Video: El-Erian, Buiter, Warsh, etc. on Economic Growth

This is another excellent panel from the Milken Institute Conference. It has a somewhat more investment focus than the previous one posted with discussion/predictions on the Eurozone (Greece in or out), elections, interes rates, etc.

How Some U.S. States Subsidize Other States

With the political battle over government spending raging across the globe the story of how some U.S. states are subsidizing others is getting more attention.

Here is a good post on this topic from the NY Times Economix blog with several useful links, as well as the below chart showing how much extra federal spending each state receives beyond each federal tax dollar paid into the federal government by that same state's taxpayers.

(click to enlarge)

And here is a map plotting the above data.

(click to enlarge)

From the chart and map you can see that in 2005 the state of New Mexico received back over twice the amount of money it paid into the federal government. 

In contrast, the state of New Jersey received $0.61 back on every dollar it paid into the federal government. 

In short, the New Jerseyans are subsidizing the New Mexicans via tax transfers conducted at the federal level.

Another observation is that just 17 states received back less than what they paid in while 32 received more back (Rhode Island received back exactly what it paid in). In other words, a minority of states are subsidizing the majority.

More from the NY Times:

Readers contemplating the table will discover in it a certain paradox — that those residents who most often denounce big government and call for sharp cuts in government spending often benefit themselves from such spending or live in regions that receive significant government support. This was also noted by the Tax Foundation. In presenting the data in the form of a geographic map, the foundation wryly observes: 

As you can see from the map, states that get the “worst deal” — that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paid — are generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these “donor” states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the “best deal” are lower-income states in the Midwest and South with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.

In other words, there is correlation between the above map and the below map which shows general U.S. Presidential voting patterns for Republicans (dark red solidly Republican, light red leans Republican) and Democrats (dark blue solidly Democrat, light blue leans Democrat), and white states a toss up.

Bottom line: the subject of some states, which primarily vote Democrat in the Presidential election, subsidizing Republican voting states is a topic that could generate significant political friction in the years ahead.

Video: Simon Johnson's White House Burning

Video: Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost - How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It

Note to video departments everywhere that the below video is a fantastic way to show a presenter and his/her slides.

h/t Barry

Will the Next Decade Be Dominated by America?

'Tis the season for predictions and STRATFOR's George Friedman has come up with a whopper.

The first chapter of his new book has been posted here. The main provocative claims is that the American 'Empire' will continue to be dominant over the next decade.

Will it? Here are a couple comments on Friedman's chapter:

First, I would take some issue with simplifying the Great Depression down to having originated in Germany. The role of Germany in the Great Depression does actually deserve more popular credit than it receives, but the scholarly consensus would not agree with Friedman's assertion that its "roots" reside in Germany.

Second, on his main argument, the IMF is projecting that China's economy will surpass the U.S.'s (on a purchasing power parity basis) in just five years in 2016. The EU economy is already larger than the U.S.'s. and has blocked U.S. mergers (e.g., GE's attempted acquisition of Honeywell).

Yes Europe has problems, and yes China may be experiencing the Mother of All Bubbles. But for Friedman to argue that the U.S.'s relative power in the next decade will be anything like it has been over the past 20 years seems incredibly optimistic and naive. The U.S. would appear to be at a significant cyber-warfare disadvantage compared to China at present (Update: within a few hours of this post STRATFOR's website was hacked and private client data posted on the internet). The U.S. has also failed to demonstrate that it can keep the nuclear weapons genie in the bottle in potentially hostile parts of the world. China is developing its first world class navy in 600 years. In short, examples abound of the U.S.'s relative power weakening.

Friedman writes about the U.S.'s need for a regional strategy. One interesting and rarely discussed possible outcome of the fiscal crunch facing America is the potential for unprecedented regional infighting inside the United States. For example, how difficult is it to imagine Texans questioning whether their tax dollars should continue subsidizing Maine, Oregon and Vermont? Or Californians funding Sarah Palin's Alaska?

(click to enlarge)

This is the exact argument which is taking place in Europe right now between Germany and Greece. Yes, there are large differences between American and European social cohesion. But I would not be surprised to see growing regionalization within the U.S. as a key emergent theme in the years to come. In the absence of existential external threats the justification for an extremely powerful and centralized U.S. federal state is more open to question.

Overall, Friedman's chapter is written from the perspective of an all-powerful emperor and not from one bearing witness to the paralysis which has gripped Congress in recent years. I'm also not sure he has a firm grasp on some of the social-demographic shifts which are emerging nor the current economic/financial situation.

In short, this chapter seems more a treatise on how Friedman would prefer to see the world than how it actually is.

Video: Jeffrey Sachs Full LSE Talk on The Price of Civilization

What If We Paid Off The Debt? The Secret U.S. Government 'Life After Debt' Report

This secret report was obtained through a Freedom-of-Information request by NPR:

The copy of Life After Debt we obtained reads "PRELIMINARY AND CLOSE HOLD OFFICIAL USE ONLY." 

The report was intended to be included in the official "Economic Report of the President" — the final one of the Clinton administration. But in the end, people above Jason Seligman decided it was too speculative, too politically sensitive. So it was never published.

Here's more:

The report is called "Life After Debt". It was written in the year 2000, when the U.S. was running a budget surplus, taking in more than it was spending every year. Economists were projecting that the entire national debt could be paid off by 2012. 

This was seen in many ways as good thing. But it also posed risks. If the U.S. paid off its debt there would be no more U.S. Treasury bonds in the world. 

"It was a huge issue.. for not just the U.S. economy, but the global economy," says Diane Lim Rogers, an economist in the Clinton administration.

The U.S. borrows money by selling bonds. So the end of debt would mean the end of Treasury bonds. 

But the U.S. has been issuing bonds for so long, and the bonds are seen as so safe, that much of the world has come to depend on them. The U.S. Treasury bond is a pillar of the global economy.

Banks buy hundreds of billions of dollars' worth, because they're a safe place to park money. 

Mortgage rates are tied to the interest rate on U.S. treasury bonds. 

The Federal Reserve — our central bank — buys and sells Treasury bonds all the time, in an effort to keep the economy on track. 

If Treasury bonds disappeared, would the world unravel? Would it adjust somehow?
"I probably thought about this piece easily 16 hours a day, and it took me a long time to even start writing it," says Jason Seligman, the economist who wrote most of the report.
It was a strange, science-fictiony question. 

Full story and audio clip here.

h/t Barry.

Quote of the Day: Paging Mr. Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell

Putting aside his controversies for a moment, the below words Oliver Cromwell used during his address to the Long Parliament in 1653 feel appropriate for today:

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining among you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man among you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? 

Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defiled this sacred place and turned the Lords temple into a den of thieves by your immoral principles and wicked practices. Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You who were deputed by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God`s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. 

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves, be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

Are there any politicians out there today who can deliver similar words with conviction and credibility?

Video: Raise the Debt Ceiling Rap

A little late to spot this one, but it's well done and will be relevant again in a few months time when the debt ceiling vote comes up again.

The Root of All Sovereign-Debt Crises (and How to Prevent Them)

A good read and interesting suggestion from Professor Amar Bhidé and Nobel Prize Winner Edmund S. Phelps on how to put a permanent end to sovereign debt crises.

Chart of the Day: U.S. Debt Ceiling Over Last 30 Years

Why Bankrupt America Needs a Third Political Party

From Boston University Professor Laurence Kotlikoff:

The Republicans and Democrats have done a terrible job of managing our country and economy, transforming the American dream into a nightmare. They’ve squandered our youth and wealth in endless wars we couldn’t win, and spent six decades running an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, racking up huge official and unofficial debts for our children to pay. 

By some measures, the U.S. is now in worse fiscal shape than Greece. True, our official debt is a much smaller percentage of economic output. But our unofficial debt is much larger. The unofficial debt includes primarily the obligation to pay 78 million baby boomers roughly $40,000 a head each year of their very long retirements in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. To get our overall fiscal gap under control, the U.S. must cut spending or raise tax revenue by $20 trillion over the next decade, far more than either the president wants or the House Republicans seek.

Full must read op-ed at Bloomberg.

Video: 60 Minutes on High Frequency Computerized Trading

Can the U.S. Government Stop Silk Road and Bitcoin?

No sooner than a week after widespread news broke describing Silk Road, a website which some are calling the Amazon.com of online illegal drugs, we have two U.S. Senators seeking to pull-the-plug on the site and the peer-to-peer virtual currency used to pay for drugs called Bitcoin.

ArsTechnica has a nice summary of Bitcoin:

Bitcoin is a virtual currency, designed to allow people to buy and sell without centralized control by banks or governments, and it allows for pseudonymous transactions which aren't tied to a real identity. In keeping with the hacker ethos, Bitcoin has no need to trust any central authority; every aspect of the currency is confirmed and secured through the use of strong cryptography. 

Over the last few months, Bitcoin's value has risen by an order of magnitude as the sagas of Wikileaks and Anonymous (among others) have highlighted the limits of a financial system which relies on centralized intermediaries. With a current estimated market capitalization of about $100 million, Bitcoin has recently graduated from a theoretical techno-anarchic project patronized by libertarians and hackers to a full-fledged currency prompting comment from technologists and economists. At the time of this writing, one Bitcoin (BTC) is worth about US$15.

Here's the original Bitcoin white paper published by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Can the U.S. Government Stop Silk Road and Bitcoin?

Government has had success shutting down centrally managed peer-to-peer services, like Napster. However, 'pure' peer-to-peer sites like Gnutella and Tor, have proven more difficult. Data and services can simply move from a server in one country to another, and pure peer-to-peer is widely distributed by it's very nature. In short, it could prove extremely difficult for the DEA to take down Silk Road.

Bitcoin, however, does link back to actual bank accounts, which perhaps leaves more room for the government to maneuver.

I should have more to say on Bitcoin in the not too distant future.

Video: U.S. Debt Limit Cartoon

Time for the U.S. to Sell Fort Knox Gold?

Some members of Congress and economists are saying it's time to cash-in on the appreciation of the U.S.'s vast gold holdings, which were recently valued at $370 billion.

From the Washington Post:

Although the country does not use the gold for anything, Treasury officials believe that selling it could create the impression of desperation, and thereby rattle the markets. Inert though it may be, the mountain of hidden gold may serve an indefinable psychological function.

Selling it during a budget crunch would seem a sure bet to incite derision. The satirical newspaper The Onion recently ran a story in which President Obama vowed to balance the budget through spending cuts, tax increases and a daring midnight heist of Fort Knox. (“I’ve got the blueprints and I think I found a way out through a drainage pipe.”) 

Of course, Gordon Brown's U.K. government had a similar idea about selling England's gold, and we've seen how well that worked out.

Outrage of the Week: FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker Cashes-In

Shameful

Federal Communications commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who just four months ago voted in favor of the hugely controversial merger between Comcast and NBC, announced this week that she planned to join the lobbying office of Comcast.

From the Washington Post:

Baker stood out among the FCC’s five commissioners for criticizing the merger review process for taking too long. She said the agency attached too many conditions to the deal. Among them, she opposed holding Comcast accountable to Internet access rules and the sharing of content with new online distributors such as Netflix and YouTube. She said those Internet television platforms were too new and that the market for online video was competitive and still forming. 

The deal was approved in January by the FCC and Justice Department, forming a media behemoth that controls a bevy of television and movie assets along with the largest number of U.S. home Internet and cable subscriptions.

Also of note, Meredith Attwell Baker is a Republican who was appointed to the F.C.C. by President Obama two years ago. On the endemic problem of regulatory capture, here's The Future of Capitalism:

In a better world, this would be a hot political issue for a politician to seize on. But because it's such a bipartisan problem — both Republicans and Democrats cash out through the revolving door — it doesn't get much attention. It's a part of why government gets bigger, though, because for the politicians and regulators the incentives are there to make more complex rules and laws that they can then earn money helping companies to either comply with or get around.

Meredith Attwell Baker is just the latest example of the pervasive 'go into government to cash-in' culture which has poisoned public service in the U.S. Baker's shameful move is nothing new, but she does earn extra outrage kudos for brazenly waiting a scant four months before making such a blatant ethical affront.

Some may wonder whether it's right to cast shame on Attwell Baker? I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect she's not violating any laws or rules. Instead one could argue that she is simply behaving in accordance with the system's incentive structure.

The big problem with taking this view is that regulatory capture is a very difficult problem to address, but one that creates huge costs. Most of the people who are best served to work in the regulatory arena naturally come, and can most easily find later employment in, the industries they regulate. Until a systemic solution is devised accountability has to be maintained at the individual level, and that means shaming the shameful.

As the regulatory revolving door leading in-and-out of industry keeps going around, and around, and around, and as fiscal deficits keep piling higher, can there be any doubt that we're simply biding our time until the next big crisis?

Graphic: Why Healthcare in America is so Expensive

For a quick chart-view on just how much more Americans pay for healthcare click here.


Via: Medical Billing And Coding

Video: U.S. Government Using Your Tax Dollars to Poison Food

At 1.3 million views and counting, below is the video highlighted in the recent NY Times article on how sugar is toxic.

This is a familiar story for anyone who has read the excellent Omnivore's Dilemma or seen the movie Food, Inc. (both can be found in the 'Good Books and Films' box on the right side of this blog). What may be less familiar is the fact that the U.S. federal government is directly supporting the poisoning of the American public through fructose (corn syrup) subsidies to Iowa farmers.

Please allow me to repeat that: our government is helping to poison us with our own tax money.

While some members of Congress are working to put an end to this deplorable policy, Big Food, the farm lobby and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have thus far successfully fought off cuts to corn subsidies.

A perhaps more fundamental way to get a handle on this problem is by replacing the income tax with a consumption tax (which I've written about here).

As an aside, has anyone out there heard Warren Buffet, Coca-Cola's largest investor, address what Dr. Lustig calls the 'Coca-Cola Conspiracy'? It would seem that Warren is turning a blind eye to the fact that he is financing one of the nation's (and now the world's) fastest growing and most serious health epidemics.

Bin Laden's 9/11 ROI: a 2,514,000:1 return (and counting)

Al-Qaida pulled-off the Sept. 11 attacks for approximately $500,000, according to the 9/11 Commission report. By the end of fiscal 2011 the U.S. will have spent $1.3 trillion, or 9% of the national debt, fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq according to the Center for Defense Information.

But when it's all said and done the total cost of the wars will make Bin Laden's 2,514,000:1 return at the time of his death multiply dramatically. It has been projected by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others that the lifetime cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will run to approximately $3 trillion, or over 20% of current federal public debt, when long-term medical care for the wounded and other costs are factored.

Bringing Bin Laden at long last to justice represents a real victory, and since 9/11 Al Qaeda has not executed a successful terrorist attack on American soil. However, in assessing the economic war Al Qaeda has conducted against the U.S. one can't help but conclude that Osama bin Laden has received fantastic bang-for-the-buck.

Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss

“We, alongside the mujahedeen,” bin Laden was reported to have said in a speech delivered right before the 2004 presidential election, “bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw [from Afghanistan] in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

“Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he added.

How Do You Bring Down the Most Powerful Nation in History?

In his biographies of the Rothschild banking dynasty, as well as The Cash Nexus and The Ascent of Money, Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson makes a strong case that a nation's ability to borrow in the bond market is a reflection, and perhaps key wellspring, of the state's power.

For example, the British Empire's ability to borrow more, and at cheaper rates of interest, was key in its defeat of Napoleonic France. In contrast, her crippling post-WWII debt signaled the dawning of a new era for Britain which consisted of economic malaise, military impotency, and periods of currency instability which resulted in dramatic devaluations of pound sterling in both 1949 and 1967.

Today the U.S. Treasury market is the deepest, most liquid bond market in the world. It also serves as a cornerstone of the U.S. dollar's privileged reserve currency status. In times of panic, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis, the world flees other assets for U.S. dollar denominated securities such as T-bills.

Whether or not the U.S.'s bond market is in fact the key pillar of American power is open to debate. What is irrefutable, however, is that displacing the dominant role played by the U.S. dollar and treasuries in the world's financial system would deal a huge, perhaps even mortal, blow to what remains of America's hegemonic power.

There are perhaps several different approaches, but one surefire way to weaken a nation state's currency and ability to borrow is for its government to run persistently large deficits, just as the U.S. has done for the past decade.

Whether Osama bin Laden's original aim for 9/11 was to entice America into engaging in protracted and costly Eurasian wars is revisionist history or fact is unclear. Regardless, Al Qaeda deserves at lease some of the credit for the U.S.'s large deficits, crippling debt load, and weakening currency.

In short, how the financial blow struck by Bin Laden and Al-Qaida will play out over the long-term for the U.S. remains to be seen.