Monday, August 09, 2010

Classic Snark From Gonzo Matt: "Larry Fishface" & "Totally Mediocre Romer"

To quote the late George Carlin (using one of his favorite 7 words: "We're totally f*cked." Gonzo Matt's recent dispatch from the war of the ecomomists in the White House provides no comfort in these trying times. If this is (fair & balanced) weltschmerz, so be it.

[x RS]
Are We In a Recession Or Not?
By Matt Taibbi

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at TagCrowd.com

“Everyone agrees that the recession is over.”—Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council

“Of course not.”—Outgoing Council of Economic Advisers Chairwoman Christina Romer, when asked if the recession was over.

The two senior White House economic advisers made their comments on the same day.

It’s getting harder and harder to read the tea leaves with regard to Barack Obama’s economic team, which in recent weeks has seen two fairly major resignations—the above-quoted Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Romer, and budget director Pete Orszag, two very different people with different views on the economy.

Romer is a former Berkeley professor who was brought into the White House for two reasons; one, she was an expert on the Great Depression, which was looking extremely relevant at the time of Obama’s election, and two, she lacks a Y chromosome, which was reportedly the problem with Chicago professor and onetime close Obama confidante Austan Goolsbee, the original favorite for the CEA job. Orszag meanwhile is a Bob Rubin disciple, a former head of Rubin’s Hamilton Project think tank who often captained the deficit-reduction effort within the Obama White House.

One thing both of these people had in common was that neither of them got along with Larry Summers. In Orszag’s case this reportedly was a personal thing, while in Romer’s case it was more political, although her lack of a Y chromosome may also have played a role (Summers’s famous dictum that “women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science” is looming large now that Larry Fishface seems to have squeezed out one of the highest-ranking women in the Obama White House).

Most of the DC chatter class seems to have interpreted the dual resignations as a sign of the ascendant power of the Summers-Geithner axis within the Obama White House. This is a variation of the same theme that I kept hearing when I was in Washington last month covering the Dodd-Frank bill; that while the Geithner/Summers/Rubin clan briefly fell out of sight after Scott Brown’s big win last winter, and relative liberals like Paul Volcker and Romer briefly got more room to push their views with Obama, that situation had reversed itself by late spring and Geithner/Summers once again had the presidential ear on economic matters more or less exclusively.

"[Summers] has kept Romer, [Austin] Goolsbee, [Paul] Volcker all outside the inner policy circle. For Romer, why stay under these conditions, when she would lose her tenure if she stayed for more than two years?" was how one unnamed White House advisor put it this week.

To me the interesting thing about Christina Romer’s story is that she decided to leave at exactly the same time a horrific piece of news about jobless claims came out. The country lost 131,000 jobs in July, a much bigger number than anyone expected, and the key reason seems to be that the Obama administration made faulty calculations in its effort to boost unemployment via the government till—the end of Census jobs was apparently a major killer in the recent job stats. “The private sector is still hobbled,” said Robert A. Dye, senior economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh, “and certainly is not nearly strong enough to overcome the drain on the government side.”

This is interesting because Romer was the Obama administration official who was loudest in her advocacy of a much bigger stimulus, with the idea that the administration’s economic strategy should have been based around creating jobs and shaving unemployment as quickly as possible. "You don't get your budget deficit under control at a 10 percent unemployment rate," she said last year. The final stimulus number ended up being $787 billion; Romer reportedly wanted that number at $1.2 trillion and wanted the job creation efforts to be more elaborate and focused on long-term, permanent positions as opposed to stat-juking temp gigs like the Census.

In the end the most telling thing about Romer’s resignation is that she was really the only person close to Obama’s economic inner circle who isn’t a former Clintonite or Rubinite and isn’t either a former Wall Street banker or, like Geithner, a public-sector tool of Wall Street. (Even Orszag’s replacement, Jacob Lew, is a former Citigroup official who worked in the Clinton White House with Rubin). And the reason that is significant is because the economic data being presented to us these days suggests two completely different narratives, depending on your point of view.

If you’re on Wall Street, and you’ve seen the stock markets recover and the banks go from virtual insolvency two years ago back to record profit numbers now, then like Summers you’ll think “everybody agrees” that the recession is over.

