I just can't be too surprised

If you liked the first stimulus, you'll love the second one. Politicians, particularly Obama and Congressional Democrats are nervous that the stimulus is not enough. First, look at some basic facts and reasonable judgments.

A Few Points

A small proportion of the stimulus has been spent - A $100 billion just isn't what it used to be. In addition, a majority of the $110.3 billion was spent in the month of June. Other articles, I've seen show that even less has been spent.

Economists say that only 10 percent of stimulus dollars have been spent and the president's plan has been criticized for not creating enough jobs.

Most agree that there is a lag - The economy is a complex system and nobody expected the stimulus to work instantaneously. Given that little spending out of the total has occurred and a majority was spent last month, it is too early to know what's working. Pushing the button again won't help in the near term.

States are using the money for short-term needs - People were promised grand projects to increase efficiency and build American infrastructure. However, much of the money has been used to close short-term budget gaps.

Cash-strapped states have used federal stimulus dollars to close short-term budget gaps and avert major tax increases but generally have not directed the money toward long-term expansion, according to a new report.

I had a few other observations, but these are the most important ones that I have for right now.

How else could it have been done?

Drop it from helicopters
If you remember the great economist Milton Friedman, he proposed that we "drop money from helicopters" in the event of a liquidity trap. This bypasses the slow and often inefficient process that we face in finding "shovel-ready projects" (or the latest phrase we want to use). If individuals receive money they are limited to a few broad options to dispose of the money.

• Spend or invest
• Save
• Pay down existing debt

If you believe that deficit funded fiscal stimulus can stimulate the economy, spending or investing the money obviously helps matters. In this particular economic downturn, there are serious issues with the banking system. If individuals don't spend or invest, they can save put their money into banks. The banks would have a larger deposit base and less issues with liquidity. However, the best result may be that individuals pay down their high debt levels. Finance author and perhaps philosopher, Nassim Taleb, argues that the global economy needs $40 to $70 trillion in deleveraging.

Grant it to the States on based upon a simple formula
Much of the money is being administered by states for projects or being used to prop up state budgets. If we want to have the States administer the funding for projects or simply prop up their short-term budgets, a simple approach would be to transfer an amount calculated in proportion to population, state product, taxes to the Federal government paid by its citizens, or some other available measure. The Congress does not have a tendency to be succinct, and a stimulus bill on one a sheet of paper is not likely to happen (or at least short enough to be read).

Some combination of individual stimulus and grants to the States
Combining these two approaches should not result in a stimulus bill so long that you would fall asleep reading it. The approach that Congress actually used has not been shown to actually focus on long-term, high return investments. A quickly enacted and carried out stimulus that simplistically dropped money from helicopters to the States and/or individuals would likely pack more of a punch. (If you grant the initial premise that deficit spending will stimulate the economy)


I will be continuing to research this issue with the following sites:
Stimulus Watch
Recovery.org

Thanks for reading, tell your friends.

Chrysler Bankruptcy and Demagoguery

Some of Chrysler's creditors rightfully objected to bankruptcy plan that gave most of the company to holders of unsecured claims (the UAW) above the secured debt holders. The bankruptcy code calls for absolute priority in any Chapter 11 reorganization. In the case of Chrysler, this means that the senior secured creditors must receive at least what they would have received in liquidation before anyone else is paid. The art and science of valuation plays a key role in determining the estimated liquidation value and the value of the non-cash settlements distributed to claimants.

Politicians have used the Chrysler bankruptcy for demagoguery and seek to bypass the usual legal processes. Michigan Congressman John Dingell stated, "the rogue hedge funds that refused to agree to a fair offer to exchange debt for cash from the U.S. Treasury – firms I label as the “vultures” – will now be dealt with accordingly in court." The governor of Michigan said, "It also came in spite of a few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere. Their refusal to share in the sacrifice forced bankruptcy proceedings to begin." Finally, Obama said that they were "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."

Ultimately, a bankruptcy that violates absolute priority based on political pressure sets a bad precedent on a couple of levels. First, it is damaging to the rule of law. The bankruptcy codes and precedents are well-established. While there are technical issues in valuation, the spirit of absolute priority is the central issue. The dissident claim holders in the form of the non-TARP lenders had every right to demand their fair share. Politicians have no right to demand that secured lenders sacrifice so that the UAW or anyone else could get a better deal. It does not matter at all that these creditors were "rogue" hedge funds or that many did not pay face value for their claims -- the rules of the game are already set for this bankruptcy. To blame "speculators" and hedge funds is nothing less than classic demagoguery. Second, the consequences in the capital markets may be far-reaching. How will debt be priced if security is meaningless in practice and determined by your favor with politicians? It is similar to the cram-downs on mortgages. It sounds like a way fix the housing markets in areas where many are under water on their mortgages, but it would be difficult to expect that mortgage rates in the long-term.

Some defend the "speculators" because of they are pension funds representing ordinary workers.

Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy "secured" status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy.
WSJ 5/21/09

This is a true statement since the financial markets affect wealth far more than direct holdings indicate. However, this cannot be the major point of the defense. It does not matter whether the claim holder is a "rogue hedge fund" or a fund for widows and orphans--the bankruptcy courts are not a place or charity. To do anything other than follow absolute priority is to ignore rule of law.

MSNBC is typically a waste land, but...

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC delivered a scathing critique of a recent Obama speech. Obama criticized Bush policies on detainees, and then in the same speech he claimed the authority to do the same things as Bush. I do not watch her show, and I would probably disagree with most of her policy stands. However, she gains some credibility by applying the same standard to her guy as Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

A Flawed Analogy

For those that know me well, I often venture into political conversations at bars, on the quad, and over dinner. This blog has intentionally stayed away from politics for the most part and focused on economics and finance. Typically I have addressed current financial issues and perennial economic fallacies. That said, this entry is more political in nature.

"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everyone." -- Barack Obama
Ok, if you're spreading the wealth around it's not good for the person having their wealth spread around. (People who pay taxes)

"I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich." -- Barack Obama

Nobody would accuse Obama of being a secret communist for sharing his own stuff. He wants to force you and I to "share" our stuff. Of course, it's not really sharing at all if the government locks you up if you don't share your stuff.

That is all for now.