules in the Dodd-Frank bill have been watered down so that even loans with no down payment could be put into mortgage pools even though they have more than four times the default risk of loans with 20 percent down payments. It is also worth pointing out that the cost of requiring that banks retain risk on low down payment loans did not mean that people could not get loans without large down payments as often claimed.
In fact, the only issue was whether they would pay somewhat higher interest rates in the form of mortgage insurance. This would add roughly 0.6-0.7 percentage points to the cost of a typical loan, reflecting the higher default risk. This issue has been hugely misrepresented by the banking industry and its allies so that they can freely return to the practices of the bubble years.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
For those who find it difficult to understand how drugs can be developed without patent protection, the Canadian government has an answer. It paid for the development of an Ebola vaccine. While the vaccine was reportedly 100 percent effective in tests with lab animals, the government did not pay for the testing in humans that would be necessary to market the drugs.
This provides a good example where a government agency was able to finance effective research. (There are many others.) Unless we think that the government somehow cannot pay for useful clinical tests (apparently the argument is the tests are too expensive for the government, it can only afford to pay exorbitant prices for the drugs themselves), it is difficult to understand an argument against publicly funded research for drugs which would allow them all to be sold at generic prices. This would end the absurdity of people facing life threatening diseases who can’t get needed drugs because patent monopolies make them unaffordable.
For those who find it difficult to understand how drugs can be developed without patent protection, the Canadian government has an answer. It paid for the development of an Ebola vaccine. While the vaccine was reportedly 100 percent effective in tests with lab animals, the government did not pay for the testing in humans that would be necessary to market the drugs.
This provides a good example where a government agency was able to finance effective research. (There are many others.) Unless we think that the government somehow cannot pay for useful clinical tests (apparently the argument is the tests are too expensive for the government, it can only afford to pay exorbitant prices for the drugs themselves), it is difficult to understand an argument against publicly funded research for drugs which would allow them all to be sold at generic prices. This would end the absurdity of people facing life threatening diseases who can’t get needed drugs because patent monopolies make them unaffordable.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That would have been useful background to be included in a NYT article on the European Union’s plans for future emission targets. Many readers may not realize that the countries in the European Union are starting from a much lower emissions level than the United States. This means that reductions will be more costly to achieve.
That would have been useful background to be included in a NYT article on the European Union’s plans for future emission targets. Many readers may not realize that the countries in the European Union are starting from a much lower emissions level than the United States. This means that reductions will be more costly to achieve.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Joe Nocera is anxious to credit shale oil with the recent plunge in oil prices, but our old friend Mr. Arithmetic sees things differently. In his column pronouncing the end of OPEC, Nocera credits the “shale revolution” in North America, which he credits with an additional 3 million barrels a day of production.
While this undoubtedly has put downward pressure on prices, it is not the major cause of price declines as can be easily seen from looking at the projections from before the economic collapse in 2008. The 2007 World Energy Outlook projected output in 2015 of 98.5 million barrels per day (Table 1.3). The most recent projections put production at 92.7 million barrels per day, 5.8 million fewer than had been projected before the slump. This means production has actually grown less rapidly than projected. That is not a good explanation for declining prices.
Obviously the key is on the demand side. The story here is primarily that the collapse has led to less demand for energy than had been projected as world GDP is still far below the levels projected in 2007. It is likely that conservation and the switch to alternative energy sources also played a role in reducing the demand for oil, but clearly a less important one.
The point is that crowning fracking as the killer of OPEC doesn’t make sense, because the numbers don’t support it. And, we still don’t have basic questions answered about the damage of fracking to the surrounding environment. (The frackers won’t reveal the chemicals they use because they claim they are a trade secret. This makes it almost impossible to prove that fracking is responsible for contaminating ground water. The permission to pollute the area surrounding frack sites with impunity is yet another great departure from free market economics when it suits the interests of the rich and powerful.)
The plunge in oil prices is also not especially good news for folks who would rather not see the planet destroyed by global warming. A sane approach would be to impose a tax to offset the drop in prices with the revenue used to promote conservation and clean energy. But that one isn’t likely to be on the political agenda any time soon.
Joe Nocera is anxious to credit shale oil with the recent plunge in oil prices, but our old friend Mr. Arithmetic sees things differently. In his column pronouncing the end of OPEC, Nocera credits the “shale revolution” in North America, which he credits with an additional 3 million barrels a day of production.
While this undoubtedly has put downward pressure on prices, it is not the major cause of price declines as can be easily seen from looking at the projections from before the economic collapse in 2008. The 2007 World Energy Outlook projected output in 2015 of 98.5 million barrels per day (Table 1.3). The most recent projections put production at 92.7 million barrels per day, 5.8 million fewer than had been projected before the slump. This means production has actually grown less rapidly than projected. That is not a good explanation for declining prices.
Obviously the key is on the demand side. The story here is primarily that the collapse has led to less demand for energy than had been projected as world GDP is still far below the levels projected in 2007. It is likely that conservation and the switch to alternative energy sources also played a role in reducing the demand for oil, but clearly a less important one.