If however you’re just some schmuck looking for a job somewhere outside the Beltway and/or lower Manhattan, and you’re noticing that the only easy job openings this year were temp gig taking census surveys (and even those have dried up), then your view of things is going to be no way the recession has ended, “of course not.”

In economics as in all other things, it all depends on how you look at things—and if everyone in the Obama White House is looking at things from the same vantage point, that sucks and is dangerous. Not that Christina Romer was a savior by any stretch of the imagination (one source of mine called her “totally mediocre”), but she was at least not completely a Wall Street pod job—she was pretty much the last inner-circle adviser who wasn’t, and now she’s gone, for whatever that’s worth. Ω

[As Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter, Matt Taibbi's predecessors include the likes of Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O'Rourke. Taibbi has written Spanking the Donkey: On the Campaign Trail with the Democrats (2005); Smells Like Dead Elephants: Dispatches from a Rotting Empire (2007): and The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics & Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (2008). Taibbi graduated from Bard College in 1991.]

Copyright © 2010 Rolling Stone

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Creative Commons License
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at sapper.blogspot.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.

Copyright © 2010 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

The Latest Voodoo Economic Nostrum: Stick It To The Geezers!

Last week, thos blog featured former Colorado governor Richard Lame (D-CO) advocating "give backs" by Colorado public employment retirees so that the retirement fund wouldn't go belly-up in Colorful. Today, an econ prof at the New School for Social Research offers an alternative explanation of deficits. Voodoo economic theories were nonsense in the era of St. Dutch and voodoo economic nostrums are a dog that that won't hunt in the 21st century, either. To paraphrase the wacko Teabagger at an earlier "Town Meeting": Keep Your Dumbo Hands Off My Teachers' Pension, Social Security, And Medicare. If this is (fair & balanced) geezer rage, so be it.

PS: Click on images below to enlarge them.

[x Cronk Review]
Care About The Deficit?
By Teresa Ghilarducci

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at TagCrowd.com

On a daily basis, political leaders stoke fears about the growing U.S. federal budget deficit. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, warns that “the United States will “essentially be where Greece is in about seven years.” Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) says that the growth of the federal deficit “...puts our kids and grandkids at great risk.”

And Democrat Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to President Clinton and the chair of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission, calls growing debt and deficits a “cancer” that must be stopped.

Pretty serious stuff, huh? You would then think that, with a “cancer” eating away at the nation’s vitals, threats to our adorable grandchildren, and the prospect of becoming a bunch of irresponsible Mediterraneans, lazing about in the sun and retiring early (wait—that last one sounds pretty good), there would be a serious look at where the debt and deficit actually comes from and what could be done to slow or reverse it.

We need political courage to get the budget in control. But, the only pseudo-courage being offered is cuts in social programs, including entitlement programs for the elderly—Social Security and Medicare. There is precious little serious talk about raising taxes or cutting military spending. An editorial called “The Phoney War over U.S. deficits” in the conservative English financial newspaper, the Financial Times, called out the hypocrisy of complaining about unemployment benefits when the Bush tax cuts remain a fundamental and structural cause of the deficits.

There is no courage or honesty in blaming the stimulus programs, TARP, or Social Security for the deficit and debt. Consider where the deficit comes from. Look at the report from the Center for Budget Priorities.

Figure 1 shows how much smaller the deficit would have been starting last year, 2009. The graph shows the largest sources of the current deficit colored in orange, yellow, and blue. Without the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, spending on the wars, and the current downturn (that decimated earnings and wealth and therefore tax revenues on income and wealth) the deficit would be much smaller.

If you are going to solve the the deficit, go to its sources (as shown in the Center for Budget Priorities Report — Figure 2).

Ω

[Teresa Ghilarducci is Professor of Economics and holds the Bernard L. and Irene Schwartz Chair in Economic Policy Analysis and teaches economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research. Her books include When I'm Sixty Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them. Ghilarducci received both an A.B. and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California-Berkeley.]

Copyright © 2010 The Chronicle of Higher Education

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Creative Commons License
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at sapper.blogspot.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.

Copyright © 2010 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves