iBankCoin
Home / Economy (page 45)

Economy

An Insider’s Guide to the Great Manufacturing Debate

Michael Lind

Manufacturing is back in the news.  The combination of Obama administration initiatives to help American manufacturing with criticism of China’s unfair trade and industrial policies by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has produced a bipartisan backlash by prominent academic economists including Christine Romer, a Democrat and a former Obama economic adviser, in the New York Times., and Michael Boskin, a Republican and adviser to the first President Bush.

Romer and Boskin agree that government should do nothing to save or promote the manufacturing sector in the United States.  Their critiques of industrial policy, in turn, have produced responses by prominent advocates of federal aid for technological innovation and manufacturing, including Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan administration official and founder of the Economic Strategy Institute.

This debate is not a contest between “free trade” and “protectionism.”  It is between dogmatists who argue that free trade and government indifference to industry are the best policies for all countries, at all levels of economic development, at all times, and pragmatists who argue that free trade, strategic trade or protectionism may make sense for one country rather than another—or for the same country, in different historical periods.

Nor is the debate between left and right.  As we see today, it often pits liberal and conservative policymakers and voters against academic economists, who on this issue, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, tend to take what in politics is the view of trade held only by the libertarian lunatic fringe.

Versions of this “industrial policy debate,” featuring many of the same players, have taken place every decade since the 1970s.   It is never resolved, because the two sides are talking past each other.  They do not agree on basic theory, basic facts, or even the basic rationales for the trade and manufacturing policies in dispute.

Basic theory.  Mainstream academic economists like Romer and Boskin base their views of trade, not on the study of economic history or the actual policies of contemporary industrial countries, but on the theories of Adam Smith (absolute advantage) and David Ricardo (comparative advantage), dressed up in recent generations in seemingly-impressive but superficial mathematics.  Despite their differences, the theories of absolute and comparative advantage assume that, in a technologically-static world, global economic efficiency, defined as the lowest prices for consumers, can be maximized if all countries, as well as firms and individuals, specialize in particular lines of production.

In contrast, proponents of industrial policy and other government aid to manufacturing base their views on the actual history of the world since the late 1800s and early 1900s, after Smith and Ricardo wrote.  The four greatest economic powers in today’s world—the U.S., China, Japan and Germany—all became leading countries by ignoring the unrealistic theories of Smith and Ricardo and fostering selected national industries by some combination of tariffs, nontariff barriers, subsidies, public or publicly-funded R&D and credit policies favorable to manufacturing.  If market fundamentalists were correct, these countries should be economic basket cases, instead of the world’s leading manufacturing powers.  Even Japan, despite the aftermath of its real estate and stock bubble, remains a leader in many high-value-added industries.

Most growth in the last two centuries has resulted, not from the specialization of countries in one or a few sectors, but from the substitution of machinery powered by mineral energy for human and animal muscle power and the energy generated by wind, water and biomass.  The unwise nations that followed the advice of Smith and Ricardo and specialized according to their preindustrial absolute or comparative advantages have been backward, non-industrialized, one-crop “banana republics” like those of Central America.

Read the rest here.

Comments »

The Federal Government Violates it Own Laws in Helping Veterans Find Work

“Why is it so hard for US servicemen to land steady employment once coming home? For one thing, the same government that gave them guns isn’t so quick to give them jobs.

The US government enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) back in 1994 to make it an offense to discriminate against troops returning home on basis of their military status. Nearly 20 years later, though, a recent study reveals that a good chunk of those guilty of violating that law is the federal government itself.

In a recent Washington Post article, it’s revealed that during fiscal year 2011, nearly one-out-of-five of the complaints of violation filed regarding the USERRA were aimed at the US government. In that year alone, more than 18 percent — or 1,158 of the complaints filed — attested that the same government that sent Americans overseas to ready for war weren’t so excited to send those men and women into the workplace.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva tells the Post. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.” Silva says that after serving in Iraq, he returned to the US to reclaim his job with the US Customs and Border Patrol. They had other plans.

According to the USERRA, employers are forbidden from penalizing service members due to the military service. Silva and more than a thousand other last year say that they suffered as such, however, and the guilty party was their own government. With the issue of homeless vets becoming an epidemic in America, a lack of jobs is only worsening a problem that the federal government seems unable—or unwilling — to help otherwise.

Other studies published as of late reveal that homelessness is not just a problem for American vets—it’s a practical disaster. When the 100,000 Homeless Campaign published the results of their last study in November 2011, the authors explicitly noted, “Men and women who risked their lives defending America may be far more likely to die on its streets.”

“When you come home, you’re foreclosed on, your job is gone, and then they want you to go to shelters. And shelters pretty much housing criminals, drug addicts, and a lot of us can’t tolerate that lifestyle,” homeless U.S. army veteran Joe Mangione explained to RT….”

Full article

Comments »

Japan’s trade deficit explodes higher

TOKYO (AP) — Japan posted a record high trade deficit in January after its nuclear crisis shut down nearly all the nation’s reactors for tougher checks, sending fuel imports surging. Exports were hurt by a strong yen and weak demand.

The 1.48 trillion yen ($18.7 billion) deficit reported Monday highlights Japan’s increased dependence on imported fuel after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami sent the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant into multiple meltdowns.

As public worries grew, nearly all the 54 nuclear reactors in Japan were stopped for inspections. The government wants to restart at least some of the reactors, after checking for better tsunami and quake protection.

Resource-poor Japan imports almost all its oil. Until the Fukushima disaster, the country had trumpeted nuclear technology as a safe and cheap answer to its energy needs.

Now, Japan is importing more natural gas and oil as utilities boost non-nuclear power generation. Imports of natural gas in January vaulted 74 percent from a year earlier and imports of petroleum jumped nearly 13 percent.

Increased energy imports contributed to Japan last year recording its first annual trade deficit since 1980. Analysts have said Japan may return to a trade surplus in 2013.

There was bad news for Japan’s manufacturing powerhouses, with a strong yen and sluggish global economy contributing to slowing exports.

Exports declined 9.3 percent in January from a year earlier, particularly in computer chips and electronic parts. Imports in January grew 9.8 percent.

Comments »

China’s unofficial lending market

BEIJING (AP) — Ms. Zhang, a schoolteacher in the central city of Anyang, lent $43,000 last year to entrepreneurs who couldn’t get loans from state banks. Now as growth cools and Beijing cracks down on informal credit, Zhang and thousands of other small lenders are unpaid and angry.

Underground lending by ordinary Chinese like Zhang flourished over the past decade, providing trillions of yuan (hundreds of billions of dollars) needed by private companies that create China’s new jobs and wealth.

Its popularity reflects public desperation for an alternative to China’s banks, which pay low deposit rates that fail to keep up with inflation and channel savings to government companies.

But the high cost of underground credit — interest rates of 70 percent a year or higher — and a slump in global demand caused a wave of business failures last year, prompting owners in cities such as Wenzhou in the southeast to flee.

The shockwave is now hitting the Chinese savers who put up money for those loans. Protests erupted in Anyang and other areas as lenders demanded officials get back their money.

“We have no other investment options and bank interest rates are too low,” said Zhang, who asked not to be identified further. Hopes of getting back the 270,000 yuan ($43,000) she lent are pinned on the courts so long as the government is willing to let a case proceed.

Rising defaults threaten to aggravate social tensions as the Communist Party tries to enforce calm ahead of a once-a-decade handover of power to a younger generation of leaders due late this year. The public already is fuming over inflation, corruption, product safety scandals and pollution.

Leaders including Premier Wen Jiabao, the top economic official, have repeatedly promised more credit for small companies. But most loans still go to state enterprises that have close ties with banks and form the power base of officials. Experts say there have been slight improvements but the situation hasn’t changed fundamentally.

“It always has been hard for small Chinese companies to borrow money from banks,” said Guo Tianyong, director of the Banking Research Center at Beijing’s Central University of Finance and Economics. He said the situation has worsened in the past year.

Entrepreneurs were struggling with slumping global demand when Beijing clamped down on a credit boom to cool its overheated economy. State banks cut the small amount of private sector lending they were doing while continuing support to state industry. Private companies failed and the survivors cut payrolls.

Only 19 percent of bank lending last year went to small businesses, while total loans fell 6 percent from 2010 to 7.5 trillion yuan ($1.2 trillion), according to the official Xinhua News Agency.

Comments »

When Will This Gas Price Chart Finally Reverse Itself?

Joe Weisenthal

As we predicted early last week, everyone is talking about gas prices today.

It’s the how new meme: Will gas prices be the thing that suffocates this economy?

We’ll pass on making a guess.

But we thought it’d be a good time to update one of our favorite charts: The S&P 500 divided by the cost of an average gallon of gasoline.

chart

FRED

It’s kind of beautiful.

Read the rest, and see an even better chart, here.

Comments »

Driving, Gas Prices and the End of Retail

Posted by

Americans have cut way back on driving in recent years. Total vehicle-miles traveled has stagnated since 2007. One big question is whether this is a temporary blip due to the downturn — unemployed people, after all, don’t commute — or evidence of a long-term structural shift.

Theories for a structural shift generally involve demographics: America’s swelling ranks of retirees don’t drive as much, while kids these days prefer Facebook to motoring around with friends. But there’s another possible factor: the torrid growth of online shopping. Phil Izzo has the numbers, which are striking. In the fourth quarter of 2011, e-commerce surged to 5.5 percent of all retail sales — and, if anything, that understates the trend, since brick-and-mortar stores include online sales in their own figures. When people order from their computers, of course, they save themselves a trip to the store.

Read the rest here.

 

Comments »

Coffee Costs: 5 Ways to Save Money on K-Cups

via dailyfinance.com 

The convenience of single-cup coffeemakers is undeniable — the sheer simplicity of popping a pod into a brewer that dishes out premium brew in a minute or two. There’s no mess. There’s no old coffee going bad.

It’s no wonder more and more java sippers are tossing out their coffee pots for single-serve machines.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) shipped a whopping 4.2 million Keurig brewers through its partners during the holiday quarter. Revenue more than doubled to $1.16 billion as earlier buyers loaded up on the K-Cup portion packs that provide the bean-based caffeinated kicks.

Keurig isn’t the only single-serve specialist. Tassimo, Nespresso, Senseo, CBTL, and now even Green Mountain’s brand new Vue system are just some of the one-cup platforms vying for your morning swig.

Slick, But Not Cheap

Single-serve coffee is certainly easier on the pocketbook than hitting up the Starbucks (SBUX) barista every time you need a caffeine fix. But you may be surprised at how much you’re actually paying for the ground coffee that shakes in the proprietary pods like maracas.

The New York Times‘ Oliver Strand did the math earlier this month. He looked at Nespresso Arpeggio pods that retail at $5.70 for 10 espresso capsules. Since each capsule contains just five grams of coffee, we’re looking at about $51 a pound. Ouch!

He also priced the Folgers Black Silk blend available for Keurig machines at $10.69 for a dozen K-Cups. Since each of those pods contains eight grams of coffee, it would take nearly 57 K-Cups — setting a fan of joe back close to $50.50 — for a pound of the stuff.

Thankfully for Strand and others with single-serve machines, there are ways to avoid paying $50 a pound for coffee. Here are tips on ways to save. Though specifically for Keurig’s K-Cups, many of these suggestions apply to rival makers as well.

1. Buy in bulk
If Strand’s prices seem outrageous, it’s because you’re probably not paying them. His article singles out retail pricing and not what savvy sippers can find if they shop around.

Amazon.com (AMZN) offers larger counts of pods at substantial savings through its website. For instance, the same Folgers K-Cups that he was pricing at $0.89 per refill can be had for about $0.47 a K-Cup through the leading online retailer.

Amazon sells three of the 12-packs bundled together for $16.97. A buyer is paying a little more than half per K-Cup, but they can even do better than that.

2. Subscribe for Savings

Amazon has a “Subscribe and Save” program, offering buyers who commit to automatic repeat purchases discounts of as much as 15% on select items.

It’s a forgiving program. You can go online to skip deliveries or change the frequency of the shipments. If you’ve found your favorite single-serve brand — and it’s available through Amazon’s subscription plan — what do you have to lose? Your K-Cup consumption is likely to be pretty steady anyway.

Soon other plan choices outside of Amazon may be available, too. Target (TGT) revealed last month that it’s exploring a subscription service to provide shoppers with discounts on regularly purchased merchandise.

3. Be Less Brand-Loyal

Remember that last tip about finding your favorite brand? Forget about it! There are more than 200 varieties of K-Cups on the market. Rival single-serve systems offer dozens of options.

If you’re not stuck on a particular flavor, there will probably be different price points available to you across the many K-Cup varieties. You won’t find the same kind of pricing disparity for smaller platforms, but it never hurts to hunt for sales or more compelling prices on other pods.

4. Buy a reusable filter

Environmentalists worried about the disposable nature of single-serve capsules have flocked to reusable Keurig filters for years, but they’re also a great way to save money.

Consumers willing to sacrifice a little on quality can buy a reusable K-Cup filter, filling it with the ground coffee of their choice. Yes, it’s perfectly legal. It doesn’t void the appliance’s warranty. Green Mountain even makes its own reusable filter.

It won’t be as clean, but wiping the counter for stray coffee grounds is a small compromise for the serious money that can be saved by the pound.

5. Be Patient

Green Mountain is going to lose some key intellectual property later this year. The two patents related to Keurig’s K-Cup portion packs expire in September. At that point, anyone will be able to make K-Cup refills without having to pay Green Mountain a royalty that amounts to a few cents per K-Cup.

The move should drive prices lower, obviously. The level playing field will make it easier for companies that have been sitting on the sidelines to throw their K-Cups into this brew ring.

There’s serious money to be saved now, and more to be saved later. So drink up!

 

Comments »

Fed’s most recent comments on swap lines

Read here:

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the Committee for inviting me today to talk about the economic situation in Europe and actions taken by the Federal Reserve in response to this situation.

For two years now, developments in Europe have played a critical role in shaping the tenor of global financial markets. The combination of high debts, large deficits, and poor growth prospects in several European countries using the euro has raised concerns about their fiscal sustainability. Such concerns were initially focused on Greece but have since spread to a number of other euro-area countries, leading to substantial increases in their sovereign borrowing costs. Pessimism about these countries’ fiscal situation, in turn, has helped to undermine confidence in the strength of European financial institutions, increasing the institutions’ borrowing costs and threatening to curtail their supply of credit. These developments have strained global financial markets and weighed on global economic activity.

In the past several months, European leaders have taken a number of policy steps that have helped reduce financial market stresses. In early December, the European Central Bank, or ECB, reduced its policy interest rate, cut its reserve requirement, eased collateral rules for its lending, and, perhaps most important, began providing three-year loans to banks. Additionally, European leaders announced and have started to implement proposals to strengthen fiscal rules and European fiscal coordination, as well as to expand the euro-area financial backstop. These steps are positive developments and signify the commitment of European leaders to alleviate the crisis.

Since early December, borrowing costs for several vulnerable European governments have declined, funding pressures for European banks have eased, and the tone of investor sentiment has improved. However, financial markets remain under strain. Europe’s authorities continue to face difficult challenges as they seek to stabilize their fiscal and financial situation, and it will be critical for them to follow through on their policy commitments in the months ahead.

Here at home, the financial stresses in Europe are undoubtedly spilling over to the United States by restraining our exports, weighing on business and consumer confidence, and adding to pressures on U.S. financial markets and institutions. Of note, foreign financial institutions, especially those in Europe, continue to find it difficult to fund themselves in dollars. A great deal of trade and investment the world over is financed in dollars, so many foreign financial institutions have heavy borrowing needs in our currency. These institutions also borrow heavily in dollars because they are active in U.S. markets, purchasing government and corporate securities and lending to households and firms. As concerns about the financial system in Europe mounted, many European banks faced a rise in the cost and a decline in the availability of dollar funding. Difficulty acquiring dollar funding by European and other financial institutions may ultimately make it harder and more costly for U.S. households and businesses to get loans. Moreover, these disruptions could spill over into the market for borrowing and lending in U.S. dollars more generally, raising the cost of funding for U.S. financial institutions. Although the breadth and size of all of these effects on the U.S. economy are difficult to gauge, it is clear that the situation in Europe poses a significant risk to U.S. economic activity and bears close watching.

Swap Lines with Other Central Banks
To address these potential risks to the United States, as described in an announcement on November 30, the Federal Reserve agreed with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the central banks of Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to revise, extend, and expand its swap lines with these institutions.1 The measures were taken to ease strains in global financial markets, which, if left unchecked, could significantly impair the supply of credit to households and businesses in the United States and impede our economic recovery. Thus far, such strains have been particularly evident in Europe, and these actions were designed to help prevent them from spilling over to the U.S. economy.

Three steps were described in the November 30 announcement. First, we reduced the pricing of drawings on the dollar liquidity swap lines. The previous pricing had been at a spread of 100 basis points over the overnight index swap rate.2 We reduced that spread to 50 basis points. The lower cost to the ECB and other foreign central banks enabled them to reduce the cost of the dollar loans they provide to financial institutions in their jurisdictions. Reducing these costs has helped alleviate pressures in U.S. money markets generated by foreign financial institutions, strengthen the liquidity positions of European and other foreign institutions, and boost confidence at a time of considerable strain in international financial markets. Through all of these channels, the action should help support the continued supply of credit to U.S. households and businesses.

Second, we extended the authorization for these lines through February 1, 2013. The previous authorization had been through August 1, 2012. This extension demonstrated that central banks are prepared to work together for a sustained period, if needed, to support global liquidity conditions.

Third, we agreed to establish, as a precautionary measure, swap lines in the currencies of the other central banks participating in the announcement. (The Federal Reserve had established similar lines in April 2009, but they were not drawn upon and were allowed to expire in February 2010.) These lines would permit the Federal Reserve, if needed, to provide euros, Canadian dollars, Japanese yen, Swiss francs, or British pounds to U.S. financial institutions on a secured basis, much as the foreign central banks provide dollars to institutions in their jurisdictions now. U.S. financial institutions are not experiencing any foreign currency liquidity pressures at present, but we judged it prudent to make arrangements to offer such liquidity should the need arise in the future.

I would like to emphasize that information on the swap lines is fully disclosed on the Federal Reserve’s website–through our weekly balance sheet release and other materials–and information on swap transactions each week is provided on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.3

I also want to underscore that these swap agreements are safe from the perspective of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. taxpayer, for five main reasons:

•First, the swap transactions themselves present no exchange rate or interest rate risk to the Fed. Because the terms of each drawing and repayment are set at the time that the draw is initiated, fluctuations in exchange rates and interest rates that may occur while the swap funds are outstanding do not alter the amounts eventually to be repaid.
•Second, each drawing on the swap line must be approved by the Federal Reserve, which provides the Federal Reserve with control over use of the facility by the foreign central banks.
•Third, the foreign currency held by the Federal Reserve during the term of the swap provides added security.
•Fourth, our counterparties in these swap agreements are the foreign central banks. In turn, it is they who lend the dollars they draw from the swap lines to private institutions in their own jurisdictions. The foreign central banks assume the credit risk associated with lending to these institutions. The Federal Reserve has had long and close relationships with these central banks, and our interactions with them over the years have provided a track record that justifies a high degree of trust and cooperation.
•Finally, the short tenor of the swap drawings, which have maturities of at most three months, also offers some protection in that positions could be wound down relatively quickly were it judged appropriate to do so.
The Federal Reserve has not lost a penny on any of the swap line transactions since these lines were established in 2007, even during the most intense period of activity at the end of 2008. Moreover, at the maturity of each swap transaction, the Federal Reserve receives the dollars it provided plus a fee. These fees add to overall earnings on Federal Reserve operations, thereby increasing the amount the Federal Reserve remits to taxpayers.

Conclusion
The changes in swap arrangements that I have discussed have had some positive effects on dollar funding markets. Since the announcement of the changes at the end of November, the outstanding amount of dollar funding through the swap lines has increased substantially, to more than $100 billion, and several measures of the cost of dollar funding have declined.

That being said, many financial institutions, especially those from Europe, continue to find it difficult and costly to acquire dollar funding, in large part because investors remain uncertain about Europe’s economic and financial prospects. Ultimately, the easing of strains in U.S. and global financial markets will require concerted action on the part of European authorities as they follow through on their announced plans to address their fiscal and financial difficulties. The situation in Europe is continuously evolving. Thus, we are closely monitoring events in the region and their spillovers to the U.S. economy and financial system.

Thank you again for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Comments »

Economy can handle higher oil, gas

Read here:

Stocks continued their 2012 surge Thursday, with the Dow breaching 12,900 and the S&P 500 hitting its highest level in nine months. The Nasdaq rose to a level not seen since the dot com bubble more than a decade ago. Commodities also continued their 2012 trend, with a mixed session highlighted by strength in energy and weakness in agricultural commodities.

The recent action — broad strength in stocks, mixed performance in commodities — belies the conventional wisdom that all “risk assets” are moving in tandem.

There is rotation happening within the commodity sector but, broadly speaking, it should be another banner year for hard assets, according to Frank Holmes, CEO and CIO of U.S. Global Investors.

In addition to continued demand from emerging markets and signs of life in the U.S. economy, Holmes notes global central banks have embarked on another easing cycle.

Indeed, Morgan Stanley’s economics team declares “the great monetary easing (part 2), is in full swing,” noting 16 major central banks have eased policy since the fourth quarter, including the U.S. Fed, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Bank of England and the central banks of Sweden, China and India.

“In response to a slowing global economy and further downside risks emanating from the possibility of an escalating Eurozone debt crisis, central banks all over the world…have been deploying their arsenal for a while now, and should continue to do so,” Morgan’s team writes. “The result is aggressive monetary easing on a global scale.”

Based partially on this easy money, as well as fear of supply disruptions, more capital expenditures in the U.S. and normal seasonal patterns, Holmes is most bullish on oil and gas right now.

Comments »

Chart of the Day: Another Milestone in the Resurgence of the American Auto Industry

By: Gene Sperling

2/16/2012

​ Today, we learned that each of the Big Three automakers posted a yearly profit for 2011. For the first time since 2004, all of those companies are operating in the black.

But those aren’t the only milestones we’ve seen recently in the resurgence of the American auto industry. Or in the comeback of the American manufacturing sector.

The January 2012 jobs report released earlier this month included another little-noticed milestone. The number of auto industry jobs added since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy after June 2009 now exceeds 200,000 — marking the strongest period of auto jobs growth since the late 1990s. That positive trend is particularly strong in the motor vehicle and parts manufacturing sector, which has added 121,900 jobs – a nearly 20 percent increase – since June 2009. And that growth is particularly notable given that some experts estimated that at least 1 million jobs could have been lost if GM and Chrysler had been liquidated.

Automotive Industry

(Motor Vehicles and Parts)

June 2009 January 2012 Total Jobs Added
Auto Industry Manufacturing 624,400 746,300 121,900
Auto Industry Retail 1,627,700 1,713,400 85,700
Total 2,252,100 2,459,700 207,600
Auto Industry Employment Chart

This trend isn’t unique to the auto sector – we have also gained over 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the past two years. Of course, there’s still more work to be done. While both the auto industry and the broader manufacturing sector have shown job growth, we still need to go much further to fully recover from the aftermath of the financial crisis. But these new milestones are certainly welcome news and represent a testament to the success of the tough but necessary choices made to retool and revitalize the American auto industry.

Gene Sperling is the Director of the National Economic Council

Source

Comments »

Create Incentive and You Create Jobs

Purists: continue to argue among yourselves over stimulus period.

For those who understand the need for it; let’s push for more laser focused appropriated funds. Articles about unskilled workers should only be a opportunity for business and government to help citizens re-educate and re-tool America.

Full article

Comments »