The point is that crowning fracking as the killer of OPEC doesn’t make sense, because the numbers don’t support it. And, we still don’t have basic questions answered about the damage of fracking to the surrounding environment. (The frackers won’t reveal the chemicals they use because they claim they are a trade secret. This makes it almost impossible to prove that fracking is responsible for contaminating ground water. The permission to pollute the area surrounding frack sites with impunity is yet another great departure from free market economics when it suits the interests of the rich and powerful.)
The plunge in oil prices is also not especially good news for folks who would rather not see the planet destroyed by global warming. A sane approach would be to impose a tax to offset the drop in prices with the revenue used to promote conservation and clean energy. But that one isn’t likely to be on the political agenda any time soon.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what the NYT told readers, but because of the way it told them, most readers probably did not realize it. The paper had an article on Maine’s gubernatorial race in which it reported that Paul LePage, the incumbent Republican governor, boasts of creating 22,000 private sector jobs during his term of office.
It is not possible to know whether this is a good or bad performance without knowing the size of Maine’s labor force. While most readers would probably not know this statistic offhand, NYT reporters should have the time to look it up. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in January of 2011 there were 490,000 private sector jobs in Maine. This means that the number of private sector jobs has increased by 4.5 percent during Mr. LePage’s term in office.
By comparison, the number of jobs in the country as a whole increased by just under 6.0 percent over this period. This means that Maine has seriously lagged the rest of the country in private sector job creation.
While there may be factors that would slow Maine’s job growth that are beyond the control of the governor, on its face, his job creation record is something he should be apologizing for, not boasting about. Unfortunately, most NYT readers would not recognize this fact.
That is what the NYT told readers, but because of the way it told them, most readers probably did not realize it. The paper had an article on Maine’s gubernatorial race in which it reported that Paul LePage, the incumbent Republican governor, boasts of creating 22,000 private sector jobs during his term of office.
It is not possible to know whether this is a good or bad performance without knowing the size of Maine’s labor force. While most readers would probably not know this statistic offhand, NYT reporters should have the time to look it up. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in January of 2011 there were 490,000 private sector jobs in Maine. This means that the number of private sector jobs has increased by 4.5 percent during Mr. LePage’s term in office.
By comparison, the number of jobs in the country as a whole increased by just under 6.0 percent over this period. This means that Maine has seriously lagged the rest of the country in private sector job creation.
While there may be factors that would slow Maine’s job growth that are beyond the control of the governor, on its face, his job creation record is something he should be apologizing for, not boasting about. Unfortunately, most NYT readers would not recognize this fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It is really bizarre how folks find it so difficult to mention the trade deficit as the obvious source of weak demand in the economy. This is not a debatable point. We have a trade deficit of around $500 billion a year or roughly 3.0 percent of GDP. This is money that is creating demand elsewhere, not in the United States.
If we are going to maintain something like full employment then we need to make up this $500 billion in lost demand with higher than normal expenditures from another sector, which means either government spending, investment, residential construction, or consumption. This is all simple GDP accounting, the stuff everyone learns in intro economics. This is about an accounting identity, it is not a theory that can be debated. It is by definition true.
In the last decade we made up the shortfall in demand with consumption driven by ephemeral housing equity created by the housing bubble and by a boom in housing construction. In the late 1990s, when the deficit first exploded, the gap was filled by demand generated by the stock bubble.
Now, with no bubbles in the economy, we are facing a $500 billion shortfall in demand due to the trade deficit. But no one seems able to talk about it.
Today’s culprit is Matt O’Brien. In a mostly good piece about the death of inflation (we’ll have to talk about the claims of overstated inflation later) O’Brien explains the cause:
“Well, it’s the crisis, stupid. Households can’t or won’t borrow, even though interest rates are zero, because they’re still trying to pay down their old debts. That means growth is weak, and price pressure is too.”
This one doesn’t work because households are in fact borrowing. Consumption is actually quite high as a share of disposable income or GDP (pick your denominator). It’s not quite as high as it was at the peak of the housing or stock bubbles, when it was being spurred by trillions of dollars of ephemeral wealth, but it is far higher than at any point in the post war period until the end of the 1990s.
In other words, it makes zero sense to blame the ongoing weakness of the economy on weak consumption. It just ain’t so. While investment is not booming, it is actually above its 2005 level as a share of GDP, which means it is not especially weak either. We can say we need larger government budget deficits (fine by me), but the deficit is also not especially low by post-war standards.
The obvious culprit in the story is the unmentionable trade deficit. In the standard textbook story, rich countries like the United States (and Europe and Japan) are supposed to be running trade surpluses with fast growing developing countries like China and India. The idea is that capital should be flowing to the countries that can use it better.
That story did reasonably well describe the world in the 1990s until the East Asian financial crisis. The botched bailout (brought to you by the I.M.F. and the U.S Treasury Department) reversed these flows in a big way, setting the stage for the global imbalances were see today.
It should be possible for reporters to talk about the trade and deficit and its causes. What’s the problem here, will the NSA throw people in jail for jeopardizing national security?
It is really bizarre how folks find it so difficult to mention the trade deficit as the obvious source of weak demand in the economy. This is not a debatable point. We have a trade deficit of around $500 billion a year or roughly 3.0 percent of GDP. This is money that is creating demand elsewhere, not in the United States.
If we are going to maintain something like full employment then we need to make up this $500 billion in lost demand with higher than normal expenditures from another sector, which means either government spending, investment, residential construction, or consumption. This is all simple GDP accounting, the stuff everyone learns in intro economics. This is about an accounting identity, it is not a theory that can be debated. It is by definition true.
In the last decade we made up the shortfall in demand with consumption driven by ephemeral housing equity created by the housing bubble and by a boom in housing construction. In the late 1990s, when the deficit first exploded, the gap was filled by demand generated by the stock bubble.
Now, with no bubbles in the economy, we are facing a $500 billion shortfall in demand due to the trade deficit. But no one seems able to talk about it.
Today’s culprit is Matt O’Brien. In a mostly good piece about the death of inflation (we’ll have to talk about the claims of overstated inflation later) O’Brien explains the cause:
“Well, it’s the crisis, stupid. Households can’t or won’t borrow, even though interest rates are zero, because they’re still trying to pay down their old debts. That means growth is weak, and price pressure is too.”
This one doesn’t work because households are in fact borrowing. Consumption is actually quite high as a share of disposable income or GDP (pick your denominator). It’s not quite as high as it was at the peak of the housing or stock bubbles, when it was being spurred by trillions of dollars of ephemeral wealth, but it is far higher than at any point in the post war period until the end of the 1990s.
In other words, it makes zero sense to blame the ongoing weakness of the economy on weak consumption. It just ain’t so. While investment is not booming, it is actually above its 2005 level as a share of GDP, which means it is not especially weak either. We can say we need larger government budget deficits (fine by me), but the deficit is also not especially low by post-war standards.
The obvious culprit in the story is the unmentionable trade deficit. In the standard textbook story, rich countries like the United States (and Europe and Japan) are supposed to be running trade surpluses with fast growing developing countries like China and India. The idea is that capital should be flowing to the countries that can use it better.
That story did reasonably well describe the world in the 1990s until the East Asian financial crisis. The botched bailout (brought to you by the I.M.F. and the U.S Treasury Department) reversed these flows in a big way, setting the stage for the global imbalances were see today.
It should be possible for reporters to talk about the trade and deficit and its causes. What’s the problem here, will the NSA throw people in jail for jeopardizing national security?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The movie Kill the Messenger has brought to new attention to charges that the CIA was involved in drug smuggling in the 1980s. The central allegation is that the CIA at least looked the other way, as its allies in arming the Contras trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan government smuggled large amounts of cocaine into the United States. Jeff Leen, the Post’s assistant managing editor for investigations, took up the issue in the Post’s Outlook section today.
Leen is essentially dismissive of the charges, at one point telling readers:
“The first thing I looked for was the amount of cocaine that the story said ‘the CIA’s army’ had brought into the country and funneled into the crack trade. It turned out to be relatively small: a ton in 1981, 100 kilos a week by the mid-1980s, nowhere near enough to flood the country with crack.”
For those not familiar with the price of cocaine in the mid-1980s, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported (Figure 1) that the price for major wholesalers was around $100 a gram, while the price for users was between $200-$300 gram. (Prices did fall sharply toward the end of the decade.) This means that the flow of 100 kilos a week would have had a wholesale value of around $10 million and a retail value between $20-$30 million. That amounts to over $500 million a year at the wholesale level and between $1.0-$1.5 billion at the retail level.
Addendum:
I will give some additional context for the “relatively small” drug trade. relative to today’s economy, the cocaine would be worth between $4.0-$6 billion a year at the retail level. It is also enough to supply 100,000 users with a gram of cocaine a week.
Correction:
The text has been corrected — thanks ltr.
The movie Kill the Messenger has brought to new attention to charges that the CIA was involved in drug smuggling in the 1980s. The central allegation is that the CIA at least looked the other way, as its allies in arming the Contras trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan government smuggled large amounts of cocaine into the United States. Jeff Leen, the Post’s assistant managing editor for investigations, took up the issue in the Post’s Outlook section today.
Leen is essentially dismissive of the charges, at one point telling readers:
“The first thing I looked for was the amount of cocaine that the story said ‘the CIA’s army’ had brought into the country and funneled into the crack trade. It turned out to be relatively small: a ton in 1981, 100 kilos a week by the mid-1980s, nowhere near enough to flood the country with crack.”
For those not familiar with the price of cocaine in the mid-1980s, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported (Figure 1) that the price for major wholesalers was around $100 a gram, while the price for users was between $200-$300 gram. (Prices did fall sharply toward the end of the decade.) This means that the flow of 100 kilos a week would have had a wholesale value of around $10 million and a retail value between $20-$30 million. That amounts to over $500 million a year at the wholesale level and between $1.0-$1.5 billion at the retail level.
Addendum:
I will give some additional context for the “relatively small” drug trade. relative to today’s economy, the cocaine would be worth between $4.0-$6 billion a year at the retail level. It is also enough to supply 100,000 users with a gram of cocaine a week.
Correction:
The text has been corrected — thanks ltr.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
