Fighting for the Scraps

As the U.S. economy limps out of recession, lending to business is showing no sign of revival. And that should worry us all. According to Federal Reserve Bank data, business receivables outstanding held by finance companies were less than $470 billion in July, down 22 percent from 2008. New securities issued by corporations are running at an $830 billion annualized rate this year, down from $2 trillion in 2008.

But that’s only the beginning of the bad news for small business. To an unprecedented degree in peacetime U.S. history, the federal government dominates the allocation of credit in the economy. As a consequence, politically favored constituencies — real estate, banks, higher education, exports and the green industry, not to mention government itself — are getting all the capital they want (indeed, more than they can profitably use), while everyone else feeds upon the scraps.

The federal government plays an increasingly intrusive role in the American economy. Federal expenditures account for almost one quarter of the gross domestic product. Meanwhile, government is expanding its regulatory reach over the shrinking portion of the economy not subsumed by government, most recently by means of the Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Less visibly, as I document in my book, “Boomergeddon,” the leviathan state employs a variety of tax incentives, loan guarantees and monetary tricks to ensure that favored industries gain preferential access to capital.

Uncle Sam has been force-feeding the housing sector like a stuffed goose, even as the other animals on the farm starve. Even before the global financial crisis, the housing industry benefited from deductible interest on loans and federal guarantees for debt issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When the housing bubble popped, the Obama administration doubled down by committing $7.4 trillion to more loan guarantees, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, a bailout of Fannie and Freddie and an initiative to rework mortgages for stressed homeowners.

The banking sector has been another beneficiary of federal favoritism. Over and above the hundreds of billions of dollars funneled to banks by means of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, much of which has been repaid, the Federal Reserve subsidizes the industry on an ongoing basis through its interest rate policies. Thanks to the Fed’s near-zero interest rates, banks can borrow money for nothing and reinvest the funds longer-term in super-safe 10-year Treasuries, around 2.5 percent, pocketing the difference. Easy as pie. Since early 2008, banks have increased their holdings of U.S. securities from $1.1 trillion to more than $1.5 trillion: $400 billion that could have been invested in the private sector. The implied subsidy worth tens of billions of dollars yearly drops straight to the banks’ bottom lines.

Another privileged sector is higher education. Uncle Sam has guaranteed roughly $850 billion in loans to college students — an indirect subsidy of the higher education industry. The endless supply of credit to students has allowed colleges and universities to jack up tuitions far faster than inflation over the decades. While the higher ed establishment swells in size like a bad bruise, college grads are becoming a new indebted class in American society.

Municipal governments are another congressional pet. State and local governments have long benefited from the ability to issue tax-free municipal bonds, which lowers the cost of capital not only for building roads and extending sewer lines but also for underwriting convention centers, ballparks and other facilities that hardly rank among the core services of government. But in the recent recession, that advantage was not enough. Congress created a new vehicle for funneling scarce capital to municipal projects: Build America Bonds. The bonds are not tax free, but the feds does pay 35 percent of the interest, resulting in lower interest charges to local government. By the end of 2010, bankers estimate, $150 billion of the bonds will have been sold.

Whenever Congress wants to bestow benefits on a particular industry without having an embarrassing subsidy showing up as a line item in the budget, a favorite tactic is to create a loan guarantee program. Thus the export-import bank puts the faith and credit of the U.S. government behind big U.S. exporters, while the Department of Energy expedites the flow of capital into everything from nuclear power plants and alternate energy facilities. If you export jet airplanes or build wind power farms, you win the lottery. If not, you must scrounge for money from a smaller pool of capital.

Who looks out for small business? Well, President Obama has proposed setting aside $30 billion to help fund small businesses, but the sum would replace only a fraction of the cutbacks in bank lending. Moreover, the proposal reinforces a noxious precedent: that the pool of investment capital is something that power brokers in Washington can carve up and dispense as they please. Beneficiaries become supplicants, forced to hire lobbyists and contribute PAC money to keep their fix coming. The politically powerless — small business, foremost among them — fight for the leftovers.

Originally published in Richmond BizSense, Sept. 20, 2010.

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

46 responses to “Fighting for the Scraps”

  1. what I get out of this is that the govt is helping when it should not be and it is not helping what should be helped and instead directing aid to political supporters.

    This morning in FLS:

    " Community Bankers Trust Corp. announced last month that it was deferring its regular $221,000 quarterly dividend to the U.S. Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The bank received $17.7 million from the TARP program in December 2008 and issued preferred stock. The company also suspended dividend payments on its common stock this year.

    It's not alone–more than 90 U.S. financial institutions missed their TARP dividend payment in May, and the list was expected to grow based on missed August payments, The Wall Street Journal reported this week. It was mostly community banks that missed their payments.

    Community Bankers Trust lost about $20 million in the second quarter and reported rising levels of nonperforming loans. Smith said real estate loans have been a drag, and that the bank believes it has identified all potential problem loans."

    http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/092010/09112010/574745

    then we have this:

    " Retiring U.S. Senator George Voinovich will break ranks with fellow Senate Republicans and back President Barack Obama on a $30 billion small business lending proposal, an aide said on Friday.

    The move gives Obama and his fellow Democrats the crucial 60th vote in the 100-member Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster and secure a significant legislative victory on the economy ahead of congressional elections in November.

    Voinovich, who decided not to run for re-election in Ohio, said he would support the small business package in an interview published in Friday's Washington Post. Voinovich spokeswoman Jennifer Scoggins confirmed that he will back the legislation."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1010526420100910

    so .. this tome sounds a LOT LIKE the typical Republican right wing propaganda machine articles and FAUX News blather to me.

    It appears that no matter what this administration does – that it's wrong.

    This Administration has correctly recognized that banks – especially community banks are not lending – in large part because of what the FLS article says – that many of their existing loans are in trouble.

    I'm not sure what more the administration can do – when the Republicans oppose even the things they say need to be done – but if we do it – it means we're "rewarding" political supporters.

    In other words, no matter what the administration does – it's wrong.

    I'm convinced that the anti-Obama rhetoric will not cease and will continue and the folks on the right will not be satisfied until Republicans are back in charge.

    Despite the fact that the majority of them have proven themselves to be little more than pompous nincompoops when they were in charge before.

  2. So… if Obama "helps" the Community Banks and Small Business – he is attempting to "buy" political support.

    So… naturally this is a really bad thing for the Republicans so they have no choice but to oppose it…

    .. and then criticize Obama for not helping the Community Banks and Small Businesses…

    That seems to be the strategy.

    Don't let Obama help them.. then get him thrown out so the Republicans can then help them.

    right?

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    I view government in general and the federal government in particular as something like the following. It continues to growth and take on new functions, as its performance on its historical functions deteriorates.

    Some examples – we've added many special programs to public schools, yet many children go through the system lacking mastery of basic reading, writing and math skills. Look at the number of college students taking remedial courses.

    We are building Dulles Rail at the of at least 5 billion when we cannot perform basic maintenance on Virginia roads. The rail system will provide fewer trains per hour than the current Orange Line and will force the Orange Line's service to deteriorate. Most experts don't expect Dulles Rail to capture 20% of the trips to and from Tysons.

    Congress is considering regulating carbon emissions, when we cannot adequately inspect oil platforms in the Gulf. We seem to be presented with a choice of shutting down drilling or having no regulation.

    And then there is the Pentagon. How much waste can be found in its procurement programs?

    I'm not tossing political blame, but I sure believe we have a severe failure at all levels of government. What if government only did what it was charged to do 20 years ago, for example, but did those things better because the mission was more focused. Alternatively, what if government eliminated 33% of what it does, but could focus more on the remaining 67%?

    TMT

  4. I don't understand the doom and gloom.

    Individuals are still hunkering down, cutting credit card use, and trimming their balances. One would think that is a good thing, indicating less exuberant mass overconsumption.

    Naturally this has an effect on small business. Although interest rates are low, you still need to have some valid need for the loan: one based on increased inventory or other expansion. But with individuals keeping thier hands in their posckets,there is little need for expansion.

    On the other hand, container shipments are up, lumber futures are up, truck shipments are up, help wanted ads are up, cardboard box production is up, pickup truck sales are up, hotel rentals are up, thax revenues reported by 11 states are up, temporary and contract employmment is up, etc. etc. etc.

    Large corporations are shoing strong growth based on multinational business, and they are sitting on hoards of cash.

    Sure, I wish government was smaller and less intrusive, too. But business and industry brings this regulation on themselves through misrepresentation, chiseling, market manipulation, etc.

    If we reduce the government portion of Total Cost = Production Cost + External Cost + Government Cost, we may very well face higher total costs in spite of th egovernment cuts.

    Given that government regulation got the way it is for a reason, it is up to those that advocate smaller government to show why that won't just back us up to a previous undesireable state.

    More efficient government?. Sure, we need more accountability and better incentives, and more protection from lobbyists. But overall,the government regulates as it does because industry could not regulate itself.

    There is no point in holding up government as the vilain and acting as if industry can do no wrong.

  5. I don't disagree with the issues that TMT has brought up.

    But they did not suddenly appear, they've been here for a while – and the question is – is NOW – the RIGHT TIME to do something about them?

    Unlike Hydra, I think the Economy is in trouble and could easily crater in the coming weeks and months – just in time for the Republicans to be in a position to put forth something more positive than their current rightwing rotgut.

  6. Again, I don't see the doom and gloom.

    If the economy crashes, that's good for the environment, less consumption, ,less wealth gap, and all that crap, right?

    Some people are never happy, even when they get what they claimed they wanted.

    It makes the claims suspect. Just as Larry says, the Republicans don;t want to help small business, they want to be in power when it happens.

  7. " Again, I don't see the doom and gloom"

    we live in an area that ought to be well insulated from many other parts of the country and perhaps it is that way in NoVa but down this way – despite a large number of Fed government workers and allied contractors – we are seeing lots and lots of empty storefronts.

    We are seeing both local small businesses close or seriously downsizing and we are seeing some well known restaurant chains leaving.

    If WaPo is correct, NoVa is headed or it's own recession, eh and I find it a bit ironic that Virginia is one of the major beneficiaries of excessive govt spending and a haven for journalist who opine about govt bloat.

  8. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    What?
    The government is dominating our business and monetary policy?
    Boomer Jim, did you never hear of Wall Street? And campaign contributions? And revolving doors between the Fed, Sec, FDIC, and various other entities that hire bright twenty- or thirty-somethings who later get a job in the financial service private sector?
    Jimbo — get out of your basement office once and a while!

    Peter Galuszka

  9. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    What?
    The government is dominating our business and monetary policy?
    Boomer Jim, did you never hear of Wall Street? And campaign contributions? And revolving doors between the Fed, Sec, FDIC, and various other entities that hire bright twenty- or thirty-somethings who later get a job in the financial service private sector?
    Jimbo — get out of your basement office once and a while!

    Peter Galuszka

  10. Doom and Gloom.

    From the Arizona Republic:

    Transprtation Sector Signals Recovery.

    8% increase in diesel fuel sales, nationwide.

    7% increase in tonnage shipped by Semitrucks, nationwide. (^8% of goods are stillshipped by truck, including bulk raw materials.)

    38% increase in surface trade between US Canada nad Mexico, this year. (Not counting the guns and drug trade.)

    18% increase in volume on Union Pacific.

    11% increase in air cargo in and out of Sky Harbor.

    38% increas in in volume of cargo containers and cargo shipped by Neptune Orient Lines (which is, strangely, headquartered in Phoenix!)

    For the first eight months of the year gas sales were higher than the comparable period last year.

    Hiring has risen in the trucking industry, and ther may be a shortage of drivers due to stiffer regulation and a reduction in the allowable driving time.

    103% increase in job postings related to transportaion, materials management and warehouse workers.

    Despite its vast natural resources, Arizona is a net importer of goods, which raises the question of what services people here provide to pay for that trade imbalance. And Phoenix was hard hit by the mortgage crisis because much of its housing stock is new: the result of tremendous recent growth.

    ===============================

    Sure, the economy can turn down at any time, but history tells us it is far more likely to grow than to shrink, at any given point which is why the GDP per capita has increased at 2% per year and is likely to continue to do so.

    Births in Arizona have fallen, and the biggest drop is among hispanics. There is a reason to believe that there were fewer births among Hispanic or Latinos in 2008, because there were fewer Hispanic or Latino residents of Arizona in 2008, than there were in 2007. In fact, using the past birth rates (the number of births per 1,000 Hispanic population), one can estimate that the number of Hispanics who left the state in late 2007 and throughout 2008 ranges between 121,583 and 260,679.

    But aside from this enforced hegira the population of Arizona continues to increase, and one can expect the economy to increase with it.

    The worry warts are still sitting on the sidelines with hordes of cash and they will both miss out, and not contribute to, the first big growth spurt, when it comes.

  11. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    The right wing drumbeat continues!

    Bacon writes: "To an unprecedent degree in peacetime U.S. history, the federal government domninates the allocation of credit in the economy."

    Baloney.

    What about the 1930s New Deal? What about Nixon's ill-fated wage and price controls of the early 1970s? Indirectly, how abut the Fed's highly flawed monetary policies leading to stagflation int he late 1970s? And on the list goes.

    What the likes of James A. Bacon don't tell you is that TARP — which is the leading source of federalg overnment involvement directly with bailouts, was a creation of WALL STREET. In the hysteria of two years ago, big banks like BofA, Wachovia, AIG and Citi begged the feds for help because they had screwed up too badly with their risky and irresponible subprime lending and entree into such complex fields as dreivatives. The feds had nothing to do with this. If anything, the Fed, SEC and various other idsparate agencies were guilty of NOT GETTING INVOLVED ENOUGH and regulating more closely.

    As much as Bacon and his confedeerates want to peg this on Obama, it was Bush and Paulson.

    Sure there's a dearth of small business lending? Why? Banks won't lend the money because all of a sudden, credit requirements have gotten so much stricter. Bacon may want to blame a federal law aimed at ending predatory credit car issuers from screwing their customers, but it is the financial industry that's no lending. Meanwhile, various corporations are hording more than $1 trillion in cash. Obama's new efforts to help small businesses, which represent two thirds of economic activity, but until banks decide to start sharing credit, the recovery will continue to sputter.,

    Once again, we're hearing the same note. It's the government, goernment, government. Those nabobs in DC are just licking their socialist chops. The truth, which Bacon ignores, is that business came begging to the feds after they screwed up royally. And Bacon is beating up on Washington for trying to help.

    If this is what "Boomergeddon" is all about, I say the movement won't last long.

    Peter Galuszka

  12. " New banking rules lift global markets"

    " The recommendations, which have to be ratified by the Group of 20 leading industrial and developing nations in November, will require banks to hold as much as 7 percent of their capital in reserve for a rainy day — one of the main reasons why the world suffered its deepest recession since World War II was that the banks were badly undercapitalized when the financial crisis broke around three years ago."

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3kgMAkbLwyfxBdjzw8Pc4KZ7DhQD9I72TLG0

    Now according to Bacon.. it's the US that is screwing up and making us less competitive with all the regulation and "Democratic-inspired govt interference".

    It appears to me that there is widespread agreement – across the world on regulating the banks – not just an American idea and not just a Democrat idea.

    but never let the right wing blather machine miss a good chance to rile up the masses….

    the end is near.. the end is near… repent before it is too late…

    dump your social security. dump your Medicare. Dump Obamacare and learn to appreciate the jobs the rich are willing to give you instead of believing all this middle class crap.

  13. Markets are up 100 points this morning.

    Vive la Speculator.

  14. Well, here is your experiment, let's see how this plays out.

    Cuba is laying off 500,000 of its state workers in an effort to decrease government size and ncrease private sector employment.

  15. Global Output Reaches All-Time High in June; World Economy in New Cycle of Economic Growth

    According to the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, world industrial production increased in June for the 15th straight month after declining in 11 out of 12 months between April 2008 and March 2009 (see chart above). Compared to last June, world output has improved by 10.4% year-over-year, and June was the sixth consecutive month of double-digit percentage increase over the same month in 2009. For the last two months, world production levels (135.1 in May and 135.3 in June) have been above the previous peak of 134.4 reached in March 2008, suggesting that there has been a complete recovery in world output from the global recession in 2008 and 2009.

    From Carpe Diem

  16. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    The ideas expressed in my posts are unrecognizable by the time they go through the Peter G. sausage grinder. I am confident that Peter is not deliberately misrepresenting them. I can only conclude that he does not take the effort to understand them.

    Peter says, have I never heard of Wall Street, campaign contributions and revolving doors. Huh? Of course I have. Indeed, I spend a chapter of "Boomergeddon" describing the phenomenon. Wall Street and the banking industry has largely captured Congress and the regulatory apparatus. That is precisely why I say that Washington dominates the allocation of credit in our economy.

    Peter said, "What the likes of James A. Bacon don't tell you is that TARP — which is the leading source of federal government involvement directly with bailouts, was a creation of WALL STREET."

    Well, duh. Do I have to repeat *everything* in every post? Of course TARP was the creation of Wall Street.

    Then Peter said, "As much as Bacon and his confederates want to peg this on Obama, it was Bush and Paulson."

    Peter, you're hallucinating. I never tried to peg this on Obama alone. As I have said on more than one occasion, this era in history will go down as the "Bush/Obama" era, for the economic policies of the two men are practically indistinguishable.

    I don't mind you bashing me, but I do take issue when you bash me for saying things diametrically opposite of what I actually said.

  17. Bush/Obama Era?

    holy pig snot!

    what were the Congressional Republicans that sent Bush every bill and he signed every one?

    chopped liver?

    Bush as simply asleep at the switch on the domestic policy

    he was so bound up over terrorism, and nation building and running around the world pissing people off that he just did not give a rats behind over the domestic issues.

    But what was the Republicans excuse?

    My problem here is that Bacon and his confederates are claiming that the cure to the Obama era is to put the same Republicans back in charge to do … ostensibly what they said they were going to do before – but did not.

    So.. what should give us any reassurance that 1. the Republicans will actually do something fiscally responsible?

    2. – that they really know what to do .. that they are not the incompetent nincompoops that they appear to be?

    The only thing I get out of the Republicans now days is idealogical jihads…. blame and "just wait until November".

    When you ask them what they intend to do as a PARTY – you have the tower of Babel to contend with.

    From Palin to Gingrich to Paul to Boehner to Cantor – there is no shared view of how to proceed.

    and these are the guys that we are being told are going to set things straight.

    I don't think these guys know how to go through a door without getting a concussion.

  18. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry said, "My problem here is that Bacon and his confederates are claiming that the cure to the Obama era is to put the same Republicans back in charge."

    Where did you get the idea that I want to "put the same Republicans back in charge." I defy you to cite anything that I've said to back up that statement.

    While I may consider Republicans in Congress as merely useless and deluded as opposed to an active menace to society, as I deem the Democrats, you cannot thereby deduce that I want to put "the same Republicans" back in charge. I want the throw out entire entire crowd and start over.

    You've been paying too much attention to Peter, who has been hallucinating of late.

  19. re: " "put the same Republicans back in charge."

    but that is what you are advocating in essence by advocating for the Republicans to take over in Nov

    right?

    are you not in favor of that?

  20. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I'm in favor of starting a third party. If that proves untenable (as it probably will be), I'm in favor of throwing out the old Business As Usual Republicans and injecting the party with a massive infusion of fresh blood.

  21. tea party? or "another 3rd party?

    I'd like to see a 3rd party. I think our system is hopelessly corrupted by the 2 party system but I think we're going to end up with a system where every other election – we throw the other party out….

    worse things could happen I suppose…

  22. This economic issue is like the New York Mosque. Ask someone opposed to it how far away is far enough, and you get no answer.

    Suppose that everything you have doubled, under the Obama adminsitration: home value, salary, and 401k earnings.

    Would that be enough?

    Nope. The Obama bashers would
    still be Obama bashers. And the same phenomenon would happen if the other side was in power.

    ===============================

    What happens if you the Republicans get a massive infusion of fresh blood? Where would it come from? It would have to come from the democrats or at least someplace to the left, no?

  23. I actually had no problem with the Republican Party that collaborated with Clinton.

    I have no problem and actually support a Republican Party that stays true to it's AVOWED principles.

    In other words, even if I don't agree with the specifics sometimes, as long as they are CONSISTENT with their stated principals then I can go along with their policies as long as they are practical and effective.

    It's when the party have lurched too far to the right and have become lying sacks of crap that I rebel.

    I do not find the ideology of the left or the right – handsome when it's all about what they want to believe and little to do with responding to realities.

    A case in point.

    Tax Cuts do not necessarily generate jobs.

    and yet these buffoons only know one theme…

    when the tax rates are the lowest in 50 years and these yahoos are pointing fingers at the unemployment rate – what the heck are they saying?

    When we have a festering deficit due to tax cuts that don't pay for two wars.. where are their "principles".

    When Newt Gingrich is blathering on about Islamfascism… while we have people out of work and small businesses that cannot get loans and this guy is foaming at the mouth over the Kenya Culture of the President then we are in big trouble.

    Can you imagine what will happen if Gingrich's Republican Party takes control of the Congress?

    The only hope that we have is that it takes a long time for the folks in the middle to figure things out.. but they usually do in the end.

    but that still leaves us with what the Republicans would do to actually set this country on a path to the future.

    I have no faith in the Republicans .. I think they are a menace to the country right now.

  24. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Bacon,
    Where were you three years ago?

    Peter Galuszka

  25. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, I can't recall exactly what I was saying three years ago, but I do remember agreeing strenuously with EMR and Groveton that a third party was needed. I have not changed my opinion about that.

  26. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    I find it surprising that you have jumped on the national bandwagon with the rest of the conservatives. You can't watch Fox News, listen to GlennBeck, read interviews with a Tea Party person, etc., without hearing the common refrain of federal budget deficits and debt.
    That is why I asked what you were doing three years ago. Had you raised this issue in 2007, you would have been prescient. But instead, it seems, you are struggling to run to lead a parade that has started to march soem time ago.
    No matter what you say, your effort does come off as a bash of Obama and a play to midterm elections.

    And, you make flat statements that have little basis in fact, such as that never in history has the federal government had so much control over allocating credit. To anyone even slightly familiar with U.S. history, that is simply ridiculous.

    What we have now is nothing like the 1930s. You also fail to note that any number of countries that have had financial crisises have turned to their central governments or banks for bailouts. I.E. Japan, Sweden, Mexico, Russia, Thailand and so on.

    If you had read the newspapers this morning you would learn that AIG is going to turn the federal government's share of its ownership into stock and sell it off to the public next year. GM is coming out of bankruptcy with federal help and its sales are showing new spark.

    The list goes on, but you seem intent on painting the U.S. and its economy as doomed. Your book raises some interesting points, but you do not really connect all the dots. You have not convinced me that there will be a "Boomergeddon" any more than some popular author can convince me that the Dow will be at 36,000 in a couple of years.

    Sorry, but I'm being truthful here, if not hallucinatory.

    Peter Galuszka

  27. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    I find it surprising that you have jumped on the national bandwagon with the rest of the conservatives. You can't watch Fox News, listen to GlennBeck, read interviews with a Tea Party person, etc., without hearing the common refrain of federal budget deficits and debt.
    That is why I asked what you were doing three years ago. Had you raised this issue in 2007, you would have been prescient. But instead, it seems, you are struggling to run to lead a parade that has started to march soem time ago.
    No matter what you say, your effort does come off as a bash of Obama and a play to midterm elections.

    And, you make flat statements that have little basis in fact, such as that never in history has the federal government had so much control over allocating credit. To anyone even slightly familiar with U.S. history, that is simply ridiculous.

    What we have now is nothing like the 1930s. You also fail to note that any number of countries that have had financial crisises have turned to their central governments or banks for bailouts. I.E. Japan, Sweden, Mexico, Russia, Thailand and so on.

    If you had read the newspapers this morning you would learn that AIG is going to turn the federal government's share of its ownership into stock and sell it off to the public next year. GM is coming out of bankruptcy with federal help and its sales are showing new spark.

    The list goes on, but you seem intent on painting the U.S. and its economy as doomed. Your book raises some interesting points, but you do not really connect all the dots. You have not convinced me that there will be a "Boomergeddon" any more than some popular author can convince me that the Dow will be at 36,000 in a couple of years.

    Sorry, but I'm being truthful here, if not hallucinatory.

    Peter Galuszka

  28. At no time during the Bush Presidency did the Republicans sound the clarion call over deficits, bloated govt, govt spending that now occupies the Conservatives, Conservative Media and Citizens groups like tea party folks.

    When you say this – the response is that it was Bush's fault… yep.. that's what they say ..that Bush was a bad boy – conveniently forgetting that it was the Republicans who were passing the budgets and sending them to Bush to obediently sign.

    We had Republicans actually saying the opposite – that deficits don't matter.

    The Republicans summarily dispatched the revered Republican procedure called PayGo – without so much as a whimper from the Right Wing Media or 98% of the Conservative commentators.

    It sees to me also – that the "awakening" happened on or about January 1, 2009 and from that point on – went viral.

    basically blaming Bush – themselves – but not the Republican Congress.

    Only the Tea Party folks INCLUDED the Republicans a part of the problem but again..post facto to Jan, 2009.

    We are now in the deepest recession in 60 years and the complain?

    That Obama did not ACCURATELY project the width and depth of the recession – that he had "promised" that we'd not see unemployment exceed some arbitrary number.

    The "crisis" is Govt spending and interference with the economy…

    Not a single Republican as far as I know ever made the argument that the FDIC was 'interfering' with the banking community and needed to be repealed.

    Oh they complain about CRA causing the housing meltdown – even when only 6% of the sub-prime mortgages came from CRA banks (which are regulated by FDIC) while 94% of those loans came from mortgage companies not under the control of FDIC nor CRA.

    But even if that were true, in 2004 – the Republican Congress knew there was a problem but they refused to do anything..

    and this part is important…

    they did not doing anything about sub-prime, credit-default-swaps for the same reason they chose to nothing about health care…

    and that is – that as a party – they are fundamentally opposed to the govt being involved in either of these things.

    NOW.. post Jan 2009 – the PROBLEM IS… you guess it – GOVT…

    and GOVT needs to be "rolled back" and gotten out of Health Care and out of Financial Regulation because..

    …..because.. deficits are projected…for the entitlements like SS and Medicare for …..2035 and beyond.

    … their advice?

    get rid of Obamacare, Medicare and SS, get the govt out of regulation and give tax cuts.

    all of this of course, could not take place until 2009.

    does anyone else see the perverse mockery of policy here?

  29. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, you said: "At no time during the Bush Presidency did the Republicans sound the clarion call over deficits, bloated govt, govt spending that now occupies the Conservatives, Conservative Media and Citizens groups like tea party folks."

    You simply don't know what you're talking about. Principled fiscal conservatives sounded the alarm over the expansion of entitlements such as SCHIP and Medicare Part D, increased agricultural subsidies, the expansion of earmarks and the growing problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To claim otherwise is to put your ignorance on display.

    If the criticisms were more muted than today, there's a reason. As recently as 2007, the budget deficit was $170 billion. That is approximately one *order of friggin' magnitude* less than Obama's string of $1.4 trillion deficits. It was far less obvious at the time that we were headed over a cliff. By contrast, there is no excuse today for failing to see what's happening. Any sane person would be worried sick about Obama OMB deficit projections that say the *smallest* deficit in the next 10 years will be $700 billion.

    You are so wrapped up in blaming Bush and defending Obama that you are blind to the salient point — we are heading over a friggin' cliff! It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It matters that we understand the nature of the problem and deliver appropriate solutions.

  30. Jim – there was no clarion call. There was no debate among the Republicans to do something – only muted whining.

    You're wrong about the deficit.

    Because NOW you use PROJECTED Deficits to sound the alarm whereas you use the current/existing deficit for back then.

    The PROJECTED Deficits for entitlements was no different back then except by six years worth.

    Projections back then showed the same sustainability problem for 2035+.

    In fact Clinton himself had noted that something would have to be done about entitlements and health care or both of them would eventually harm the economy.

    Republicans knew this.

    they had every opportunity to START THE PROCESS – to DO SOMETHING to being to deal with it.

    Instead, the went in the opposite direction throwing caution to the winds…

    There were no 24/7 FAUX News blather machine decrying the irresponsible and socialist policies of the Bush administration and his Congress EVEN WHEN THEY PASSED Medicare Part D.

    there were at most..some random muted grumbles… and not a whole lot more…

    and even less in terms of ACTION to deal with the problems.

    The blather machine did not go viral until Jan 2009 where it fired up and has been operating at 110% ever since.

    and the funny thing is the folks who blather on the most – have the least to say about how to deal with any of it in practical terms.

    For instance, when you ask how we should pay for the wars – they start talking about "other" govt bloat that should be cut so ..we can continue to fight the wars.

    That's not responsible.

    They never show WHAT bloated government and they never show how much to cut and what to cut that would free up enough to pay for …. not a a few billion but more than a trillion for the wars.

    When you take entitlements out of the equation … what do you have left to actually reduce in terms of govt?

    Do you think cutting the EPA or the Dept of Ed is going to pay for the pentagon ?

    Nope..

    but that's about the most you get out of these folks…

    i.e.

    we pay for the wars by cutting the EPA and entitlements or some equally inane and non-rational blather…that has little to nothing to do with the realities.

    It's just an anti-govt, anti-Obama rant that DID START on Jan 2009.

    It would also help if the Republicans actually had a cogent agenda for the future other than vandalizing govt.

  31. The Democrats are funny. For almost two years they tried to play the "blame Bush" card. Now, as the mid-term elections draw near they find that "blame Bush" isn't playing with enough voters to keep them in control of Congress.

    So, they are trying to play "the economy is fine" card. Also known as "the big lie", the "Recovery Summer" fabrication will be their attempt to survive this November.

    Well, I'll give them credit … "Recovery Summer" has a better chance than "blame Bush".

    There's just one little problem with the "Recovery Summer" thesis … that nagging unemployment rate.

    Personally, I think the recovery is slow but real. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high. If the mid-terms were Nov, 2011 instead of Nov, 2010 the Dems would do pretty well. But the mid-terms are less than 2 months away and the Dems will lose ground.

    Jim Bacon is completely right about the longer term. It is very dim. Soaring deficits, money pouring out of US coffers for overseas adventures, mindless and expensive treaties to protect fully functional countries like South Korea, broken US demographics, etc, etc.

    But these aren't new problems. They have been broadly discussed on this site.

    Bacon has been a fiscal / deficit hawk for as long as I've been reading BaconsRebellion. Claiming that he is newly arrived at that belief set is dishonest.

    Bacon and I have also long called for dumping the entrenched political class – from both parties. I've been on this track since I offered to match funding (up to $10,000) to create the Virginia Independent Party.

    Boomergeddon is all too real a threat. However, I'd put globalization and automation at the top of the list of issues. And, here, EMR may be closer to the truth than anybody else on this site. Tweaking tax rates and electing more run of the mill Republicans won't get us out of Boomergeddon. We need a complete re-thinking of how our society operates. And that won't come from the current batch on capitol hill or in the white house. And it won't come from Newt or Sarah either.

    The economic fundamentals have changed and business as usual won't cut it much longer … even if we happen to slip out of this recession temporarily into tepid growth.

    Bacon is right about the timing of the crisis. It isn't next year or the year thereafter. However, it will come – sooner rather than later. We have a chance to make the necessary changes but the run of the mill political class won't make those changes.

  32. it never really was "Blame Bush" but blame the Republicans who presided during the Bush Presidency… the Same Republicans who are now running the right wing propaganda machine and want to get put back in charge.

    That's the silly part of all of this.

    Bush was at best, a uber-patriotic nincompoop.

    It was the Republicans who ran the budget show …passed legislation.. did away with Paygo and showed ZERO fiscal discipline.

    Bush is gone. He never was the problem but the Republicans themselves blame him – scapegoat him.

    The same Republicans who vandalized the country back then are not presiding over he right wing propaganda machine and planning on taking over again.

    Bacon says it's a new crew.

    ha ha ha.. it's the same old same old and youse guys know it.

    The only difference is that the Republicans USED TO SAY they were opposed to Nation Building and they USED TO SAY that they were strict Constitutional Constructionists.

    No more.

    The Republicans will have us in Somolia, Yemen and Iran if given half a chance.

    and the Constitution?

    They're going to shred that rag also if they get a chance.

    "Conservatism" is a joke.

    what we have now is radicalism disguised as a political party.

    Isn't it revealing that 2/3 of those who identify themselves as Republicans do not like Muslims while at the same time they are happy to send our young people to be killed and maimed …nation-building Muslim Countries.

    What's THAT all about?

    The Republicans have contracted a terrible disease.. as yet not definitively diagnosed but readily apparent in symptoms.

  33. Government interference in business:

    Last year and in previous years, there were hundreds of cases of air travelers being held hostage on their airplanes, on the ground awaiting takeoff, for over three hours.

    After the government instituted draconian fines for this behavior (up to $27,000 per passenger), the behaviro stopped. This year there were only three such cases.

    These regulations were instituted because airline travelers raised holy hell, and rightfully so. I don;t know why a business needs regulations to prevent it from treating its customers like cattle.

    I'm willing to bet that airline business travelers tend to be republican/conservative in their outlook towards government regulation, but you don't hear them hollering about this one, because it was necessary and successful.

    Business gets the regulation it earns.

  34. So, they are trying to play "the economy is fine" card. Also known as "the big lie", the "Recovery Summer" fabrication will be their attempt to survive this November.

    ==================================

    And meanwhile the Republicans are off trying to sell doom and gloom as if the recovery isn't happening.

    Obviously, we are not there yet, and we have a long way to go, but as far as I can see, most every sign points to things getting better.

    At least until (as EMR points out) we run out of resources.

  35. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Ray, Sure, the economy has exited the recession and entered an expansion. Growth is real but it's weak…. as I predicted in Boomergeddon when I was writing back in the February/March time frame when the conventional wisdom held that the expansion was looking stronger and stronger.

    Groveton, Thanks for jumping back into the fray. I missed you, dude.

  36. I do not think the economy is robust nor is it certain that it won't crater again… it's very tenuous.

    But the idea that someone in this administration was to be able to predict dead-on how it would turn out including unemployment is downright laughable.

    Over and over – the right wingers get on the tube and say "Obama and his advisors "promised"…blah blah blah

    they did?

    someone was actually stupid enough to "promise" how the worst economic kerfuffle in 60 years was going to turn out and because we THINK they made that promise – we're going to "hold them accountable" for being wrong about their predictions?

    This is what passes for "reasoned" dialog now days folks.

    This is one of the reasons why we're told the Republicans should replace the current administration.

    You know.. at one time in the not too distant past, the Republicans were considered the grown-ups in the political realm.

    No more.. the party is full of blatherbutts.

  37. Hydra:

    You airline point is interesting. However, I see things a bit differently (and I have already taken two flights this week). Airline executives talk about fierce competition. In reality, they only face fierce competition on international routes. Want to go from DC to Miami? Plan on flying American. Denver to San Francisco? Plan on United. Many domestic routes are not very competitive at all.

    I am honestly not sure why there isn't more competition with domestic routes. Maybe the hub concept just makes sense. Maybe the big airlines have enough money to get what they want in Congress. Either way, domestic air travel is not really competitive in many cities. Hence, lousy service.

    The international routes are very competitive. I can take Lufthansa to / from Frankfort or I can take United.

    Guess what? United actually tries to provide decent customer service on international routes. The whole attitude on the planes is different.

    I think government has a duty to regulate non-competitive industries. If the lack of competition is a result of unfair competition – there is anti-trust legislation. If the lack of competition is the result of some natural oligopoly – there is plain old regulation.

    When the government stepped in to regulate the airlines and their obscene delays, I applauded.

    However, there is a limit. Most industries in the United States are naturally competitive. Too often government regulation serves only to reduce competition by scaring off new entrants. Financial services is getting very, very close to that situation. When I talk to bankers about the possibility of new entrants joining the still very lucrative financial services market do you know what they say? They say the regulators won't let them. Their defense against competition is regulation.

    The number of banks in the United States is shrinking fast. Most are not closing because they failed but because they can't keep up with the regulations. And you know what will happen when this consolidation ends?

    More fees.
    No free checking.
    Minimum deposit requirements.

    More Americans will become "unbanked".

    So, I ask US bankers whether the newly unbanked may provide an opportunity for new entrants, say…many new Pay Pals. They tell me "no". I refer them to m-Pesa – the cellular, branchless banking system being used widely and effectively in Africa. They just laugh. The insist that US regulators would never allow that to happen here.

    Unfortunately, they are probably right. However, I don't recall the community banks being the cause of the meltdown. Wasn't it the very mega-banks who now hold even more market share? Do we really want an oligopoly in banking?

    Would this really threaten our economy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

    Regulation is usually bad. Not always, but usually. One reason is that the big boys can afford to lobby the political class to institute regulations which stifle competition. And that's just plain terrible.

  38. Here's something that should warm the cockles of Bacon's wonky heart:

    " America’s Dominance of Global Wealth Is Slipping"

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/americas-dominance-of-global-wealth-is-slipping/

  39. regulation of banks and financial businesses is a worldwide issue these days.

    The countries of the world have finally gotten wise(er) to financial speculators.

    but in terms of regulation doing away with banks…

    I would submit the FDIC – which was a direct result of the great depression and it has benefited banking in a big way.

    We all take for granted when we go to a community bank – the "Deposits Insured by FDIC" but the other financial businesses actually have to say "NOT Insured by FDIC".

    I think the verdict with respect to FDIC is that it did not harm banking or make banking extinct – it did the opposite.

    I don't know how many people think FDIC should be done away with – I'm sure there are some – but those folks are not running for office and they're not on a public crusade to attack the concept of FDIC.

  40. Larry – As for your comments about Obama and his predictions … even Barney Frank thinks:

    a) He did make a prediction and …
    b) It was a dumb thing to do

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment/

    Obama basically said, "vote for MY stimulus plan and unemployment won't exceed 8%".

    Now he says more stimulus, let the tax cuts expire, etc.

    I don't think the Obama Administration has any idea as to what it's doing with the economy. They are a one trick pony … spend, spend, spend.

  41. not buying it guy.

    It was understood by anyone with half a brain that no one really knew how much stimulus would produce what kind of results.

    Anyone who believed that or wanted to believe that was a deuce.

    Anyone who professed to believe it interpreting it as a political promise is a double deuce.

    who in the heck would actually KNOW ?

    At least no one in this administration was recorded as saying that deficits don't matter, eh?

  42. Are we gonna "blame" this on Obama also:

    "Gates starts outlining cuts to save $100 billion for defense"

    " Over the past decade, the Pentagon's spending has averaged a growth rate of 7 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

    Is this the fabled bloated govt that Bacon and Groveton opine about?

  43. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Yes, Larry, the Pentagon is as bloated as any other branch of government. You really need to shell out $14, buy "Boomergeddon," and read the book!

  44. I'm on it Jim. $14.36.. OUCH!.. that's more than I've paid for a book in years…guy

    "Thanks for your order,
    Purchasing Information:
    E-mail Address:
    Billing Address:

    Order Grand Total: $14.53 ——
    Total for this Order: $14.53

    Delivery estimate: September 21, 2010 – October 6, 2010
    Shipping estimate for these items: September 15, 2010 – September 16, 2010
    1 "Boomergeddon How Runaway Deficits and the Age Wave Will Bankrupt the Federal Government and Devastate Retirement for Baby Boomers Unless We Act Now"
    James A. Bacon Jr."

    Now ..the hard part.. to read it…
    when it gets here…

  45. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, thanks for buying the book. May you be an inspiration to other Bacon's Rebellion readers. You will be richly rewarded!

    By the way, thanks for the reference to the Economix article.

  46. “Consumers are the kings and queens of the market economy, and ultimately they reign supreme over corporations and their employees. … In a market economy, it is consumers, not businesses, who ultimately make all of the decisions. When they vote in the marketplace with their dollars, consumers decide which products, businesses, and industries survive — and which ones fail.”

    ================================

    What me need to do is take that insight and apply it to government.

    If we could vote with our tax dollars instead of with empty-promise-ballots we might see some action on how our spending is controlled.

    Put a simplified budget on the back of the tax forms and let people decide where it should be spent.

Leave a Reply