Thursday, April 30, 2020

The U.S Needs Way More Than a Bailout to Recover From Covid-19 [feedly]

An interesting take on a WW II like economic mobilization to meet the depression threat in the current COVID crisis. From Barry Ritholtz, a liberal investment analyst, with a better than average forecasting record.

The U.S Needs Way More Than a Bailout to Recover From Covid-19
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-30/bailout-isn-t-enough-for-economy-to-recover-from-coronavirus

The economic crisis created by Covid-19 is unlike any other in modern American history. Thousands are dead, and the economic fallout has been devastating. More people lost their jobs over four weeks in March and April than did so during the entire 2008-09 financial crisis. In fact, since mid-March, all of the employment gains since the last crisis ended have been lost. Of the 156 million people the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics measured as working full time then, more than 26 million—about 16.7%—were no longer receiving a paycheck as of April 23. If you add in gig workers and those who were unable to file unemployment claims because state offices were too overwhelmed, the tally was more than 20%. At this pace, we will eclipse the peak of unemployment during the Great Depression, 25%, in a matter of weeks.

This sudden collapse in economic activity, hitting every sector except for food, health care, and Netflix, is why Congress moved quickly to pass the $2 trillion CARES Act on March 27. In late April, lawmakers added $320 billion to replenish the U.S. Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program. That sounds like a lot, until you learn that the first allotment, $349 billion, lasted barely a week. CARES2, another trillion-dollar stimulus, is already under congressional consideration. CARES3 won't be too far behind.

But these are all temporary salves, not long-term solutions. The current rescues only treat the symptoms of economic distress; they do nothing to address structural issues that have been a drag on middle-class household income since the 1980s. If we want to restart the engine that made this nation a superpower, we need to do something big. I mean really, really big: defeat-the-Nazis, land-a-man-on-the-moon, invent-the-internet big.

There's no small amount of irony in this coming from me. I'm the guy who wrote an entire book, Bailout Nation, arguing against bailouts for, among others, Chrysler in 1980, Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, and the failing banks of 2008-09.

But I'm not talking about a bailout. For generations, and most successfully in the Depression's aftermath, the U.S. has used public-private partnerships to drive the country's economic expansion, allowing entrepreneurs and innovative companies to take advantage of the long-term planning and financial strength of Uncle Sam. This strategy led to new industries and technologies, creating millions of good middle-class jobs in the process. This is the solution that must no longer be overlooked. What we need right now are public-private partnerships on a scale not attempted since the Depression.

When the stock market crashed in 1929, the Federal Reserve was a young institution with limited authority. Reviving the economy was the job of the White House and Congress. Programs such as the Works Progress Administration, in which the federal government hired workers to build more than half a million miles of streets and 10,000 bridges, along with airports, dams, highways, and sanitation systems, helped alleviate mass unemployment. However, the lasting economic gains came not from temporary work programs, but rather from the Reconstruction Finance Corp., a public-private entity better known as the RFC.

Louis Hyman, an economic historian and director of the Institute for Workplace Studies at Cornell, recently described RFC in the Atlantic as "an independent agency within the federal government that set up lending systems to channel private capital into publicly desirable investments. It innovated new systems of insurance to guarantee those loans, and delivered profits to businesses in peril during the Depression." Most impressive, as Hyman has noted, these programs cost taxpayers nothing.

relates to The U.S Needs Way More Than a Bailout to Recover From Covid-19
The Rural Electrification Administration helped finance thousands of miles of electrical wires to benefit farms and ranches.
SOURCE: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

The RFC was an enormous economic multiplier. Start with the Depression-era breakdown of the banking system. That institutional collapse wasn't caused by a lack of capital; larger national banks such as National City Bank and Bank of America had idle cash. But low potential returns, combined with post-traumatic stress lingering from the stock crash, made bankers so risk-averse they wouldn't even lend to each other.

The RFC's solution in 1934 was for private bank employees to work with its subsidiary, the Federal Housing Administration, to create insurance for pools of mortgages. This led to a resurgence of financing for home purchases. Another RFC subsidiary, the Rural Electrification Administration, worked with farm cooperatives and banks to issue low-interest 20-year loans to run thousands of miles of electrical wires to rural farms and ranches—something the private sector had said would be too expensive.

During the years before World War II, the RFC created the Defense Plant Corp., offering loans and tax benefits for the manufacture of tanks, planes, and other weapons used by the Allies to fight the Nazis. The DPC helped add 50% to the country's manufacturing capacity by the war's end, according to Hyman. In 1940 it was responsible for 25% of the nation's entire gross domestic product. Hyman noted that it remade the U.S. aerospace and electronics industries, turning them into some of the largest sectors in the economy.

Half a century later, most Americans have forgotten all that these public-private partnerships accomplished—to such an extent that there is political hay to be made by demonizing government programs of any kind. We've lived off their fruits while failing to establish new programs. This void has led to a list of structural issues: underemployment, an increasing wage gap, a lack of household savings, and a looming retirement crisis.

