[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.

Also, the average – note I said AVERAGE – renter probably earns around the median income or below. These folks don’t pay much in the way of income tax anyway. So they won’t be paying for a big piece of the various bailouts either.

Finally, prices are going to continue heading down regardless, so renters who want to buy are still going to come out ahead. And for folks that want to keep renting just because they like renting… how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.

Also, the average – note I said AVERAGE – renter probably earns around the median income or below. These folks don’t pay much in the way of income tax anyway. So they won’t be paying for a big piece of the various bailouts either.

Finally, prices are going to continue heading down regardless, so renters who want to buy are still going to come out ahead. And for folks that want to keep renting just because they like renting… how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.

Also, the average – note I said AVERAGE – renter probably earns around the median income or below. These folks don’t pay much in the way of income tax anyway. So they won’t be paying for a big piece of the various bailouts either.

Finally, prices are going to continue heading down regardless, so renters who want to buy are still going to come out ahead. And for folks that want to keep renting just because they like renting… how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb]If everyone gets money from the gov, that would homeowners and renters. If just the homeowners get bailed, the renters get screwed again, doubly, b/c their tax dollars will/is helping the bailout.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. Renters presumably have jobs. Many of those jobs would disappear in a depression. So avoiding a depression would be in renters’ best interests.

Also, the average – note I said AVERAGE – renter probably earns around the median income or below. These folks don’t pay much in the way of income tax anyway. So they won’t be paying for a big piece of the various bailouts either.

Finally, prices are going to continue heading down regardless, so renters who want to buy are still going to come out ahead. And for folks that want to keep renting just because they like renting… how are they getting screwed? I’m not seeing it.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb03.html

After committing over $7 trillion into the finance sector, the market continued to fail and the economy heading downward. If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000 (the equivalent of four years at average wages) to tie them over their jobless phase to kick-start the economy.

The same amount would support for one whole year 40 million middle-income families with an annual income of $50,000. If government funds were directed towards people rather than institutions, consumer demand will revive immediately and companies will sell again to make profits. The recession will end within 18 months.

[/quote]

There’s one little problem with this analysis. The $7 trillion committed to the financial sector thus far is BACKED BY ASSETS. We can debate the quality and value of the assets, but at least there are assets there. When you give $2 trillion to a group of folks – with no assets in exchange – you’ve just got a $2 trillion hole in your balance sheet. The first stimulus package ($300 billion) went directly to the consumer. This second proposed stimulus package ($500 billion?) will go less directly to the consumer, but will get there in a roundabout way.

Now, if the government decides to write checks directly to folks, then so be it. (And, in fact, if mortgage balances are reduced by fiat then this is doing just that. And the numbers will likely be a couple of trillion dollars.) But don’t be confused – that’s a lot different than putting up money backed by assets.

Finally, if there’s no financial sector, there’s no economy for all intents and purposes.

Again, we can debate what the right mix is between sending money directly to taxpayers and taking on debt backed by financial sector assets. But let’s at least distinguish between the two. Otherwise we can’t have a coherent discussion about the options.

As a thought experiment, I propose the following. There’s a family earning$75K/year. Family has a $250K mortgage. Freddie lowers principal due to $175K and lowers the interest rate. Govt. backs Freddie, so this is a direct hit to govt. (and taxpayer). What’s the difference between sending this family $75K straight from Washington, and reducing their mortgage balance by $75K through a principal reduction plan? There isn’t any. Trust me, a whole lot of middle class (and other) yahoos are going to get the equivalent of a huge stimulus payment courtesy of Uncle Sam (and the taxpayers) once these mortgages start getting re-underwritten. Therefore, I question the wisdom of just sending everyone a check.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb03.html

After committing over $7 trillion into the finance sector, the market continued to fail and the economy heading downward. If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000 (the equivalent of four years at average wages) to tie them over their jobless phase to kick-start the economy.

The same amount would support for one whole year 40 million middle-income families with an annual income of $50,000. If government funds were directed towards people rather than institutions, consumer demand will revive immediately and companies will sell again to make profits. The recession will end within 18 months.

[/quote]

There’s one little problem with this analysis. The $7 trillion committed to the financial sector thus far is BACKED BY ASSETS. We can debate the quality and value of the assets, but at least there are assets there. When you give $2 trillion to a group of folks – with no assets in exchange – you’ve just got a $2 trillion hole in your balance sheet. The first stimulus package ($300 billion) went directly to the consumer. This second proposed stimulus package ($500 billion?) will go less directly to the consumer, but will get there in a roundabout way.

