BEN BERNANKE’S speech on Tuesday got all the attention, but the speech later that day by Bill Dudley, head of the New York Fed, is more intriguing. In it he analyses the macroeconomic origins of the global imbalances that precipitated the crisis and prescribes the policy path forward.

He does so in logical, crisp and accessible language. Mr Dudley is, however, still a central banker, which means he must be translated, especially when it comes to the delicate subject of the dollar. In a nutshell, Mr Dudley tells us that aggressively easy monetary policy is essential to both the cyclical recovery and to a structural rebalancing of the American economy away from consumption and toward exports. This process will go more smoothly for everyone if emerging market economies (EMEs) cooperate and let their exchange rates appreciate (i.e. let the dollar fall), but absent such cooperation, don’t expect the Fed to change course.

Mr Dudley starts with some striking statistics. EMEs now account for 38% of world GDP, up from 23% in 1990, and 59% of world growth in the 2000s, up from 25% in the 1980s. Since 2007, the BRICS’ GDP has risen 31%; the G7’s, just 1%.

He retells the familiar story of how global imbalances bred the financial crisis, but with a twist. In the past, the Federal Reserve and Mr Bernanke (here and here) have denied culpability for the credit bubble, blaming instead the influx of excess savings from EMEs into developed-world assets. Mr Dudley, in effect, says both bear the blame:

[T]he combination of rapid gains in production capacity and relatively repressed consumption in the EME world helped foster a global deficiency of demand relative to supply. In these circumstances, the United States and many other industrialized economies had to sustain domestic demand at elevated levels in order to achieve “full employment” and prevent deflation. For the United States, the consequence was elevated consumption facilitated by asset price inflation, easy underwriting standards for credit and structural budget deficits.

 

 
leadimage

10/09/10 Stockholm, Sweden – Just this week an inevitable milestone came to pass, the Federal Reserve surged ahead of Japan as the second largest owner in the world of US debt… second only to China. Of course, the funds used to generate that massive debt position have only been made possible through the smoke and mirrors of quantitative easing. Zero Hedge notes this, and two other generally under-reported US debt facts, in a recent post.

Here’s the short version:

“#1: The US Fed is now the second largest owner of US Treasuries… Setting aside the fact that this is abject lunacy, this policy is trashing our currency which has fallen 13% since June… as in four months ago…

“#2: ‘There are only about $550 billion of Treasuries outstanding with a remaining maturity of greater than 10 years.’ [...] the US has entered a debt spiral: a time in which fewer and fewer investors are willing to lend to us for any long period of time… at the exact same time that we must roll over trillions in old debt and issue an additional $100-150 billion in NEW debt per month in order to finance our massive deficit… So we’re talking about TRILLIONS of old debt coming due in the next decade…

“#3: The US will Default on its Debt… either that or experience hyperinflation. There is simply no other option. We can NEVER pay off our debts. To do so would require every US family to pay $31,000 a year for 75 years… Obviously that ain’t going to happen…”

The last point should be no surprise to any regular…Read more…

Related Article:

 

Let’s Party Like It’s 1929!
By Rich Galen
As if the “Recovery Summer” charade weren’t embarrassment enough for the Obama administration, there came the announcement on Wednesday that the recession had actually ended in June 2009. Still more excellent economic news from the Obama White House: Larry Summers will be leaving his post as director of the National Economic Council. And speaking of people we hope never to see again, Jimmy Carter was featured on CBS’ 60 Minutes last Sunday and renewed the nation’s negative opinion of him.

The Delphi Disaster: An Economic Horror Story Obama Won’t Tell
By Michelle Malkin
As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer “rescue” funds, the White House schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. Nonunion pensioners who devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM lost all of their health and life insurance benefits. The Delphi workers sued and will have their day in court on Sept. 24. They are not asking for a bailout. They are simply asking for fair treatment under the rule of law.

 

I’ve seen some eye-poppin’, credulity-stretchin’ accounts in my time. The report “The Budgetary Impact and Subsidy Costs of the Federal Reserve’s Actions During the Financial Crisis,” just released by the Congressional Budget Office, ranks with the most extreme. It claims that the budgetary cost (which corresponds roughly to expected losses) of the Fed rescue facilities launched during the financial crisis is approximately $21 billion. Moreover, its peculiar formulation (”fair value subsidies”) conveys the misleading impression that this was the extent of the central bank’s support to the financial services industry.

In a (weak) defense to the CBO, my understanding (and readers are welcome to correct me) is that the office is tasked to execute analyses as they are framed. In other words, if the CBO is asked to opine on a particular matter, it has to deal with only the questions posed to it. It is not permitted to tweak the inquiry or broaden the focus to provide more insight.

The closest thing to a statement of scope and objectives comes in the Preface and it is remarkably thin. The most important remark:

The report also presents estimates of the risk-adjusted (or fair-value) subsidies that the Federal Reserve provided to financial institutions through its emergency programs.

CBO Issues Fed-Flattering Propaganda

 

The geniuses are at it again: Hide your wallet!

AP
GM wants to re-enter auto financing

Tom Krisher
Tuesday May 11, 2010

DETROIT (AP) — General Motors Co. executives want their own auto-financing arm so they can offer more competitive lease and loan deals, according to a person briefed on their plans.

The executives want to buy back the auto financing business from the former GMAC Financial Services or start their own operations, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the plans have not been made public.

A top GM executive has told dealers about the plans, the person said.

GM sold a 51 percent stake in GMAC Financial Services in 2006 when it was starved for cash. The new owners, led by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, ran into trouble in 2008 with bad mortgage loans and had to be bailed out by the federal government, which now owns 56 percent of the company.

Earlier this month, GMAC changed its name to Ally Financial.

GM dealers say that since GMAC is responsible for making its bottom line look good, it is less likely to lose money by offering to finance sweet lease deals or zero-percent financing. A GM-owned auto financing business would be more likely to “take a bullet” for the company to sell more cars and trucks, the person said.

Competitors, such as Ford Motor Co. or Toyota Motor Corp., control their own financing arms.

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said Tuesday that the company would not comment on speculation….

 


Summers Abandons His Economic Views – Editorial, Wall Street Journal

Even when we disagree with Larry Summers, we’ve long thought of him as a better economist than politician. But after reading his nearby letter to the editor, we may have to reverse our judgment. The senior White House aide is abandoning his former economic views to serve the Democratic Party’s current political purposes.

Earlier this week, we quoted an essay by Mr. Summers published in 1999 in which he explained that unemployment insurance creates an incentive for workers to delay going back to work. The share of America’s jobless out of work for 27 weeks or more reached a new record of 44.1% in March, and Mr. Summers’s past writing offers one likely reason.

The paragraph we quoted followed a subhead, “What Causes Long-Term Unemployment?” Here is how the passage reads in more complete form:

“To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance. These government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment in two ways.

“First, government assistance increases the measure of unemployment by prompting people who are not working to claim that they are looking for work even when they are not. The work-registration requirement for welfare recipients, for example, compels people who otherwise would not be considered part of the labor force to register as if they were a part of it. This requirement effectively increases the measure of unemployed in the labor force even though these people are better described as nonemployed—that is, not actively looking for work. . . .

“The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a ‘reservation wage’—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase that reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.”

In his letter, Mr. Summers says we took his words out of context, but readers will note that he doesn’t deny that he linked jobless insurance with longer periods of joblessness. Mr. Summers skips over that point and instead resorts to that all-purpose economic explanation known as “aggregate demand.” In 2010 as opposed to 1999, the harmful incentive effects of extending jobless payments to an unprecedented 99 weeks don’t matter. He says the point now is to stimulate the economy by increasing consumer “demand.”

This is worth parsing because it gets to the heart of what’s wrong with Obamanomics. The Summers argument is that increasing unemployment insurance increases aggregate demand and thus reduces unemployment. This is because he and the neo-Keynesians believe that the impact on macroeconomic demand of this jobless spending outweighs the microeconomic harm on individual incentives.

In other words, if government pays people for not working, then more people will work. Subsidize unemployment and you will somehow get less of it. But if this were true, we could lower unemployment even more if we increased jobless benefits to $100,000 a year per person to cause an even greater surge in demand.

 

Larry Summers is reportedly leaving later this year, and Andrew Cockburn reports that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s acutely verbal Chief of Staff is said to be looking for other employment, preferably a high paying job on Wall Street with little work and enormous perks and privileges.

This is the sort of thing that one would expect to be happening at the end of the first term of a President, five years into the job. Perhaps that event is being moved up because Obama is likely to be a one term president, in one of the most spectacular flame outs from high, and in retrospect misplaced, expectations since the Segway.