By the time the Great Recession arrived in the late aughts, Congress resisted the idea of a big stimulus plan. That was, until Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke informed them the nation was "days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system," as then-Senator Christopher Dodd later recounted. Even then, lawmakers didn't do all that much, passing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was later reduced to $431 billion, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion plan that included short-term benefit extensions and tax cuts.

While Congress dithered, the response of the U.S. central bank was unprecedented. The Fed fashioned dozens of programs to put $4 trillion into credit markets. This helped to unfreeze credit markets and allowed bank lending to occur. The Great Depression had FDR; the Great Recession had Ben Bernanke.

His actions were effective in a narrow sense: He saved the finance sector. The Fed's zero-interest-rate policy stopped 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages—loans with teaser rates that shot higher after 24 months—from resetting, which prevented defaults. This gave banks time to gradually improve their balance sheets, but it planted seeds that led to a variety of unintended consequences.

Saving the banks turned out to be a boon to property owners, homebuilders, and the private equity funds that were investing in distressed real estate, who saw their holdings quickly recover their value. But those who didn't own homes, including many people who'd lost them to foreclosure, were turned into renters.

relates to The U.S Needs Way More Than a Bailout to Recover From Covid-19
An FHA poster from the early 1940s. The Federal Housing Administration created insurance for pools of mortgages, which led to a resurgence of financing for home purchases after the Great Depression.
SOURCE: NARA

Investors did well, of course. If you still owned stock in March 2009, when the market hit its lowest point—or better yet, if you had enough capital to buy more stock—your risk-taking was richly rewarded. From those lows, the S&P 500 tripled over the next few years. Even with the recent post-Covid correction, the index is still worth four times what it was in 2009.

Most Americans don't own much in stocks. In a 2017 study, Edward Wolff, a professor at New York University and researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households owned 84% of all stocks. During the recovery, the wealthiest segments of society got wealthier. I should disclose that I benefited from it personally, too. My firm, Ritholtz Wealth Management, manages more than a billion dollars in stocks and bonds. Our clients did well in part because their portfolios have benefited dramatically from rising prices. The Fed deserves credit for some of that increase in asset values.

Another enormous windfall went to those employees who had lots of company stock options. From October 2007 to March 2009, the S&P 500 fell 56%. Many companies, including AppleStarbucks, and Google, allowed their employees to trade in worthless stock options for new ones with much lower strike prices in 2009. The biggest beneficiaries were the executives who held the lion's share of issued options. As the market and the economy recovered thanks in part to the Fed's monetary efforts, these options became deep in the money. Tens of millions of dollars in risk-free profit were created for some already wealthy people.

While the financial sector recovered, Congress did little to help the rest of the economy. In the past, when household and private-sector demand collapsed, the government stepped in to replace it by spending more and cutting taxes. For reasons people still debate—ideology? deficit concerns? partisanship?—the fiscal response in 2009 was sorely lacking.

As people began to find new jobs, they were often worse than the ones they'd lost during the crisis—with lower wages and fewer (if any) benefits. Without a substantial fiscal stimulus, the good middle-class jobs associated with large public works projects or civil service employment never materialized. Gains from the economic recovery never "trickled down" to the working classes.

The 2020 economic rescue has skimmed from the responses to both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. But so far it's been heavily slanted toward the latter approach, as the Fed has slashed interest rates to zero and committed more than $2 trillion to keep rates low and credit markets liquid. The $2 trillion CARES Act aims to replace income and spending for those 92% of Americans under shelter-in-place orders until the crisis passes. Most of that CARES money will replace lost wages for employees of small and midsize businesses for a short while; the rest will cover lost revenue for a few larger businesses. There's also money going to states, cities, and hospitals.

The response has been more substantial than what the government did during the 2008-09 crisis. But it's still nowhere near enough.

We should be using RFC-like partnerships to build technological platforms and infrastructure for the future. The list of potential areas is long—but here are a few ideas:

① Climate remediation

Nine of the 10 warmest years in recorded history have occurred since 2005. What's been missing from the attempts to address global warming has been a comprehensive search for a huge technological solution to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or perhaps a series of smaller ones that cumulatively have a substantial impact. Accelerating this process could have implications for avoiding what might very likely be humanity's next great crisis.

② Sustainable energy

One reason for modest hope in the looming climate crisis has been incremental improvements in the efficiency of wind and solar energy, along with battery storage improvements. What we need to make this energy technology much more efficient would be a Manhattan Project of sorts, aiming for fundamental breakthroughs in both the science and the technology. The resulting cheap, abundant energy would help reduce future carbon emissions and pollution—and lower costs for energy-intensive businesses.

③ Infrastructure

The U.S. once had the world's leading roads, airports, and electrical grids. We have foolishly allowed these to fall into disrepair and decay. This lowers the quality of life, hurts economic growth, and puts America at a disadvantage to rising powers in Asia. The solution is to create a Reconstruction Infrastructure Corp. to prioritize projects for repair and rebuilding. Fund it with 50- to 100-year bonds issued at 2%. Infrastructure is more than a make-work program; it's the platform that allows businesses to operate efficiently.

④ Smart roads

Speaking of platforms, it's only a matter of time before self-driving cars are here. Greater traffic capacity, faster commutes, and reduced automobile fatalities will be the happy result. But whether this happens in a few years or, more pessimistically, a few decades is unclear. What would speed things along would be a uniform set of radio-frequency devices built into roads and vehicles to allow safe navigation regardless of weather or traffic conditions. A public-private partnership could (among other things) create a set of standards that allows different vehicle manufacturers to interact safely on the open road.

⑤ Digitized health care

How is it possible that in 2020 the flow of health-care information has yet to become seamless and universal? How is this crucial sector still operating as if it were the 19th century? Prior government attempts to address this issue have been too modest. Instead, combine the government's efforts with the health-care initiative created by Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, and Jeff Bezos—and create a bold, comprehensive experiment.

⑥ Asteroid mining

This isn't merely something out of science fiction. Serious technologists believe we could launch a fleet of unmanned ships to mine valuable minerals. I understand that some want to go to Mars. I say aim farther, all the way to the asteroid belt, with its vast riches of industrial metals, nickel, cobalt, and likely gold and platinum.

In all of those examples, the journey is the reward. Landing a man on the moon was a triumph of ingenuity, but the economic benefits came from the technology that the Apollo program developed. Integrated circuits, fireproof materials, water purification, freeze-dried food, polymer fabrics, cordless tools—the list is so long that we take it for granted. We need to update President Kennedy's challenge, not for the national glory, but for the societywide economic benefits.

relates to The U.S Needs Way More Than a Bailout to Recover From Covid-19
Buzz Aldrin walks on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969.
SOURCE: NASA

Some will say what I'm arguing for here would be a departure from 21st century U.S. political and economic realities. But as entrepreneur and author Bhu Srinivasan points out in Americana: A 400-Year History of American Capitalism, Uncle Sam has successfully partnered with the private sector throughout our history, creating exclusive monopolies through patent protections and municipal bonds, among many other innovations. Or, to quote the venture capitalist William Janeway, the U.S. innovation economy has always been "sponsored by the state and funded by speculation."

It sometimes takes a crisis to get past the usual partisan wrangling in Congress. Right now there's a rare willingness to try more short-term stimulus. But the lesson of the past two centuries is that to benefit the U.S. population, the government needs to enact a long-lasting fiscal stimulus—a new NASA, not just an extra few hundred dollars to get us through the next few months.

Grover Norquist once said his goal for government was "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." It's a great punchline, right up until you need the government to fight the Nazis—or to control a global pandemic that threatens to kill millions and destroy the economy.

Time will tell if this White House and Congress are up to this enormous task. The public gets to grade the response and rescue plan in about six months—on Nov. 3.

This is no time for thinking small. America, confronted with the biggest crises, has always stepped up. We face yet another historic crisis. Once again it is time for America to go big.

Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and the author of Bailout Nation: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy. He is the founder of Ritholtz Wealth Management.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Trump’s Cruelest Month [feedly]

Trump's Cruelest Month
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-self-destruction-in-april-by-elizabeth-drew-2020-04

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

text only

ELIZABETH DREW

With the US economy spinning out of control and expected to sink to depths not seen since the 1930s, US President Donald Trump's presidency is self-destructing. This was clear throughout April, when two opposing forces, Trump's compulsive lying and the coronavirus, collided daily.

WASHINGTON, DC – T.S. Eliot famously called April "the cruelest month." If US President Donald Trump, not known as a fan of poetry, were honest with himself (another unknown), he would likely agree that this month has turned his tenure into a wasteland.

What the Stock Market Is Really Saying

LARRY HATHEWAY & ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN explain the mystery of US equities' price movements since the onset of the pandemic.
5Add to Bookmarks

PreviousNext

By April 28, the US was leading the world with nearly 57,000 COVID-19 deaths and over one million confirmed coronavirus infections. A recent analysis by the Yale School of Public Health indicates that the number of pandemic-related deaths in the early months of 2020 far exceeded the official public estimates.

Another landmark reached by the end of April was that Trump had lost the faith of much of his own party on the preeminent issue facing the country. According to an AP poll released on April 23, only 47% of Republicans believed "quite a lot" in Trump's claims of progress against the virus. And only 23% of all respondents expressed a high level of trust in him.

Trump not only squandered the time he'd had to prepare the country from when he was first informed of a possible pandemic (at least early January); he also squandered his opportunity with voters. The damage from his compulsive lying was compounded by the national alarm about the subject – two unstoppable forces that have collided almost daily in the self-serving, meandering "briefings" he insisted on leading in the White House press room. And Trump's baseless bragging about how much he has achieved collided with his desire to evade responsibility for deaths and other havoc caused by his dilatory response to the pandemic.

Predictably, the result of Trump's impulsive governing style and his determination to dominate the news cycle has been a stream of bizarre and often contradictory statements. For example, despite the US Constitution's Tenth Amendment, he recently claimed "total" power over whether and when state governments can lift public-health health restrictions.

