| White House Press Secretary Claims "Unemployment Benefits Could Create Up To 1 Million Jobs" Posted: 12 Aug 2011 06:32 PM PDT Real Clear Politics notes Unemployment Benefits Could Create Up To 1 Million Jobs"I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does that create jobs," Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler asked Jay Carney at Wednesday's WH briefing.
Carney responded: "Oh, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam."
"There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance," Carney said.
Carney answers the question: "It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They're not going to save it, they're going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually."
"Every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring. So, there are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance, Carney said. So there you have it. The unemployed create jobs. If only we had millions more unemployed we could create millions more jobs simply by given the unemployed more money. I suppose we could triple unemployment benefits and create three times as many jobs on the theory that the unemployed would still spend every penny of three times as much money. We could be even more creative and extend unemployment benefits to infinity thereby creating an infinite number of jobs. However, creation of an infinite number of jobs would sound unrealistic as a news headline, even for a liberal media, if only barely. So let's just do this for three more years at three times the benefits. I have the headline ready: "Obama to create 9 million jobs by giving the unemployed three times as much money if they agree to spend it." Addendum: A couple of people argued spending will create jobs but asked "how many?" Certainly 1 million seems ridiculous. More to the heart of the matter, to paraphrase a response from "Fedwatcher", such activities will create jobs but not efficiently or permanently. Therein is the crux of the matter. Certainly if the government gave $20,000 to everyone who was unemployed we would see a burst of activity, followed by another crash. Throwing money around does not create lasting jobs, only another heroin high. Worse yet, in response to stimulus, businesses may invest more in productive capacity only to find out as the stimulus wore off, they really didn't need it. Heaven help any business that borrows money on such false signals. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
| Eurozone in Recession, Industrial Production "Unexpectedly" Drops .7%; France in Recession, Germany on the Way; Is the US in Recession? Posted: 12 Aug 2011 12:05 PM PDT Recession loom everywhere you look. Let's look at France: French growth sputters to a halt in 2nd quarter The French government was put under further pressure to cut deeper into spending after figures Friday showed growth in Europe's second biggest economy ground to a halt in the spring, in another sign that the global economy is facing rising recessionary threats.
With the worse-than-expected French growth figures suggesting a possible budget shortfall this year, government ministers may have to find additional savings ahead of a key meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy on Aug. 24.
The flat growth reported in the second quarter of the year was attributable to a slump in consumer spending and exports, and came as policymakers scramble to soothe investor concerns that the country could be the next major economy to lose its coveted triple-A credit rating. Eurozone Industrial Production "Unexpectedly" Drops .7% RTT News reports Eurozone Industrial Output Declines Unexpectedly In June
Eurozone industrial production declined unexpectedly in June on widespread decreases in sub-sectors, indicating a sharp slowdown in economic activity in the currency bloc at the end of the second quarter.
Industrial output fell 0.7 percent month-on-month, offsetting the 0.2 percent increase seen in May, data released by Eurostat showed Friday. Economists had expected production to remain flat in June.
Among the sub-sectors, durable consumer goods output and capital goods production logged the biggest falls of 2.5 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. At the same time, non-durable consumer goods output dropped 0.5 percent. Decreases in intermediate goods and energy output came in at 0.6 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively.
Germany Industrial Production Unexpectedly Drops 1.1% Forex Crunch reports More Evidence of Core Slowdown in Germany's Industrial ProductionGerman industrial production dropped by 1.1% in June. Early expectations stood on a rise of 0.1%. The rise of 1.2% that was reported for May was revised to only 0.9%. Altogether, the locomotive of the euro-zone cannot drive the train in high speed anymore. US Consumer Sentiment Unexpectedly Declines to Three Decade Low Bloomberg reports U.S. Consumer Confidence Drops to Three-Decade Low Amid Economic Headwinds Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged in August to the lowest level since May 1980, adding to concern that weak employment gains and volatility in the stock market will prompt households to retrench.
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary index of consumer sentiment slumped to 54.9 from 63.7 the prior month. The gauge was projected to decline to 62, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.
Estimates of 69 economists for the confidence measure ranged from 59 to 66.5, according to the Bloomberg survey. The index averaged 89 in the five years leading up to the recession that began in December 2007. Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture asks Are We Already in Recession? Bloomberg reported today that "Consumer Sentiment Plunged to Three-Decade Low."
That sent me scurrying to find some charts, and I ended up liking the two from UBS strategist Andy Lees, at bottom.
The first one is an overlay the University of Michigan consumer confidence index vs the Conference Board's data. The second chart shows the long term history of the Conference Board data. At an implied level of 43.37 we would be in recession now; not only that but a deep recession.
As the charts show, the ABC index has diverged from the Conference Board data for some time now.
The correlation between consumer confidence and recession might not hold this time — although that would be the first split for 40 plus years.
There is also an implication from this data series that we are already in recession. Given yesterday's data showing both imports and exports falling, we may have an implied Q2 GDP revised lower by 0.8% to 0.5% annualized growth — putting Q2 into the negative category.
Hence, it is not unfeasible that we could be the verge of recession. Forget " verge of recession" the US is in one. Whether or not it gets reported as such depends on further data. If new data continues to be weak, the NBER is very likely to backdate a recession to June or July. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
| Nonsense Regarding Reverse Repos, Excess Reserves, and Liquidity Posted: 12 Aug 2011 09:53 AM PDT Today the Fed announced a series of meaningless small reverse-repo (monetary drain actions) to test the exit-policy soaking-up ability of the Fed down the road. I suggest the Fed's Statement Regarding Reverse Repurchase Agreements is meaningless given the amounts involved, the timing, and the reasons the Fed stated. As noted in the October 19, 2009, Statement Regarding Reverse Repurchase Agreements, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been working internally and with market participants on operational aspects of triparty reverse repurchase agreements to ensure that this tool will be ready if the Federal Open Market Committee decides it should be used. Beginning Monday, August 15, the New York Fed intends to conduct another series of small-scale reverse repurchase (repo) transactions using all eligible collateral types. The first operation will be conducted using only the expanded reverse repo counterparties announced on July 27, 2011. Subsequent operations in this series will be open to all eligible reverse repo counterparties.
Going forward, the Federal Reserve plans to conduct a series of small-scale reverse repurchase transactions about every two months, which will bring the frequency of these operational exercises in line with that of the Term Deposit Facility exercises.
Like the earlier operational readiness exercises, this work is a matter of prudent advance planning by the Federal Reserve. The operations have been designed to have no material impact on the availability of reserves or on market rates. Specifically, the aggregate amount of outstanding reverse repo transactions will be very small relative to the level of excess reserves, and the transactions will be conducted at current market rates. These operations do not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy, and no inference should be drawn about the timing of any change in the stance of monetary policy in the future.
ZeroHedge sarcastically comments With liquidity already being very scarce courtesy of the FDIC assessment, of Europe wreaking havoc with money markets, of repos pulling out of the market at a record pace, of O/N General Collateral trading with the same volatility as the S&P, this will surely have no impact at all on anything, just like all other centrally planned, and carefully thought through actions. After reading the announcement, it should be crystal clear the Fed did nothing and said nothing of importance. Ironically, I agree with this short clip of Tyler's statement " surely have no impact at all on anything", except that is clearly not what Tyler meant. I suggest it is time to stop hyping-up every play and every statement by Fed officials as if it means anything. Moreover, excess reserves are so high the Fed could mop up $1 trillion of them right now without having an impact on anything except for interest paid on reserves to banks. Tyler missed this completely, and the key to understanding the issue is realization that excess-reserve theory of inflation and lending is fallacious. I have covered the reasons numerous occasions. Here is the pertinent snip from Yes Virginia, U.S. Back in Deflation; Inflation Scare Ends; Hyperinflationists Wrong Twice Over Excess Reserve Money-Multiplier Theory is Fatally Flawed
Some have written these "excess reserves" are waiting in the wings to cause massive inflation.
It did not happen nor will it. Simply put, the excess-reserve money-multiplier theory is potty.
Banks do not lend just because they have reserves. Indeed reserves do not enter the equation at all. Rather, banks lend as long as they are not capital impaired and as long as they have good credit risks willing to borrow.
In this case, banks are capital impaired, and there are too few credit-worthy clients who want to borrow. The result is banks do not lend and money sits as excess reserves.
What Would Draining $1 Trillion Excess Reserves Do? The effect of draining $1 trillion in excess reserves would be .25% (max) of $1 trillion in interest to banks paid on excess reserves, thus $2.5 billion a year total (max) to banks, free money that banks have no business collecting. I say max because the rate floats from zero to .25% max although in theory the Fed can pay anything it wants for excess reserves. There are no liquidity issues in regards to draining $1 trillion in reserves, if done slowly over time. Excess Reserves  Given the state of excess reserves, there is no liquidity issue in any real sense at all, and the Fed should indeed implement an exit strategy while it is easy to do so, instead of later when it may not be so easy. The Fed does not do so because - The Fed fails to understand monetary easing policy is now economically useless
- The Fed wants to slowly recapitalize banks over time with taxpayer money from the treasury via paying interest to banks on excess reserves
I suspect both. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
Postări