Obama was clearly the wrong man for the job. He might have been the kind of reformer for the good times, when you really do not need him, dedicated to getting the various squabbling parties to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Unfortunately, a crisis demands leadership, and Obama is all fluff in that department. Leaders lead, they do not hold other people up as the leaders, and take them to task for their failure to do the risky things when their leader hides behind a non-existent consensus. I hate to say this, but both Clinton and W were far superior leaders, unfortunately with deeply flawed visions and moral compasses.

The Democrats are most likely looking at a November massacre in the election, unless some event occurs to pull the nation together such as an externally focused crisis.

The problem of course is that if one looks at the alternatives, there are none too attractive in the Republican Party which is also deeply tarnished with the financial corruption that actually came to full flower under their stewardship with George W. And part of the reason that legislation for reform languishes is that the Republicans are openly in the camp of the corporatocracy, and obstructing any nascent reform attempts from a small core of independent minded legislators.

Is it time for a Third Party as some have suggested? Maybe, although it seems more likely to me that it will take a much greater degree of pain and collapse for America to wake up and reform its system, from the Media to Washington to Wall Street. Splinter parties at the extremes appear probable in the short term.

And then who knows what might be slouching towards Pennsylvania Avenue, its moment come round at last?

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/04/failed-presidency-and-country-adrift.html

 

Like most Volkswagens this car is ugly but it works. I hope!

Volkswagen’s $600 car gets 258 mpg — It looks like Ford, Chrysler and GM
missed the boat again!

China  launches $600 car that will get 258 mpg

This $600 car is no toy and is ready to be released in China  next year.

The single seater aero car totes VW (Volkswagen) branding.

Volkswagen did a lot of very highly protected testing of this car in
Germany, but it was not announced until now where the car would make it’s
first appearance.

The car was introduced at the VW stockholders meeting as the most economical
car in the world is presented.

The initial objective of the prototype was to prove that 1 liter of fuel
could deliver 100 kilos of travel.

Spartan interior doesn’t sacrifice safety

The aero design proved essential to getting the desired result. The body is
3.47 meters long and just 1.25 meters wide, and a little over a meter high.
The prototype was made completely of carbon fiber and is not painted to save
weight.

The power plant is a one cylinder diesel positioned ahead of the rear axle
and combined with an automatic shift controlled by a knob in the interior.

Safety was not compromised as the impact and roll-over protection is
comparable to the GT racing cars.

$600 car gets 258 mpg

The Most Economic Car in the World will be on sale next year:

Better than Electric Car 258 miles/gallon: IPO 2010 in Shanghai

This is a single seated car

From conception to production: 3 years and the company is headquartered in
Hamburg  ,  Germany  ..

Will be selling for 4000 yuan, equivalent to US$600..

Gas tank capacity = 1.7 gallons

Speed = 62 74.6 Miles/hour

Fuel efficiency = 258 miles/gallon

Travel distance with a full tank = 404 miles

Volkswagen 258 mpg car on sale in 2010

 

I have mentioned this in the past, but its one of those absurdities that refuses to die:

“Whether it’s a matter of ignorance or greed, people are still buying General Motors stock, even though the company and the government have warned that the shares will someday be worthless.

Investors are picking up millions of shares every day, thinking they’ll profit from what is really a hodgepodge of outdated factories and a pile of debt left behind when the new General Motors Co. exited bankruptcy court protection. Instead, they could end up losing money very quickly. The price of the shares, currently under $1, has ratcheted up or down as much as 50 cents in one day.

On Thursday, investors traded 13.9 million shares, and the stock closed at 85 cents, down 4.1%. The old GM stock had a higher trading volume than big, viable companies like retailer CVS Caremark, banker Capital One Financial Corp and consumer products maker Procter & Gamble.”

Irrational seems to be the standard (and we didn’t even have to write a book to prove it).

Don’t come crying to me when they halt GM trading on a permanent basis.

 

I had a dream the other night. Shopping for a new car, I logged on to a manufacturer’s Web site. I found the model I wanted and clicked on my options. Days later, a deliveryman showed up with the car and the relevant paperwork.

Let’s Eliminate the Car Dealers – Charles Lane, Washington Post

 

How likely is it that Washington will do a better job running GM than the executives who oversaw its decline? Daniel J. Ikenson and Howard Wial finish their debate.