That démarche elicited bipartisan objections, and his political advisers reminded him that the strategy was to avoid responsibility for the pandemic by shifting it to state governors. Although Trump quickly backed down, that didn't stop him from encouraging demonstrations at statehouses to protest against the very restrictions he had encouraged governors to impose.



The one thing Trump has seemed comfortable with throughout this ordeal has been firing people. Two particular targets of his vengefulness have been inspectors general of federal departments (a genus of official installed after Watergate in order to bring accountability to government agencies), especially if they played a role in Trump's impeachment in January, and people who have disagreed too publicly with his views about the current plague.

On the other hand, Trump is clearly frustrated that he cannot fire Anthony Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who serves on the White House coronavirus task force. Fauci's status as the most widely respected authority on the pandemic has enabled him publicly to correct Trump's frequent misinformation – for example, about the unproven (and subsequently disproved) benefits of antimalarial drugs in treating COVID-19 – at the task force's daily briefings.

As April wore on, Trump's long-winded appearances at the televised briefings became tiresome to the public, and his poll ratings began to drop. Meanwhile, the lockdown policies in place in most states were slowing the increase in infections, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that nearly 60% of the public favored stay-at-home policies over loosening restrictions on people's movements. And yet, despite warnings by Fauci and other scientists, Trump spoke enthusiastically about "opening up" the country.

It should come as no surprise that Trump has abused his power in orchestrating the federal response to the pandemic. For example, he made sure that Colorado received 100 much-needed ventilators, and made sure that Colorado voters knew it, in order to help re-elect troubled incumbent Republican senator Cory Gardner.

More alarming, Trump effectively threatened to wage germ warfare against US Postal Service workers by denying them congressionally approved virus-mitigation aid unless the USPS quadrupled rates on packages. Trump's actual target was Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post.

As the last week in April began, more than 26 million US workers had filed for unemployment in the previous month, Congress had approved four bills amounting to $2.4 trillion in relief to business and individuals, and policymakers were debating the next round of spending. With the economy spinning out of control and expected to sink to depths not seen since the 1930s, polls were suggesting that Trump would lose November's presidential election to his presumptive Democratic challenger, Joe Biden.


Trump has become his own worst enemy. When, on April 23, he speculated from the podium of the White House briefing room that COVID-19 could be killed off by injecting household disinfectants or by ultra-violet light, even many Republicans had seen enough. White House aides said his appearances at the briefings, which he had viewed as a substitute for the frequent rallies he could no longer hold, would be curtailed. Trump himself, evidently stung by the widespread mockery that followed his comments, dismissed the briefings, tweeting that his participation was "not worth the time and effort!"

But he couldn't stay away. After only a few days, he took to the podium again, determined to get a head start on May.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Tale of Two Economies Will Determine Post-Lockdown Growth - Bloomberg

Tale of Two Economies Will Determine Post-Lockdown Growth

by Rich Miller and Michelle Jamrisko

 You think: US and China? No. Manufacturing/tech vs Services? yes. Oh. Wait a minute. That IS China vs US! eek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-26/tale-of-two-economies-will-determine-post-lockdown-growth

Getting companies to resume operations and factories to reopen is one thing. Persuading consumers to brave catching the coronavirus and go out to shop, eat, travel or watch sports is another.

"Nothing about reopening the economy will be easy, but restarting businesses will be more straightforward than restarting aggregate demand," Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi said.

The result: An uneven reboot for the global economy, with manufacturing and the nations dependent on it bouncing back fairly quickly, while more communal service-sector activities and countries lag.

That will keep pressure on governments and central banks to continue their support as their economies claw their way back from the deepest worldwide downturn since the Great Depression.

Deep Global Recession

The IMF is predicting a 2020 global contraction of 3%

Source: International Monetary Fund

Policy makers from the Bank of Japan, the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank all meet this week, with investors on the lookout for any further steps they might take to aid their battered economies.

Some nations' recoveries "are a little more V-shaped because there's a little bit more manufacturing, a little more tech," Catherine Mann, Citigroup Inc. chief economist and former chief economist for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, told Bloomberg Television April 23. "That might be a South Korea or Taiwan. And then there are other economies that are extremely tourism dependent. Those are facing L's. Something like a Thailand, a Singapore."

The U.S. revival is likely to be gradual, as some states reopen for business sooner than others, Deutsche Bank Securities economists said in an April 24 report. By the end of the year, the U.S. will have recovered only about 40% of the output and employment it lost during the crisis.

This has ramifications for the November election. If consumers hold back and the economy fails to meaningfully recover, that would put President Donald Trump's chances for winning re-election at risk.

Trump on Friday hailed the coming restart. "There is a tremendous pent up demand. We will open big!" he declared in a tweet.

Governor Kemp Reopens Businesses In Georgia

A worker gives a customer a pedicure at a nail salon in Atlanta, Georgia, on Friday, April 24, 2020.

Photographer: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg

Some businesses will enjoy a one-time boost as stay-at-home orders are eased. Think barber shops and hair salons. And there's always a chance that stir-crazy consumers worldwide could surprise economists by flocking back to the shops.

But that carries perils of its own -- as German Chancellor Angela Merkel highlighted in a closed-door meeting of her Christian Democratic party on April 20. She told her fellow politicians that "discussion orgies" about loosening lockdowns threatened to destroy the progress in fighting the pandemic, according to a participant.

Singapore serves as a warning in that regard. It's gone from being seen as a global standard bearer for taming the deadly virus to the home of Southeast Asia's largest recorded outbreak.

"The one way not to reopen the economy is to have a rebound that we can't take care of," Anthony Fauci, the top infectious-disease expert on the White House coronavirus task force, said about the risk of a resurgence.

It's not just a fear of being infected that could keep consumers out of the malls. Anxiety over job loss and shrinking savings also could prompt them to husband their resources and cut back on spending, economists say.

The lopsided economic revival is playing out in China, home of the initial coronavirus outbreak.

China's Economy Comes to a Stop

An historic collapse in Chinese growth

Source: National Bureau of Statistics

"There has been policy-directed resumption of factories on the supply side, but the picture for a demand recovery is more mixed." said Selena Ling, head of treasury research and strategy at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. "There is talk about pent-up Chinese demand for some high-end luxury goods," she added. "But general demand at the man of the street level is more subdued."

Chinese industrial production in March was down about 1% from a year earlier, while retail sales were off almost 16%, according to calculations by Bank of America Corp. economists.

Marriott International Inc. Chief Executive Officer Arne Sorenson told Bloomberg Television on April 20 that occupancy at the company's roughly 350 hotels in mainland China has risen to about 25% from 6% to 8% in the first week of February.

"It's still down massively from where what it should be," he added, noting that the normal rate is around 70% to 80%.

In Germany, the powerful automobile industry worries that buyers will be scarce as the country reopens for business. It's pushing for a "cash for clunkers" program to spur sales after the crisis.

Measures that could strengthen demand "in times of strong insecurity among customers" would be "worth considering," Daimler AG said in a statement.

U.S businesses also are bracing for a long slog as the world's largest economy begins to reopen.

Sustainable Recovery

"Given the combined effects of the pandemic and associated financial impact on the global economy, we believe that it could be up to three years before we see a sustainable recovery," Delta Air Lines Inc. CEO Ed Bastian told analysts on April 22.

With Americans over 65 years old accounting for 20% of consumer spending, demand could be constrained for a while given this group's heightened vulnerability to the virus, according to Deutsche Bank Securities Chief Economist Torsten Slok.

Yale University senior lecturer Stephen Roach called the idea of a V-shaped U.S. recovery "a pipe dream."

"With all this clamoring for economic liberation, we'll get workers back on the job," he said, referring to Trump's call for selected states to reopen their economies. But fear of a fresh virus outbreak will "hold back consumer demand to unprecedentedly low levels."

"Supply without demand doesn't work," the former Morgan Stanley executive added. "We're going to be operating at low levels of economic activity for the foreseeable future."

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Weekend reading: The federal government’s role in the coronavirus response edition [feedly]

Weekend reading: The federal government's role in the coronavirus response edition
https://equitablegrowth.org/weekend-reading-the-federal-governments-role-in-the-coronavirus-response-edition/

This is a post we publish each Friday with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is relevant and interesting articles we're highlighting from elsewhere. We won't be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Now that Congress has passed the second round of funding for the Small Business Administration's Payroll Protection Program—which provides loans to small businesses in response to the coronavirus recession—it's time to look back at the federal government's handling of the first round and correct its mistakes. Using data on loan sizes and distributions, Amanda Fischer takes us through some lessons that policymakers can learn from the first round of small business funding, which dried up in just two weeks. Fischer explains how existing inequalities may have biased how, where, and to whom the original $349 billion was distributed, leaving big businesses and certain small businesses in specific industries more likely to survive the coronavirus recession than their less-advantaged peers. Fischer calls on policymakers to not only continue passing additional aid for small businesses but also ensure better oversight and data collection into the distribution and allocation of the funding.

Another suggestion for improving federal government intervention in the face of the coronavirus recession comes from Heather Boushey on Medium: bringing back a Great Depression-era Works Progress Administration response. The U.S. economy will not be able to recover unless and until the public feels safe leaving their homes, knowing that the virus's spread has been contained—and this is unlikely to happen without a great increase in our capacity to test, as well as track and trace individuals who have been infected. Widespread testing and a robust track-and-trace system require federal government intervention to coordinate and implement evenly on a national scale. The federal government is the only entity with the expertise and capacity to do so swiftly, and, Boushey argues, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could quickly step into this role: It is already trained in infectious disease tracking and knows how to manage privacy concerns around this type of data collection and surveillance.

As Congress refuses to provide additional funding for state and local governments to address the coronavirus pandemic and recession, the Federal Reserve's Municipal Lending Facility may be what saves many communities across the United States. In an op-ed published in The New York Times this week, Claudia Sahm argues that the Fed's unlimited ability to print money and backstop the short-term municipal bond market—which states use to smooth out revenues but which is facing lower lending rates by investors due to economic uncertainty—may help many communities weather this storm. However, Sahm writes, the restrictions on which communities can access this program often exclude small and midsize cities—including the 35 cities with the highest percentage of black residents—as well as rural areas. The Fed can and should lift these limitations, Sahm concludes, in order to support more municipalities facing dire economic circumstances in the face of congressional inaction.

Looking outside our borders, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Management at the University of California, Berkeley, examines the coronavirus recession in European and emerging economies in a column covering his remarks at a March 24 online conference of more than 100 economists. He begins by stating that the pandemic and ensuing recession will affect all countries, despite slight differences in the timing of the onset of both the public health and economic crises and in the responses governments have taken. Gourinchas then runs through the three policy proposals the European Central Bank is considering to assist European countries in need, as well as the specific circumstances and challenges facing emerging economies and how they differ from those faced by advanced economies. While developed nations are dealing with deteriorating public health and economic situations within their borders, he concludes, we can't leave behind developing nations in the recovery and response: We are all in this together.

Links from around the web

How has the $600 weekly Unemployment Insurance add-on affected workers in each state? Ella Koeze's interactive in The New York Timeslooks at how the extra $600 compares to average weekly salaries in each state based on the wage-replacement rate to see where unemployment benefits under the new system will be greater or less than a worker's normal salary. Koeze also examines how policymakers decided upon the $600 flat figure and how it will affect workers unevenly across regions, depending on factors such as cost of living and unemployment benefit floors and caps in various states.

The new coronavirus pandemic has shown the impact that socioeconomic status has on whether a person gets sick, writes Olga Khazan in The Atlantic, and experts say this could lead to a backlash against the better-off. Wealthier people are more likely to have the ability to telecommute, reducing their exposure to the virus, are less likely to have underlying health conditions, lowering their chances of getting seriously ill, and are more likely to practice social distancing correctly than their worse-off peers. It's common for natural disasters or other crises to expose these gaps in society—and, as a result, these periods also tend to be "good for workers" as they can create an appetite for long-term social change. But, Khazan asks, will the backlash this time be against corporate CEOs or against the middle class? The answer to that question may determine how the working class views government interventions and who to blame for their socioeconomic circumstances.

Predicting recessions is hard for economists even when the world isn't facing a global pandemic, writes Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux on FiveThirtyEight. In the best of times, it requires tons of research and often more than a few mistakes—and now, with countries around the world struggling to contain the public health and economic fallouts and all the usual sources of economic uncertainty flipped on their heads, it's even harder to try to predict how long the downturn will last, what will turn things around, or how quick the recovery will be. Thomson-DeVeaux runs through why it's so difficult to predict and properly diagnose recessions and recoveries, and how the coronavirus recession is as challenging, if not more so, to map.

Friday figure

Figure is from Equitable Growth's "The coronavirus recession exposes how U.S. labor laws fail gig workers and independent contractors," by Corey Husak and Carmen Sanchez Cumming.

The post Weekend reading: The federal government's role in the coronavirus response edition appeared first on Equitable Growth.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Trump executive order to suspend immigration would reduce green cards by nearly one-third if extended for a full year [feedly]

Details on the executive order: has nothing to do with virus prevention. Just Nazi nationalism and racism. 

Trump executive order to suspend immigration would reduce green cards by nearly one-third if extended for a full year

https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-executive-order-to-suspend-immigration-would-reduce-green-cards-by-nearly-one-third-if-extended-for-a-full-year/

President Trump's April 22 executive order to "suspend immigration" has the potential to reduce the number of migrants who can obtain green cards, i.e., become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), by hundreds of thousands if it remains in place for a substantial period of time beyond its initial 60-day duration.

Table 1 lists the categories of green cards that are affected by Trump's executive order, along with the number of green cards that were issued in 2019 in each of those categories to applicants who were "new arrivals," meaning they applied for their green cards from abroad. (The executive order does not suspend green cards for applicants who already reside in the United States.)

As Table 1 shows, there were one million total green cards issued during all of 2019, and 316,000 green cards issued under the categories suspended by Trump's new executive order. The executive order is initially valid for 60 days (two months); a 60-day suspension of these categories would result in an estimated reduction of 52,600 green cards, or a reduction of 5.1% of all green cards relative to the total number issued in 2019.

However, it is impossible to know whether the executive order will remain in place for just two months, multiple years, or somewhere in between. Each additional 60 days would reduce the number by an additional 52,600, or an additional 5.1% of the annual green card total. If the executive order remains in force for one full year, it would result in a reduction of 316,000 green cards, or 31%, nearly one-third, of the one million green cards issued in 2019.

Table 1

The irony about Trump issuing the executive order now is that nearly all forms of temporary and permanent immigration to the United States have already been stopped or suspended as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. For example, there are virtually no permanent or temporary visas being processed abroad in U.S. consulates, except for temporary H-2A visas for migrant farmworkers, and there are travel restrictions in place with numerous countries. Refugee applications are not currently being processed. And at U.S. land border crossings, nonessential travel is restricted and asylum seekers are not being allowed to enter the United States, a practice the United Nations has suggested is inconsistent with international law. That's why in practical terms the executive order may end up being only a symbolic gesture—i.e., if it only lasts 60 days and is not renewed. But, of course, if it is extended longer than 60 days, it could have a major impact on the U.S. immigration system.

Scapegoating immigrants has long been a tactic used by the Trump administration as a way to distract from the administration's many failings. The new executive order is simply one more example. While President Trump justifies the executive order on the basis of protecting the U.S. labor market, it is patently obvious that instead, it's a convenient way to take attention away from the administration's botched response to the coronavirus pandemic and to blame immigrants for all of society's ills.

The reality about immigrants, of course, is that they are a vital part of the U.S. labor force, and even more so now: Immigrants make up 17% of the U.S. labor force and are overrepresented in industries that are critical to keeping America fed and functioning during the coronavirus pandemic.

The executive order is also about Trump taking advantage of a crisis to implement bigger and longer-term reductions in immigration, especially with respect to immigration based on family ties and through the Diversity Immigrant Visa program for migrants from underrepresented countries, most of whom hail from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—reductions that Congress so far has not been willing to enact, but which have always been a major goal of the Trump administration.

In addition, Trump's executive order is a perfect manifestation of, and is consistent with, the many other anti-immigrant but also extreme corporatist policies of the Trump administration. In other words, it's a policy that will prohibit only those migrants who will have labor rights and a path to citizenship from coming to the United States. The administration has already reduced the number of refugees who are granted LPR status and can become citizens to historic lows, and now the executive order will put in place emergency measures to reduce the number of green cards issued in the family and immigrant worker categories.

The only employment-based green card category that was spared by the executive order is the EB-5 immigrant investor program—a scandal-ridden cash-for-visas scheme that allows wealthy applicants to receive green cards if they make financial investments in the United States. In recent years there have been bipartisan calls to reform the program while companies affiliated with President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner have profited from it.

At the same time, the issuance of nonimmigrant, temporary work visas, which restrict the rights of migrant workers and make them particularly vulnerable in the workplace, has not been suspended or restricted. That should surprise no one considering Trump's companies hire hundreds of guestworkers every year—often preferring them to local U.S. workers and finding ways to avoid hiring U.S. workers—and Trump has even used discretionary legal authority to increase the number of temporary work visas during every year of his administration.

Temporary work visa programs have long been a top immigration policy priority for corporate America. This was reflected in recent New York Times reporting about the executive order, which detailed that Trump declined to suspend temporary work visas because of "intense pressure from business groups," including technology and agribusiness firms, who reportedly "exploded in anger" at the notion that their access to temporary work visas might be suspended or restricted.

It is important to remember that the 1.6 million migrant workers employed with temporary work visas in the United States—who account for 1% of the labor force—face many challenges. Many are paid low wages relative to similarly situated U.S. workers. They cannot switch jobs or employers because of the terms of their visa status and, as a result, they are often subjected to workplace abuse, wage theft, exploitation, and even human trafficking. This has been documented through many reports from the media and advocacy organizations, as well as government audits. And since temporary work visa programs don't offer migrant workers a direct path to a green card and citizenship, they have to depart from the United States after they finish their jobs. They are, in many respects, cheap and disposable labor for U.S. employers.

While taking emergency measures to reduce permanent, green card immigration, the Trump administration's policies will nevertheless continue to prioritize and expedite the admission of migrants if they're coming to work for U.S. employers with temporary work visas—where many will be indentured and underpaid and will never have a path to permanent residence or citizenship.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Dean Baker: Comment on the Recovery from the Shutdown [feedly]

You can tell Baker is an economist by his sense of wit, and his skepticism about "rational" behaviors in conflict with economic incentives. Note the number of "hopes", "optimism", "could be"s in the writing. When he does this, I tend to read it as Bakers Baits: daring you to draw a sweeping zero/one all/nothing conclusion!

Comment on the Recovery from the Shutdown
https://cepr.net/comment-on-the-recovery-from-the-shutdown/

The Congressional Budget Office came out with its new economic projections and they look realistically bad to me. They show the economy declining at a 39.6 percent annual rate in the current quarter and then rebounding at a 23.5 percent rate in the third quarter and closing out the year with a 10.5 percent increase. Unemployment averages 14.0 percent in the current quarter and rises to 16.0 percent in the third quarter. It falls back to 11.7 percent in the fourth quarter, but still averages 10.1 percent in 2021.

While this looks like a pretty bad story to me, I saw comments on Twitter arguing it was too optimistic. The gist of these comments was that people will be too scared when the shutdown period ends to carry on anything like their normal life.

I don't really see that. First, as we know, there are plenty of jerks who never took the pandemic seriously. Given a green light to go shopping, get a haircut, or a tattoo, many will be quick to do so. The fact that all of these people are not going to die will cause others to follow.

But, we are making progress in learning how to limit the spread. Unfortunately, the U.S. is basically nowhere in the testing and tracing department, but that hopefully will change over the next couple of months. Also, there are many simple commonsense practices that will substantially reduce the risk.

