Cleaning Up the Economy

Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was a remarkable combination of pretty serious wonkishness, has there ever been a convention speech with that much policy detail?, and memorable zingers. Perhaps best of those zingers was his sarcastic summary of Republican case for denying Obama re-election: “We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.” Great line. But is the mess really getting cleaned up? The answer, I would argue, is yes. The next four years are likely to be much better than the last four years, unless misguided policies create another mess. In saying this, I’m not making excuses for the past. Job growth has been much slower and unemployment much higher than it should have been, even given the mess Mr. Obama inherited. More on that later. But, first, let’s look at what has been accomplished. (source: Paul Krugman – NYTimes – 07/09/2012)

On Inauguration Day 2009, U.S. economy faced three main problems. First, and most pressing, there was a crisis in the financial system, with many of the crucial channels of credit frozen; we were, in effect, suffering the 21st-century version of the bank runs that brought on the Great Depression. Second, the economy was taking a major hit from the collapse of a gigantic housing bubble. Third, consumer spending was being held down by high levels of household debt, much of which had been run up during the Bush-era bubble. The first of these problems was resolved quite quickly, thanks both to lots of emergency lending by the Federal Reserve and, yes, the much maligned bank bailouts. By late 2009, measures of financial stress were more or less back to normal. This return to financial normalcy did not, however, produce a robust recovery. Fast recoveries are almost always led by a housing boom, and given the excess home construction that took place during the bubble, that just wasn’t going to happen. Meanwhile, households were trying (or being forced by creditors) to pay down debt, which meant depressed demand. So economy’s free fall ended, but recovery remained sluggish. Now, you may have noticed in telling this story about a disappointing recovery I didn’t mention any of things Republicans talked about last week in Tampa, Fla., effects of high taxes and regulation, the lack of confidence supposedly created by Mr. Obama’s failure to lavish enough praise on “job creators” (what I call “Ma, he’s looking at me funny!” theory of our economic problems). Why the omission? Because there’s not a shred of evidence for GOP theory of what ails our economy, while there’s a lot of hard evidence for the view a lack of demand, largely because of excessive household debt, is real problem. And here’s the good news: The forces that have been holding the economy back seem likely to fade away in the years ahead. Housing starts have been at extremely low levels for years, so the overhang of excess construction from bubble years is long past, and it looks as if a housing recovery has already begun. Household debt is still high by historical standards, but ratio of the debt to G.D.P. is way down from its peak, setting stage for stronger consumer demand looking forward.

And what about business investment? It has actually been recovering rapidly since late 2009, and there’s every reason to expect it to keep rising as businesses see rising demand for their products. So, as I said, the odds are that barring major mistakes, the next four years will be much better than the past four years. Does this mean that U.S. economic policy has done a good job? Not at all. Bill Clinton said of the problems Mr. Obama confronted on taking office, “No one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.” If, by that, he meant the overhang of debt, that’s very much the case. But we should have had strong policies to mitigate the pain while households worked down their debt, as well as the policies to help reduce the debt, above all, relief for underwater homeowners. The policies we actually got were far from adequate. Debt relief, in particular, has been a bust, and you can argue that this was, in large part, because the Obama administration never took it seriously. But, that said, Mr. Obama did push through policies, the auto bailout and the Recovery Act, that made the slump a lot less awful than it might have been. And despite Mitt Romney’s attempt to rewrite history on the bailout, the fact is Republicans bitterly opposed both measures, as well as everything else the president has proposed. So Bill Clinton basically had it right: For all the pain America has suffered on his watch, Mr. Obama can fairly claim to have helped the country get through a very bad patch, from which it is starting to emerge.

“Established Power” vs. “Rising Power”

With U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton making another trip to Asia-Pacific, the U.S. State Department posted her comments from a joint press conference today with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi online. There was one line really caught my eye: «As I have said before, our 2 nations are trying to do something that has never been done in history, which is to write a new answer to the question of what happens when an established power and a rising power meet». Note the term «established power». Very interesting choice of words. In my own very humble opinion, this is the major question of the 21st century and for American foreign policy going forward. I thought the comment shows very clear understanding of the stakes involved on a historical level. The U.S.-China relationship is clearly the world’s most important. Nothing will drive globe’s dynamics more than this. With both nations armed with nuclear weapons, there is an added reason to make sure tensions are kept to a minimum. With flashpoints in South China Sea, Iran, the ongoing chaos in Syria just for starters, the importance of bilateral relationship will only grow as the years pass. Will China’s rise be accompanied by peaceful competition and avoid any of the armed conflict that past great geostrategic changes in world politics usually bring? In my opinion, there is no bigger question for the world to ponder. We know at least from America’s perspective, competition is already here. As Secretary Clinton has already stated in a well warn quote: «We are in a competition for influence with China. Let’s put aside humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in. Let’s just talk straight realpolitik. We are in competition with China». History shows clearly the rise of one power many times does not bode so well for the «established power». What do you think? Your comments below are welcomed…

Link: http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2012/09/05/established-power-vs-rising-power/

Jornada clarificadora

Tanto Angela Merkel en Madrid como Mario Draghi en Fráncfort contribuyeron ayer a asegurar que no habrá marcha atrás en el euro, apoyaron reformas iniciadas por el Gobierno español. El presidente del BCE aportó detalles del nuevo programa de compra de bonos que está dispuesto a instrumentar. Su objetivo es que las cotizaciones en los mercados de deuda pública de las economías más amenazadas, la española e italiana de forma destacada, puedan volver a niveles compatibles con sus propios fundamentos económicos. Y con el propio mantenimiento de una Eurozona en la que no debe haber tales diferencias entre los tipos de interés. La canciller alemana, por su parte, tras reunirse con el presidente Rajoy, envió una señal de apoyo a los esfuerzos españoles y a una eventual petición de asistencia financiera por parte del Gobierno. La reacción de los mercados fue inequívocamente favorable. Si el Gobierno quiere apoyos comunitarios para que costes de financiación no sigan siendo prohibitivos es necesario que admita formalmente esa necesidad y solicite “rescate precautorio”. Esa es la condición necesaria para que el mecanismo previsto por el BCE se ponga en marcha. Ello exigirá el sometimiento a los dictados y a la estricta supervisión europea, de forma similar a como se ha establecido en el rescate al sistema bancario español. Una vez hecha la solicitud, y aceptadas las condiciones, el BCE compraría la deuda pública española con vencimiento a menos de tres años en mercados secundarios por cantidades ilimitadas y el fondo de rescate europeo lo haría con sus correspondientes emisiones en el mercado primario; en este caso por cantidades limitadas. Con esta decisión, el BCE ha cumplido con el compromiso de su presidente de tomar las “medidas extraordinarias” para neutralizar «el riesgo de reversibilidad» del euro. Ha establecido detallada tipología de sus intervenciones posibles, aunque todas ellas en instrumentos de vencimiento a corto plazo y dependiendo de los fundamentos económicos del país que lo solicite. Pero ha situado en los fondos de rescate, vigente y su sucesor, las compras de deuda en el mercado primario, es decir, el de las emisiones directas del Estado. Con ello trata de no violar su mandato, sortear objeciones de algunos representantes de los bancos centrales más intransigentes, entre ellos, Bundesbank. Son medidas radicales, pero necesarias para evitar ese bloqueo de los mercados al que se han acercado prestatarios públicos y privados en los últimos años. Sin embargo, no son por sí solas suficientes para que el crecimiento vuelva a la Eurozona. En la misma jornada en que se hacían estos anuncios se confirmó la recesión del conjunto del área, mucho más aguda y prolongada en el caso español. Al Gobierno le corresponde ahora solicitar esa ayuda, bajo la forma de nueva línea de crédito. Lo ha de hacer con celeridad, con eficacia en negociación de condiciones. No debe jugar con los eufemismos tratando de disfrazar lo que de hecho es un nuevo rescate, por precautorio o suave que se presente. Ahora, las denominaciones importan menos que reducir una precariedad de las finanzas públicas que también tiene impacto manifiestamente adverso en familias y las empresas. En la negociación, España ha de hacer valer el apoyo alemán. Bueno sería, que extendiera ese ejercicio de realismo y abriera un diálogo al respecto con la oposición. Para empezar, harían bien los socialistas en abandonar su posición contraria al rescate. Se trata de tomar decisiones de gran trascendencia, no solo porque afectan al bienestar de españoles, sino porque obligarán a España durante bastante más tiempo que una legislatura. (Editorial – El Pais.com – 07/09/2012)

It’s Time to Ask the People What They Think

(…..) German democracy is suffering under Europe, while Europe is suffering under the national interests of the member states and lack of a sensible political structure. That is current state of democracy and Europe, foundations of postwar Germany. What direction should we take now? Does democracy take priority over Europe? Does Europe take priority over democracy? There is a way to avoid this conflict. Germans can reconcile their democracy with the European integration. To do that, they would need to be asked. Fundamentally, it is a good thing we have a representative democracy, people go to the polls and politicians make decisions between elections. They have the expertise and time to consider how society should best be organized. But sometimes we have to decide on really the big issues and then it is time to ask the people. The current crisis involves a really big question: Is the population prepared to transfer sovereignty to Europe so effective euro policies are possible? This doesn’t mean that we have to rewrite German constitution. It doesn’t mean we have to create a United States of Europe. For time being, it’s enough just to clarify the issue. From a legal perspective, it’s not very easy, but it’s possible. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Debate that would be held in the run-up to such a referendum would already be valuable in itself. Although the focus is fiscal policy, Germany would have to engage in a broader debate over what kind of Europe it wants and what its own role should be. The politicians would first have to make up their minds and then, assuming they make right decision, campaign for greater integration. But this time they would use modern arguments in favor of Europe, such as large shared culture, a greater say in global politics and favorable conditions for German exports. If politicians manage to convince the majority of the population, German government would have a mandate to campaign in Europe for greater integration in terms of the fiscal policy, in exchange for the relinquishing sovereignty. It would have a strong legitimization, a strong mandate for pro-integration policies. That would be the better scenario. The worse scenario, of course, would also be possible but it wouldn’t spell the end of Europe. EU has already survived a French referendum that rejected proposed European constitution. The German government could continue to work to help debt-stricken countries. This would be done in accordance with German budgetary law, which would not be weakened. No matter what happens, democracy is the winner in such a referendum. The cause of European integration could win, but it could also suffer a setback. But this way proper checks and balances are in place. After all, when push comes to shove, democracy ultimately has to come first.

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-why-germany-should-hold-a-referendum-on-europe-a-854000.html