Will Government Motors Do Better Than GM? – Ikenson vs. Wial, LA Times

 

In GM, Wall Street Gets Another Bailout – David Weidner, MarketWatch
How General Motors Lost Its Way – Paul Ingrassia, Wall Street Journal
At GM’s Death Bed, I Find…Joy – Michael Moore, The Daily Beast
When Government Determines Success – Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily
How Washington Blew GM’s Bankruptcy – Michael Levine, Financial Times
Not Betting On GM’s Survival – Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

 

In for a dime, in for a dollar. “The GMAC funding is an illustration of how rapidly the government effort to rescue the U.S. auto industry is escalating in cost and scope.” (WSJ)

GM Borrows $4 Billion From U.S. to Push Loans to $19.4 Billion
General Motors Corp., facing rising cash needs before a June 1 bankruptcy deadline, tapped $4 billion more in U.S. aid to push its total to $19.4 billion.

 

Opinion from The Economist :  http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610871

An Offer You Can’t Refuse

NO ONE who lent money to General Motors (GM) or Chrysler can have been unaware of their dire finances. Nor can workers have failed to notice their employers’ precarious futures. These were firms that barely stayed afloat in the boom and both creditors and employees were taking a punt on their promise to pay debts and generous health-care benefits.

The bet has failed. The recession has tipped both firms into the abyss—together they lost $48 billion last year. Chrysler has entered bankruptcy, from which it may emerge under Fiat’s control (see article). GM could soon follow if efforts to hammer out a voluntary restructuring fail. America’s government, keen to protect workers, is providing taxpayers’ cash to keep the lights on at both firms. But in its haste it has vilified creditors and ridden roughshod over their legitimate claims over the carmakers’ assets. At a time when many businesses must raise new borrowing to survive, that is a big mistake.

Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed. On April 30th, after the failure of negotiations, Chrysler entered Chapter 11. Under the proposed scheme, secured creditors owed some $7 billion will recover 28 cents per dollar. Yet an employee health-care trust, operated at arm’s length by the United Auto Workers union, which ranks lower down the capital structure, will receive 43 cents on its $11 billion-odd of claims, as well as a majority stake in the restructured firm.

The many creditors who have acquiesced include banks that themselves rely on the government’s purse. The objectors have been denounced as “speculators” by Barack Obama. The judge overseeing the case has consented to a quick, “prepackaged” bankruptcy, which seems to give little scope for creditors to argue their case or pursue the alternative of liquidating the company’s assets. In effect Chrysler and the government have overridden the legal pecking order to put workers’ health-care benefits above more senior creditors’ claims, and then successfully argued in court that the alternative would be so much worse for creditors that it cannot be seriously considered.

The Treasury has also put a gun to the heads of GM’s lenders. Unsecured creditors owed about $27 billion are being asked to accept a recovery rate of 5 cents, says Barclays Capital, whereas the health-care trust, which ranks equal to them, gets 50 cents as well as a big stake in the restructured firm. If creditors refuse to co-operate, the government will probably seek to squash them using the same fast-track legal process.

Chapter and verse

The collapse of Detroit’s giants is a tragedy, affecting tens of thousands of current and former workers. But the best way to offer them support is directly, not by gerrymandering the rules. The investors in these firms are easily portrayed as vultures, but many are entrusted with the savings of ordinary people, and in any case all have a legal claim that entitles them to due process. In a crisis it is easy to put politics first, but if lenders fear their rights will be abused, other firms will find it more expensive to borrow, especially if they have unionised workforces that are seen to be friendly with the government.

It may be too late for Chrysler’s secured creditors and if GM’s lenders cannot reach a voluntary agreement, they may face a similar fate. That would establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?

 

Investors and funds are filing motions left and right to stop the transfer of any assets to Chrysler… at least until the company ponies up $6.9 billion in assets to cover their debt obligations.

This thing is already a mess!

The gurus in Washington say that the Chrysler bankruptcy is prepackaged, and it’s going to be fast and easy. Yeah, right. Beware hubris. Like the previous administration thought that the Iraq war was going to be fast and easy.

I practice bankruptcy law, said a friend of mine, and is there a courtroom anywhere in this land that’s big enough to hold all the players in a Chrysler bankruptcy? It’s the first ‘big’ automobile bankruptcy in the U.S. since Studebaker in 1933. There’s no recipe book for doing this. The judge in the case might just have to book Madison Square Garden to have enough space for all the participants. And everyone is entitled to their day in court. Considering the tens of billions of dollars in play, I expect we’ll see many days in court, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. That should take only a few years.

© 2012 New Jersey CFO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha