council

Alan Krueger, Top Treasury Economist, Returning To Princeton

October 18, 2010

Alan Krueger, a top economics official at the Department of Treasury, will leave his post next month to return to academia, becoming the latest in a string of departures from the Obama administration’s economic team. A spokesman for the Treasury confirmed that Krueger, assistant secretary for economic policy, would return to Princeton University, where he previously served as a professor of economics. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news late Friday. Krueger has served as the top adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner since the administration took power last year. News of Krueger’s departure comes after several other high-profile announcements of Obama economic advisers resigning amid concerns over the sluggish pace of the recovery. With unemployment remaining stuck at painfully high levels, Democrats are bracing for heavy losses in the upcoming congressional elections. Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, and Christina Romer, head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, resigned earlier this summer. And last month Lawrence Summers, the president’s top economist, announced he would return to Harvard University at the end of this year. Secretary Geithner is the only member of Obama’s top-tier economic advisers to remain with the administration. Krueger’s published work focuses on the economics of education, unemployment, social insurance and other policy decisions. He previously served as the Department of Labor’s chief economist during the Clinton administration.

Read the full article →

Video: Romer ‘Sad’ Politicians Calling Stimulus a `Dirty Word’: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Christina Romer, a University of California-Berkeley professor and former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, discusses fiscal stimulus in an interview with Bloomberg Television special correspondent Willow Bay. Bloomberg’s Deidre Bolton reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Romer ‘Sad’ Politicians Calling Stimulus a `Dirty Word’: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Christina Romer, a University of California-Berkeley professor and former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, discusses fiscal stimulus in an interview with Bloomberg Television special correspondent Willow Bay. Bloomberg’s Deidre Bolton reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Cantor’s Parpart Says Greece, Ireland at Risk of Default: Video

October 15, 2010

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Uwe Parpart, chief strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald Hong Kong Capital Markets, talks about the European debt crisis. Christina Romer, former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said budget woes in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are “something to worry about” as the U.S. economy continues its climb out of recession. Parpart, who also discusses the outlook for the euro and U.S. dollar, speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Global Connection.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Rob Mulligan Tapped to Head Pro-Trade Group’s Washington Office

October 7, 2010

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – October 7, 2010) –   Rob Mulligan , the former top international executive with TechAmerica, has been hired to head the Washington, D.C. office of the United States Council for International Business (USCIB), a leading pro-trade group representing America’s top global companies. He succeeds Timothy Deal , who has retired following 14 years with the organization.

Read the full article →

Larry Summers And The Subversion of Economics

October 7, 2010

The Obama administration recently announced that Larry Summers is resigning as director of the National Economic Council and will return to Harvard early next year. His imminent departure raises several questions: Who will replace him? What will he do next? But more important, it’s a chance to consider the hugely damaging conflicts of interest of the senior academic economists who move among universities, government, and banking.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Sloppy Language and Human Rights

October 6, 2010

Last week, on Oct. 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council decided to establish a Working Group to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights The Working Group will have the mandate to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, on the basis of the principles, main elements and the draft text for a possible convention proposed by the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination. The vote on resolution A/HRC/15/L.22 regarding the open-ended intergovernmental working group was adopted by a vote of 32 in favor, 12 against, and 3 abstentions. The intergovernmental open-ended working group shall meet every year until the fulfillment of its mandate, that it shall have a session of five working days a year and that the first session shall take place no later than May 2011. The result of the vote was as follows: In favor (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and Zambia. Against (12): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Abstentions (3): Maldives, Norway, and Switzerland. Below are some comments from various countries explaining their votes. OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing draft resolution L.22, said that they had the honour to introduce the draft text on behalf of the African Group. The draft resolution called for an international monitoring mechanism on the activities of private military and security companies. The draft resolution called for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental Working Group, which would make recommendations to the Council on how to proceed on this important issue. A legally binding instrument would be able to hold private military and security companies accountable to their international human rights obligations. The use of mercenaries remained a controversial issue and Nigeria felt that clear legal measures needed to be pursued. The open-ended intergovernmental Working Group would be able to help guide this process and make valuable suggestions in this regard. Nigeria also raised a number of oral amendments and concluded by saying that they hoped that this resolution would be adopted by a substantial majority of the Council’s members. EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States took seriously the issue of private military security companies and their accountability. The most effective way to address those concerns would be the better implementation of existing laws, including the international code of conduct, which would oblige the private military security companies to conduct themselves in respect of human rights. The United States was disappointed that their and other delegations’ suggestions were not adequately addressed in the resolution. The United States said that the draft resolution would not produce an effective resolution of those issues and would divert resources, time and attention from more constructive approaches. Furthermore, the fundamental issues had not been sufficiently considered by the resolution, such as its implications on training and recruitment for private military security companies and even United Nations peacekeeping missions. The United States than called for the vote and said it would vote against the draft resolution. ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa was to be thanked for its efforts to accommodate the concerns of all States. Nevertheless, the European Union was unable to support the resolution, as it did not consider that discussion of private military and security companies was appropriate in the Human Rights Council. It was not primarily a human rights question, and therefore went beyond the competence of the Council. The European Union did not support the proposal that a body established by the Human Rights Council should have the responsibility of establishing an international regulatory framework, nor a possible Convention. The European Union would therefore vote against the resolution. PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that its objectives on private military and security companies was to reduce the risk that these companies might violate human rights. Taking into account various consultations, the Government of the United Kingdom had decided to implement robust codes of action for private military and security companies with which it worked and also to ensure adherence to those codes and the rules of international law. In light of these facts, the United Kingdom did not support the call for an international regulatory framework nor a legally binding document on the use of private military and security companies, which it did not consider to be a human rights issue. Furthermore, if the resolution was passed, the United Kingdom said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should find internal resources to pay for the activities of the intergovernmental Working Group. For these reasons, the United Kingdom would vote against the draft resolution. BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the growing trend of using private military security companies to implement various assignments was of a great concern. It was particularly so because their use for military purposes blurred the essential difference between combatant and non-combatant, thus undermining the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Norway believed that development of a new legal instrument in the international law was outside of the Human Rights Council’s mandate and that the Council was not an appropriate forum for such discussion. Norway would therefore abstain from the vote. ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina would vote in favour of the resolution, since it supported inter-Governmental control on security companies, and hoped for a convention in this area. The Human Rights Council needed to look very carefully at the content and scope of such an undertaking, and the Working Group needed to be able to examine all possible inputs for such an aim, not just the documents of the Expert Group. DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Switzerland was in favour of the better regulation of private military and security companies and their use in armed conflict. Switzerland added that it was not against a dialogue on the issue of establishing an international mechanism to monitor and oversee the activities of private military and security companies but this needed to be conducted in an inclusive and balanced manner. In summary, Switzerland regretted that the resolution was not adopted by consensus, which is why it had decided to abstain from the vote. KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan was concerned that the Council had undertaken various new initiatives without taking into account their budgetary implications. In the future sessions of the Council, Japan asked that a way be found to provide members with the information on programme budgetary implications and the sufficient time to study them. Japan chose not to block consensus, but it hoped that additional budgetary needs would be met though savings and the prudent use of the current biennial budget. What I find interesting about the comments from countries like Belgium, USA, Norway, and UK was that they do not consider the issue of private military and security contractors a human rights issue. Yes, of course, some shade their response by saying (Belgium) it is not “primarily” a human rights issue or (United States) that other existing laws are more appropriate for considering the issue. But, at least with respect to private security, if not private military, contractors, where the salient issue is ensuring that people with guns don’t do things they should not do, they are, as a definitional issue, no different from regular military forces. And all states agree (see Geneva Conventions for example) that the actual or potential use of deadly force by them is very much a human rights issue. So judging from the state’s objections listed above one might be forgiven for concluding that at least some countries think that when a state does something wrong it is a human rights concern. But when the private sector does it, it is, perhaps, just business as usual? I can’t help but think of George Orwell’s famed 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language” which focused on the link between sloppy language and sloppy thinking.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Finally, a Tax Compromise That Makes Sense: DeFazio/Kaptur

October 5, 2010

I recently wrote about our perverse individual income tax regulations which, since 1980, have been manipulated literally out of control, to the particular benefit of the wealthiest Americans so that, purportedly, they can ‘trickle down’ their wealth to the poorest, which of course they almost never do. And then I wrote about the tax policy of the Republicans in Congress today, and of the Tea Party candidates, that even with unprecedented individual income inequality would further gut and in some aspects even abandon completely our nation’s fundamental principle of progressive taxation. Sometimes this manipulation takes the form of taxing ordinary income as capital gains. Sometimes, it’s offshore accounts and deferrals that unfairly keep taxes unpaid. Currently, most perverse of all, it’s trying to permanently preserve the Bush tax cuts for the richest American taxpayers, which according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center would cost the federal government an almost unbelievable $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to preserve the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class and lower income earners, while letting those provisions that benefit only people with very high incomes expire on schedule at the end of this year. The Republicans disagree. And thus things sit, even though, unfathomably, under the Republicans’ plan, nearly all of the benefit of the extension they’re seeking would go to the richest 1% of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. The majority of even this amount would go to the richest one-tenth of one percent, the least wealthy of whom have annual incomes of more than $2 million and the average of whom makes more than $7 million a year. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner and his compatriots would have us believe that they are the only ones standing in the way of the complete ruin of American small business and the American family farm. According to Boehner, Republicans will do everything they can to protect these businesses and farms even if it means Republicans have to — have to! — push for continued tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the extremely wealthy. Politically and rhetorically, the Republicans are accomplishing a great sleight of hand by focusing on the small number of small businesses and farms that would be affected, skewing a debate that should be about efficient government spending and tax fairness. Democrats — as we often do — have allowed Republicans to get away with this tactic for too long, and until this past week, I had pretty much given up hope for any thoughtful ‘compromise’, particularly a compromise which would materially help jumpstart our jobless economic recovery. Well, thank God for Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), who just put forward a proposal in the House that I believe no responsible Member of Congress — whether in the House or the Senate, whether Democrat, Republican or Tea Partier — should find objectionable. This proposal, this ‘compromise’, would extend the 2001 tax cuts for all small businesses that might be subject to the top two tax brackets if these businesses can merely certify that they are manufacturing in the U.S., only hiring American citizens, and generally buying domestic content goods and materials. Very simply, each small business would seek certification by meeting the common sense standards that its headquarters and manufacturing are in the United States, its manufacturing uses at least 75% domestic content, it verifies its workers using “E-Verify” and does not use temporary visas, and it has not outsourced its labor or manufacturing overseas. Representatives DeFazio and Kaptur note that companies which would realize this lower tax rate range from software companies to bicycle manufacturers to poultry producers to call centers — and frankly every small business in between. The DeFazio/Kaptur compromise would drive down the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts while more effectively promoting job creation than could ever result from extending the tax cuts for the top two individual tax brackets. This effort to reward small businesses that are operating in the best interests of our nation is not only right for them — it’s right for all American workers and the American economy. Of course companies don’t have to meet these standards, they just wouldn’t benefit from the tax cut extension. As Defazio and Kaptur have sensitively noted, if Congress is going to extend the upper tax brackets to anyone, it should be to small businesses that create American jobs and generally use American goods and materials. Importantly, the consequent loss of tax revenue to the Treasury associated with this proposal would be far outweighed by the long-term benefit to the overall economy from the positive ripple effects of directly stimulating these small businesses. The several “Make it in America” bills which the Democrats have already advanced in the House would, if they ever get through the Senate, be of exceptional benefit to our struggling economy. But DeFazio/Kaptur would, on its own, generate very positive outcomes. (Over time, the ‘answer’ to the Bush tax cuts issue – and to all individual and small business taxation issues – is a tax system with more brackets and thus more stratification, so that the super-rich pay higher rates, instead of a tax system that has a family or small business that earns $250,000 a year paying at the same tax rate as a family or business earning tens of millions of dollars.) Let me close by offering the hope that the wisdom of Reps. DeFazio and Kaptur, and of their like-minded colleagues, can overcome the ongoing nonsensical opposition in Congress to thoughtful tax reform and job creation initiatives — opposition of the sort that we are seeing in the Senate right now related to two bills also with very sound concepts. The first of these bills would give companies — all companies — a break on the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax for creating new jobs in the United States. The other bill, introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), would provide tax breaks to U.S. companies that bring jobs home from abroad, and would end certain tax credits, deductions and deferrals for U.S. companies that move jobs overseas. In the first bill, in order to get such tax relief, a company would simply have to certify that a new U.S. worker is replacing an employee who’d been working overseas. In the second bill, in a very simple way we would, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said, be “taking away the incentives corporations now have to send our jobs overseas, and giving them powerful new incentives to keep American jobs in America.” Yet Republicans say, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that these measures “wouldn’t do anything to create jobs on U.S. shores.” Even more unbelievably, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat for Heaven’s sake, says that these two bills would “put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.” (Of course, Senator Baucus, this is the same United States that today already has the largest trade deficit in the history of the world and real unemployment of 20%.) No surprise, but disappointing nonetheless, on the very same day that the senior Senator from Montana was effectively dissing unemployed American workers in those states which don’t have the luxury of only 4% unemployment (as Montana does), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable of CEOs sent letters to all Senators urging them to vote against both Senate bills, while urging them to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest of American taxpayers. Here’s hoping, Congressman DeFazio and Congresswoman Kaptur, that your proposed ‘tax compromise’ becomes a model for everyone in Congress, starting with John Boehner and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and that even the Democrats’ own Senator Max Baucus sees its wisdom and the wisdom behind the entire Make it in America legislative agenda. It wouldn’t hurt to also see the White House get beyond its own rhetoric and proactively address – head-on – the challenge of job creation in the America, starting with an enthusiastic embrace of DeFazio/Kaptur and its related job creating legislation. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Bernanke, Regulators Testify On Financial Reform Implementation

September 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other top regulators said Thursday their agencies are working vigorously to put into effect the sweeping overhaul of U.S. financial rules and are closely coordinating with each other. Bernanke said the Federal Reserve is working with the Treasury Department to develop ways for regulators to best detect financial dangers that could damage the economy. “It is essential that the (overhaul law) be carried out expeditiously and effectively,” Bernanke testified at a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said, “We are moving as quickly and as carefully as we can.” The regulators said they will collaborate in the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a powerful assembly created by the new law and headed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The council, which has its first meeting on Friday, is charged with keeping watch over the entire financial system. At the same time, Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair and other regulators affirmed the importance of their independence and the value of having divergent views within the council. Unlike the Treasury Department, which is part of the Obama administration, the others are independent regulatory agencies. “Coordination’s going to be extremely important,” Bernanke said. But he also said that independence “is very important for a lot of good reasons,” such as providing “multiple sets of eyes.” Bair said “there will be differences.” Mary Schapiro, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the regulators already have had “lots of rigorous debate behind the scenes” on several issues. The new law, enacted in July, toughens government oversight of Wall Street and banks, provides stronger protections for consumers and gives the Fed and other regulators new powers to restrain risky financial practices. It’s aimed at preventing another financial crisis like the one that struck with force two years ago and plunged the country into a deep recession. The agencies are charged with writing scores of new rules to put meat on the bones of the overhaul law. As sweeping as the law is, Congress left much of the substance of the new rules to the discretion of regulators. The rule writing, just under way, already has drawn intense lobbying from financial industry interests. Bernanke also said the Fed is helping Treasury identify companies that are so big and so interconnected that their failure could take down the entire financial system. Those companies – which are likely to include Wall Street firms, big hedge funds and insurance companies – would be subject to tougher regulations. The law includes a process for shuttering big, complex financial companies using money from investors and loans from Treasury. __ AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Larry Summers Optimistic About Middle Class

September 28, 2010

Top presidential economic adviser Larry Summers declared on Tuesday that the future of the American economy depends on a robust middle class. Speaking to a well-heeled crowd in a ballroom of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, Summers also blamed the nation’s increased income inequality in part of what he called a “breaking down in social norms by people in a position to take.” There were certainly a few sops to the audience, which included senior business leaders gathered by the global management consulting company McKinsey & Company and the Harvard Business Review. “Let no one who dedicates their life to helping a company succeed… doubt that they are engaged in public service, are engaged in a task that addresses our most fundamental national challenge,” Summers said. But his comments about the middle class were unequivocal. “We are very likely to succeed as a nation if we produce steadily rising incomes from a growing middle class over the next generation — almost regardless of whatever else happens,” he said. “We are unlikely to succeed as a nation if we do not provide steadily rising incomes from the middle class — almost regardless whatever else happens.” Summers, who announced last week that he would step down as director of the White House’s National Economic Council by the end of the year, said what Americans want from the economy is pretty simple. “The vast majority of us are parents, and the vast majority of us want nothing more or less than for our children to have the ability to live better than we do.” Polls show that many Americans now harbor doubts that the American Dream is still attainable. As Summers put it: “We are not at a moment where confidence in either the short run or the long run is at an apex.” But, he said: “I am much more optimistic than the American public. Much more optimistic than many of my friends.” Summers spoke of reigniting a healthy economic cycle, and put in a pitch for a series of economic measures proposed by the White House “that should be anything but controversial.” They include major tax incentives for investment and a commitment to research and development. “If we can make the right choices, our best days as competitors and prosperous citizens lie in the future,” he said. Asked about new Census data showing that the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record, Summers said one factor is that “we have a more ruthless economy. There’s breaking down in social norms by people in a position to take.” He noted that income inequality has been getting worse for a while. “All was not well before we had a recession,” he said. “Incomes did not grow from 2000 to 2007, even as the economy was said to be booming.” The fraction of income going to [the] lowest 95 percent of the population was steadily falling, he said. “We can do better as a country.” It was Summers’s second speech of the day. Earlier, he said that the economy will eventually improve and that “people aren’t going to live with their parents forever.”

Read the full article →

Too Big To Fail Reform Vote Delayed

September 28, 2010

Regulators delayed Monday their vote on how to resolve the “too big to fail” problem, saying they needed at least another week to discuss their plan, Reuters reports. At the beginning of the month, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that the resolution of the “too big to fail” problem was “the most important lesson of this crisis.” The Dodd-Frank financial reform, passed in July, gives regulators “resolution authority” to deal with this issue, but certain details of that authority need to be clarified. On Monday, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a new agency created under the July legislation, told the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that it needed more time to draft the rule. With its new “resolution” authority, the FDIC has the ability to seize large, “systemically important” financial institutions if they are in danger of failing. The FDIC would then chip off pieces of the institutions and eventually put those pieces up for sale. Earlier this month, HuffPost’s Shahien Nasiripour reported that the country’s four biggest lenders — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — collectively hold roughly $7.5 trillion in assets, equivalent to more than half of the estimated output of the U.S. economy last year. The FDIC said the seizure and liquidation process, if the government should need to implement it, would resemble bankruptcy proceedings, with senior creditors getting precedence over shareholders, Reuters says. The Financial Stability Oversight Council will meet for the first time on Friday, to discuss the details. If all goes according to plan, the rule will take effect during the start of next year.

Read the full article →

A CONVENIENT TRUTH: Gearing Up For Climate Change Could Supercharge The Job Market

September 28, 2010

(This is Idea No. 5 in Huffington Post’s ongoing America Needs Jobs series; see the introduction .) Could one major crisis be solved…. by solving another? If we’re talking about the nation’s desperately poor job market on the one hand, and the dire threat of climate change on the other, then the answer is: Quite possibly, yes. The solution to both would be an enormous investment in green technology and green jobs — creating a robust “clean energy economy” while reducing carbon emissions; putting millions of Americans back to work while increasing our energy independence; rebuilding our manufacturing base while saving consumers money on their energy bills; and saving the planet. It certainly sounds a heck of a lot cheerier than the alternative. And it makes sense that to genuinely restart the American jobs engine, you’re going to need something really big. Here’s University of Texas economist James Galbraith putting today’s need in historical perspective: The illusion of stimulus was that the economy would “return to normal” with a little “fiscal boost.” The reality is that having exhausted (however imperfectly) the 1940s agenda of middle-class housing, the 1950s highways agenda, the 1960s health-care agenda and the 1990s information-technology bubble, the economy needs a new strategic direction. The clear and pressing priorities are energy and climate change. To address these challenges is a grand task, requiring decades of research, careful planning and many investments, if we are to pass on a livable planet and a decent living standard. Institutionally it will require new lending agencies to assure that the funds needed are available over the long term. And the work can provide jobs for millions, for many years. In a major report issued last year, John Podesta and colleagues at the Center for American Progress described the characteristics of a clean energy economy . Among its attractive qualities, it promises to revive the American middle class: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge. Famed venture capitalist John Doerr is an evangelist for clean energy and one of seven business leaders (also including Bill Gates and Jeff Immelt) who make up the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC). That group is calling for “both robust, public investments in innovative energy technologies as well as policy reforms to deploy these technologies on a large scale.” Here’s how Doerr explains the group’s thinking : Well, today, we are in a worldwide race for the next great global industry. And I believe, and my partners believe, the president and members of Congress believe that is the new clean-energy technologies…. [I]f you look at the top 30 companies around the world in new clean energy — that’s the top 10 in wind, the top 10 in solar, and the top 10 in advanced batteries, the sort that would power our electric vehicles — only four of those 30 are American companies. If I compare that to the Internet, it’s — it’s as if, gosh, Microsoft and Apple and Google and Intel and Yahoo! were all companies headquartered in Europe or Asia, and only Amazon was a company here in the United States. So, we have got to make choices, make decisions now about whether we want to be making our own energy future with American jobs, or if we want to be buying that future from China and other countries around the world. There are many different paths to a green jobs future. The AEIC’s plan, for instance, calls for $16 billion in annual federal government investment in clean energy innovation. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is still pushing for a “Green Bank,” at a cost of $10 billion a year, that would facilitate “significant and sustained investment” in new clean-energy technologies. (Bingaman, however, will be lucky if he can win passage of his bipartisan Renewable Energy Standard bill , written with Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, which would require utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2021.) So what may be the last, best hope for major federal clean-energy investment is a retooled green bank proposal that former FCC chairman Reed Hundt is pushing . Bowing to the political realities — that, as he puts it, “Congress won’t appropriate any money now for any cause, no matter how worthy” and that unemployment is a more urgent priority than clean energy — Hundt is advocating a nonprofit Energy Independence Trust (EIT) that he bills as a massive jobs generator, and that he says would not require appropriations because it would just be borrowing money from the Treasury. At the core of the proposal is Hundt’s embrace of one of the many facts that deficit hawks try to ignore: that despite concerns that high deficits will force the U.S. to increase interest rates, the Treasury is currently able to borrow money — i.e. sell Treasury bills — at stunningly low rates . “You want to take the astoundingly low interest rates that the government has to pay to borrow money, and you want to transfer that to the degree possible to productive, revenue-producing businesses,” Hundt told HuffPost. “There’s a huge unmet need for productive new investment, but the only way to really prime the pump is to put in really cheap capital.” The investments Hundt is talking about, however, need to generate returns. “You want to build toll roads, not roads; dams that produce electricity, where you get paid back after a long period of time; electric transmission lines, where the revenue comes in from carrying the electricity; wind farms, where the revenue comes in from selling the electricity.” The Treasury would sell securities at very low interest, lend the money at cost to the EIT, and the EIT would then turn around and lend it to private investors. Hundt calls this “really, really, low, wonderfully low, cheap capital for investors who will build these clean energy systems.” And everyone would eventually get paid back. “It’s really pretty simple. In fact, it’s what China does,” Hundt said. “And in fact China has used low-cost lending to stimulate about twice as much clean energy investing as we have in the United States.” But how many jobs would this create? “Roughly speaking, $1 billion in capital is 10,000 direct jobs and about 50,000 indirect jobs,” Hundt said. “So one way to do it is say: How many jobs to you want? “So if you tell me you want a million jobs, then I need $100 billion of investment, which means that I need probably about $30 billion of cheap capital, because the rest would come from other forms of capital.” Meanwhile, that $100 billlion would buy an awful lot of clean power. “Everyone knows that we need to build a clean energy system to replace a dirty energy system,” Hundt said. The plan also allows for private industry and the states to be the decisionmakers. “I don’t believe that we need some kind of federal, national comprehensive, Washington-dictated solution. Electricity is a very local business,” Hundt said. “But I do believe if we said to all the states and all the businesses: Here’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for very cheap capital… then we would be opening the door to a variety of technological solutions that would be selected on the local level…. “If you want to rebuild the country, this is a golden opportunity.” ************************* NEXT IN THE AMERICA NEEDS JOBS SERIES: A Shorter Work Week (Want to learn more about the series? Read the overview . Got an idea you think we may have overlooked? Email froomkin@huffingtonpost.com . ) ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Why Some Corporate Interests Oppose China Currency Bill

September 23, 2010

As President Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen, the House Ways and Means Committee announces it will vote tomorrow on a bill to take action if China does not bring its currency to market rates. This sends a loud and clear signal to China that action is coming, one way or another, and they are going to have to make adjustments. This has every appearance of a smart, coordinated strategy between the administration and the leadership of the Congress. WaPo: Bill combating China currency to advance , House leaders are moving forward with legislation to combat China’s currency policies, adding to pressure from the Obama administration and giving lawmakers an election-year chance to vote on a sensitive trade matter. The House Ways and Means Committee plans to vote Friday on a bill that would expand the Commerce Department’s power to impose duties on Chinese imports in response to that country’s currency being undervalued on world markets. But there is opposition from inside our own country. Some business groups oppose the bill, arguing that it could backfire if it raises trade tensions with China and prompts the Chinese government to use the many tools at its disposal to interfere with American companies. China is a major destination for U.S. exports – about $70 billion a year – although the United States runs a trade deficit of about $200 billion a year with that country. Duties on Chinese imports might also raise prices for U.S. consumers. There are competing interests at work. Robert Reich wrote about this a week ago in The Two Categories of American Corporation — And Their Politics and Harold Meyerson picks up the theme today in The real un-Americans . Reich points out that some giant companies sell to Americans, and therefore want us strong and prosperous, and want policies that stimulate our economy, provide jobs with good pay and generally boost the middle class. Others, not so much. The first group includes national telecoms like Verizon and AT&T that need a prosperous America because most of their sales are here. Same with finance companies like Bank of America and Travelers Insurance whose business strategy has been built around U.S. consumers. Ditto certain giant chains like Home Depot. Naturally, all these companies were especially hard hit by the Great Depression and its devastating impact on American consumers. The second group includes companies like Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and McDonalds, that get substantial revenues from their overseas operations. Increasingly this means China, India, and Brazil. Ford and GM are still largely dependent on US sales but becoming less so. … What does this mean for Main Street? Reich says, Large American corporations are going global as fast as they can. That’s good for their shareholders. But in a Washington ever more susceptible to their money and influence, that’s not necessarily good for most Americans. Meyerson picks up on this today , Consider the debate in Congress about whether to impose tariffs on Chinese imports if China continues to depress the value of its currency. … Unions and some domestic manufacturers support the bill. But a large number of American businesses, in a campaign coordinated by the U.S.-China Business Council, oppose it. … The question here is whether the 220 corporations that belong to the council … are already so deeply invested in China as manufacturers, marketers or retailers that buy goods there to sell them here that their interests are more closely aligned with China’s than with America’s . [emphasis added] It is important to understand that some of the country’s most powerful entrenched, wealthy interests no longer depend on the success of America’s economy and the prosperity of our people. They have a lot of power and money, and use it to influence our country’s politics to increase their own wealth and power. But their interests are not our interests. They want low taxes and don’t care whether we have good jobs, good schools, modern infrastructure and an economy that works for We, the People. They just don’t care about that. And they are willing to say and spend what it takes to set us against each other, poison our politics, and anything else they need to do to get us to act in their interests not ours. “Globalization” and “free trade’ policies work for them , because they enable them to evade the protections that our democracy gives us. But allowing them to just move factories and jobs out of the country and then bring the goods back here with no penalty does not work for the rest of us. Keep this in mind when you hear the different arguments over taxes, infrastructure, education and government in general. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Larry Summers Replacement: Progressive Economists Offer Their Suggestions, ‘No More Rubinites’

September 23, 2010

Progressive economists have one piece of advice for President Barack Obama when it comes to replacing top economic adviser Larry Summers: No more Robert Rubin disciples. Summers, who served as head of the White House’s National Economic Council, a position created by former President Bill Clinton and first filled by Rubin, was a key architect of the administration’s various economic policies to combat the biggest financial crisis and economic downturn since the Great Depression. Those policies — the bailout of Detroit automakers, an $814 billion stimulus package, subsequent programs under TARP, Cash for Clunkers and the administration’s unlimited backstop of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — arguably saved an economy that many considered to be on the verge of collapse. But while the recession officially ended last year, it hasn’t for most American households. The unemployment rate has risen nearly two percentage points since Obama took office, Labor Department figures show. Private-sector job creation is anemic. Growth has stagnated. Incomes have barely risen. Unpaid debts are being written off. And household wealth is lower today than where it was last December, according to Federal Reserve data through June. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to say Wednesday during a Congressional hearing whether the U.S. is officially out of the recession. Large banks and corporations, on the other hand, are thriving. Corporate profits have risen to pre-crisis levels, according to the Commerce Department. Company balance-sheets haven’t been this strong since 1956, Fed data show. Firms with access to the capital markets are taking advantage of record-low interest rates and refinancing expensive debt, and pocketing the difference. Last month, IBM sold three-year notes to investors, offering 1 percent interest . On Wednesday, Microsoft Corp. sold three-year notes at 0.875 percent interest to help fund share buybacks and increased dividends for shareholders. It’s reportedly the lowest interest ever offered by a company looking to sell three-year debt. A key lieutenant to Rubin after the former Goldman Sachs head and Citigroup chairman became Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Summers eventually succeeded him in that post. Together, the two men advocated for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law that separated commercial banking activities from investment banking, and fought to deregulate the derivatives market. They aggressively fought back against other regulators who wished to rein in risky derivatives activities. During this administration, Summers fought back against against more aggressive financial reform measures, people familiar with the discussions say. Armed with an opportunity to get other points of view into a White House whose economic agenda has been derided by both the left and the right, progressive economists and other market participants want to see someone in Summers’s role who will pursue policies that will clean up the toxic assets lying dormant on bank balance sheets, restart lending and allow for robust job creation. Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he’s like to see economists like James K. Galbraith, a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee and presently a professor at the University of Texas at Austin; Robert Pollin, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute; Eileen Appelbaum, an economist at Baker’s CEPR and a former professor at Rutgers University, where she led the Center for Women and Work researched labor and employment issues; and Heidi Hartmann, president of the Washington-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research and a professor at The George Washington University. Baker acknowledges that his candidates “would never be considered,” adding that “I don’t want to think about who we will actually get.” Robert Johnson, director of financial reform at the New York-based Roosevelt Institute and a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, said he’d like to see Jon S. Corzine, chairman and CEO of MF Global Holdings and a former head of Goldman Sachs and governor of New Jersey; J. Bradford DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a former top Treasury official during the Clinton administration; Leo Hindery, Jr., chairman of the Economic Growth/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a HuffPost blogger; and Donald W. Riegle, Jr., a former U.S. senator and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and current chairman of APCO Worldwide’s government relations team. Johnson also endorsed Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas M. Hoenig. The Fed chief, who serves on the Fed’s policy-making body that sets interest rates, has advocated breaking up megabanks and forcing banks to shed their risky derivatives-dealing operations. The longtime regional Fed president has served in his current role for 19 years. Like others, Johnson said, “No more Rubinites.” Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund who presently serves as a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and as a contributing editor to The Huffington Post, said he’d like to see Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and a former chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton; Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times ; and Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former member of Clinton’s CEA and a vice chairman of the Fed’s Board of Governors. Market participants added other recommendations. Andrew Busch, global currency and public policy strategist at BMO Capital Markets in Chicago, said he’d like to see two veterans of the Clinton administration: Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary, or Gene Sperling, who held Summers’s job under Clinton and now works as a counselor to Geithner. “Anything that sounds or looks like Krugman will be a disaster,” Busch added. Richard Bove, one of Wall Street’s top banking analysts, told clients in a Wednesday note that the failure of Summers and the rest of the Obama team was a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of the financial crisis. Bove, of Rochdale Securities, said the crisis was a result of years of over-consumption and underproduction in the West which caused money to flow to Asia and other big exporters, which caused debt accumulation in the U.S. and a desire for higher-yielding securities — like subprime mortgage-backed securities — elsewhere. “Larry Summers and his group failed to grasp the simple point that the U.S. must sell things to get the flow of funds to reverse back to the United States,” Bove wrote. “Instead they continued to believe that consumers should buy things. “This was a mistake that neither Germany nor Switzerland made. Thus, those economies, which emphasize production rather than consumption, expand while ours flirts with a new recession.” Bove titled his note, “Mr Summers’ Failure.” David A. Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto, shared a note with clients Wednesday that he received regarding Obama’s policies which he agreed with: “With respect to the failure of White House economic policies to turn things around (we don’t accept that the grading should be done on the premise that ‘oh, well, things would have been worse without all the government incursion and intervention’ — isn’t the jobless rate supposed to be at 7 percent by now?), we received this little ditty yesterday from a reader on the West Coast that resonated with us: Dave, You pointed out that FDR worked out the WPA at lunch one day and put Americans to work, paying them to build the Golden Gate Bridge, while Obama is mailing Americans 99 weeks of unemployment checks — the modern soup line. Well, it’s worse than that. Think about it: FDR borrowed that money, mostly from Americans, and sent it to American workers who bought American goods. Today Obama is borrowing money from China and sending it to Americans entitled to 99 weeks of no-work-pay, I mean unemployment insurance, and they are taking it over to Wal-Mart and sending it to Chinese workers. Go figure…. Regardless of whom Obama picks, Galbraith said that the “essential thing is not a shift in ideological perspective.” “It would be having a broader and more open group at the top,” Galbraith wrote in an e-mail. “I’d guess Summers took a number of positions inside the administration (we’ve seen an example with Steve Rattner’s account of the auto bailout) that were progressive by his own lights. But on certain critical issues — and especially banking, so far as I understand it — the alternatives he didn’t like were simply frozen out.” The administration, though, reportedly is keen on bringing in someone with significant business experience, like a CEO. Anne M. Mulcahy, the former CEO of Xerox who’s been lauded for her leadership atop the company, is said to be a leading contender, despite the fact that Xerox’s share price dropped 16 percent during her tenure. Other candidates include Laura D. Tyson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who separately headed both the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton. Tyson is a longtime member of Morgan Stanley’s board of directors, a position she’s held since 1997. Joshua Rosner, managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co., told the Roosevelt Institute’s blog New Deal 2.0 that it’s critical for Obama to pick someone who will clean out the financial system. “While I can’t question Summers’ intent or interest in being part of the solution to this economic crisis his departure, on the eve of a double dip, demonstrates what some of us have known for a while. “Yes, the government needed to act, but the kick-the-can policies of the Obama administration have mired us more deeply in a structural morass. Hopefully the President will replace Summers and Geithner with a team that recognizes that sweeping problems under the rug undermines confidence in our economy and markets and doom us to a long contraction driven by a weak banking system. It’s time to address the troubled assets that remain on our banks balance sheets so they can be healthy enough to lend and have confidence that they will again lend.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Video: Reinsch Says China Currency Policy Should Be G-20 Issue: Video

September 23, 2010

Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) — William Reinsch, president of the Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council, talks about Chinese government’s currency policy and the likely response if Congress imposes sanctions on Chinese trade. Political pressure is building on U.S. President Obama to take a more aggressive stance on China’s yuan policy, which he has said is valued lower than the market would indicate and gives China an advantage in trade. Reinsch talks with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness”. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Gerstein Says Staff Changes Are `Opportunity’ for Obama: Video

September 22, 2010

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) — Dan Gerstein, strategist at Dan Gerstein Consulting, talks with Bloomberg’s Melissa Long about the potential impact of White House staff changes on the policies of the Obama administration. Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, is likely to leave the White House before the November congressional elections to run for mayor of Chicago, people familiar with the matter said. The White House announced yesterday that Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, will return to Harvard University by the end of the year. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Zach Carter: Replacing Summers: Think Policy, Not Politico

September 22, 2010

Larry Summers is out, and President Barack Obama now faces a critical decision. He can focus on policy, naming a replacement who wants to ease the economic strains on American households, or he can focus on politics, naming a candidate who appeases the corporate executive class and their backers in the Republican Party. The choice should be obvious. On the economy, good policy is also good politics. The Obama administration has known for a very long time that it needs to do more about the disintegrating U.S. jobs outlook, but has shied away from taking strong action due to political considerations. Voters are worried about the deficit, the administration is taking heat from cry-baby hedge fund managers for being “anti-business” and besides, Republican obstructionism makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. Better to claim credit for the president’s modest economic gains than to wage an uphill battle for economic security. This pattern of political calculation goes all the way back to the negotiations surrounding Obama’s economic stimulus package back in February of 2009. Obama adviser Christina Romer suggested that a package of $1.4 trillion would be needed to significantly bring down unemployment, a figure that ultimately proved to be based on overly optimistic assumptions. But fears of a Republican backlash from a dollar figure ultimately watered down the package to $600 billion–the administration even included standard annual tax-code fixes in the deal to create the illusion of a larger $787 billion plan. Summers himself was no angel in this process. He was a chief architect of the too-small-stimulus. But since mid-2009, he has been advocating for further action to create jobs, and by all indications, he has been ignored for political reasons. It is a very strange scenario in which one of the economists most (justifiably) vilified by progressives has actually been one of the more progressive economic voices within a Democratic administration. But what has this political hedgeing won for Obama? A few days of decent headlines in Politico, followed by years of economic misery. That economic misery has taken a greater toll on the president’s popularity than any actual policy he has adopted. The fact that unemployment remains near 10 percent after nearly two years generates a lot of resentment. Voters do not want to empower policymakers who tolerate such economic calamities. Ultimately, the Obama administration’s focus on short-term political wins has resulted not only in bad policy, but in political ruin. So in replacing Summers, Obama needs to pick somebody who gets the policy right. Over time, the right policy will result in the right politics–bringing down the unemployment rate, fostering economic growth and battling Wall Street excess will strengthen the economy, make households happier, and satisfy voters. The right Summers replacement would be an economist who understands the need for further government spending to create jobs, who recognizes that record-low interest rates make the deficit a secondary consideration, and who understands that Wall Street predation is taking a serious toll on household wealth. Attempting to appease either the corporate executive class or the Republican establishment would be a fool’s errand. The economic platform advocated by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, last month was a recipe for economic ruin on every front, from jobs to the deficit. Summers is probably the most conservative economist you can find in the Democratic Party, and Boehner called for his head anyway. But trying to appease Wall Street or corporate CEOs is even crazier. As Salon’s Andrew Leonard emphasizes , of all the political calculations Obama could make, trying to appease the corporate executive class is probably the worst. The entire anti-business-Obama meme is, at best, a joke. Wall Street doesn’t like the fact that Obama has pushed for modest new restraints on its risk-taking, even thought that risk-taking wrecked both Wall Street banks and the broader economy. Billionaire hedge-fund managers don’t like the idea that they might lose their tax privileges and be subject to the same rates everybody else pays . Wall Street’s political demands are much like its thirst for bonuses: limitless. Naming a Summers replacement who focuses on cutting corporate taxes and reducing the deficit by slashing jobs funding will be counterproductive on two fronts. First, it will spur economic misery. Second, that economic misery will generate political unrest. Voters will not respond to a president who advances a policy agenda that actively harms them. So who should Obama name to take Summers’ place? Joseph Stiglitz. His intellectual qualifications cannot be impugned–he is a Nobel Prize-winner whose academic work is revered on both the left and right. But his policy acumen is equally proven–he has been chief economist for the World Bank, and Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. And his policy record during the Clinton years is absolutely superlative. Stiglitz aggressively fought Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin’s efforts to deregulate Wall Street–efforts that paved the way for the Great Financial Crash of 2008. Stiglitz also fought Rubin by pushing for job-creation rather than deficit reduction. Rubin appeared to win that battle for a while, but once it became clear that the job growth that took place under Rubin’s deficit attack was purely the result of an unsustainable bubble, Stiglitz emerged as the victor. So that’s Obama’s choice. He can try to appease his political adversaries, and end up losing political points come 2012, or he can appoint somebody who gets the policy right, and reap the political benefits of sound policy come re-election time. Stiglitz is the right man for the job.

Read the full article →

Video: Goolsbee Says Adviser Departures Won’t Shift Obama Focus: Video

September 22, 2010

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) — Austan Goolsbee, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, talks about the impact of recent departures of presidential advisers on the Obama administration’s economic policies. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely to leave the White House before the November congressional elections to run for mayor of Chicago, people familiar with the matter said. Emanuel would be the fourth top-level Obama adviser to leave the White House since July. The administration announced yesterday that National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers will leave by the end of the year. Goolsbee, speaking with Bloomberg’s Peter Cook in Washington, also discusses U.S. tax policy. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kaufman Calls Obama Administration Departures `Normal’: Video

September 22, 2010

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Senator Edward Kaufman, a Delaware Democrat, talks with Peter Cook about Herbert Allison’s decision to leave his post as administrator of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. He also discusses Lawrence Summers’ planned departure as director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council and financial fraud. They speak from Washington on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Galston Sees Opportunity for Obama After Summers Leaves: Video

September 21, 2010

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) — William Galston, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, James Glickenhaus, senior partner at Glickenhaus & Co., and Joseph Mason, a professor of finance at Louisiana State University, discuss plans by Lawrence Summers to leave his job as director of the president’s National Economic Council at the end of the year and the outlook for the administration’s economic policies. They talk with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Tillman Sees Recovery in British Luxury Fashion Brands

September 17, 2010

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) — Harold Tillman, chairman of the British Fashion Council, talks about the impact of the economic slowdown and cotton prices on the industry. Tillman, who owns the brands Jaeger and Aquascutum, speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move” with Maryam Nemazee.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: How Far They’ve Come, How Far They Have To Go

September 16, 2010

Two new reports give us a detailed look at how far private military and security contractors have come and how far they have to go in terms of ensuring effective oversight and accountability for their actions. One from a transnational perspective, a United Nations working group, and the other from a U.S. nongovernmental organization (NGO), serve as a useful reminder that PMSC is not just a U.S. issue, but a global one. First is the just made public latest report of the U.N. ” Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination .” This group was formed in 2005 and its predecessor group dates back to the nineties. It is generally regarded by those in the PMC industry as being biased against them and given the name of the working group it is easy to understand why they think that. Nevertheless in recent years the group has become less polemical and more substantive and its reports usually have detail worth looking at. This report describes activities it has undertaken since it last reported to the Human Rights Council in March 2009. For example: The Working Group has recently received information suggesting that in some instances PMSCs are supporting warlords and rebel groups. For instance, allegations suggest that in Afghanistan a number of PMSCs contracted by the Government of the United States have a privileged relationship with the Taliban. Other suggest that a German PMSC is considering deploying a significant number of military guards to Somalia to train warlord groups close to the self-proclaimed but not internationally recognized President of Somalia, Abdinur Ahmed Darman. The first part of that is not news but the part on Somalis certainly is. With respect to Afghanistan the report notes: The presence and activities of PMSCs in Afghanistan are very much interconnected with the large number of unauthorized armed groups of various kinds on Afghan territory. The Ministry of Interior has estimated that no fewer than 2,500 unauthorized armed groups were operating in the provinces under governmental control, which represent less than half the territory of the country. There was a perception among interlocutors that many de facto non-State armed groups used the regularization process for PMSCs to disguise their groupings as private security companies, reinforcing the perception that PMSCs were a threat to peace and the stability of Afghanistan. Given that, it is small wonder why President Karzai wants to get rid of security contractors. Furthermore: The Working Group did not receive first-hand information that PMSC personnel have engaged in direct combat activities since the adoption of the Regulation. Nevertheless, the Working Group noted that by protecting Forward Operating Bases in conflict zones, a civilian contractor, by protecting legitimate military targets, becomes a military target and may lose protection under international humanitarian law. And then there was this: The Working Group visited the United States of America from 20 July to 3 August 2009. The Working Group found that the Government of the United States relies heavily on the private military and security industry in conducting its worldwide military operations. American PMSCs dominate this new industry, estimated to earn US$ 20 to 100 billion annually. Now a word of caution is in order here. The report does not say where that estimate comes from or what exactly it covers. If one is including both logistics and security contracting I could see $20 billion or even higher. But $100 billion? Let’s just say I’ll need to see some evidence. Still, we’re talking real money here. In terms of accountability the Working Group found that the international community still has a long row to hoe. As stated in its previous report to the HRC (see A/HRC/10/14/Add.2), the Working Group assessed the existence of a regulatory gap covering the activities of PMSCs at the international level. While a number of rules under international humanitarian law and human rights law could apply to States in their relations with PMSCs, the Working Group observed that there have been difficulties in the application of domestic laws, in particular for international PMSCs operating in a foreign State, as well as difficulties in conducting investigations in conflict zones. The effect of this situation is that PMSCs are rarely held accountable for violations of human rights. Although there have been efforts to address this glaring gap over the years, accountability of private military and security contractors continues to be a challenge, with a startling lack of prosecutions. The Working Group calls for the adoption of a new international legal instrument aimed at developing standards for the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of PMSCs. It says: The aim of a new binding legal instrument is not the outright banning of PMSCs but to establish minimum international standards for States parties to regulate the activities of PMSCs and their personnel. In addition, the Working Group, concerned about the extensive outsourcing of military and security functions and the growing role of PMSCs in armed conflicts, post-conflict and low intensity armed conflict situations recommends prohibiting the outsourcing of inherently State functions to PMSCs in accordance with the principle of the State monopoly on the legitimate use of force. You can find the addendums to the report containing reports from regional consultations at Asia and the Pacific ; Africa ; and Western Europe . See also Communications to and from Governments ; Mission to Afghanistan ; and Mission to the United States of America , which has gems like this: The Department also specifically authorizes its contractor personnel to “conduct or support intelligence interrogations, detainee debriefings, or tactical questioning” when such functions are specified in the contract. However, following the many accounts of the participation of contractors in detainee abuses in Abu Ghraib, Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, recommended a specific ban on the use of contractors in the interrogation of detainees. However, the Executive Office of the President explicitly rejected this limitation, stating that “in some limited cases, a contract interrogator may possess the best combination of skills to obtain critical intelligence”. The Act eventually reflected a compromise: it provides that “no enemy prisoner of war … or any other individual who is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense … may be interrogated by contractor personnel”. However, contractor personnel with proper training and security clearances may be used as linguists, interpreters, report writers and information technology technicians in interrogations provided (a) they are covered by the same rules governing detainee interrogations as government personnel performing the same interrogation functions and (b) that Department of Defense personnel will oversee the contractor’s performance. The prohibition may be waived if such a move is vital to the national security interests of the United States. The other report is by Human Rights First, a U.S.-based NGO. Its report ” In State of Affairs: Three Years After Nisoor Square – Accountability and Oversight of U.S. Private Security and Other Contractors ,” was released yesterday May of its 19 recommendations have been said before, both by Human Rights First as well as many other groups. But the portion of the report that provides snapshots of the legal and regulatory gaps in contractor oversight and accountability is worth reading. Here are a few examples. Clarification of U.S. Criminal Jurisdiction Over non-DoD Contractors Needed. Presently, MEJA [Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act] extends U.S. criminal jurisdiction to contractors abroad who are “supporting the mission of the Department of Defense.” In Iraq and Afghanistan, it is arguable that non-DoD U.S. contractors are all indeed working – at least in substantial part – in support of DoD’s mission. However, soon after Nisoor Square, former Bush administration officials asserted that “there is a hole” in U.S. law that prevented criminal prosecutions of non-DoD U.S. contractors. Any jurisdictional gap that may currently exist will only increase as the military draws down in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan because it becomes more difficult to assert that Department of State (DoS) contractors are supporting DoD’s mission. With DoS reporting that it will need to more than double its use of private security contractors (PSCs) from 2,700 to 7,000 by the time the military exits Iraq, it is imperative that U.S. criminal jurisdiction over non-DoD contractors is fully clarified. Clarification of Iraqi Jurisdiction Over non-DoD Contractors Needed. Similarly, while immunity from Iraqi legal jurisdiction for DoD contractors effectively ended as of January 1, 2009 when SOFA came into effect, the status of non-DoD contractors remains uncertain. Significant Deficiencies Exist with Reporting Serious Incidents in Iraq. In 2009, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) found that while DoD and DoS established polices for reporting serious incidents were a significant improvement, the agencies still needed to improve the accuracy and consistency of the information captured. SIGIR found that DoD and DoS databases did not capture all reported serious incidents either as a result of database management problems or the failure of PSCs to follow reporting requirements. The DoD division (ACOD) responsible for tracking all serious incidents received did not track 57% of the serious incidents reported because it applied a more limited definition than required by DoD guidance; DoD and DoS guidance used different definitions of serious incidents; information for the same incidents were inconsistent among databases; and no organization appeared to have visibility over subcontractor PSCs. Moreover, the USAID’s Office of Inspector General 2009 audit report found PSC subcontractors for USAID in Iraq were not reporting all serious incidents. Afghanistan Lacks Systematic, Coordinated Reporting Process. In Afghanistan, the reporting process is less clear, and as it relates to non-DoD PSCs more problematic. While the requirements set forth by Congress apply to PSCs in Afghanistan, they have not been implemented by non-DoD PSCs because as of May of this year implementing instructions had not been issued. As a result, USAID/Afghanistan does not require implementing partners to report serious incidents and thus, there is no assurance that its reports are complete or reliable. Investigation Process for Serious Incidents Need Improvement. In 2009, SIGIR found that DoD’s investigation process for the most serious of incidents – those involving death, serious injury, or property damage over $10,000 – was not working as required. It found the Armed Contractor Oversight Branch (ACOB) – the DoD unit in Iraq responsible for ensuring all serious incidents recorded are reviewed and, when necessary, investigated and remediated – tracked less than half of the most serious incidents that required a formal investigation. For example, SIGIR found ACOB did not have a record of 5 incidents involving weapons discharge in which at least 1 of the incidents required an army investigation because of loss of life. Moreover, it found ACOB did not have the required supporting documentation in its database for 51% of the incidents involving weapons discharges. Therefore, SIGIR could not verify actions taken to investigate and remediate those incidents. SIGIR’s 2009 findings highlight troubling weaknesses in the serious incident investigation process in Iraq. Similar review of DoS’s serious incident investigation process in Iraq was not conducted. Nor has there been a similar audit conducted in Afghanistan. Agencies Have Little to No Oversight of Subcontractors. The recent June 2010 House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform report on private contractors in Afghanistan made clear that U.S. agencies have little to no oversight over its subcontractors. This was echoed earlier this year at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Paravant subcontractors in which Paravant subcontract employees were alleged to have killed Afghan civilians. Finally, the CWC in its June 2009 interim report highlighted the lack of oversight over subcontractors as an issue of concern. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) testified before the CWC that “the U.S. government has difficulty identifying and monitoring second and third tier subcontractors that are Afghan or third-country-owned businesses. Multi-tiered subcontracting is problematic and results in weak oversight, control and ac 77 The Senate Armed Services Committee included additional provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2011 to provide new measures to hold contractors accountable for any failure by their employees or subcontractors to comply with the requirements of law or regulation, or with directives from combatant commanders of oversight and accountability.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Let the Screaming Begin — Soon

September 14, 2010

We really have, as a nation, seen our train completely fall off the fairness track. The unprecedented income inequality in the nation today is such a blight that I thought it would stand on its own as an indictment of the actions and decisions since 1980 of certain of our political and business leaders which wrought this nightmare. I also hoped that by now the American people would be standing up and saying en masse that “enough is enough”. In fact, not only is the inequality persisting, but it has become so embedded that it’s now dictating our nation’s finance industry practices, tax policies, and sense of corporate social responsibility. In 1928, on the eve of the Great Depression when America began to keep track of income inequality, the top 10% of earners received 49% of total income and the top 1% received 24%. In 2007, on the eve of the current recession, the top 10% earned 50% of total income and the top 1% received 24%. In other words, the Great Recession of 2007 was foreshadowed by almost the exact same outrageous income imbalance as existed just before the Great Depression, the evidence of which is that the top one-tenth of 1% of earners now earn as much as the bottom 120 million earners combined. As Louise Story of the New York Times has identified, after the 1929 crash the income gap narrowed dramatically and remained low for decades, because of, in large part, the sweeping financial reforms introduced in the 1930s that reined in Wall Street and the progressive individual taxation advanced by FDR. But such was not the case ‘after the 2007 crash’. This time, the financial industry reform of 2010 leaves the people at the top unscathed and, in the dumbest move of all, some in Congress are actually considering retaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. Ms. Story in her article, and her colleague at the Times Gretchen Morgenson in other articles, have raised our consciousness to the perversions which flow from long-term income inequality. Such inequality has the triple whammy effect of: Putting so much power in the hands of Wall Street titans that they are able to promote government policies – like deregulation – that enrich them and put the entire financial system in jeopardy; Influencing in dangerous ways the trading practices of financial industry leaders who have the potential to earn excessive compensation, because financial bubbles lead to higher financial returns and thus incomes in the short term; and Pushing people at the bottom of the earnings ladder toward personal consumption and borrowing choices that put the financial system further at risk. Then there are our perverse individual income tax regulations which, since 1980, have been manipulated literally out of control, all with the intent of enriching the wealthiest of Americans so that they can ‘trickle down’ their wealth to the poorest – which of course they almost never do. Sometimes it’s ordinary income which is taxed as capital gains, sometimes it’s legal (and often illegal) offshore accounts, sometimes it’s tax deferrals that just keep on deferring, and right now it’s trying to permanently preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of American taxpayers, which according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center would cost the federal government an almost unbelievable $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to preserve the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class and lower income earners, while letting those provisions that benefit only people with very high incomes expire on schedule at the end of this year. The Republicans disagree. Under the Democrats’ plan, everyone – families, small businesses and family farms alike – who doesn’t make at least $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals) would see their tax status quo maintained. Under the Republicans’ plan, nearly all of the benefit would go to the richest 1% of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. The majority of even this amount would go to the richest one-tenth of 1%, the least wealthy of whom have annual incomes of more than $2 million and the average of whom makes more than $7 million a year. And as for the Republicans’ argument that preserving the Bush tax credits for the wealthy is mostly about “helping small business and family farms”, the reality is that no more than 3% of American small businesses make more than $250,000. If the Republicans have their way, the richest 120,000 people in the country would receive an average tax break of $3 million over the next decade. Of course the ‘answer’ to the Bush tax cuts issue – and to all individual taxation issues now and in the future – is a tax system with more brackets and thus more stratification, so that the super-rich pay higher rates, instead of a tax system that has an individual earning $200,000 paying at the same tax rate as an individual earning tens of millions of dollars. A reason all of this is so important – beyond the screaming unfairness and the irresponsible behaviors it induces – is that extreme income inequality is also very bad economics. The economic measure that matters most in a large, diverse and highly developed country such as ours is the vibrancy of the middle class, which needs to grow robustly from the bottom up – and the best indicator of that vibrancy is our nation’s nearness to full and fairly compensated real employment. Right now, we don’t have either: a vibrant middle class, or anywhere near full employment – and we won’t again until we beat back income inequality and restore some modicum of income equality. All of these inequities and behaviors are in many ways just ‘symptoms’. When one starts looking for the causes, two quickly come to mind. First, is the benign enabling that the average American voter has gotten sucked into by misleading political efforts by conservatives that are suggested to be one thing, and turn out to be something much more selfish and insidious. For example, the “Bush tax cuts” were promised to fairly and equitably benefit all taxpayers, when the reality, as we know, is that they preponderantly benefited the extremely wealthy. Also, voters are told literally everyday that they need to get rid of estate taxes (the infamous “death taxes”), when the reality is that only about 3% of taxpayers – again only the extremely wealthy – ever even pay estate taxes. More concerning as a ’cause’, however, because it’s systemic and malicious, are the views of academics/economists like Aneel Karnai, an associate professor from the University of Michigan who, clearly on behalf of the big business community and its wealthy executives, recently penned a ‘planted’ op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with the descriptive title, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility.” This graphic phrase, now commonly embraced by big business, is a modern redo of the title of Milton Friedman’s infamous September 1970 article in the New York Times Sunday magazine which he labeled, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” This 1970 article by Friedman, who was in many ways the original academic-cum-business-toady, turned corporate social responsibility, or CSR, on its ear until, in 1981, it became the very foundation of Reagan’s supply-side economics. I actually find “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility” even more perfidious, however, since it argues that corporate social responsibility is now largely irrelevant and that companies end up increasing social welfare even if they only maximize profits. This perceived linkage between maximizing profits and increased social welfare is absurd on its face, but then I thought trickle-down economics was absurd when it was first advanced as well – and for some that’s lasted thirty years. Where the irresponsibility is most pronounced – and transcends even Friedman’s selfish views – is Karnai’s and his colleagues’ contention that ‘doing what’s best for society’ should almost never mean sacrificing profits, even if it involves such things as pollution caused by manufacturing and fair wages. For them, reducing pollution should never be voluntary, since that would eat into profits, just as companies should never, of their own wills, pay their workers more than they can get away with or consciously seek to avoid shipping jobs overseas. Friedman believed that managers who sacrifice profit for the common good are in effect imposing a tax on their shareholders. Karnai et al today go two steps further by stating that: Such managers are in such sense usurping the role of elected government officials, which of course they would seek to minimize, and Appeals to corporate social responsibility are not an effective way to strike a balance between profits and the public good. It’s this ideological ‘crossover’ from economics to how employees, customers, communities and the environment should be treated that is the perfidy I referred to. It’s also pretty obviously one the big constants behind the extreme income inequality which now characterizes our economy. So, there you have it. More income inequality now than ever before, proposed tax practices intended to make it even worse, and a movement underway to embed profit maximization as the only corporate responsibility, to the exclusion of employees, customers, communities and the environment. This is an unholy combination that should have 90% of American workers and families screaming, “enough is enough.” Of course in some ways they already are – and their objections can be found in the dismal polling figures around the administration’s economic policies, around the equal unpopularity of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress (only a one-third approval rating for each), and the growing popularity of the purely obstructionist Tea Party movement. President Obama needs to heed these screams and help our nation get the fairness train back on track. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Janis Bowdler: Safety in Numbers: Creating a Fairer Housing Market

September 13, 2010

This blog post was coauthored by the Woodstock Institute and the National Council of La Raza . Pages and pages of ratios and figures don’t usually fire up a crowd, but they do affect the rash of foreclosures our country is experiencing, and Americans are fired up about that. One of the driving factors behind the foreclosure crisis was lenders putting unsuspecting borrowers into loans they could not reasonably afford. Borrowers of color, women, the elderly, and low-income families were favorite targets for these practices. Thankfully, legislators recently passed a bill that includes the modernization of a tool that is critical to fighting discrimination in the housing market. The Home Mortgage and Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires mortgage lenders to provide detailed reports of their lending activities to regulators and the public. HMDA data have long served as a powerful mechanism that identifies unfair lending practices, such as discriminating against minority families, women, and low-income borrowers. HMDA is 35 years old, however, and Congress recognized it was time for a tune-up. Now it is the job of the Federal Reserve to revamp HMDA to keep pace with an ever-evolving mortgage market. Next Thursday, September 16, the Woodstock Institute and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) will testify at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago about enhancing HMDA data collection. Woodstock, which seeks equal opportunity for modest-income families and communities of color to achieve economic security, and NCLR, focused on helping Latino families find safe loans and equality in the mortgage market, share the following three recommendations to enhance HMDA and better serve vulnerable communities. HMDA should: Collect “back-end ratios” that take debt into account. These include other types of monthly payment obligations in addition to the mortgage, and are a better reflection of a borrower’s overall debt burden. Require lenders to report how they documented a family’s income when underwriting the mortgage, and how they measured a borrower’s debt load. A strong concentration of “no-doc” loans in a low-income community, for example, could indicate that a lender might be systematically using lax documentation requirements to put borrowers into loans they are unable to afford. Collect loan performance and servicing records. The bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent rise in foreclosures have demonstrated that initial loan origination is only half of the story. Lenders were able to skirt regulations and disclosure requirements by adjusting the initial payment structure of a loan. The initial origination told us little about the potential success or failure of the loan, which is critical to determining whether a lender is meeting the community’s mortgage needs or whether discrimination is occurring. HMDA is a crucial tool in the fight against predatory lending. If you’ve read any of Woodstock’s reports on mortgage lending or used the community lending fact book , or followed NCLR’s banking reform updates , then you’ve seen how important clear data can be in targeting discriminatory lending practices. If done right, improved HMDA data will be the most effective portal of information that tracks and ultimately helps prevent a ballooning crisis. Without this increased transparency and lender accountability, whole neighborhoods, and minority homeowners in particular, will again bear the brunt of risky lending practices. HMDA certainly proves that there is safety in numbers. First, with proper updates, HMDA will generate critical numbers that can ultimately prove disparate practices among specific lenders. Second, the more practitioners, advocates, and members of the concerned public who get involved, the better. Call your local bank regulator. Register here to attend the Chicago public hearings on HMDA. And don’t forget to keep an eye out in this space for further HMDA activity.

Read the full article →

Video: Mann Says Goolsbee `Nuanced’ Change for Obama Advisers: Video

September 10, 2010

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) — Catherine Mann, an economics professor at Brandeis University and a former Federal Reserve economist, talks with Bloomberg’s Melissa Long about President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Austan Goolsbee to lead the Council of Economic Advisers. Goolsbee replaces Christina Romer, who is leaving her post to return to teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Austan Goolsbee To Chair Council Of Economic Advisers, Replacing Christina Romer

September 9, 2010

Administration sources tell ABC News that at the start of his press conference Friday morning, President Obama will formally announced that he is appointing University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee to be chair of his Council of Economic Advisers. Goolsbee, 41, has already been confirmed by the Senate to serve as one of the three economists on the CEA; President Obama has the prerogative to appoint the chair. The former chair, Christina Romer, departed last week, returning to teach at the University of California at Berkeley. Goolsbee is also chief economist for the Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Scott: Summers brings back bubkes from Beijng

September 8, 2010

Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, returned empty handed from meetings this week with Chinese President Hu Jintao and other senior government officials. Although China announced in June that it would allow its currency to fluctuate, the yuan has gained less than one half of one percent since then. Summers was officially rebuffed by a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, who said, ” Our exchange rate reform can’t be pressed ahead under external pressure. ” Time has run out on negotiations. The House Ways and Means and the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committees will both hold hearings next week on China currency and will consider tough legislation such as Congressman Tim Ryan and Tim Murphy’s Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (HR 2378) and similar legislation introduced by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsay Graham. Currency manipulation by China and several other Asian nations makes their goods artificially cheap and makes U.S. exports artificially expensive in China and in world markets. Chinese foreign exchange reserves , the main instrument of currency manipulation, reached an unprecedented $2.5 trillion this past June. The Chinese yuan or Renminbi (RMB) is estimated to be at least 35% to 40% undervalued, relative to the U.S. dollar. With no change in exchange rates and the growth of illegal subsidies and other unfair trade practices, it is no surprise that structural imbalances in trade and capital flows are resurfacing as the global economy recovers from the worst recession in 70 years. The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2008 eliminated 2.4 million U.S. jobs ; Ending currency manipulation now could create at least one million badly needed jobs. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been pleading for more time since last April, when Treasury announced the delay of a Congressionally mandated report on currency manipulation. Treasury wanted more time for bilateral Strategic and Economic Security Dialogue (S&ED) meetings, for the G-20 meeting and for Summer’s trip this week with Thomas E. Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor. Treasury officially refused to admit the obvious, that China’s currency is 35-40% undervalued and is being manipulated; the currency report that was finally released on July 8 admitted that the data “suggest that the renminbi remains undervalued” but concluded that “no major trading partner of the United States” was manipulating its exchange rate. It was a laughable, failed attempt to deny the obvious elephant in the room: China is clearly manipulating its currency. The failure of negotiations to bring about a significant revaluation of the RMB demonstrates that China will not change its policy unless and until it is confronted with the threat of real trade sanctions . If enacted, or even if approved by either chamber, the China currency measures currently under discussion in the House and Senate would send a strong message to both the Chinese government and the Obama administration. Congress could send an even stronger message by enacting an across-the-board restraint on imports from China and other currency manipulators, such as the Schumer-Graham currency measure of 2005, S. 295 , which would have imposed trade sanctions if China failed to revalue. In 2005, 67 members of the Senate approved this legislation on a procedural vote. While S. 295 never became law, that summer China did allow its currency to float, and it rose 20% over the next three years. China has shown that it will not allow its currency to rise significantly unless Congress or the administration gets tough. The Obama economic team has shown that it has no backbone. Congress should adopt tough, across the board currency sanctions now.

Read the full article →

Obama: New Jobs Numbers ‘Positive’ But ‘Not Nearly Good Enough’

September 3, 2010

WASHINGTON — Eager to jumpstart the economy ahead of crucial midterm elections, President Barack Obama said Friday he intends to unveil a new package of proposals, including tax cuts and targeted spending, to spark job growth. Obama spoke in the Rose Garden after the August jobs report came out better than expected, showing the private sector adding 67,000 new jobs last month and revising upward the numbers from June and July. But unemployment ticked upward to 9.6 percent as more people entered the job market, and the president said it wasn’t good enough. “That’s why we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest,” Obama said. “We are confident that we are moving in the right direction, but we want to keep this recovery moving stronger and accelerate the job growth that’s needed so desperately.” Administration officials say a big new stimulus bill like last year’s $862 billion measure is not in the offing – nervous lawmakers looking to November’s balloting would not be expected to approve an expensive new measure. But Obama said he’d be proposing a new set of ideas next week. He’s likely to detail them during a speech on the economy Wednesday in Cleveland, midway through an economy-focused week capped by a rare White House news conference. Obama’s package could include a number of provisions that have languished in Congress for much of the year, including infrastructure bonds for municipalities and extensions for a series of tax breaks for businesses and individuals that expired at the end of 2009. Democratic leaders are considering making one of the tax breaks permanent, for businesses that invest in research and development. They are also considering extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months. Obama is continuing to prod the Senate to pass a bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks for small businesses and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze small business lending. Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush’s tax cuts affecting the middle class. The House has already passed many of the provisions, but they have stalled in the Senate because Republicans and Democrats could not agree on how to pay for them. Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Reid hoped to be able to get the small business measure through once the Senate goes back in session later this month but the prospect for other ideas was cloudier. Moreover, some of the ideas are relatively small bore, so even if they did pass in the next month or two it’s unlikely they’d make a real dent in the economy before the elections. Departing White House economist Christina Romer told The Associated Press that the new proposals would be “targeted measures aimed at particular problems or incentivizing a particular area of the economy.” Romer is leaving her post as chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers on Friday to return to the University of California, Berkley. ___ Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Christina Romer, Departing White House Economist, Calls For More Spending, Lower Taxes

September 1, 2010

WASHINGTON — Departing White House economist Christina Romer says the government has the tools for bringing down unemployment, but policymakers need to find the will and wisdom to use them. Romer called on officials Wednesday to move forward on policies that will increase government spending and cut taxes. She also called for investments in infrastructure and new trade agreements. Romer said that while some new policies should be viewed as emergency measures, most should be paid for with future spending cuts or revenue returns. She said concerns about the mounting deficit should not be used as an excuse “for leaving unemployed workers to suffer.” Romer is leaving her post as head of the Council of Economic Advisers to return to the University of California, Berkeley, as an economics professor.

Read the full article →

Mark H. Ayers: It’s the Height of Audacity to Claim a Skilled Worker "Shortage" When 20% Percent of American Skilled Craft Workers Are Unemployed

August 27, 2010

As a labor leader, I have learned over the years to never underestimate the lengths to which some unscrupulous employers, and some associations and consultants who serve them in the business community at large, will go to squeeze American workers and fatten their profit margins, regardless of the social impact their actions may have. The most recent example comes in the form of a newly issued report by a company called Manpower, Inc., which bills itself as “…a world leader in innovative workforce solutions; creating and delivering services that enable its clients to win in the changing world of work.” And those services happen to include “permanent, temporary, and contract recruitment.” I always find it interesting when companies that have a product to sell – in this case worker recruitment – somehow magically produce a report that suggests some sort of emergency or crisis that can be solved by, you guessed it, the services that they provide. And it’s even more incredible to me when some “respected” media outlets report it as fact without once ever considering that the source of the report is inherently biased. In this case, the Manpower, Inc. report to which I refer is titled, “Strategic Migration – A Short-Term Solution to the Skilled Trades Shortage.” The report essentially concludes that “Strategic migration is a practical answer to talent mismatches today. Without it, there would simply be no near-term way to alleviate shortages of skilled blue-collar workers.” Now, let me just say three things about this report. First, it is suspect from the start due to its source. Secondly, the brain trust at Manpower, Inc. is apparently unaware that there is 20% unemployment right now among the skilled trades in the United States (and in many areas of the nation, the rate is above 30% and sometimes 40%). Third, the term “strategic migration” is simply a more elegant way to say that American employers – not all American employers, mind you, but a significant number of them – are chomping at the bit to ease immigration restrictions for guest workers so that they can pay less for skilled craft labor. The news of the release of this report undoubtedly foreshadows the ratcheting up of pressure on American lawmakers to expand the guest worker programs under the federal H-1B and H-2B visa programs, as well as further expand the L1 Intra-Company transfer visas. This increased pressure stems from the disappointment of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations over the fact that the issue of comprehensive immigration reform was placed on the back burner this year by the U.S. Congress. The next logical step for the business community would be to manufacture a “crisis” in order to get Congress to pass a massive expansion of flawed guest worker programs. The stated view of the Chamber and the business community at large on the issue of guest workers is that the “market” should determine the number of visas and, of course, the market is defined by employer demand. The abuse of the H-2B visa program gets very little attention, yet it is an issue that has wide-ranging effects on the wages and working conditions for skilled craft workers all across the United States; in similar fashion to the escalation of “employee misclassification” in the construction industry which is now reaching epidemic proportions and wreaking havoc on workers, communities and many state’s already-dire fiscal troubles (due to the significant drop-off in tax revenues caused by this shameful practice). Until recently, employers and unscrupulous labor brokers who used the H-2B visa program to exploit foreign workers and drive down community wage standards have operated in the shadows. But today, thanks to watered down application and enforcement provisions, these parasitic “visa vultures” are free to ply their unscrupulous trade out in the open. Hence, the Manpower, Inc. “report.” Hundreds of billions of dollars have been appropriated by the federal government over the course of the last two years for the purpose of jump-starting our national economy. Many of the jobs that are being created by the stimulus bill are in the construction trades. And with an industry unemployment rate that continues to hover at 20% nationally, the last thing we would think possible is for U.S. employers to claim that there are not enough American welders, electricians, boilermakers and other skilled craft workers available to fill these jobs. Rather, these employers believe that there are not enough skilled craft professionals who are willing to work for the starvation wages they would like to pay, and for which they can find willing foreign workers. Just like the scourge of abuse occurring in the Gulf Coast region, where some employers continue to engage in the abuse of the H-2B visa program. Their modus operandi typically involves mis-advertising for lower-skill workers at the lowest level of wages (Levels 1 and 2 as defined by the H-2B program) when in actuality the jobs require much higher skill levels. By advertising for a lower class of skill, these employers are virtually guaranteeing that they won’t get a pool of “qualified” American workers. For example, they will advertise for a lower-skill “production welder” rather than a “construction welder” for a job in shipyard, knowing full well that any welder that works in a U.S. shipyard must pass a certification test. The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA) has done a remarkable job of exposing this travesty. They have had qualified union members apply for these lower wage jobs, and when the employer finds out who they are and examines their stellar qualifications, these applicants are simply never contacted. Over the last couple of years throughout the Gulf Coast, the UA has successfully stopped over 12,000 individual job placements from going forward because of such fraudulent advertising practices. And this comes on the heels of another employer in the Gulf Coast who, in 2007, fraudulently submitted applications for 6,000 foreign H-2B visa workers to work on re-building the petrochemical industry in that region after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when many American workers in that region were desperate for work. Of the 6,000 applications for welders, 3,000 were targeted for the Motiva Refinery, 1,500 for Valero, 1,000 for Total Petrochemical & 500 for ExxonMobil. The State Workforce Agency killed this application after complaints from local building trades unions in that area, along with newspaper stories and investigations. With so much fraud involved it is unfathomable that not one single person went to jail or was even charged for filing forged documents and falsified applications! If that’s not enough, you could point to the example of late 2006, again along the Gulf Coast, where U.S. and Indian recruiters defrauded more than 500 Indian workers of $20,000 each for an American dream–promises of good work and green cards–but delivered to them instead temporary visas binding them to one employer, along with deplorable conditions at Signal International shipyards, and constant threats of deportation from the company. Or, the example in Los Angeles, CA where it was discovered that Jacobs Engineering was seeking H-2B visas to import several hundred workers to fill skilled craft positions at a Los Angeles refinery. And in Florida, where the quick action on the part of our State Building and Construction Trades Council thwarted attempts by Blackhawk Marine to obtain H-2B visas for 400 foreign national workers in the Tampa area. The list of these types of abuses goes on and on. It is time that American lawmakers were reminded that their job is to protect the sanctity of American community standards and the interests of American workers. It is long past time for the federal government to initiate rapid regulatory reform of the H-2B process in order to require State Workforce agencies to review employer applications for H-2B temporary labor certifications and to revoke regulations that authorize employer “attestation;” to put an end to three-year “temporary” labor certifications for the construction industry; and to debar from the H-2B program for up to three years any employers, attorneys, or agents who commit willful violations of its requirements. We are on the verge of experiencing tremendous investment in America’s domestic energy sources – including oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal. And we are hopeful that the Congress will soon devote some attention to the state of our crumbling infrastructure. In each instance, there is the potential for substantial job growth for American skilled craft workers. And the joint labor-management skilled craft apprenticeship training infrastructure that our unions operate, and which is funded by approximately $1 billion annually in private monies, is fully prepared to meet the challenge of developing this workforce. As stated in the Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, one of the great failures of our current employment-based immigration system is that the level of legal work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise – without regard to real labor market needs – and it is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions. This failure has allowed unscrupulous employers to manipulate the system to the detriment of workers and respectable employers alike. The system for allocating employment visas – both temporary and permanent – should be de-politicized and placed in the hands of an independent commission that can assess labor market needs on an on-going basis and – based on methodology approved by Congress – determine the number of foreign workers to be admitted for employment purposes, based on labor market needs.

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Lambastes Empire State Building Owner For Complaining About Skyline Changes

August 24, 2010

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ridiculed the owner of the Empire State Building for complaining a proposed skyscraper would ruin the view from the iconic landmark. The mayor said Tuesday every building alters the city’s skyline and no developer owes anyone an apology for new buildings. He welcomes the proposed Manhattan tower as a great investment. The City Council is expected this week to consider developer David Greenbaum’s plan for a 67-story tower a couple of blocks west of the 102-story Empire State Building. The proposed tower would be 34 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest skyscraper. Greenbaum says his tower would provide critically needed office space. Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin says it would be an “assault on New York City.”

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Lambastes Empire State Building Owner For Complaining About Skyline Changes

August 24, 2010

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ridiculed the owner of the Empire State Building for complaining a proposed skyscraper would ruin the view from the iconic landmark. The mayor said Tuesday every building alters the city’s skyline and no developer owes anyone an apology for new buildings. He welcomes the proposed Manhattan tower as a great investment. The City Council is expected this week to consider developer David Greenbaum’s plan for a 67-story tower a couple of blocks west of the 102-story Empire State Building. The proposed tower would be 34 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest skyscraper. Greenbaum says his tower would provide critically needed office space. Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin says it would be an “assault on New York City.”

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: MPRI Couldn’t Read Minds: Let’s Sue Them

August 19, 2010

The interesting news today is that MPRI , one of the earliest U.S. private military contractors, albeit one that has operated strictly in a training capacity, is being sued. The suit, filed by the Genocide Victims of Krajina in Chicago Federal Court, against both MPRI and its parent company, L-3 Communications, alleges, that MPRI “trained and equipped the Croatian military for Operation Storm and designed the Operation Storm battle plan,” which killed or displaced more than 200,000 Serbs in 1995, in the largest European land offensive since World War II. The complainants demand billions of dollars in damages from MPRI, founded by former high-ranking U.S. military officers who were “downsized” at the end of the Cold War, and L-3 Communications, which bought MPRI for $40 million in 2000. Ahh, I feel some serendipitous nostalgia coming on., I first wrote about MPRI in 1997. Back then its not so modest advertising slogan claimed MPRI to be “the greatest corporate assemblage of military expertise in the world.” It provided basic training, doctrinal analysis, wargaming operations and non-military services in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Founded in 1987 by eight former U.S. senior military officers, MPRI said it only operated in areas approved by the U.S. State Department. Although MPRI still operates in numerous countries overseas it is fairly low profile. You are more likely to hear about it in connection with its maritime, aviation, driving, and marksmanship simulators than about their work in Bosnia or Iraq. The background to its work in Croatia is that in March 1994 the Pentagon referred the Croatian Defense Minister to MPRI. For the next few years retired Major General Richard B. Griffitts led 15 MPRI employees in training the Croatian army so that it could provide national security and meet defense needs as Croatia transitioned into a democratic society. Reportedly the Croatian government hired MPRI to advise them on how to construct a civilian-controlled army and to provide leadership skills training. The U.S. State Department only approved MPRI’s activities after determining that the course did not involve tactical training or otherwise violate the 1991 U.N. Security Council arms embargo on Yugoslavia which made direct military assistance illegal. Subsequently, in May 1996, MPRI was granted a contract to train the military forces of Bosnia. 185 MPRI personnel participated in the US-supervised “Train and Equip” program. The program’s objective was to integrate and build up the Bosnian army of Muslims and Croats against the Serbs. Although MPRI denies conducting offensive operations, the August 1995 Operation Storm which resulted in Croatia recapturing its previously Serb-held Krajina region utilized typical American operational tactics, including integrated air, artillery and infantry movements, and the use of maneuver warfighting techniques to destroy Serbian command and control networks. Many observers at the time claimed the Croatians never could have done that without the training provided by MPRI. At the time that struck me as somewhat of a patronizing view, i.e., the pitiful, helpless, tumbling Croatians can’t do anything without help from former U.S. military personnel. A couple of months after writing the above report I wrote the script for a show on private military contractors. One of the people I interviewed was Lt. Gen. Ed Soyster (USA-Ret.), an MPRI Vice President and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I asked hmm about the charge that the Croatians could not have retaken the Krajina without MPRI’s prior training. His response was: INTERVIEWER: Somebody said the training provided by MPRI was helpful to Croatians in terms of their battlefield skills. Is that a correct assessment? GEN. SHOYSTER: It is not. It is not for a couple of reasons. One, we don’t teach in the battlefield skills. We do that in other places. We didn’t, we didn’t teach that in Croatia. That’s not what we were asked to do. And the other realization is, for the analysis, is that we went there in January of ’95, began instruction in April of ’95 because the rest was a course development and so forth to do that. We had one class of about 40 who had graduated in July from the, from the overall course. And the concept that one could go there, or go anywhere, no matter how brilliant your instruction may be, and turn an army around in a month, no, no serious military analyst would ever dream that anyone could do that. So it’s a, we had absolutely, gave no instruction in anything strategic: strategic planning, strategic operations, operational bit. Because that’s not what we were asked to do. And as a contractor you do what the contract says. We were not licensed to do that, and the Croatians never asked us to do that. So somehow in the process, because it was a well-coordinated attack, they look for an American footprint, or fingerprint. The only people they could find were MPRI. We were also accused of having 15 generals over there. We had 15 people over there, one general. And as you can imagine, if you’re an analyst and you think you would send in 15 generals to accomplish a task, not very good analysis. So fundamentally we taught the democracy transition assistance program, not related anything operational there. The credit goes to the Croatian army. … INTERVIEWER: Okay. Can you tell us just a little bit more about the specifics of what was taught during the Croatian democracy transition assistance program? GEN. SHOYSTER: Yes. I, I mentioned fundamentally the, that program. But it, it includes training of officers in the, in basic officer leadership skills and an understanding of where they fit into a democratic society. So we, we emphasize that. We teach general management, training management. We teach how to do planning, programming, the budgeting process, which is, which is new to them. And also an assistance in developing a noncommissioned officer corps. As you know, the Eastern Bloc characteristically did not have a what we would term a professional noncommissioned officer corps. They had a, an officer corps highly vested down at the lowest levels, and then they brought in conscripts. They saw the Western armies, recognized the importance of our noncommissioned officers, and so we’re assisting in developing that kind of professionalism and long-term growth and capability for their noncommissioned officers. Now I am not a lawyer, but even if you choose to ignore the above, it seems to me that the case against MPRI seems weak. The complaint that was filed in court says “allege that MPRI is liable for complicity in genocide. This crime has the same specificity as genocide, the only difference being that genocide requires a specific intent to kill or destroy the target groups whereas complicity in genocide requires knowledge that the perpetrator has that specific intent.” Genocide? Hold on there a moment. Were war crimes committed? I assume they certainly were. But genocide; I think not. Reportedly, during the Operation Storm and mainly in its aftermath between 116 (Croatian Helsinki Committee) and 1200 civilians (Serb statement) were killed and between 150.000 and 250.000 Serbs left the Krajina before the operation. The difference in the numbers of murdered civilians might be explained by the fact, that the distinction between soldiers and civilians was difficult. Part of the suit centers on the fact that back in WWII, when Croatia was a puppet state of Nazi Germany, some 600,000 Serbs and Jews were murdered in the killing fields of Jasenovac in Croatia. The complaint states: In 1994, when Defendant MPRI entered into negotiations with Croatia (to be amplified below), MPRI knew or reasonably should have known the open facts of the genocide at the Jasenovac Concentration Camp. MPRI knew or reasonably should have known of the intense hatred the Croats felt toward the Serbs. MPRI knew or reasonably should have known that the Croatian leaders with whom it was negotiating had been key figures in the Ustasha Party that fomented, organized and led the massacres at Jasenovac and other killing camps in Croatia during World War Two. This seems to be arguing that MPRI was negligent in not doing historical due diligence. It implies that MPRI was a charter member of the Psychic Friends Network, and should have known what was in the hearts and minds of the Croatians in 1994. That the Croatian acted in an unspeakably vile and inhuman manner towards Serbians and other ethnic groups back in WWII is inarguable. But to assert that Croatians still felt the same way more than 50 years later and that MPRI and L-3 were supposed to know that seems to me to be an incredibly weak argument. MPRI’s Croatian contract – officially termed the “Democracy Transition Assistance Program” was one of several in the region licensed by the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls. Federal law requires companies who sell military goods or services abroad to register with the Office of Defense Trade Controls and obtain a license for each contract. Furthermore, even if you accept the argument that past historical animosities bear on contemporary contracts the simple truth of the matter is that it was the U.S. government which approved the contract. MPRI can’t undertake any contract overseas without first having it vetted and approved by the States Department. And, if anyone should be expected to be aware of past historical grievances it should be the diplomats at Foggy Bottom. So, if anyone should be sued it would be the State Department.

Read the full article →

Fred Redmond: GOP Vilifies Workers Who Serve the Public

August 17, 2010

Government workers are the latest victims of a GOP smear campaign. Right-wing strategists have revived the tactic of false accusation in a vain attempt to keep voters from noticing that the policies of the current batch of Republican candidates mirror those of the batch who laid waste to our economy. From Sen. Scott Brown , R-Mass, to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels , Republicans are lying about government workers’ wages and work habits in an attempt to convince voters that the source of the country’s economic woes is public sectors workers — the very people who investigate child abuse, monitor nursing homes, enforce workplace health and safety, repair roads, protect our water and air, teach our kids, maintain our parks, clean our schools, and mail Grandma’s social security check. The United Steelworkers union represents 26,000 public sector workers, ranging from lawyers who serve as public defenders to workers who ensure sewerage treatment plants don’t pollute. The union will not tolerate the GOP’s baseless attacks on our members. USW members who work in service to the public will discuss additional responses during the USW Public Sector Conference Oct. 21 through 23 at the Pittsburgh Hilton Hotel. Republican policies of deregulation left our jobs, our pensions and the economy at the mercy of avaricious and incompetent Wall Street CEOs and put our environment and worker safety in the hands of cowboy capitalists like BP. Theirs were the policies that enriched corporations while gutting worker safety rules and enforcement, increasing the likelihood of worker deaths on oil platforms, in refineries and in coal mines. For Republicans, public sector workers are doubly repulsive. A significant percentage are unionized, and Republicans hate unions. And all of public sector workers are the face of government, which, of course, Republicans want to drown in a bathtub. For the past several months, the GOP has declared open season on the public service workers they so despise, portraying them as over paid and underworked. Amy Traub, Research Director for the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, wrote about the Republican assertions. “It would be an alarming story,” she said, “if it were true.” Research has shown it is not. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senator from New York and Harvard professor, observed, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The National Institute for Retirement Security (NIRS) and the Council on State and Local Government Excellence (COS & LGE) released a jointly-funded study on this topic just as the Republican sound machine revved up this spring. On the facts, they found that every one of the Republican assertions is false. Analyzing data from the U.S. Government’s National Compensation Survey, their economists found that when factors such as education and work experience are taken into account, state and local employees earn less than their counterparts in the private sector. To be exact, state employees earn 11 percent less than comparable private sector workers. Employees of city and county governments earn 12 percent less than their private sector counterparts. Pensions and health insurance coverage make up a slightly greater share of public employees’ overall compensation than those benefits do for private sector employees, but when those costs are included, state and local employees still wind up with less total compensation — 6.8 and 7.4 per cent less, respectively. In addition, while Republicans are blasting public sector workers, they voted against reforming Wall Street, where compensation and bonuses remain immorally high even after taxpayers footed a bailout. Far too many of Wall Street’s investment bankers take home tens of millions annually. The last CEO of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, spent more than $1 million redecorating his office while Merrill’s value plummeted. Like investment bankers, too many CEOs at health insurance, pharmaceutical and other corporations are paid millions in annual compensation. Meanwhile, many public employees can’t afford to buy homes in most major U.S. housing markets. A study by the Center for Housing Policy found that police officers and elementary school teachers don’t earn enough to buy a typical house in two out of five metro areas. Firefighters and librarians can’t afford the median home in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago metropolitan areas. A school-bus driver can’t afford the rent on a standard two-bedroom apartment anywhere . Voter anger is more appropriately directed at Republicans and their corporate cronies — the real privileged class that has managed to make the rest of us pay for the economically-devastating consequences of their greedy risk-taking. Republicans’ American dream consists of slashing the family-supporting wages of workers in manufacturing, public service and health care to minimum wage. Their intent is to drag down the workers’ earnings and the American economy, as they did while Bush held office. Ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote that the surest way to defeat an opposing army is to cause them to fight amongst themselves. The greatest danger for labor is Republicans succeeding in their quest to pit private sector workers against their public sector brothers and sisters. If they can divide us; if they can sow suspicion and jealousy among us, misery will be our lot. If, on the other hand, we can see the greed and gross irresponsibility at the very top of our economy and among those who carry their cause in Congress, then we have a chance to re-write the rules and bring back middle-class prosperity for ourselves and this nation.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Treasury Secretary Geithner — ‘Spinning’ Out of Control

August 17, 2010

I thought it was bad enough when Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, declared last December 13 that the Great Recession of 2007 was ” over ” simply because GDP grew minimally in the second quarter of 2009 following several quarters of decline. This despite the fact that GDP growth became a thoroughly discredited stand-alone measure of economic vitality fully two decades ago when globalization began to expose the weaknesses in our top-down, supply side-driven economy. But Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, from an even higher administration perch, has consistently evidenced the same proclivities as Mr. Summers, and over an even broader range. Two weeks ago, Geithner had the temerity to say: “Business investment and consumption — the two keys to private demand — are getting stronger, better than last year and better than last quarter. “Even the surge in imports, which lowered the rate of increase of GDP, actually reflects healthy and growing American demand. “American families are saving more, paying down their debt and borrowing more responsibly. “The auto industry is coming back, and the Big Three — Chrysler, Ford and General Motors — are now leaner, generating profits despite lower annual sales. “The White House and Congress helped save 8.5 million jobs.” This is egregious ‘spinning’ — and it’s out of control. Almost every day, Mr. Geithner gilds the economy’s lily in inappropriate attempts to delude American workers into believing that: business investment is in fine shape when in fact businesses are sitting on an unprecedented $2 trillion of cash precisely because of ‘uncertainty’; the “surge in imports” is “healthy” when in fact it is an ongoing nightmare (i.e., just in June the overall U.S. trade deficit in goods and services surged 19% to a 21-month high of $49.9 billion); income inequality is not so unequal when in fact it is at its highest level since 1928; the “auto industry is coming back” when in fact most of its vigor is coming from cutting domestic employment in favor of offshoring; and “8.5 million” jobs have been saved by the White House when just a few weeks ago Geithner himself used the figure of “3 million” for jobs created and saved. These several assertions of Geithner’s aren’t just disingenuous and disrespectful — they’re also dangerous, especially his implicit suggestion that consumers should once again feel comfortable ‘borrowing and spending’. If they become commonly embraced by the American people before there are significant economic reforms and successful major job creation initiatives, then that double-dip recession that many of us fear may be coming will arrive in a very big way and it could turn into the second longest L-shaped recession in our country’s history. Here are some additional truths about our economy, over and above the sad income inequality truths that now hang over our nation like a plague: The real unemployment rate is 18.3%, not the 9.5% official rate the administration uses. The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories of unemployment is 29.3 million, not the administration’s one-category-only figure of 14.6 million. Since the start of the Obama administration, the number of real unemployed workers has increased by 4.6 million. By contrast, the economy needs to add around 150,000 new jobs each month simply to keep up with population growth. In real terms the all-important “jobs gap” is 21.3 million new jobs. The average number of weeks unemployed is at least 34.2, and the number of workers unemployed a half year or longer is at least 10.1 million. Mr. Geithner’s rhetorical deceptions mask the in effectiveness of the only two potentially meaningful job-creation initiatives — aid to the states and the bailout of Detroit — that he and Summers largely put together, while letting him ignore the several initiatives, including trade reform, which could actually create, relatively quickly, millions of jobs. In early 2009, Geithner and his colleagues promised that the stimulus package would materially help turn around the states’ crushing budget woes, which is critical because the states remain the foundation of much of America’s job stability and significant job creation. Yet even with the $26 billion of emergency aid just approved by Congress, for the years 2009 to 2012 the states will have had to confront around $275 billion in budget deficits. For the fiscal year ending next June, 46 of them will have to close budget shortfalls aggregating $100 billion or so. Without significant further federal intervention, in the amounts originally contemplated, the states’ bleak fiscal and unemployment positions will ” continue to erode and hurt the U.S. economy through 2060 “, according to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. A much needed promise, yes, but actual, meaningful assistance, not so much. Then there is Treasury’s bailout of Detroit. Or better said, its bailout of ‘Detroit-cum-Mexico’. The bailout of the U.S. auto industry by Treasury was indisputably appropriate. But what was indisputably in appropriate was the almost complete absence of any meaningful “quid” for the massive financial “quo” we gave the industry. Despite the staggering $85 billion bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, U.S. automobile production will actually decline over the next decade because of further offshoring, mostly to Mexico, by the two rescued automakers and by Ford — even now, the three U.S. automakers and their associated parts manufacturers have a $46 billion trade deficit with the rest of the world. Congressman John Dingell of Michigan has written that, “the U.S. automakers benefitted greatly from federal largesse and they should feel morally compelled to retain and create as many domestic jobs as possible.” Obviously the automakers don’t agree, nor, when it had the opportunity, did Treasury demand that they do so. Here are a few more truths: GM has invested a staggering $4.1 billion in Mexico over just the last four years, and after quickly shedding thousands of American jobs in the ‘bailout’, it recently announced a further $500 million investment in its Ramos Arizpe, Mexico plant to produce a new vehicle and a new line of engines there. Chrysler announced in February that it will spend $550 million to retool its Toluca, Mexico factory to assemble the subcompact Fiat 500 model. Ford has announced $3 billion in new investments throughout northern Mexico just since 2008. Driving all of this home is the statement two weeks ago from Ed Whitacre, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors. Whitacre, it is said, is so eager to rid GM of the ” stigma ” of being government owned that he wants Treasury to sell its entire stake in the company during GM’s upcoming initial public offering of stock. ” We want the government out, period ,” he has said. When Mr. Whitacre speaks of “stigma” I think he means that he doesn’t want any scrutiny of his company’s ongoing offshoring moves, which should have been largely prohibited by Treasury in return for the massive government aid which saved his company’s bacon. He probably also means he doesn’t want Congress scrutinizing the company’s embarrassing purchase three weeks ago, for $3.5 billion , of AmeriCredit, a subprime lender which, at a time of unprecedented ‘financial illiteracy’ and continuing financial chicanery, is committed, as the New York Times wrote, to “extending loans and leases to [GM] customers with questionable credit”. After recently visiting three auto plants in a single week, President Obama told workers at a Ford plant, “I wish [the adversaries] could see the pride you take in building these great American-made cars. Don’t bet against the American worker; don’t lose faith in the American people; don’t lose faith in American industry.” Yet the way Tim Geithner put the auto bailout together, the future of the domestic automobile industry won’t only be about American workers and American-made cars. In fact, Mexico’s share of North American auto production will rise to 19% over the next decade, from an average of 12% from 2000 to 2009, while the U.S. will lose these 7 percentage points. No one smart lacks confidence in American workers. What I lack is confidence in a Treasury Department that, with little advice from industry experts, used tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies to bail these companies out, but didn’t restrict them from offshoring American jobs and buying shady subprime lenders while still owing money to the government. Mr. Geithner should also have been using his office to advocate for jobs programs for the five million or so out-of-school unemployed youth and for large-scale infrastructure spending using a “national infrastructure bank” that could fund infrastructure improvements away from the annual federal budget. Other than youth jobs programs and trade reform, the benefits of which would be very quickly realized and instantly accredited to the economy, the biggest near-term job creation opportunity is in rebuilding old and building new infrastructure, of which we need a staggering $3 trillion worth. And for each $1 billion devoted to this need we would create at least 25,000 and up to 45,000 permanent, mostly high quality jobs. The impetus for what needs to get done in infrastructure was the collapse, three years ago, of a major bridge in Minneapolis which killed 13 people. Yet in those three years — 18 months under Bush and now 18 months under Obama — the number of “structurally deficient” bridges in Minnesota has actually increased from 1,156 to 1,206. Nationwide, there are a staggering 71,000 substandard and thus dangerous bridges, virtually the same number as in 2007, which the Federal Highway Administration says will alone take $100 billion to bring up to par. However, last year’s stimulus package, which Geithner and Summers largely designed and shepherded, earmarked a meager $3.1 billion for bridges and only de minimus amounts for the other ‘$3-trillion-minus-$3-billion’ of needed work. And, notably, it provided no foundation funding for that all-important national infrastructure bank. So, as in baseball, here’s my box score on Tim Geithner: two pop ups to the catcher re: the States and Detroit, and then two swinging strikes on infrastructure and youth unemployment. (As you can see, I gave him the benefit of two more swings at the ball even after his two early outs.) The Ur Union of Unemployed (UCubed) repeated its call for Secretary Geithner to resign following the news that in June and July hundreds of thousands of additional jobs were lost. “These figures are the very best we can expect from a Geithner-led economy – stumbling and uncertain job growth for years,” said Rick Sloan, Acting Executive Director. “America’s jobless simply can no longer afford his slow-as-molasses approach to job creation.” UCubed and I don’t expect Mr. Geithner to create the millions of jobs we need today in order to again be fully employed — as Harry Truman would have said, that’s the President’s job, plus Congress’. But we and countless others committed to a fully employed economy do expect him as Treasury Secretary to completely understand the issue and embrace its importance and to frame effective, U.S. advantaged solutions for the President. And since he doesn’t seem to be able to do any of this, I agree with Mr. Sloan that he should resign — immediately. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Fannie, Freddie Reform: Treasury Department Holds All-Star Conference To Discuss Ailing Lenders

August 17, 2010

WASHINGTON — Talk of shrinking the government’s involvement in the mortgage market is growing. Just don’t expect action any time soon. A conference Tuesday at the Treasury Department is the first of many steps toward restructuring the nearly $11 trillion mortgage market. So far, rescuing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has cost the government more than $148 billion. That number is expected to grow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will address the conference but is not expected to offer an exit strategy Tuesday. The administration has said it won’t offer its plan until next year. Officials are pledging dramatic changes to the structure of Fannie and Freddie, which profited tremendously during good times but burdened taxpayers with losses when the housing market went bust. “We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses,” Geithner said in remarks prepared for the conference. With Republicans likely to pick up seats in Congress in November, however, the Obama administration will need support from both political parties for the changes it proposes. Reflecting this reality, Geithner will say Tuesday that “the failures that produced the system we have today were bipartisan. The solution must be as well.” Executives and mortgage experts are prepared to tell Obama officials that that the government must stay in the business of backing U.S. mortgages even if Fannie and Freddie disappear someday. “At the end of the day, the government will still have a very large role to play,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a panelist at the event. Others include mortgage executives from Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co, plus Bill Gross, managing director of bond giant Pimco and Lewis Ranieri, one of the creators of mortgage bonds. The Obama administration’s management of Fannie and Freddie has been under fire for months from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In December, the Treasury Department eliminated a $400 billion cap on how much money it would give the mortgage giants to keep them from failing. Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., has called that a “taxpayer-backed slush fund” and called for the support to be wound down. Many in the mortgage industry say that’s not realistic. “There has to be a game plan,” said Paul Leonard, vice president of government affairs at the Housing Policy Council, a mortgage industry group. “You can’t just pull the plug on them.” Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages and package them into securities with a guarantee against default. They have ensured that millions of Americans can get home loans – even after the housing market collapsed. The two mortgage giants, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration together backed about 90 percent of loans made in the first half of the year, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance. At some point the government will have to scale back the level of support it provided the housing and mortgage markets during the recession and financial crisis. “The government’s footprint in the housing market needs to be smaller than it is today,” Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama’s housing secretary, said in prepared remarks. Most of the plans being circulated to reshape the mortgage market call for the government to guarantee that investors who buy mortgage-backed securities receive their money even if borrowers default. Under this system, Fannie and Freddie could either be returned to private ownership or phased out completely. Fannie and Freddie, or their replacements, would pay the government to insure the loans. That money could be tapped if the housing market collapses. “A government guarantee is both a desirable and necessary component of the country’s housing finance system,” wrote John Gibbons, a Wells Fargo & Co. executive vice president, in a letter last month to the Treasury Department.

Read the full article →

5-Day Emergency Contraceptive ‘Ella’ Approved By FDA

August 13, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal health officials on Friday approved a new type of morning-after contraceptive that works longer than the current leading drug on the market. The pill ella from HRA Pharma reduces the chance of pregnancy up to five days after sex. Plan B, the most widely used emergency contraceptive pill, begins losing its ability to prevent pregnancy within three days of sex. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug Friday as a prescription-only birth control option. The ruling clears the way for U.S. sales of the drug, which is already approved in Europe. Morristown, N.J.-based Watson Pharmaceuticals will market the drug in the U.S. under an agreement with HRA. Watson said it will launch the pill in the fourth quarter. Studies of ella by its manufacturer showed the drug prevented pregnancies longer and more consistently than Plan B. In a head-to-head trial between the two drugs, women who took ella had a 1.8 percent chance of becoming pregnant, while women who took Plan B had a 2.6 percent chance. Experts tracked nearly 1,700 women who randomly received one of the two pills within three to five days of having unprotected sex. Plan B is made by Teva Pharmaceuticals and is also marketed in several generic versions. Unlike ella, Plan B and other generic versions are available without a prescription for women 17 years and older. HRA Pharma did not request over-the-counter status for its drug. Ella uses the hormone progesterone to delay ovulation, a key step in the fertilization process. Despite this, the drug has drawn criticism from anti-abortion groups who say it is closer to an abortion pill than an emergency contraception pill. Groups including the Family Research Council argue the drug is chemically similar to the abortion drug mifeprestone, which can be taken to end a pregnancy up to 50 days into the gestation period. That drug has been associated with severe infections and bleeding after abortion. However, FDA reviewers reported no life-threatening medical side effects with ella. The most common side effects with the drug included headache, nausea and abdominal pain, according to an FDA release. Abortion rights groups hailed the approval as an important step for the FDA, which was criticized in 2006 for its handling of Plan B’s approval. Last year a federal judge ruled that the FDA deliberately delayed making a decision on whether to permit over-the-counter sales of Plan B to teenage girls, at the behest of the Bush administration. ”Approval of ella is another indication that the FDA is committed to restoring scientific integrity in its decisions,” said Kirsten Moore, president of the advocacy group Reproductive Health Technologies Project. Privately held HRA Pharma is based in Paris and specializes in women’s health products.

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Creating Jobs — Two Better Ways To Do It

August 10, 2010

In mid-April in this blog, I took exception to Robert Reich’s op-ed in the Financial Times which I thought completely misread the massive job-creation predicament we are in when he declared that the economic recovery largely rested at the doorsteps of America’s small businesses, specifically “companies with fewer than 100 employees”. Last week I repeated my concern after President Obama went to a submarine sandwich shop in New Jersey to highlight his efforts to support small business growth. I wrote that the United States is not going to create anything close to the 22 million jobs we are ‘missing’ today by making a shop with just five employees the ‘model’ for future job growth, not when the State of Michigan alone lost more than 230,000 jobs in 2009 on top of the hundreds of thousands it and 45 other States lost in the prior ten years. This love affair with pumping up small businesses started when Ronald Reagan became president, but it came about only because big(ger) business had established — or so we thought — a largely non-erodible industrial foundation for the country. It was thought that such a foundation would withstand and in fact prosper from the globalization that was coming down the pike. To put this in context, for the first half of the last century, manufacturing constituted about 35% of the nation’s GDP. Even after our GIs returned home from World War II and military production ceased, manufacturing in 1947 still made up 26% of GDP. And it never went below 21% until 1980, when it began its persistent decline to the very low 11% level it stands at today. Of course with this decline millions of good American jobs were shipped overseas. Twenty-two million new jobs, which is what we need for our workforce to be “fully employed” – i.e., no more than a 5% overall unemployment rate – is the almost incomprehensible equivalent of having to create 140 new Boeing Companies or 90 new General Motors. The simple truth is that there is no way on God’s green earth to create this many jobs without the massive – and primary – involvement of ‘big manufacturing business’. By contrast, the administration’s alternative of emphasizing small businesses has the potential to create only several million jobs in the medium term. To dig out of the jobless recovery we are mired in, we need to promote large-scale investment in American manufacturing, make the U.S. marketplace more welcoming and profitable for American manufactured goods, and make American exports more competitive. The best place to start — for progressives and conservatives alike — is with a stable tax system that encourages investment, growth and jobs; that least distorts economic decision-making; and that best promotes the competitiveness of U.S. corporations in the global marketplace. Such a system should have at its core a value-added-tax, or VAT, of the sort that least 139 nations, including all of the major developed nations, already have. As it is, because America does not have a VAT, imported goods are often cheaper than American-made products. Poll after poll shows Americans preferring by solid margins good paying jobs here at home to cheaper-priced imports, and even a willingness to pay more for U.S.-made goods. However, it is unfair to ask American consumers to prop up American manufacturing when such disproportionate competitive advantages are flowing to overseas manufacturers. Those competitive advantages result in cheaper prices of their goods exported to the U.S. The advantages those offshore manufacturers enjoy include more favorable tax structures, massive and often illegal subsidies flowing their way, and the abysmal labor and environmental practices they employ. It’s going to take years to balance out the latter two advantages — i.e., subsidies and labor and environmental abuses – especially during a resistant Obama administration – but we can at least give American manufacturers, and in turn American consumers, the benefit of a globally competitive tax system. Our current corporate income tax system inspires large-scale tax evasion while generating surprisingly little revenue. The U.S. stands almost alone with one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, which provides an incentive for companies to move production out of the United States and play games with shell corporations. In the process, both the American economy and American workers are losing. A value-added tax is a consumption tax, like a sales tax. But because a VAT is collected at each stage of the production of a product, it avoids the problem of ‘cascading’ sales taxes on top of sales taxes – it’s also a lot harder to “game” or evade than an income tax. However, its greatest appeal is how it would significantly benefit American manufacturing by counter-balancing, so to speak, the benefits which now flow only to overseas manufacturers. Specifically, the way a VAT tax system works is that exports from VAT countries of goods that are also sold domestically get full rebates of any VAT taxes while imports into VAT countries are subjected to VAT taxes at the border. As the only major trading partner currently without a VAT, however, our manufacturers are being penalized at the same time that foreign exporters into the U.S. are being advantaged. In effect, a VAT tax system functions as trade subsidies for exporters and trade tariffs for importers. Most of the six to ten million jobs we’ve lost to other nations in just the last decade are gone for good. Even so, if we used a VAT to replace a large part or all of the corporate income tax – with the very positive result that both the cost of doing business in the U.S. and the incentive for offshoring production would shrink – it should at a minimum be easier to hold on to the jobs we still have and to create new ones. A narrow-based VAT could also serve to substantially reduce the employer portion of the payroll tax, which would stimulate businesses to start hiring again. A modest VAT on the order of 5%, with thoughtful exemptions and offsets for all but the wealthiest of individual consumers, could materially reduce both corporate income (from, say, 35% to 25.6%) and payroll taxes (from, say, 6.2% to 4.5%). In doing so, it would materially spur investments, help America grow its way back to good economic health, and significantly reduce the deficit. As we make our tax system more globally competitive, we also need to address the other area where every other G-20 nation has a big edge, which is government procurement. The American public clearly wants to buy goods specifically manufactured in America — and I don’t mean goods sold by American companies that are manufactured elsewhere or assembled from foreign-made parts. Unfortunately, they are not joined in this conviction by our own federal government, even though U.S. government purchases comprise a staggering 20% of our nation’s GDP, making it the biggest consumer in the world. The Obama administration seems unwilling to flex our government’s bulging purchasing muscle to help create American jobs, while comfortably acquiescing to the interests of the multinational corporations and foreign manufacturers which every day cram their products into our government warehouses. The exception, which is only thanks to the persistent demands of the Department of Defense over many years, is that goods and services deemed to be “militarily critical technology” (or MCT) are mostly required to be domestically sourced. If we have a strategic security interest in domestically sourcing vital military goods, why don’t we have an equally strong strategic economic interest in all-of-government domestic sourcing? To their credit, concerned Members of Congress are now considering legislation to promote American-made materials. House Democrats, notably, are working on an agenda designed to promote American manufacturing called the “Make It in America” agenda to help close the trade deficit and boost clean energy exports. They contend, with ample evidence supporting them, that the United States needs to do more to level the playing field with foreign countries that have strong export numbers. This is a good start, but it needs to go much further. “Buy American” provisions of one form or another have been around since the 1930s, and it is not opportunistic, unfair or inappropriate, as some have said, for us to have strong ones now, especially now. Given that government procurement represents such a large part of our GDP, these requirements would be very stimulative to the overall national economy, while having little or no impact on the cost of goods that are sold to families and individual consumers. In sharpest possible contrast to America’s almost complete lack of any buy-domestic requirements is China’s recently promulgated “Indigenous Innovation Production Accreditation Program” which limits all Chinese central and provincial government procurement to companies that have “indigenous” — or Chinese — “innovation”. And if this isn’t blatant enough, embedded in the IIPA Program are China’s two so-called ‘trade advantages’, namely, (1) regulations to block non-Chinese firms from selling their products to Chinese government agencies and (2) rules that force Western companies to give up technological secrets in exchange for access to China’s markets. With these highly discriminatory restrictions and demands working against us, it is little wonder that China alone is now responsible for fully 80% of the entire U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods, I am not proposing that the U.S. copy the extreme procurement practices of China or, for that matter, the unfair buy-domestic practices of any nation. However, we should demand that: Congress immediately establish buy-domestic and other domestic investment requirements for federal procurement and for grants to states and local governments to the fullest extent allowed under our various trade agreements and the WTO; Until China makes WTO-compliant its IIPA Program, the U.S. government not enter into the bilateral investment treaty with China which China is seeking; and The administration, through a joint effort among Treasury, Commerce and Defense in conjunction with Congress, assess and then limit the risks to the United States of planned investments by China and any other nation in our militarily and otherwise critical technologies and companies. Creating jobs is of vital importance to our country’s well-being, and it calls for the same intense focus and political commitment in the next two years that over the past eighteen months we saw devoted to health care and financial regulatory reform. And it’s long past time for our government to stop equating a job in a sub shop selling sandwiches to a job in a manufacturing plant making real products for domestic consumption and export. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

Video: Ely Calls Romer `Fall Gal’ for Obama’s Economic Team: Video

August 6, 2010

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) — Bert Ely, chief executive officer of bank consulting firm Ely & Co., talks about the resignation of Christina Romer as chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and potential replacements. Romer, whose resignation is effective Sept. 3, decided to return to teaching on the eve of an employment report highlighting the administration’s struggle to spur job gains. Ely speaks with Scarlet Fu on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Romer Says She’s Leaving White House for Family Reasons: Video

August 6, 2010

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) — Christina Romer, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers, talks about the July U.S. jobs report and her decision to resign effective Sept. 3. Private payrolls that exclude government agencies rose by 71,000 after a June gain of 31,000 that was smaller than previously reported, Labor Department figures in Washington showed today. Romer talks with Scarlet Fu and Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Fannie Mae: Home Prices To Decline Into Next Year

August 6, 2010

Home prices will decline into next year, Fannie Mae said Thursday, reversing earlier projections that the housing market would stabilize this year. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that a so-called double-dip recession was possible “if home prices go down.” Fannie’s forecast, disclosed in its latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, shows that the government-owned mortgage giant has turned bearish on the housing market. Fannie Mae, the federal mortgage association, along with its sister entity, Freddie Mac, own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages. “We expect that home prices on a national basis will decline slightly in 2010 and into 2011 before stabilizing, and that the peak-to-trough home price decline on a national basis will range between 18 percent and 25 percent,” the bailed-out behemoth said in its filing. Some housing market analysts, notably John Burns, Mark Hanson, and Dean Baker, have been expecting price declines for some time, but a review of Fannie’s recent regulatory filings show that the firm’s expectations at the start of the year were more positive but have grown grim as time has passed. Put another way, Fannie Mae says the housing market is getting worse. In February, the Washington-based firm said in its annual filing that it expected “home prices to stabilize in 2010.” In May, Fannie said it expected home prices “will decline slightly in 2010 before stabilizing.” The firm also forecast in May that it saw the peak-to-trough decline in home prices nationwide to be in the 18-23 percent range. Fannie changed that to 18-25 percent in its latest filing. The company uses its own formula, eschewing the popular S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. “They are basically going with consensus thinking all three times,” John Burns, a housing industry consultant based in Irvine, Calif., said of Fannie’s last three forecasts. Burns also expects home prices to drop. “It’s a good sign they’re getting a little more in touch with reality,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. Baker expects home prices to drop an additional 15 percent, arguing that the housing bubble has yet to fully deflate. He cautions, though, that part of that decline could be the market over-shooting its correction. Baker is one of a few prominent economists that had been warning about the housing bubble during the boom and to have predicted the mortgage meltdown. Mark Hanson, a housing industry analyst based in California, said in an interview last week that he expects home prices to continually decline in each of the next four years. Greenspan, though, said the data “don’t show” a nationwide decline. “Home prices, as best we can judge, have really flattened out in the last year,” he said Sunday. “And while it is true that most economists expect a small dip from here largely as a consequence of the ending of the [temporary homebuyer] tax credit, the data don’t show that at this particular stage. “If home prices stay stable, then I think we will skirt the worst of the housing problem,” the former Fed chairman added. While the Obama administration has talked up the stabilized housing market and the rise in home prices since the beginning of the year, it, too, has begun to note the possibility housing prices will drop. In its annual Economic Report of the President sent to Congress in February, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, referring to vacant homes that are intentionally being held off the market — part of the so-called “shadow inventory” — said that the “overhang may lead to some additional price declines, although prices are unlikely to fall at the same rate as they did during the crisis.” On Monday, Alan B. Krueger, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for economic policy and its chief economist, also noted that the “large inventory of homes on the market relative to the sales pace, along with a significant number of homes in foreclosure also poses a downside risk to prices,” he said in a statement. In the spring, Krueger spoke of “stabilizing home prices” and said that “housing market futures point to flat housing prices through 2010,” according to a May 3 statement. The Federal Reserve’s main policymaking body has also turned bearish, warning in June about the possibility of declines in home prices. “With the expiration of [temporary tax credits for homebuyers], home sales and starts had stepped down noticeably and could remain weak in the near term,” participants noted during the Federal Open Market Committee’s June 22-23 meeting, according to minutes released last month. “With lower demand and a continuing supply of foreclosed houses coming to market, participants judged that house prices were likely to remain flat or decline somewhat further in the near term.” Borrowers are losing their homes at a record pace. Banks have repossessed about 1.4 million homes since Obama took office, according to data provider RealtyTrac. And foreclosures, though down from their 2009 highs, still average well over 300,000 homes per month. While it takes a record 461 days to complete a foreclosure, an average according to Jacksonville, Fla.-based data provider Lender Processing Services, for the more than 2.8 million homes that were foreclosed on last year that day of reckoning has either passed, or is approaching soon. Fannie said Thursday that it expects its inventory of repossessed homes “to continue to increase significantly throughout 2010.”

Read the full article →

Christina Romer Resigning: Top Obama Adviser Leaving Council of Economic Advisers

August 6, 2010

Christina Romer, one of President Barack Obama’s most pivotal economic advisers, is resigning, a change that comes as the White House struggles to show signs of clear economic gains to a hurting nation. Romer, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, announced her resignation Thursday, effective Sept. 3. She becomes the second high-level Obama aide to leave this summer, following the resignation of White House Budget Director Peter Orszag. She will return to her job as a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. The White House cast the decision as an unsurprising one driven by family reasons; in a statement, Obama said Romer has long wanted to return to California, where her son will be starting high school in the fall. Romer has been one of the administration’s most prominent voices on the economy, making frequent appearances on television and at White House events to promote Obama’s policies. Her resignation comes as the White House labors to convince the public that the economy is on the right track amid near-double digit unemployment. Obama inherited an economic disaster in 2009. Since then, the economy began growing, accelerating in the winter and spring. It spurred some modest hiring but not enough to rapidly reduce the unemployment rate, which is 9.5 percent. “Christy Romer has provided extraordinary service to me and our country during a time of economic crisis and recovery,” Obama said. “The challenges we faced demanded more of Christy than any of her predecessors, and I greatly valued and appreciated her skill, commitment and wise counsel.” Romer’s resignation came amid a report that she had been frustrated that she didn’t have as much access to the president as Larry Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal relations at the White House, played down that notion, noting that Romer met with the president daily to chart the government’s response to the financial meltdown. The official said Romer and Summers often emerged as strong allies. Summers said Monday night that Romer has been “an extraordinary friend and colleague at the White House”, and he looked forward to drawing on her advice in the future. Still, the two didn’t always see eye-to-eye. As the New Yorker reported last year : Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn’t require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer’s analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion. The memo to Obama, however, detailed only two packages: a five-hundred-and-fifty-billion-dollar stimulus and an eight-hundred-and-ninety-billion-dollar stimulus. Summers did not include Romer’s $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.” At the meeting, according to one participant, “there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars.” The official said no decision has been made on who will replace Romer as head of the Council of Economic Advisers. The White House has vigorously defended its interventions – chiefly the $862 billion stimulus bill approved by Congress – as moves that first prevented further freefall and then began turning around the economy. Romer, along with Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist, Jared Bernstein, wrote in a January 2009 report that the economic stimulus package Obama was proposing would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Without the stimulus, the report said employment would rise to about 9 percent in 2010. Yet unemployment has surpassed that figure. Republicans have seized on that point. On Friday, the government will release unemployment numbers for July that are expected to show a loss of 65,000 jobs because of the end of temporary positions with the U.S. Census Bureau. The unemployment rate is not expected to budge much from its current 9.5 percent. Romer called her work the “honor of a lifetime”. She said: “While I look forward to returning to research and teaching, the opportunity to help shape economic policy these past 20 months, and to work with the other members of the economic team and my colleagues on the CEA, is one I will always cherish.” A person close to Romer said she is a top contender to be named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, an appointment that would be made by the regional organization’s board of directors. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because a decision has not been made. Orszag announced his resignation in June after a grueling, nonstop sprint as director of the Office of Management and Budget and as a key adviser to Obama. During his tenure, Congress passed the most expensive economic stimulus program in U.S. history and a massive health care reform bill. Orszag oversaw Obama’s first two budgets too. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at the time that Orszag decided to leave before work began on a third.

Read the full article →

Christina Romer, Top Obama Economic Adviser, To QUIT White House Job: REPORT

August 5, 2010

Christina Romer, chairwoman of Pres. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, has decided to resign, according to a source familiar with her plans. Romer, an economics professor at the University of California (Berkeley) before taking the key admin post, did not respond to repeated calls to her office.

Read the full article →

Video: Romer Says 2nd-Qtr GDP ‘Solid, Not Strong Enough’: Video

July 30, 2010

July 30 (Bloomberg) — Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, discusses second-quarter gross domestic product, released today, and the outlook for the U.S. economy. Romer speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Death of the Postindustrial Dream

July 22, 2010

Remember postindustrialism? Not long ago, this catchphrase was supposed to define America’s future: no more grubby hard industries, just a clean bright world of services and high technology. Its most succinct formulation is as follows: Manufacturing is old hat and America is moving on to better things. This idea played a large role during the 1980s and 1990s in getting Americans to accept deindustrialization. It was promoted by writers as varied as futurist Alvin Toffler, capitalist romantic George Gilder, techno-libertarian Virginia Postrel, futurist John Naisbitt, and globalist Thomas Friedman. Newt Gingrich seized upon it as the supposed economic basis of his Republican Revolution of 1994. Unfortunately, postindustrialism is now a blatantly dead letter, as the U.S. economy has ceased generating any net new jobs in internationally traded sectors of any kind: manufacturing or services, industrial or postindustrial. The comforting myth still lingers that America is shifting from low-tech to high-tech employment, but we are not. We are losing jobs in both and shifting to non-tradable services, which are mostly low value-added, and thus ill-paid, jobs. According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted New Economy has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. Thanks-for-nothing.com. Nevertheless, postindustrialism remains popular in some very important circles. In the 2006 words of the prestigious quasi-official Council on Competitiveness, a group of American business, labor, academic and government leaders: Services are where the high value is today, not in manufacturing. Manufacturing stuff per se is relatively low value. That is why it is being done in China or Thailand. It’s the service functions of manufacturing that are where the high value is today, and that is what America can excel in. But the above paragraph is simply not true: manufacturing, which is vital to America’s recovery, is not an obsolescent sector of the economy. Let’s burrow into the details a bit to understand why. “Screwdriver plant” final-assembly manufacturing can indeed increasingly be done anywhere in the world. This lays it open to labor arbitrage and thus low wages. But this doesn’t mean that this one stage of the long supply chain from raw materials to the consumer has become unimportant. Every link in the chain still matters, albeit in different ways. Manufacturing involves continuous feedback loops where every stage–from the initial idea to the R&D to the prototype to full-scale production to marketing of the final product–is related to every other. Losing control of any one stage can easily lead to the loss of the whole industry, including skill sets needed for moving to the next product or level of industrial sophistication. As Stephen Cohen and John Zysman explain in their book Manufacturing Matters : America must control the production of those high-tech products it invents and designs–and it must do so in a direct and hands-on way…First, production is where the lion’s share of the value added is realized…This is where the returns needed to finance the next round of research and development are generated. Second and most important, unless [research and development] is tightly tied to manufacturing of the product…R&D will fall behind the cutting edge of incremental innovation…High tech gravitates to the state-of-the-art producers. A small American company named Ampex in Redwood City, California, encapsulates everything that is wrong with postindustrialism. This leading audio tape firm invented the video cassette recorder in 1970 but bungled the transition to mass production and ended up licensing the technology to the Japanese. It collected millions in royalties all through the 1980s and 1990s and employed a few hundred people. Its licensee companies collected tens of billions in sales and employed hundreds of thousands of people. Thus an entire vast industry never existed in the U.S. All the jobs–and the industrial base and the profits to finance the next generation of products, like DVDs–ended up in the Far East. That some individual companies like Apple Computer make a success out of keeping design functions at home and offshoring the manufacturing does not make this a viable strategy for the economy as a whole. Apple is a unique company; that is why it succeeds. And even fabled Apple is not quite the success story one might hope for, from a trade point-of-view. Due to its foreign components and assembly, every $300 iPod sold in the U.S. adds another $140 to our deficit with China. If sophisticated American design must be embodied in imported goods in order to be sold, it will not help our trade balance. About the only thing postindustrialism gets right is that selling a product with a high value per embodied man-hour almost always means selling embodied know-how. But know-how must usually be embodied in a physical package before reaching the consumer, and manufactured goods are actually a rather good package for embodying it in. Exporting disembodied know-how like design services is definitely an inferior proposition, as indicated by the fact that since 2004, America’s deficit in high-technology goods has exceeded our surplus in intellectual property, royalties, licenses, and fees. So when someone like self-described “radical free trader” Thomas Friedman writes that, “there may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of good idea-generated jobs in the world,” this is simply false. There is nothing about the fact that ideas are abstract and the products of factories concrete that causes there to be an infinite demand for ideas. The limit on the number of idea-generated jobs is set by the amount of money people are willing to pay for ideas (either in their pure form or embodied in goods) because this ultimately pays the salaries of idea-generated jobs. The final killer of the postindustrial dream is, of course, offshoring, as this means that even if capturing primarily service industry jobs were a desirable strategy, America can’t reliably capture and hold these jobs anyway. The complexity of the jobs being offshored, which started with jobs such as call centers, is relentlessly rising. According to a 2007 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton: Relocating core business functions such as product design, engineering and R&D represents a new and growing trend. Although labor arbitrage strategies continue to be key drivers of offshoring, sourcing and accessing talent is the primary driver of next-generation offshoring…Until recently, offshoring was almost entirely associated with locating and setting up IT services, call centers and other business processes in lower-cost countries. But IT outsourcing is reaching maturity and now the growth is centered around product and process innovation. Among complex business functions, product development, including software development, is now the second-largest corporate function being offshored. Offshoring of sophisticated white-collar tasks such as finance, accounting, sales, and personnel management is growing at 35 percent per year. Meanwhile, despite a few individual companies bringing offshored call centers back home, offshoring of call centers and help desks continues to grow at a double-digit pace. Thankfully, some of America’s corporate elite are now starting to question postindustrialism, about which they were utterly gung-ho only a few years ago. In the 2009 words of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt: I believe that a popular, 30-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. Immelt has since argued that the U.S. should aim for manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of all jobs, roughly double their current percentage. Only a few years ago, this idea would have been dismissed as an ignorant and reactionary piece of central planning, especially if it had not been proposed by a respected Fortune 500 CEO. But despite his welcome public statements, Immelt is still closing US plants and offshoring jobs, a sign that the free market well may not solve this problem on its own. Can deindustrialization be fought? The evidence suggests it can. Some high-wage foreign nations, the best examples being Germany and Japan, are already doing a much better job at defending manufacturing industry than we are. (GM went bankrupt; Toyota and BMW somehow didn’t.) As a result, these nations now have higher factory wages than we do–a stunning reversal of America’s 250-year status as the best country for ordinary workers. They are doing it by hanging tough in manufacturing and by having serious national industrial strategies. They are export powerhouses. They lack our naiveté about free trade and do not really embrace it, preferring various local varieties of mercantilism. Manufacturing is essential to America’s economy recovery. Unfortunately, the longer we dally about getting back to real industries as the basis of real wealth, the more our industries get hollowed out, so the harder it gets. There is probably still enough time to turn things around, but not much. Ian Fletcher is the author of the Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (USBIC, 2010, $24.95) An Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council , a Washington think tank founded in 1933, he was previously an economist in private practice, mostly serving hedge funds and private equity firms. He may be contacted at ian.fletcher@usbic.net .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Death of the Postindustrial Dream

July 22, 2010

Remember postindustrialism? Not long ago, this catchphrase was supposed to define America’s future: no more grubby hard industries, just a clean bright world of services and high technology. Its most succinct formulation is as follows: Manufacturing is old hat and America is moving on to better things. This idea played a large role during the 1980s and 1990s in getting Americans to accept deindustrialization. It was promoted by writers as varied as futurist Alvin Toffler, capitalist romantic George Gilder, techno-libertarian Virginia Postrel, futurist John Naisbitt, and globalist Thomas Friedman. Newt Gingrich seized upon it as the supposed economic basis of his Republican Revolution of 1994. Unfortunately, postindustrialism is now a blatantly dead letter, as the U.S. economy has ceased generating any net new jobs in internationally traded sectors of any kind: manufacturing or services, industrial or postindustrial. The comforting myth still lingers that America is shifting from low-tech to high-tech employment, but we are not. We are losing jobs in both and shifting to non-tradable services, which are mostly low value-added, and thus ill-paid, jobs. According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted New Economy has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. Thanks-for-nothing.com. Nevertheless, postindustrialism remains popular in some very important circles. In the 2006 words of the prestigious quasi-official Council on Competitiveness, a group of American business, labor, academic and government leaders: Services are where the high value is today, not in manufacturing. Manufacturing stuff per se is relatively low value. That is why it is being done in China or Thailand. It’s the service functions of manufacturing that are where the high value is today, and that is what America can excel in. But the above paragraph is simply not true: manufacturing, which is vital to America’s recovery, is not an obsolescent sector of the economy. Let’s burrow into the details a bit to understand why. “Screwdriver plant” final-assembly manufacturing can indeed increasingly be done anywhere in the world. This lays it open to labor arbitrage and thus low wages. But this doesn’t mean that this one stage of the long supply chain from raw materials to the consumer has become unimportant. Every link in the chain still matters, albeit in different ways. Manufacturing involves continuous feedback loops where every stage–from the initial idea to the R&D to the prototype to full-scale production to marketing of the final product–is related to every other. Losing control of any one stage can easily lead to the loss of the whole industry, including skill sets needed for moving to the next product or level of industrial sophistication. As Stephen Cohen and John Zysman explain in their book Manufacturing Matters : America must control the production of those high-tech products it invents and designs–and it must do so in a direct and hands-on way…First, production is where the lion’s share of the value added is realized…This is where the returns needed to finance the next round of research and development are generated. Second and most important, unless [research and development] is tightly tied to manufacturing of the product…R&D will fall behind the cutting edge of incremental innovation…High tech gravitates to the state-of-the-art producers. A small American company named Ampex in Redwood City, California, encapsulates everything that is wrong with postindustrialism. This leading audio tape firm invented the video cassette recorder in 1970 but bungled the transition to mass production and ended up licensing the technology to the Japanese. It collected millions in royalties all through the 1980s and 1990s and employed a few hundred people. Its licensee companies collected tens of billions in sales and employed hundreds of thousands of people. Thus an entire vast industry never existed in the U.S. All the jobs–and the industrial base and the profits to finance the next generation of products, like DVDs–ended up in the Far East. That some individual companies like Apple Computer make a success out of keeping design functions at home and offshoring the manufacturing does not make this a viable strategy for the economy as a whole. Apple is a unique company; that is why it succeeds. And even fabled Apple is not quite the success story one might hope for, from a trade point-of-view. Due to its foreign components and assembly, every $300 iPod sold in the U.S. adds another $140 to our deficit with China. If sophisticated American design must be embodied in imported goods in order to be sold, it will not help our trade balance. About the only thing postindustrialism gets right is that selling a product with a high value per embodied man-hour almost always means selling embodied know-how. But know-how must usually be embodied in a physical package before reaching the consumer, and manufactured goods are actually a rather good package for embodying it in. Exporting disembodied know-how like design services is definitely an inferior proposition, as indicated by the fact that since 2004, America’s deficit in high-technology goods has exceeded our surplus in intellectual property, royalties, licenses, and fees. So when someone like self-described “radical free trader” Thomas Friedman writes that, “there may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of good idea-generated jobs in the world,” this is simply false. There is nothing about the fact that ideas are abstract and the products of factories concrete that causes there to be an infinite demand for ideas. The limit on the number of idea-generated jobs is set by the amount of money people are willing to pay for ideas (either in their pure form or embodied in goods) because this ultimately pays the salaries of idea-generated jobs. The final killer of the postindustrial dream is, of course, offshoring, as this means that even if capturing primarily service industry jobs were a desirable strategy, America can’t reliably capture and hold these jobs anyway. The complexity of the jobs being offshored, which started with jobs such as call centers, is relentlessly rising. According to a 2007 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton: Relocating core business functions such as product design, engineering and R&D represents a new and growing trend. Although labor arbitrage strategies continue to be key drivers of offshoring, sourcing and accessing talent is the primary driver of next-generation offshoring…Until recently, offshoring was almost entirely associated with locating and setting up IT services, call centers and other business processes in lower-cost countries. But IT outsourcing is reaching maturity and now the growth is centered around product and process innovation. Among complex business functions, product development, including software development, is now the second-largest corporate function being offshored. Offshoring of sophisticated white-collar tasks such as finance, accounting, sales, and personnel management is growing at 35 percent per year. Meanwhile, despite a few individual companies bringing offshored call centers back home, offshoring of call centers and help desks continues to grow at a double-digit pace. Thankfully, some of America’s corporate elite are now starting to question postindustrialism, about which they were utterly gung-ho only a few years ago. In the 2009 words of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt: I believe that a popular, 30-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. Immelt has since argued that the U.S. should aim for manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of all jobs, roughly double their current percentage. Only a few years ago, this idea would have been dismissed as an ignorant and reactionary piece of central planning, especially if it had not been proposed by a respected Fortune 500 CEO. But despite his welcome public statements, Immelt is still closing US plants and offshoring jobs, a sign that the free market well may not solve this problem on its own. Can deindustrialization be fought? The evidence suggests it can. Some high-wage foreign nations, the best examples being Germany and Japan, are already doing a much better job at defending manufacturing industry than we are. (GM went bankrupt; Toyota and BMW somehow didn’t.) As a result, these nations now have higher factory wages than we do–a stunning reversal of America’s 250-year status as the best country for ordinary workers. They are doing it by hanging tough in manufacturing and by having serious national industrial strategies. They are export powerhouses. They lack our naiveté about free trade and do not really embrace it, preferring various local varieties of mercantilism. Manufacturing is essential to America’s economy recovery. Unfortunately, the longer we dally about getting back to real industries as the basis of real wealth, the more our industries get hollowed out, so the harder it gets. There is probably still enough time to turn things around, but not much. Ian Fletcher is the author of the Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (USBIC, 2010, $24.95) An Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council , a Washington think tank founded in 1933, he was previously an economist in private practice, mostly serving hedge funds and private equity firms. He may be contacted at ian.fletcher@usbic.net .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Death of the Postindustrial Dream

July 22, 2010

Remember postindustrialism? Not long ago, this catchphrase was supposed to define America’s future: no more grubby hard industries, just a clean bright world of services and high technology. Its most succinct formulation is as follows: Manufacturing is old hat and America is moving on to better things. This idea played a large role during the 1980s and 1990s in getting Americans to accept deindustrialization. It was promoted by writers as varied as futurist Alvin Toffler, capitalist romantic George Gilder, techno-libertarian Virginia Postrel, futurist John Naisbitt, and globalist Thomas Friedman. Newt Gingrich seized upon it as the supposed economic basis of his Republican Revolution of 1994. Unfortunately, postindustrialism is now a blatantly dead letter, as the U.S. economy has ceased generating any net new jobs in internationally traded sectors of any kind: manufacturing or services, industrial or postindustrial. The comforting myth still lingers that America is shifting from low-tech to high-tech employment, but we are not. We are losing jobs in both and shifting to non-tradable services, which are mostly low value-added, and thus ill-paid, jobs. According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted New Economy has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. Thanks-for-nothing.com. Nevertheless, postindustrialism remains popular in some very important circles. In the 2006 words of the prestigious quasi-official Council on Competitiveness, a group of American business, labor, academic and government leaders: Services are where the high value is today, not in manufacturing. Manufacturing stuff per se is relatively low value. That is why it is being done in China or Thailand. It’s the service functions of manufacturing that are where the high value is today, and that is what America can excel in. But the above paragraph is simply not true: manufacturing, which is vital to America’s recovery, is not an obsolescent sector of the economy. Let’s burrow into the details a bit to understand why. “Screwdriver plant” final-assembly manufacturing can indeed increasingly be done anywhere in the world. This lays it open to labor arbitrage and thus low wages. But this doesn’t mean that this one stage of the long supply chain from raw materials to the consumer has become unimportant. Every link in the chain still matters, albeit in different ways. Manufacturing involves continuous feedback loops where every stage–from the initial idea to the R&D to the prototype to full-scale production to marketing of the final product–is related to every other. Losing control of any one stage can easily lead to the loss of the whole industry, including skill sets needed for moving to the next product or level of industrial sophistication. As Stephen Cohen and John Zysman explain in their book Manufacturing Matters : America must control the production of those high-tech products it invents and designs–and it must do so in a direct and hands-on way…First, production is where the lion’s share of the value added is realized…This is where the returns needed to finance the next round of research and development are generated. Second and most important, unless [research and development] is tightly tied to manufacturing of the product…R&D will fall behind the cutting edge of incremental innovation…High tech gravitates to the state-of-the-art producers. A small American company named Ampex in Redwood City, California, encapsulates everything that is wrong with postindustrialism. This leading audio tape firm invented the video cassette recorder in 1970 but bungled the transition to mass production and ended up licensing the technology to the Japanese. It collected millions in royalties all through the 1980s and 1990s and employed a few hundred people. Its licensee companies collected tens of billions in sales and employed hundreds of thousands of people. Thus an entire vast industry never existed in the U.S. All the jobs–and the industrial base and the profits to finance the next generation of products, like DVDs–ended up in the Far East. That some individual companies like Apple Computer make a success out of keeping design functions at home and offshoring the manufacturing does not make this a viable strategy for the economy as a whole. Apple is a unique company; that is why it succeeds. And even fabled Apple is not quite the success story one might hope for, from a trade point-of-view. Due to its foreign components and assembly, every $300 iPod sold in the U.S. adds another $140 to our deficit with China. If sophisticated American design must be embodied in imported goods in order to be sold, it will not help our trade balance. About the only thing postindustrialism gets right is that selling a product with a high value per embodied man-hour almost always means selling embodied know-how. But know-how must usually be embodied in a physical package before reaching the consumer, and manufactured goods are actually a rather good package for embodying it in. Exporting disembodied know-how like design services is definitely an inferior proposition, as indicated by the fact that since 2004, America’s deficit in high-technology goods has exceeded our surplus in intellectual property, royalties, licenses, and fees. So when someone like self-described “radical free trader” Thomas Friedman writes that, “there may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of good idea-generated jobs in the world,” this is simply false. There is nothing about the fact that ideas are abstract and the products of factories concrete that causes there to be an infinite demand for ideas. The limit on the number of idea-generated jobs is set by the amount of money people are willing to pay for ideas (either in their pure form or embodied in goods) because this ultimately pays the salaries of idea-generated jobs. The final killer of the postindustrial dream is, of course, offshoring, as this means that even if capturing primarily service industry jobs were a desirable strategy, America can’t reliably capture and hold these jobs anyway. The complexity of the jobs being offshored, which started with jobs such as call centers, is relentlessly rising. According to a 2007 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton: Relocating core business functions such as product design, engineering and R&D represents a new and growing trend. Although labor arbitrage strategies continue to be key drivers of offshoring, sourcing and accessing talent is the primary driver of next-generation offshoring…Until recently, offshoring was almost entirely associated with locating and setting up IT services, call centers and other business processes in lower-cost countries. But IT outsourcing is reaching maturity and now the growth is centered around product and process innovation. Among complex business functions, product development, including software development, is now the second-largest corporate function being offshored. Offshoring of sophisticated white-collar tasks such as finance, accounting, sales, and personnel management is growing at 35 percent per year. Meanwhile, despite a few individual companies bringing offshored call centers back home, offshoring of call centers and help desks continues to grow at a double-digit pace. Thankfully, some of America’s corporate elite are now starting to question postindustrialism, about which they were utterly gung-ho only a few years ago. In the 2009 words of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt: I believe that a popular, 30-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. Immelt has since argued that the U.S. should aim for manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of all jobs, roughly double their current percentage. Only a few years ago, this idea would have been dismissed as an ignorant and reactionary piece of central planning, especially if it had not been proposed by a respected Fortune 500 CEO. But despite his welcome public statements, Immelt is still closing US plants and offshoring jobs, a sign that the free market well may not solve this problem on its own. Can deindustrialization be fought? The evidence suggests it can. Some high-wage foreign nations, the best examples being Germany and Japan, are already doing a much better job at defending manufacturing industry than we are. (GM went bankrupt; Toyota and BMW somehow didn’t.) As a result, these nations now have higher factory wages than we do–a stunning reversal of America’s 250-year status as the best country for ordinary workers. They are doing it by hanging tough in manufacturing and by having serious national industrial strategies. They are export powerhouses. They lack our naiveté about free trade and do not really embrace it, preferring various local varieties of mercantilism. Manufacturing is essential to America’s economy recovery. Unfortunately, the longer we dally about getting back to real industries as the basis of real wealth, the more our industries get hollowed out, so the harder it gets. There is probably still enough time to turn things around, but not much. Ian Fletcher is the author of the Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (USBIC, 2010, $24.95) An Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council , a Washington think tank founded in 1933, he was previously an economist in private practice, mostly serving hedge funds and private equity firms. He may be contacted at ian.fletcher@usbic.net .

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Death of the Postindustrial Dream

July 22, 2010

Remember postindustrialism? Not long ago, this catchphrase was supposed to define America’s future: no more grubby hard industries, just a clean bright world of services and high technology. Its most succinct formulation is as follows: Manufacturing is old hat and America is moving on to better things. This idea played a large role during the 1980s and 1990s in getting Americans to accept deindustrialization. It was promoted by writers as varied as futurist Alvin Toffler, capitalist romantic George Gilder, techno-libertarian Virginia Postrel, futurist John Naisbitt, and globalist Thomas Friedman. Newt Gingrich seized upon it as the supposed economic basis of his Republican Revolution of 1994. Unfortunately, postindustrialism is now a blatantly dead letter, as the U.S. economy has ceased generating any net new jobs in internationally traded sectors of any kind: manufacturing or services, industrial or postindustrial. The comforting myth still lingers that America is shifting from low-tech to high-tech employment, but we are not. We are losing jobs in both and shifting to non-tradable services, which are mostly low value-added, and thus ill-paid, jobs. According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted New Economy has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. Thanks-for-nothing.com. Nevertheless, postindustrialism remains popular in some very important circles. In the 2006 words of the prestigious quasi-official Council on Competitiveness, a group of American business, labor, academic and government leaders: Services are where the high value is today, not in manufacturing. Manufacturing stuff per se is relatively low value. That is why it is being done in China or Thailand. It’s the service functions of manufacturing that are where the high value is today, and that is what America can excel in. But the above paragraph is simply not true: manufacturing, which is vital to America’s recovery, is not an obsolescent sector of the economy. Let’s burrow into the details a bit to understand why. “Screwdriver plant” final-assembly manufacturing can indeed increasingly be done anywhere in the world. This lays it open to labor arbitrage and thus low wages. But this doesn’t mean that this one stage of the long supply chain from raw materials to the consumer has become unimportant. Every link in the chain still matters, albeit in different ways. Manufacturing involves continuous feedback loops where every stage–from the initial idea to the R&D to the prototype to full-scale production to marketing of the final product–is related to every other. Losing control of any one stage can easily lead to the loss of the whole industry, including skill sets needed for moving to the next product or level of industrial sophistication. As Stephen Cohen and John Zysman explain in their book Manufacturing Matters : America must control the production of those high-tech products it invents and designs–and it must do so in a direct and hands-on way…First, production is where the lion’s share of the value added is realized…This is where the returns needed to finance the next round of research and development are generated. Second and most important, unless [research and development] is tightly tied to manufacturing of the product…R&D will fall behind the cutting edge of incremental innovation…High tech gravitates to the state-of-the-art producers. A small American company named Ampex in Redwood City, California, encapsulates everything that is wrong with postindustrialism. This leading audio tape firm invented the video cassette recorder in 1970 but bungled the transition to mass production and ended up licensing the technology to the Japanese. It collected millions in royalties all through the 1980s and 1990s and employed a few hundred people. Its licensee companies collected tens of billions in sales and employed hundreds of thousands of people. Thus an entire vast industry never existed in the U.S. All the jobs–and the industrial base and the profits to finance the next generation of products, like DVDs–ended up in the Far East. That some individual companies like Apple Computer make a success out of keeping design functions at home and offshoring the manufacturing does not make this a viable strategy for the economy as a whole. Apple is a unique company; that is why it succeeds. And even fabled Apple is not quite the success story one might hope for, from a trade point-of-view. Due to its foreign components and assembly, every $300 iPod sold in the U.S. adds another $140 to our deficit with China. If sophisticated American design must be embodied in imported goods in order to be sold, it will not help our trade balance. About the only thing postindustrialism gets right is that selling a product with a high value per embodied man-hour almost always means selling embodied know-how. But know-how must usually be embodied in a physical package before reaching the consumer, and manufactured goods are actually a rather good package for embodying it in. Exporting disembodied know-how like design services is definitely an inferior proposition, as indicated by the fact that since 2004, America’s deficit in high-technology goods has exceeded our surplus in intellectual property, royalties, licenses, and fees. So when someone like self-described “radical free trader” Thomas Friedman writes that, “there may be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the number of good idea-generated jobs in the world,” this is simply false. There is nothing about the fact that ideas are abstract and the products of factories concrete that causes there to be an infinite demand for ideas. The limit on the number of idea-generated jobs is set by the amount of money people are willing to pay for ideas (either in their pure form or embodied in goods) because this ultimately pays the salaries of idea-generated jobs. The final killer of the postindustrial dream is, of course, offshoring, as this means that even if capturing primarily service industry jobs were a desirable strategy, America can’t reliably capture and hold these jobs anyway. The complexity of the jobs being offshored, which started with jobs such as call centers, is relentlessly rising. According to a 2007 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton: Relocating core business functions such as product design, engineering and R&D represents a new and growing trend. Although labor arbitrage strategies continue to be key drivers of offshoring, sourcing and accessing talent is the primary driver of next-generation offshoring…Until recently, offshoring was almost entirely associated with locating and setting up IT services, call centers and other business processes in lower-cost countries. But IT outsourcing is reaching maturity and now the growth is centered around product and process innovation. Among complex business functions, product development, including software development, is now the second-largest corporate function being offshored. Offshoring of sophisticated white-collar tasks such as finance, accounting, sales, and personnel management is growing at 35 percent per year. Meanwhile, despite a few individual companies bringing offshored call centers back home, offshoring of call centers and help desks continues to grow at a double-digit pace. Thankfully, some of America’s corporate elite are now starting to question postindustrialism, about which they were utterly gung-ho only a few years ago. In the 2009 words of General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt: I believe that a popular, 30-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. Immelt has since argued that the U.S. should aim for manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of all jobs, roughly double their current percentage. Only a few years ago, this idea would have been dismissed as an ignorant and reactionary piece of central planning, especially if it had not been proposed by a respected Fortune 500 CEO. But despite his welcome public statements, Immelt is still closing US plants and offshoring jobs, a sign that the free market well may not solve this problem on its own. Can deindustrialization be fought? The evidence suggests it can. Some high-wage foreign nations, the best examples being Germany and Japan, are already doing a much better job at defending manufacturing industry than we are. (GM went bankrupt; Toyota and BMW somehow didn’t.) As a result, these nations now have higher factory wages than we do–a stunning reversal of America’s 250-year status as the best country for ordinary workers. They are doing it by hanging tough in manufacturing and by having serious national industrial strategies. They are export powerhouses. They lack our naiveté about free trade and do not really embrace it, preferring various local varieties of mercantilism. Manufacturing is essential to America’s economy recovery. Unfortunately, the longer we dally about getting back to real industries as the basis of real wealth, the more our industries get hollowed out, so the harder it gets. There is probably still enough time to turn things around, but not much. Ian Fletcher is the author of the Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (USBIC, 2010, $24.95) An Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council , a Washington think tank founded in 1933, he was previously an economist in private practice, mostly serving hedge funds and private equity firms. He may be contacted at ian.fletcher@usbic.net .

Read the full article →