Wearing masks in public places is an obvious one. Limiting the number of people allowed in stores and restaurants is another. Presumably ventilation also matters. This is a worldwide problem. Several European countries have already begun to reopen and others will do so soon. We should be able to learn best practices from each other.

This is not a zero/one story where there is either zero risk or an intolerable risk, the issue is one of reducing the probability of catching the virus so that more people can feel comfortable engaging in normal activities. (Improvements in treatment will also be hugely important.) Unfortunately, Donald "America First" Trump is probably not interested in learning from the experiences in other countries, but the best money forward thinking governors will ever spend will be carefully monitoring the successes and failures in re-openings elsewhere and finding ways to adopt the successes here. Until we have a vaccine we will not be completely safe, but there is enormous room for reducing risks and that should be the top priority for people in policy positions.

The post Comment on the Recovery from the Shutdown appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.a


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, April 24, 2020

McConnell to Every State: Drop Dead [feedly]

McConnell to Every State: Drop Dead
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/mcconnell-coronavirus-states.html


text only

Covid-19 has killed tens of thousands of Americans, and will clearly kill many more. The lockdown needed to contain the coronavirus is causing an economic slump several times as deep as the Great Recession.

Yet this necessary slump doesn't have to be accompanied by severe financial hardship. We have the resources to ensure that every American has enough to eat, that people don't lose health insurance, that they don't lose their homes because they can't pay rent or mortgage fees. There's also no reason we should see punishing cuts in essential public services.

Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly likely that tens of millions of Americans will in fact suffer extreme hardship and that there will be devastating cuts in services. Why? The answer mainly boils down to two words: Mitch McConnell.

On Wednesday, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, declared that he is opposed to any further federal aid to beleaguered state and local governments, and suggested that states declare bankruptcy instead. Lest anyone accuse McConnell of being even slightly nonpartisan, his office distributed two memos referring to proposals for state aid as "blue state bailouts."

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

A number of governors have already denounced McConnell's position as stupid, which it is. But it's also vile and hypocritical.

Refer your friends to The Times.

They'll enjoy our special rate of $1 a week.

When I say that we have the resources to avoid severe financial hardship, I'm referring to the federal government, which can borrow vast sums very cheaply. In fact, the interest rate on inflation-protected bonds, which measure real borrowing costs, is minus 0.43 percent: Investors are basically paying the feds to hold their money.

So Washington can and should run big budget deficits in this time of need. State and local governments, however, can't, because almost all of them are required by law to run balanced budgets. Yet these governments, which are on the front line of dealing with the pandemic, are facing a combination of collapsing revenue and soaring expenses.

The obvious answer is federal aid. But McConnell wants states and cities to declare bankruptcy instead.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

This is, as I said, stupid on multiple levels. For one thing, states don't even have the legal right to declare bankruptcy; even if they somehow managed all the same to default on their relatively small debts, it would do little to alleviate their financial distress — although it could cause a national financial crisis.

Oh, and the idea that this is specifically a blue state problem is ludicrous. Fiscal crises are looming all across America, from Florida to Kansas to Texas — hit especially hard by crashing oil prices — to, yes, McConnell's home state, Kentucky.

And if states and local governments are forced into sharp budget cuts, the effect will be to deepen the economic slump — which would be bad for Donald Trump and could cost Republicans the Senate.

So yes, McConnell's position is stupid. But it's also vile.

Think of who would be hurt if state and local governments are forced to make drastic cuts. A lot of state money goes to Medicaid, a program that should be expanding, not shrinking, as millions of Americans are losing their health insurance along with their jobs.

As for the state and local government workers who may be either losing their jobs or facing pay cuts, most are employed in education, policing, firefighting and highways. So if McConnell gets his way, America's de facto policy will be one of bailing out the owners of giant restaurant chains while firing schoolteachers and police officers.

Last but not least, let's talk about McConnell's hypocrisy, which like his stupidity comes on multiple levels.

At one level, it's really something to see a man who helped ram through a giant tax cut for corporations — which they mainly used to buy back their own stock — now pretend to be deeply concerned about borrowing money to help states facing a fiscal crisis that isn't their fault.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

At another level, it's also really something to see McConnell, whose state is heavily subsidized by the federal government, give lectures on self-reliance to states like New York that pay much more in federal taxes than they get back.

We're not talking about small numbers here. According to estimates by the Rockefeller Institute, from 2015 to 2018 Kentucky — which pays relatively little in federal taxes, because it's fairly poor, but gets major benefits from programs like Medicare and Social Security — received net transfers from Washington averaging more than $33,000 per person. That was 18.6 percent of the state's G.D.P.

True, relatively rich states like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut probably should be helping out their poorer neighbors — but those neighbors don't then get the right to complain about "blue state bailouts" in the face of a national disaster.

Of course, McConnell has an agenda here: He's hoping to use the pandemic to force afflicted states to shrink their governments. We can only hope both that this shameless exploitation of tragedy fails and that McConnell and his allies pay a heavy political price.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed