Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: government

  • Up to $6,500 Credit to Reduce Your Energy Bills

    The Federal Weatherization Assistance Program has been around for decades and funding has been increased as part of the stimulus bills. This type of spending is better than much of what government does. It actually invests in something with positive externalities. It targets spending to those that need help (instead of say those that pay politicians to give their companies huge payoffs and then pay themselves tens of millions in bonuses).

    The Depart of Energy provides funding, but the states run their own programs and set rules for issues such as eligibility. They also select service providers, which are usually nonprofit agencies that serve families in their communities, and review their performance for quality. In many states the stimulus funds have increased the maximum funds have increased to $6,500 per household, from $3,000.

    The weatherization program targets low-income families: those who make $44,000 per year for a family of four (except for $55,140 for Alaska and $50,720 for Hawaii).

    The program provides funds for those with low-income for the like of: insulation, air sealing and at times furnace repair and replacement. Taking advantage of this program can help you reduce your energy bills and reduce the amount of energy we use and pollution created. And it employs people to carry out these activities.

    The Weatherization Assistance Program invests in making homes more energy efficient, reducing heating bills by an average of 32% and overall energy bills by hundreds of dollars per year.

    Weatherization is also often a very good idea without any government support. If you are eligible for some help, definitely take a look at whether it makes sense for you. And even if you are not, it is a good idea to look into saving on your energy costs.

    Related: Oil Consumption by Country in 2007 – Japan to Add Personal Solar Subsidies – personal finance tips – Kodak Debuts Printers With Inexpensive Cartridges – Personal Finance Basics: Dollar Cost Averaging
    (more…)

  • Financial Transactions Tax to Pay Off Wall Street Welfare Debt

    Is it cynical to think that politicians want to provide payments from the treasury to those that paid the politicians? More cynical to think the politicians that created huge Wall Street Welfare payments won’t actually do anything except talk about how they think it is bad that those they paid billions to are buying new mansions and yachts? More cynical to think they will continue to provide huge amounts of nearly free cash for those that paid them to speculate with? More cynical to think if any of those speculators lose money they will give them more welfare? More cynical to think those bought and paid for politicians won’t actually take any steps to tax or curtail speculation? I think maybe I am cynical about Washington doing anything other than talk about how they don’t want to provide huge amounts of cash to Wall Street all the while giving their Wall Street friends huge amounts of cash that will be paid back by our grandchildren.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the politicians actually took actions to fund a partial payback of the hundreds of billions (or maybe trillions) of bailout dollars by taxing financial speculation? I doubt it will happen. But maybe I am too cynical. Maybe politicians will not just do what they have been paid to do. But it seems the best predictor of what congress will do is based on what they are paid to do, based on their past and current behavior. Now what congress will say is very different. those paying Congressmen might not love it if the congressmen call them names but through a few billion more and they are happy to be called names while given the cash to buy new jets and sports teams and parties for their daughters.

    Making Wall Street pay by Dean Baker

    We can raise large amounts of money by taxing the speculation of the Wall Street high-flyers while barely affecting the sort of financial dealings that most of us do in our daily lives.

    The logic of a financial transactions tax is simple. It would impose a modest fee on trades of stocks, futures, credit default swaps and other financial instruments. For example, the UK puts a 0.25% tax on the sale or purchase of shares of stock. This has very little impact on people who buy stock with the intent of holding it for a long period of time.
    …
    We can raise more than $140bn a year taxing financial transactions, an amount equal to 1% of GDP.
    …
    Since the financial sector is the source of the country’s current economic and budget problems it also makes sense to have this sector bear the brunt of any new taxes that may be needed. The economic collapse caused by Wall Street’s irrational exuberance has led to a huge increase in the country debt burden. It seems only fair that Wall Street bear the brunt of the clean-up costs. A financial transactions tax is the way to make sure that this happens.

    (more…)

  • Buffett on Need to Reduce Government Deficits

    The Greenback Effect by Warren Buffett

    The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery.
    …
    Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P.
    …
    Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes.
    …
    Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.

    Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress.

    Related: Warren Buffett Webcast on the Credit Crisis – The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook – Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting 2008 – Federal Reserve to Buy $1.2 Trillion in Bonds, Mortgage-Backed Securities

  • Mobius Says Derivatives, Stimulus to Spark New Crisis

    Mobius Says Derivatives, Stimulus to Spark New Crisis

    A new financial crisis will develop from the failure to effectively regulate derivatives and the extra global liquidity from stimulus spending, Templeton Asset Management Ltd.’s Mark Mobius said.

    “Political pressure from investment banks and all the people that make money in derivatives” will prevent adequate regulation, said Mobius, who oversees $25 billion as executive chairman of Templeton in Singapore. “Definitely we’re going to have another crisis coming down,”
    …
    A “very bad” crisis may emerge within five to seven years as stimulus money adds to financial volatility, Mobius said. Governments have pledged about $2 trillion in stimulus spending.
    …
    “Banks have lobbied hard against any changes that would make them unable to take the kind of risks they took some time ago,” said Venkatraman Anantha-Nageswaran, global chief investment officer at Bank Julius Baer & Co. in Singapore. “Regulators are not winning the battle yet and I’m not sure if they are making a strong case yet for such changes.”

    Mobius also predicted a number of short, “dramatic” corrections in stock markets in the short term, saying that “a 15 to 20 percent correction is nothing when people are nervous.” Emerging-market stocks “aren’t expensive” and will continue to climb

    I share this concern for those we bailed out using the money we paid them to pay politicians for more favors. Those paying our politicians like very much paying themselves extremely well and then being bailed out by the taxpayers when their business fails. They are going to try to retain the system they have in place. And they are likely to win – politicians are more likely to provide favors to those giving them large amounts of money than they are to learn about proper management of an economy.

    Related: Congress Eases Bank Laws for Big Donors (1999) – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – General Air Travel Taxes Subsidizing Private Plane Airports – CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers

  • Indian Stock Market up 17% Today

    The Indian stock market surged 17% today on the election results that gave the Congress party an unexpectedly decisive victory. The market was closed early due to the huge spike in prices. The Indian stock market was up 26% this year, before the move today.

    Landslide in India Vote Reshapes Landscape

    Students of Indian politics pointed to several factors. First, under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership, the Congress-led coalition homed in on the rural poor. During its first term, buoyed by robust economic growth, it used record government revenues to increase social spending, not just raising health and education budgets, but also starting an ambitious public works program in the countryside and a costly loan repayment waiver for farmers.
    …
    Even with a free hand, the Congress-led government will face formidable challenges. India needs to swiftly build roads, highways and power plants; improve public schools and build universities for a swelling young population; and hire nurses and doctors for its feeble public health system. Most of all, it needs to address its abiding poverty. Despite over a decade of high economic growth in India, 300 million people remain below the poverty line.

    Driving India’s Economic Reforms

    The problem is that revenue growth is now collapsing in the wake of the economic slowdown, while well-entrenched government spending is increasing. India’s fiscal deficit has ballooned to more than 10% of GDP this year and the debt-to-GDP ratio is at 80% — the highest for any major developing country.

    India has great potential and great problems. India has poor physical infrastructure and crippling bureaucracy; India ranked the 122nd easiest country for doing business. The election results are giving investors hope the government will be able to make progress to improve the business climate, which will improve economic performance.

    Related: Emerging-market Multinationals – Why Investing is Safer Overseas (Jun 2007) – World’s Wealthiest People – Top 12 Manufacturing Countries in 2007

  • Skeptics Think Big Banks Should Not be Bailed Out

    Let big banks fail, bailout skeptics say

    The Obama administration must break up the biggest financial firms if the nation is to return to economic health, three prominent bailout skeptics told a congressional panel Tuesday. Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz and MIT professor Simon Johnson warned the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the current government policy of propping up troubled financial giants could impede an economic recovery.

    I must say this is the is how I feel, but I don’t have the time to research all the details – to know all the existing limitations for realistic solutions. But I can’t believe allowing huge, incredibly poorly run financial organizations to remain in place with the same bozos that have looted the treasuries of their companies and then taken huge handouts from the federal government, is good policy. It was a very bad idea to allow such anti-competitive large financial institutions to exist in the first place. Then the extremely bad behavior of thousands of people taking millions from those banks treasuries and imposing huge risks on the financial system certainly should result in government finally doing their job to prevent harm to the economic system.

    Hoenig said authorities must set up a procedure that would allow big nonbank financial firms to be temporarily taken over by the government. Regulators would then replace management, wipe out shareholders and seek to sell the cleansed institution back into private ownership. Stiglitz, formerly an aide in the Clinton administration [and Economics Nobel Prize winner], said the process of briefly taking over banks then selling them back to investors would be much less costly for taxpayers.

    This sounds like a much more sensible strategy to me. It is certainly much much better than increasing consolidation with moves like having huge financial firms buy other huge firms. Obviously I would not support the selling of pieces of the old broken institution to remaining large organizations. The anti-competitive market power must be sharply reduced.

    Related: Treasury Now (1987) Favors Creation of Huge Banks – posts on the credit crisis – Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – Canadian Banks Avoided Failures Common Elsewhere – There is No Invisible Hand

  • Buying Favors from Congress

    It is no surprise that paying politicians lot of money gets you favors: Politicians Change rules for Big Donors – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals (2007) – Congress Eases Bank Laws to Aid Big Donors (1999) – More Government Waste – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make

    Investments Can Yield More on K Street, Study Indicates by Dan Eggen

    The study by researchers at the University of Kansas underscores the central reason that lobbying has become a $3 billion-a-year industry in Washington: It pays.
    …
    The paper by three Kansas professors examined the impact of a one-time tax break approved by Congress in 2004 that allowed multinational corporations to “repatriate” profits earned overseas, effectively reducing their tax rate on the money from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. More than 800 companies took advantage of the legislation, saving an estimated $100 billion in the process, according to the study.

    The largest recipients of tax breaks were concentrated in the pharmaceutical and technology fields, including Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett Packard, Johnson & Johnson and IBM. Pfizer alone repatriated $37 billion, representing 70 percent of its revenue in 2004
    …
    Mazza added that the results are “troubling” because they show how large companies can distort tax policy to benefit their bottom line.

  • Government Debt as a Percentage of GDP

    Government debt as percent of GDPChart showing government debt as a percentage of GDP by Curious Cat Investing Economics Blog, Creative Commons Attribution, data from OECD, March 2009.

    The USA federal government debt is far too large, in my opinion. We have been raising taxes on future taxpayers for several decades, to finance our current spending. Within reason deficit spending is fine. What that reasonable level is however, is not easy to know. One big problem with the past few decades is that during very prosperous economic times we spent money that we didn’t have, choosing to raise taxes on the future (instead of either not spending as much or paying for what we were spending by raising taxes to pay for current spending).

    By not even paying for what we are spending when times were prosperous we put ourselves in a bad situation when we have poor economic conditions – like today. If we were responsible during good economic times (and at least paid for what we spent) we could have reduced our debt as a percentage of GDP. Even if we did not pay down debt, just by not increasing the outstanding debt while the economy grew the ratio of debt to GDP would decline. Then when times were bad, we could afford to run deficits and perhaps bring the debt level up to some reasonable level (maybe 40% of GDP – though it is hard to know what the target should be, 40% seems within the realm of reason to me, for now).

    There is at least one more point to remember, the figures in the chart are based on reported debt. The USA has huge liabilities that are not accounted for. So you must remember that the actually debt is much higher than reported in the official debt calculation.

    Now on to the good news. As bad as the USA has been at spending tomorrows increases in taxes today, compared to the OECD countries we are actually better than average. The OECD is made up of countries in Europe, the USA, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The chart shows the percentage of GDP that government debt represents for various countries. The USA ended 2006 at 62% while the overall OECD total is 77%. In 1990 the USA was at 63% and the OECD was at 57%. Japan is the line way at the top with a 2006 total of 180% (that is a big problem for them). Korea is in the best shape at just a 28% total in 2006 but that is an increase from just 8% in 1990.

    Related: Federal Deficit To Double This Year – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Top 12 Manufacturing Countries in 2007 – Oil Consumption by Country
    (more…)

  • Congress Eases Bank Laws – 1999

    As I mentioned a few months ago, the New York Times archive is a great tool to see the history that led to the economic crisis we now face. Here is an article from 1999: Congress Passes Wide Ranging Bill Easing Bank Laws

    The measure, considered by many the most important banking legislation in 66 years, was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said. It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress.

    ”Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ”This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”

    The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation’s financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.
    …
    ‘The world changes, and we have to change with it,” said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ”We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.” In the House debate, Mr. Leach said, ”This is a historic day. The landscape for delivery of financial services will now surely shift.”

    But consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation’s biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.

    The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.

    ”I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930’s is true in 2010,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ”I wasn’t around during the 1930’s or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980’s when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”

    Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ”seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.”

    This is a great view into how both parties foolishly risked the economy to provide favors to their big donors and golfing buddies. It is sad that we chose to elect such people that play such an important role in our economy. But it is not as though we make these choice without easy access to the information on how they govern. And today listening to the people that took the money and voted for these, and similar changes to favor financial friends, they try and make it sound like they are not responsible. And sadly my guess is most people will accept their excuses. Until we do a better job of electing people we are going to continue to suffer the results of bad policy and to pay for the favors politicians give to those giving them money.

    Related: Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – Copywrong – Pork Sugar – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Ignorance of Capitalism – Ethanol: Science Based Solution or Special Interest Welfare – Legislation to Address the Worst Credit Card Fee Abuse – Maybe

  • Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy

    Fluke? Credit crisis was a heist by James Jubak

    What we’re now living through, though, is the result of a conscious, planned looting of the world economy. Its roots stretch back decades. And it wouldn’t have been possible without the contrivances of the bought-and-paid-for folks who sit in Congress.

    Of course, just because the plan blew up on the looters, taking off a financial finger here and a portfolio hand there, you shouldn’t have any illusion that they’ve retired. In fact, in the “solutions” now being proposed — by Congress — to fix the global and U.S. financial systems, you can see the looters at work as hard as ever.

    He is exactly right.

    Question: Why weren’t state insurance regulators more aggressive in regulating AIG?

    Answer: Because the federal government had forced them to back off. An aggressive interpretation of the definition of insurance could have let state insurance agencies regulate the derivatives contracts that AIG’s financial-products group was writing out of London. These were, in fact, insurance policies that guaranteed the companies taking them out (banks, other insurance companies, investment banks and the like) against losses on securities in their portfolios.

    But Congress had made it very clear in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — supported by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, steered through Congress by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000 — that most over-the-counter derivatives contracts were outside the regulatory purview of all federal agencies, even the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    With the new law on the books, the market for credit default swaps exploded from $632 billion outstanding in the first half of 2001, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, to $62 trillion in the second half of 2007.

    Question: Wasn’t anybody worried about the risk to the financial system posed by a market that dwarfed the assets of the sellers of this insurance?

    Answer: Worry about leverage? You’ve got to be kidding.

    In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission, after hard lobbying by Wall Street, reversed its 1975 rule limiting investment banks to leverage of 15-to-1. The new limit could be as high as 40-to-1 if the investment banks’ own computer models said it was safe.

    Understanding the people paid lots of money to politicians and then (after they got lots of money) those politicians enacted laws that endangered the economy to favor those giving them lots of money. Now maybe these politicians just like letting exceptionally wealthy people endanger the economy for personal gain. Maybe they think that is a good idea. I tend to think instead they do what those they give them lots of money want. But maybe I am wrong on that.
    (more…)