Thursday, September 21, 2017

Corporate profits are way up, corporate taxes are way down



----
Corporate profits are way up, corporate taxes are way down // The Big Picture
http://ritholtz.com/2017/09/corporate-profits-way-corporate-taxes-way-2/

Source: Economic Policy Institute

The post Corporate profits are way up, corporate taxes are way down appeared first on The Big Picture.


----

Read in my feedly.com

What Cuba Can Teach Us About Health Care



----
What Cuba Can Teach Us About Health Care // New Economy Articles and Blogs from YES! Magazine
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/just-transition/what-cuba-can-teach-us-about-health-care-20170919

Even Trump supporters agree we can learn something from the country's universal, low-cost health care system. It's that good.
----

Read in my feedly.com

Black Knight: Mortgage Delinquencies increase in Hurricane Affected Areas



----
Black Knight: Mortgage Delinquencies increase in Hurricane Affected Areas // Calculated Risk
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/09/black-knight-mortgage-delinquencies.html

From Black Knight: Black Knight's First Look at August 2017 Mortgage Data: Hurricane Harvey Impact Already Being Felt in the Mortgage Market as Delinquencies Jump 16 Percent in Affected Areas

• Nationally, delinquencies remained relatively flat from July, while delinquencies in Hurricane Harvey- impacted areas rose by 16 percent month over month

• Despite most payments being due August 1, and the storm making landfall near the end of the month, its effect on mortgage delinquencies is already being felt

• Over 6,700 new 30-day delinquencies can be attributed to Harvey, while an additional 1,000 borrowers who were already 30-days past due missed an additional mortgage payment in August as a result of the storm

• Based on observations from previous hurricanes, the heaviest impact on mortgage delinquency rates will come in September

According to Black Knight's First Look report for August, the percent of loans delinquent increased 0.7% in August compared to July, and declined 7.3% year-over-year.

The percent of loans in the foreclosure process declined 3.3% in August and were down 27.2% over the last year.

Black Knight reported the U.S. mortgage delinquency rate (loans 30 or more days past due, but not in foreclosure) was 3.93% in August, up from 3.90% in July.

The percent of loans in the foreclosure process declined in August to 0.76%.

The number of delinquent properties, but not in foreclosure, is down 148,000 properties year-over-year, and the number of properties in the foreclosure process is down 142,000 properties year-over-year.

Black Knight: Percent Loans Delinquent and in Foreclosure Process  Aug
2017July
2017Aug
2016Aug
2015Delinquent3.93%3.90%4.24%4.87%In Foreclosure0.76%0.78%1.04%1.48%Number of properties:Number of properties that are delinquent, but not in foreclosure:2,003,0001,986,0002,151,0002,413,000Number of properties in foreclosure pre-sale inventory:385,000398,000527,000748,000Total Properties2,388,0002,384,0002,678,0003,161,000
----

Read in my feedly.com

This unique, terrible, phony, fraught-with-lies moment in American politics



----
This unique, terrible, phony, fraught-with-lies moment in American politics // Jared Bernstein | On the Economy
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/this-unique-terrible-phony-fraught-with-lies-moment-in-american-politics/

This will be brief, because a note about how the political debate is misleading isn't exactly breaking news or even, admittedly, that interesting. So, I'd consider it a personal favor if you'll allow me to vent for a moment.

It's just that the extent to which we're being lied to right now seems, to me at least, uniquely over the top. The transparency of the BS is just so obvious, especially on Cassidy-Graham, the just-as-bad-as-all-the-others repeal and replace bill that may get a vote in the Senate next week.

Same with the tax "plan." Even though there is no real plan yet, what we've seen so far is mostly tax cuts for wealthy businesses and corporations, the cost of which will get loaded onto the deficit. Yet its proponents are selling it as a pro-growth package that lifts the working class.

My CBPP colleagues have been hammering on how C-G is just as much a wolf as past R repeal bills, despite its sheep's clothing. It cuts health care spending on ACA functions by over $200 billion, 2020-26, and much more in later years (a new study by the health analysis firm Avalere comes up with similar numbers; see their table below) and that doesn't count cuts to the traditional Medicaid program, which under C-G is no longer guaranteed to expand to meet the health needs of low-income recipients. Under C-G: "Faced with a recession…states would have to either dramatically increase their own spending on health care or, as is far more likely, deny help to people losing their jobs and their health insurance."

Avalere's estimates of cuts to states under C-G:

YearsBillions2020-26-$2152020-27-$4892020-36-$4,150Source: Avalere

But, because there's no CBO score, supporters of the bill claim that these reductions in resources won't lead to less coverage. How? For that, you need to read this jaw-dropping set of interviews from the Onion Vox. The enterprising Jeff Stein asked 9 R senators why C-G made sense in policy terms, and remarkably, they (sort of) responded. But oy, what responses! Just a rotting bag of wilted word salad.

If there was a theme to their incoherence, it was the magic of devolution to the states, as they'll handily figure out how to do more with less (notably, the states that get dinged the most are the ones that expanded Medicaid under the ACA).

But this makes no sense at all. States must balance their budgets, so, as the CBPP quote above points out, they can't be counted upon to meet expanded need. What C-G's defenders call "flexibility" is actually the ability of states to reduce health care provision to low- and moderate-income people. CBPP:

…States would likely do one or more of the following: cap enrollment; offer very limited benefits; charge unaffordable premiums, deductibles, or copayments; redirect federal funding from providing coverage to other purposes, like reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care; and limit assistance to fixed dollar amounts that put coverage out of reach for most low- and moderate-income people. As a result, many millions of people would lose coverage.

The ability to avoid such cuts is precisely why, in a federalist system like ours, you want the provision of publicly-supported health care to be nationally financed.

Unless, of course, that's the last thing you want, which is of course what's going on here. The majority of today's R's want to shrink government and give the proceeds to the rich. Their hostility to Obamacare is thus partly a function of its name, but it's more driven by the realization that their fundamental goal is completely incompatible with a significant government footprint in health care. That's despite the fact that every other advanced economy has long since figured this one out, and thus spends about half of what we do, per capita, while achieving universal coverage.

OK–rant over. And, trust me, I've been hanging around at the corner of Dysfunction Junction here in DC for a long while, so none of this is new. But especially on health care–do check out that Vox piece–the extent of the lying is worse than usual, and is a symptom of the alternative reality within which team Trump exists and which is increasingly infecting our politics.

And that can't end well.


----

Read in my feedly.com

Corruption in Latin America: Taking Stock



----
Corruption in Latin America: Taking Stock // IMF Blog
https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/21/corruption-in-latin-america-taking-stock/

By  David Lipton, Alejandro Werner, Carlos Gonçalves

September 21, 2017 

Versions in Español (Spanish)  Português (Portuguese)

Systemic corruption drains public resources and drags down economic growth (photo: People Images/iStock).

Corruption continues to make headlines in Latin America. From a scheme to shelter assets leaked by documents in Panama, to the Petrobras and Odebrecht scandals that have spread beyond Brazil, to eight former Mexican state governors facing charges or being convicted, the region has seen its share of economic and political fallout from corruption. Latin Americans are showing increasing signs of discontent and demanding that their governments tackle corruption more aggressively.

In this first part of two blogs, we look at how corruption in Latin America compares to other regions and explain why it is so difficult to combat. Part of the answer lies in the fact that systemic corruption is so endemic to the fabric of society, that changes in behavior require a major shift in expectations. As corruption drains public resources and drags down economic growth in multiple ways, the IMF has committed to work together with our members to confront the problem.

Corruption exists in many forms

Corruption—the abuse of public office for private gain—involves illicit payments or favors and how they are distributed. However, it can take different forms. It can occur at a "grand" or political level and/or at the "petty" or bureaucratic level. When corrupt behavior is so pervasive and entrenched, it can become the norm. In these systemic cases, corruption can even affect the design and implementation of policies, and skew regulatory or state decisions such as the case of Ukraine.

Corruption could also involve individual projects and how they are awarded or renegotiated. A prominent recent example is the construction firm Odebrecht, which spent considerable resources buying the support of key public officials in exchange for contracts in several Latin American economies. Other forms of corruption occur at lower tiers, including how licenses and zoning rights are granted. While corrupt activities can be initiated either on the supply (offering a bribe) or demand side (asking for a bribe), in practice it is often hard to separate the two.

The corruption trap

Given its high social costs, why is it so hard to successfully fight corruption? As in any type of social interaction, individual beliefs and expectations are crucial. When systemic corruption is the norm, people believe that other people are accepting or offering bribes. Given these beliefs, deviating from foul play is costly from the point of view of the individual. Like in the Odebrecht example, construction companies offering bribes are more likely to get projects than ones that do not—even if the latter are more efficient. Moreover, this inefficient equilibrium is self-perpetuating because companies and politicians can collude and use proceeds from past corrupt actions to secure future benefits at the expense of society.

Countries need forceful policies that lead to changes in social perceptions so corruption is seen as the exception rather than the rule. And as corruption falls, governments will more easily detect those who remain corrupt because they will stand out.

But achieving this realignment in incentives and behavior is not easy. Fighting corruption is a collective action problem with political dimensions. Isolated efforts are not likely to work. A multifaceted and resolute push is needed to initiate positive dynamics out of the bad equilibrium. For that, strong leadership and society's support are key.

Corruption is still a problem in Latin America

Corruption is difficult to measure, but different measures of corruption perceptions correlate quite strongly. Across these different measures, Latin America and the Caribbean appear on par with other emerging market economies, but fare substantially worse than advanced economies.

At the same time, regional averages mask a great deal of variation across countries. Corruption perceptions in some countries, such as Chile and Uruguay, are similar to levels seen in advanced economies. Interestingly, Chile and Uruguay also score well in other institutional and governance indicators, and have relatively higher income per capita levels. The rest of the region does not score as well. To varying degrees, this reflects poor law enforcement, lack of fiscal transparency, bureaucratic red tape, loopholes and weak contractual frameworks in public procurement and investment, and weak governance in state-owned enterprises.

Limited progress
It is not easy to track concrete improvements in Latin America because some measures are not fully comparable across time. Moreover, perceptions of corruption may in fact rise even when corruption falls because more is being investigated and uncovered.

While there are some cases of significant improvement over the past 20 years in emerging markets, there are fewer success stories in Latin America. For example, control of corruption in Honduras has noticeably improved (though remains high), reflecting recent actions regarding the police force, the social security administration, and the tax administration. Overall, however, most changes in Latin America are relatively small. Corruption is hard to get rid of once it's there.

The cost of corruption

Previous studies show that corruption can hinder sustainable and inclusive growth. With systemic corruption, the state's capacity to perform its core functions is weakened, making costs macro-critical. In addition, higher corruption tends to be accompanied by higher inequality. Some commonly recognized costs evident in parts of Latin America include: lower provision of public goods (which hurts the poor disproportionately), misallocation of talent and capital through distorted incentives, higher levels of distrust in society and lower legitimacy of government, higher economic uncertainty, and lower private and foreign investment.

Nevertheless, it is hard to statistically pin down the precise impact of corruption on development since causation runs both ways. Our illustrative estimates suggest that an improvement in corruption from the lowest quartile to the median could raise per capita income by about $3,000 in Latin America over the medium term, although part of this gain reflects coinciding factors like overall institutional improvements.

Window of opportunity

Corruption in Latin America remains too high. The latest surveys tell us that the public is losing patience, which creates a window of opportunity for national leaders. Developing and enforcing a coherent strategy to fight corruption is difficult, entails learning by doing, depends on country circumstances, and is one part of a broader development strategy. But drawing from international and regional experience can provide insights and guidance to combat corruption. Our next blog will offer some concrete suggestions for Latin America.


----

Read in my feedly.com

Videos from the Economics of AI Conference

.... for the tech AND economics wonks!

----
Videos from the Economics of AI Conference // Digitopoly
https://digitopoly.org/2017/09/21/videos-from-the-economics-of-ai-conference/

Last week, we held the first fully fledged conference on the Economics of Artificial Intelligence here in Toronto. If you take a look here you can see the agenda and papers. It was a good crowd.

We also have videos of all the talks and discussions from the conference including from some of the pioneers of machine learning.

Finally, we have created a website that will curate research on the economics of AI. There are a few papers there and more to come in the future.



----

Read in my feedly.com