Now, if the government decides to write checks directly to folks, then so be it. (And, in fact, if mortgage balances are reduced by fiat then this is doing just that. And the numbers will likely be a couple of trillion dollars.) But don’t be confused – that’s a lot different than putting up money backed by assets.

Finally, if there’s no financial sector, there’s no economy for all intents and purposes.

Again, we can debate what the right mix is between sending money directly to taxpayers and taking on debt backed by financial sector assets. But let’s at least distinguish between the two. Otherwise we can’t have a coherent discussion about the options.

As a thought experiment, I propose the following. There’s a family earning$75K/year. Family has a $250K mortgage. Freddie lowers principal due to $175K and lowers the interest rate. Govt. backs Freddie, so this is a direct hit to govt. (and taxpayer). What’s the difference between sending this family $75K straight from Washington, and reducing their mortgage balance by $75K through a principal reduction plan? There isn’t any. Trust me, a whole lot of middle class (and other) yahoos are going to get the equivalent of a huge stimulus payment courtesy of Uncle Sam (and the taxpayers) once these mortgages start getting re-underwritten. Therefore, I question the wisdom of just sending everyone a check.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb03.html

After committing over $7 trillion into the finance sector, the market continued to fail and the economy heading downward. If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000 (the equivalent of four years at average wages) to tie them over their jobless phase to kick-start the economy.

The same amount would support for one whole year 40 million middle-income families with an annual income of $50,000. If government funds were directed towards people rather than institutions, consumer demand will revive immediately and companies will sell again to make profits. The recession will end within 18 months.

[/quote]

There’s one little problem with this analysis. The $7 trillion committed to the financial sector thus far is BACKED BY ASSETS. We can debate the quality and value of the assets, but at least there are assets there. When you give $2 trillion to a group of folks – with no assets in exchange – you’ve just got a $2 trillion hole in your balance sheet. The first stimulus package ($300 billion) went directly to the consumer. This second proposed stimulus package ($500 billion?) will go less directly to the consumer, but will get there in a roundabout way.

Now, if the government decides to write checks directly to folks, then so be it. (And, in fact, if mortgage balances are reduced by fiat then this is doing just that. And the numbers will likely be a couple of trillion dollars.) But don’t be confused – that’s a lot different than putting up money backed by assets.

Finally, if there’s no financial sector, there’s no economy for all intents and purposes.

Again, we can debate what the right mix is between sending money directly to taxpayers and taking on debt backed by financial sector assets. But let’s at least distinguish between the two. Otherwise we can’t have a coherent discussion about the options.

As a thought experiment, I propose the following. There’s a family earning$75K/year. Family has a $250K mortgage. Freddie lowers principal due to $175K and lowers the interest rate. Govt. backs Freddie, so this is a direct hit to govt. (and taxpayer). What’s the difference between sending this family $75K straight from Washington, and reducing their mortgage balance by $75K through a principal reduction plan? There isn’t any. Trust me, a whole lot of middle class (and other) yahoos are going to get the equivalent of a huge stimulus payment courtesy of Uncle Sam (and the taxpayers) once these mortgages start getting re-underwritten. Therefore, I question the wisdom of just sending everyone a check.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb03.html

After committing over $7 trillion into the finance sector, the market continued to fail and the economy heading downward. If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000 (the equivalent of four years at average wages) to tie them over their jobless phase to kick-start the economy.

The same amount would support for one whole year 40 million middle-income families with an annual income of $50,000. If government funds were directed towards people rather than institutions, consumer demand will revive immediately and companies will sell again to make profits. The recession will end within 18 months.

[/quote]

There’s one little problem with this analysis. The $7 trillion committed to the financial sector thus far is BACKED BY ASSETS. We can debate the quality and value of the assets, but at least there are assets there. When you give $2 trillion to a group of folks – with no assets in exchange – you’ve just got a $2 trillion hole in your balance sheet. The first stimulus package ($300 billion) went directly to the consumer. This second proposed stimulus package ($500 billion?) will go less directly to the consumer, but will get there in a roundabout way.

Now, if the government decides to write checks directly to folks, then so be it. (And, in fact, if mortgage balances are reduced by fiat then this is doing just that. And the numbers will likely be a couple of trillion dollars.) But don’t be confused – that’s a lot different than putting up money backed by assets.

Finally, if there’s no financial sector, there’s no economy for all intents and purposes.

Again, we can debate what the right mix is between sending money directly to taxpayers and taking on debt backed by financial sector assets. But let’s at least distinguish between the two. Otherwise we can’t have a coherent discussion about the options.

As a thought experiment, I propose the following. There’s a family earning$75K/year. Family has a $250K mortgage. Freddie lowers principal due to $175K and lowers the interest rate. Govt. backs Freddie, so this is a direct hit to govt. (and taxpayer). What’s the difference between sending this family $75K straight from Washington, and reducing their mortgage balance by $75K through a principal reduction plan? There isn’t any. Trust me, a whole lot of middle class (and other) yahoos are going to get the equivalent of a huge stimulus payment courtesy of Uncle Sam (and the taxpayers) once these mortgages start getting re-underwritten. Therefore, I question the wisdom of just sending everyone a check.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb03.html

After committing over $7 trillion into the finance sector, the market continued to fail and the economy heading downward. If just $2 trillion of the $7 trillion the government has so far committed for the financial sector were to be channeled directly to the unemployed, each worker would receive $200,000 (the equivalent of four years at average wages) to tie them over their jobless phase to kick-start the economy.

The same amount would support for one whole year 40 million middle-income families with an annual income of $50,000. If government funds were directed towards people rather than institutions, consumer demand will revive immediately and companies will sell again to make profits. The recession will end within 18 months.

[/quote]

There’s one little problem with this analysis. The $7 trillion committed to the financial sector thus far is BACKED BY ASSETS. We can debate the quality and value of the assets, but at least there are assets there. When you give $2 trillion to a group of folks – with no assets in exchange – you’ve just got a $2 trillion hole in your balance sheet. The first stimulus package ($300 billion) went directly to the consumer. This second proposed stimulus package ($500 billion?) will go less directly to the consumer, but will get there in a roundabout way.

Now, if the government decides to write checks directly to folks, then so be it. (And, in fact, if mortgage balances are reduced by fiat then this is doing just that. And the numbers will likely be a couple of trillion dollars.) But don’t be confused – that’s a lot different than putting up money backed by assets.

Finally, if there’s no financial sector, there’s no economy for all intents and purposes.

Again, we can debate what the right mix is between sending money directly to taxpayers and taking on debt backed by financial sector assets. But let’s at least distinguish between the two. Otherwise we can’t have a coherent discussion about the options.

As a thought experiment, I propose the following. There’s a family earning$75K/year. Family has a $250K mortgage. Freddie lowers principal due to $175K and lowers the interest rate. Govt. backs Freddie, so this is a direct hit to govt. (and taxpayer). What’s the difference between sending this family $75K straight from Washington, and reducing their mortgage balance by $75K through a principal reduction plan? There isn’t any. Trust me, a whole lot of middle class (and other) yahoos are going to get the equivalent of a huge stimulus payment courtesy of Uncle Sam (and the taxpayers) once these mortgages start getting re-underwritten. Therefore, I question the wisdom of just sending everyone a check.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%)

Attempts to reframe the argument in terms of only federal debt are red herrings. First because how we measure “GDP” has changed so dramatically over the years that it’s not really possible to accurately compare federal debt over the decades. Second because federal debt is only 20% of the debt pie.

Ultimately whether the debt is held by a town, a state, a corporation or the federal government it is the labor of individual people that pays it off.

[/quote]

I framed in terms of federal debt because the govt. has the authority to tax in future years to bring that debt down.

Total non-financial debt-to-GDP is around 340%, which is almost an all-time high (only because it’s fallen a little in the last few months). That will be worked down to around 250% over the next 10 years by a combination of debt being written off and paid down, and GDP growing very modestly (probably averaging half the rate of the last decade). 250% is high, but sustainable.

Look, I’m quite bearish. But data suggests that avoiding a depression is easily achievable with the right policy response. We’ll see if the Officialdom is capable of maneuvering properly.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%)

Attempts to reframe the argument in terms of only federal debt are red herrings. First because how we measure “GDP” has changed so dramatically over the years that it’s not really possible to accurately compare federal debt over the decades. Second because federal debt is only 20% of the debt pie.

Ultimately whether the debt is held by a town, a state, a corporation or the federal government it is the labor of individual people that pays it off.

[/quote]

I framed in terms of federal debt because the govt. has the authority to tax in future years to bring that debt down.

Total non-financial debt-to-GDP is around 340%, which is almost an all-time high (only because it’s fallen a little in the last few months). That will be worked down to around 250% over the next 10 years by a combination of debt being written off and paid down, and GDP growing very modestly (probably averaging half the rate of the last decade). 250% is high, but sustainable.

Look, I’m quite bearish. But data suggests that avoiding a depression is easily achievable with the right policy response. We’ll see if the Officialdom is capable of maneuvering properly.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%)

Attempts to reframe the argument in terms of only federal debt are red herrings. First because how we measure “GDP” has changed so dramatically over the years that it’s not really possible to accurately compare federal debt over the decades. Second because federal debt is only 20% of the debt pie.

Ultimately whether the debt is held by a town, a state, a corporation or the federal government it is the labor of individual people that pays it off.

[/quote]

I framed in terms of federal debt because the govt. has the authority to tax in future years to bring that debt down.

Total non-financial debt-to-GDP is around 340%, which is almost an all-time high (only because it’s fallen a little in the last few months). That will be worked down to around 250% over the next 10 years by a combination of debt being written off and paid down, and GDP growing very modestly (probably averaging half the rate of the last decade). 250% is high, but sustainable.

Look, I’m quite bearish. But data suggests that avoiding a depression is easily achievable with the right policy response. We’ll see if the Officialdom is capable of maneuvering properly.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%)

Attempts to reframe the argument in terms of only federal debt are red herrings. First because how we measure “GDP” has changed so dramatically over the years that it’s not really possible to accurately compare federal debt over the decades. Second because federal debt is only 20% of the debt pie.

Ultimately whether the debt is held by a town, a state, a corporation or the federal government it is the labor of individual people that pays it off.

[/quote]

I framed in terms of federal debt because the govt. has the authority to tax in future years to bring that debt down.

Total non-financial debt-to-GDP is around 340%, which is almost an all-time high (only because it’s fallen a little in the last few months). That will be worked down to around 250% over the next 10 years by a combination of debt being written off and paid down, and GDP growing very modestly (probably averaging half the rate of the last decade). 250% is high, but sustainable.

Look, I’m quite bearish. But data suggests that avoiding a depression is easily achievable with the right policy response. We’ll see if the Officialdom is capable of maneuvering properly.

[davelj]

[quote=arraya]If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%)

Attempts to reframe the argument in terms of only federal debt are red herrings. First because how we measure “GDP” has changed so dramatically over the years that it’s not really possible to accurately compare federal debt over the decades. Second because federal debt is only 20% of the debt pie.

Ultimately whether the debt is held by a town, a state, a corporation or the federal government it is the labor of individual people that pays it off.

[/quote]

I framed in terms of federal debt because the govt. has the authority to tax in future years to bring that debt down.

Total non-financial debt-to-GDP is around 340%, which is almost an all-time high (only because it’s fallen a little in the last few months). That will be worked down to around 250% over the next 10 years by a combination of debt being written off and paid down, and GDP growing very modestly (probably averaging half the rate of the last decade). 250% is high, but sustainable.

Look, I’m quite bearish. But data suggests that avoiding a depression is easily achievable with the right policy response. We’ll see if the Officialdom is capable of maneuvering properly.

[davelj]

[quote=HLS]Dave,
I know that you know your stuff..

Do you really believe that we are going to actually avoid a depression ??

It’s just being delayed for those that aren’t ready to attend yet, like a meeting that is running a few minutes late, waiting for more to show up.

I’m thinking that the future comparisons will be to the “Greatest Depression” which will be the one of 2007-2016, not the “Great” 1929-1941.

In your example, only their payment will be lower, not their balance.

…..happily ever after. THE END. HLS[/quote]

Yes, I believe we are going to avoid a depression, as defined by a peak-to-trough decline in GDP of 10% or more. If you look at the capacity for the govt. to borrow and stimulate (go back to WW II and you’ll see federal debt to GDP at 122% – right now we’re at about 70%) we’ve got many trillions of dollars of capacity. At very low rates. It gets paid off slowly – with lower corresponding GDP going forward – over the next 10-20 years. Painful, yes. But not the end of the world.

No, in my example, there is a blend of lower rates AND substantial principal reduction. That’s one way in which the lenders are going to lose. They just won’t lose as much as if all of these houses go into foreclosure.

Look, we’re in a serious bind here. Which is not surprising to me or anyone else here. But one thing we have going for us is the experience of Japan and the Great Depression to look back on for lessons of what not to do. Current policy prescriptions are far from perfect, but I will say this: they get marginally better each week. At least the Officialdom is “learning” from each little mistake and taking some marginal corrective action. I believe that we’re going to see a massive globally-coordinated stimulus plan in 2009. The US, Asia, Europe – the whole freakin’ globe. Will it prevent a steep, long recession? Nope. That’s baked into the cake no matter what happens. But if policy actions are handled properly, we should avoid a depression. The tools and capacity are there.

[Author]

Posts