What Theory is Animating Rajan's FT Mortgage-Debt Reduction Policy Recommendation?

May 23, 2012

Ok, I'm genuinely confused. There's two interesting things about this from Raghuram Rajan's Financial Times editorial, Sensible Keynesians see no easy way out, that we should unpack (my bold and numbering):

Ok, I'm genuinely confused. There's two interesting things about this from Raghuram Rajan's Financial Times editorial, Sensible Keynesians see no easy way out, that we should unpack (my bold and numbering):

The key question then is whether more government spending can make a real difference to the most severe employment problems. Here the case for a general stimulus becomes less compelling. [1] In the US, demand is weakest in communities where a boom and bust in house prices has left an overhang of household debt. Lower local demand has hit employment in industries such as retail and restaurants. A general increase in government spending may be too blunt – greater demand in New York is not going to help families eat out in Las Vegas (and hence create more restaurant jobs there). [2] Targeted household debt write-offs in Las Vegas could be a better use of stimulus dollars....
Targeted government spending, or reduced austerity, along the lines suggested by sensible Keynesians, might be feasible in some countries and helpful in speeding recovery. But we should examine each policy based on a country’s circumstances. We should be particularly wary of populist Keynesians, who parrot “in the long run we are dead” to justify any short-sighted government action. They do the world a disservice by suggesting there are easy ways out.
So Rajan is a sensible Keynesian who would push us towards targeted, household mortgage-debt write-offs. Meanwhile others, including presumably Paul Krugman, are a dangerous, populist variety of Keynesian who want fiscal or monetary stimulus.
The first numbered argument is true - places where housing prices collapsed the most are hardest hit by unemployment. But unemployment is still a nation-wide phenomenon, hitting places that didn't even have a housing bubble.  Let's chart the ratio of unemployment for April 2012 versus the unemployment for December 2007 state-by-state (source, click for larger image):

The average increase is 1.65. In New York, which Rajan singles out as being ok, unemployment has gone from 4.7 percent to 8.5 percent, which gives us an above-the-average ratio of 1.8. This is not a localized crisis.

Now Rajan is almost certainly alluding to a graph like this, which we put together a year and a half ago (sigh), of unemployment against the percentage of homes that are deeply underwater, or more than 50% underwater:

There's a lot of ways to visulize this relationship between housing bust and unemployment - Jared Bernstein had one recently. But let's examine this relationship in light of Rajan's suggestion that "Targeted household debt write-offs" could be "a better use of stimulus dollars."

There's three stories explaining this this relationship between unemployment and underwater housing. The first is a structural story. Can't turn housing construction workers into nurses, underwater homeowners can't move, etc. The mobility story turns out to be incorrect, and the "skills" story has problems we've discussed elsewhere. But notice that writing down mortgage debt doesn't make a construction worker into a nurse. So writing down mortgage debt doesn't help with this story.

There's a second story about this graph that describes a "wealth effect." People where housing values collapsed feel poorer, so they spend less. The latest Economic Report of the President argued that the "severity of losses experienced during the recession that began in December of 2007 in both national output and in labor markets makes these [wealth-effect] estimates appear too small." Also households are the net seller, but also net buyer, of housing - it's not clear, outside demographics, that housing shifts should make the macroeconomy feel poorer. But either way, writing down mortgage debt would not help with the wealth effect: if all the housing was paid in cash we'd still have the same recession under this second story.

Now there's a third story, a "balance-sheet" story of the recession. Here consumers are overleveraged and are cutting back on consumption until their balance-sheet, or their amount of debt, is repaired. In this story, reducing household mortgage debt can be a really great use of stimulus dollars. We walked through this story in this interview with Amir Sufi, who has done the leading empirical work on this. And the key, recent, theorectical work on this story, the best model of how this happens, was done by.....Paul Krugman. Specifically Eggertsson/Krugman's "Debt, Deleveraging, and the Liquidity Trap."

If the problem is household's balance-sheets, you can either make people richer or reduce their debts. Rajan thinks that taking money and writing down debt is a good idea. You could also take that money, give it to people in exchange for building useful public stuff; they can pay down debts, and then everyone has some stuff that helps the productive capabilities of the economy. You could also just give people money by not collecting taxes and mailing out checks, and they can efficiently choose whether or not to reduce debts. But under the three most common stories for the relationship between housing and debt, Rajan's policy recommendation only makes sense in the context of deleveraging, or a serious demand story, or the theory that is animating the so-called "populist" Keynesian wing.

This debate is frustratingly not new. Christina Romer was telling media in early 2009 that balance-sheet problems become worse if you let unemployment soar, even if you reduce debts. Romer: "Actually, you know, a crucial thing–when [FDR] did the bank holiday, it took the next two years to actually clean up the banks, that we actually did not get the things really cleaned up until 1935. And that a big part of that cleanup was he managed to turn around the real economy. We saw employment growing again, GDP growing again, and that inherently helps your financial system." Nothing messes up balance-sheets like mass unemployment and falling median wages.

As we've seen, writing down mortgage debt is a viciously ugly, difficult, zero-sum battle. I think it makes good sense to consider, and will have some more formal writing on it, but the idea that it is the sensible ideal while everyone else pushing fiscal or monetary stimulus is behaving irresponsibly is wrong - they both are working from the same intellectual framework.

Share This

The Case Against Tax Breaks for Private Equity

May 23, 2012Jeff Madrick

Private equity disproportionately rewards privatization companies while others are burdened with the risks. 

Private equity disproportionately rewards privatization companies while others are burdened with the risks. 

I wanted to wait a few days before commenting on Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s spontaneous criticism of Barack Obama for picking on Mitt Romney's experience at Bain Capital. Booker doesn’t know much of anything about private equity, but many financial services donors have his ear. He took in nearly half a million dollars in campaign donations from the industry over the last nine months, and he frankly sounded like its mouthpiece.

Booker backtracked, but it would be nice if he knew something about the private equity business before he spoke publicly about it. This expectation of knowledge should also apply to widely read columnists like David Brooks, who, as usual, reflexively defended the Wall Street practice without presenting evidence. He issued a piece of public relations diatribe that no doubt soothed the right but contributed nothing to our understanding. The contention is that these buyouts turned fat American companies into lean and productive ones since the 1970s. Other pundits less well known for their conservative reflex responses have also given partial defense of private equity.

So let’s begin with one point: there is a place for private equity. In a privatization or leveraged buyout, a company is bought by an investment partnership with moneys borrowed against the company itself. The new money can be used productively even when levels of debt against the company’s assets and profits soar. A smaller company that cannot raise adequate equity can raise money by being bought by a private equity partnership. A company that is doing poorly can benefit from added capital and new management. Sometimes trimming labor costs in the process makes sense, of course. 

But the record of leveraged buyouts and private equity reflects its excesses, and most importantly, the lopsided nature of the financial incentives for doing the deals in the first place. Companies like Romney’s Bain or Steve Schwartz’s Blackstone or Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the early industry leader when privatizations were called leverage buyouts (LBO), take advantage of a major government-provided benefit. The interest on debt is tax-deductible, and high levels of debt are the source of profits in these transactions. It is just like buying a house with a small down payment; if you can sell as the value goes up, the return on the down payment is high and the interest was deductible all along. In the meantime, the house is collateral for the loan. Similarly, partners are rarely if ever on the line for the debt; the company being privatized is. The one difference is that if the collateral value of the house falls, as it has recently, the homeowner is on the line. This is usually not so with privatizers.  

Great deal? You bet. The owners of the privatizing firm put up very little capital; it is their limited partners who put up more.  Then they borrow like mad from banks, pension funds, hedge funds and so on. If the new company can be sold or brought to market again at a higher price, they make a bundle compared to their equity down payment. The CEOs of the company, or the new executives brought in, are given huge amounts of stock. They too make a bundle. Are these incentives conducive to good business decisions?

Most likely, the investment decision is based not on how much the company can be improved, but how much can be borrowed against its assets. The second concern is the interest rate on the debt. There is no evidence that privatizers mostly buy struggling companies to resuscitate them.

Moreover, companies with high levels of debt are subject to great risk of bankruptcy. Macy’s did one of the first leveraged buyouts of its size, the CEO made out wonderfully, and soon Macy’s was in bankruptcy. It reorganized and reemerged successfully due to its retailing skills, but these were not enhanced by the LBO partners.  

Data shows the newly bought firms create fewer new jobs—or result in more lost jobs—than firms that are not subject to private takeover. But what about the much-lauded productivity gains? On balance, these target firms mostly increase productivity by selling or closing low-productivity units. Arguably, they also make their employees work harder. The fear of lay-offs can enhance productivity. There is no evidence that these firms improve productivity mostly by investing in new technologies, new managerial methods, and so on, which is often their claim.

And of course what productivity gains they have had (overall they are small) did not reinvigorate the American economy. The two main sources of productivity gains in the U.S. were high-tech companies and the retailing behemoths led by WalMart. Many retailing targets of privatizations eventually went bankrupt.

The best recent paper on private equity was written by Eileen Appelbaum of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Rosemary Batt of Cornell University. The David Brookses of the world will cry that these researchers are of a liberal bent. But read the paper to see how carefully it is done. The exegeses of much of the right in defense of private equity are essentially outright propaganda.   

However, the basic point comes back to government and regulation. A major tax advantage gives rise to these buyouts. The privatization partnerships are lightly regulated. After-fee returns to the limited partners seem to be below average. But as for their benefits to society, privatization rewards investors by cutting short-term costs. For a long time, the stock market pushed up the stock prices of companies that kept short-term earnings growing. The influence of such corporate governance has been to keep downward pressure on wages and stoke fear in employees for three decades.

Let’s be clear; some private equity investments were healthy and some of these partnerships do a good job. But all in all, it is clear most are simply exploitations of tax law, market fashions, and their power to borrow money. There is no reason America should reward these investors with a tax break on their huge loans.   

Privatizers didn’t rebuild America. They were rarely the people who planted the garden, watered it, or designed it.  They were by and large the ones who weeded it, sometimes recklessly, throwing out the gorgeous roses in the process. Gardens do need to be weeded, but should those who do the weeding, often heedlessly, make so much more money than those who do the planting? And with the added help of government tax breaks?

In the end, Romney’s Bain made money even though its takeover target, American Pad & Paper, went out of business. Consult Appelbaum and Batt on how some of these strategies work, involving mortgaging real estate holdings and transfer pricing to reduce taxes. Privatization was mostly, if not entirely, about working the system, not building capitalism.  On balance, evidence suggests it hurt more than helped. Any way you read the evidence, it is clear the rewards for private equity firms clearly exceeded the risks. That’s not good for free markets.  

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Can Private Equity Firms Like Bain Do Whatever They Want With the Companies They Buy?

May 22, 2012Mike Konczal

Three critiques of the notion that private equity's actions are above public concern.

The question of Romney's tenure at private equity firm Bain Capital will stay in the headlines as the Obama team releases ads on the subject and Romney continues to run on that record. But what can we take away from this debate?

Three critiques of the notion that private equity's actions are above public concern.

The question of Romney's tenure at private equity firm Bain Capital will stay in the headlines as the Obama team releases ads on the subject and Romney continues to run on that record. But what can we take away from this debate?

Ezra Klein argues that running a leveraged buyout company ought to give one some sense of solidarity with those left behind. As LBO/private equity creates winners and losers, winners should be in favor of an expanded social safety net that helps those who lose in the layoffs get back on their feet with minimial disruptions. Since LBO overall creates more wealth, part of that wealth should be taxed for the benefit of those who need help adjusting to their new economic reality afterwards - such as providing continuous health care coverage, job training, etc.

One thing I'm noticing in these debates is an almost tautological idea that since shareholders own the firm, anything shareholders do with their firm is legitimate and outside the boundaries of public concern or critique. It was in the background of what Karl Smith was discussing on Sunday's "Up With Chris Hayes," and Josh Barro made it more explicit this morning on twitter.

A Stick

Let's imagine that I buy a stick. Under a idea of general, everyday libertarianism, since I own the stick I can do anything I want with it. I can break it in half, burn it in a fireplace, carve it into something else, turn it into woodchips, attach a kite to it, exclude people from using it, etc. I can't hit people with it, or use it to set their stuff on fire, or attach duct tape to it in order to steal their stuff - but that's a function of general prohibitions against force and fraud. Short of that, it would be weird to say that I shouldn't do whatever I want to my stick of wood - that something I do with it could be illegitimate - as long as I enjoy it.

But does a private equity firm own its portfolio businesses in the same exact way that I own my stick? Is it weird to even think, outside general prohibitions against force and fraud (which I'll treat as unproblematic as it relates to the question at hand), that their actions could be illegitimate? There are many references to increasing profits, or making firms more dynamic, or "creative destruction," but those are side effects of shareholders doing whatever they want with its portfolio. The core issue is that there could be nothing illegitimate in terms of how a private equity firm runs those businesses in the sense there's nothing illegitimate I could do with a stick I own.

Three Critiques

Starting from this baseline, the critiques as far as I read them (which will draw on two previous posts) break down along three lines:

1. Tax/regulatory loopholes. I did an interview with Josh Kosman, author of The Buyout of America, where he argued that the whole point of the enterprise is to game tax law loopholes. Private equity "saw that you could buy a company through a leveraged buyout and radically reduce its tax rate. The company then could use those savings to pay off the increase in its debt loads. For every dollar that the company paid off in debt, your equity value rises by that same dollar, as long as the value of the company remains the same."

A recent paper from the University of Chicago looking at private equity found that “a reasonable estimate of the value of lower taxes due to increased leverage for the 1980s might be 10 to 20 percent of firm value,” which is value that comes from taxpayers to private equity as a result of the tax code.

That's one thing in an industry with large and predictable cash flows. But after those low-hanging fruits were picked, as Kosman explained, "firms are taken over in very volatile industries. And they are taking on debts where they have to pay 15 times their cash flow over seven years — they are way over-levered."

This critique has power as far as it goes. But let's combine it with another issue.

2. Risk-shifting among parts of the firm. Traditional "creative destruction" is about putting rivals out of business with better products and techniques. Leveraged buyouts and private equity are about something different, something that exists within a single firm. This is often described as putting new techniques into place, firing people and divisions that are not performing, and generally making the firm more efficient.

The critique here is that, instead of making the firm more efficient, it often simply shifts the risks into different places. As Peter Róna, head of the IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust in New York, described it in 1989:

The very foundation of the LBO is the current actual distribution of hypothetical future cash flows. If the hypothesis (including the author’s net present value discounted at the relevant cost of capital) tums out to be wrong, the shareholders have the cash and everyone else is left with a carcass. “Creating shareholder value” and “unlocking billions” consists of shifting the risk of future uncertainty to others, namely, the corporation and its current creditors, customers, and employees…
The notion that underleveraging a corporation can cause problems is neither new nor unfounded. What is new is the assertion that shareholders shouid set the proper leverage because, motivated by maximizing the return on their investment, they will ensure efficiency of all factors of production. This hypothesis requires much more rigorous proof than Jensen’s episodic arguments… although Jensen denies it, the maximization of shareholder returns must take place, at least in part, at someone else’s expense.
Shareholders gain, but at the expense of other stakeholders in the firm. This isn't the normal winner/loser dynamic, where some suffer in the short-term to do what's best for the long-term. Here the long-term suffers to create short-term winners. Once again, this issue becomes problematic when combined with another critique.
3. Dividend looting. The theory behind private equity, as Róna caught above, is that it requires shareholders to be the proper and most efficient group to set the leverage ratio. But what if, instead of setting leverage for the long term to make the firm more efficient, shareholders simply use additional debt to pay themselves, regardless of the health of the firm? As Josh Kosman put it:
If you look at the dividends stuff that private equity firms do, and Bain is one of the worst offenders, if you increase the short-term earnings of a company you then use those new earnings to borrow more money. That money goes right back to the private equity firm in dividends, making it quite a quick profit. More importantly, most companies can’t handle that debt load twice. Just as they are in a position to reduce debt, they are getting hit with maximum leverage again. It’s very hard for companies to take that hit twice...
The initial private equity model was that you would make money by reselling your company or taking it public, not by levering it a second time...Right after this goes on for a few years, you’ve starved your firm of human and operating capital. Five years later, when the private equity leaves, the company will collapse — you can’t starve a company for that long. This is what the history of private equity shows.

This runup in dividend payouts is feature of the post 1980 financial markets more broadly, one that LBO had a hand in creating:

The blue line is profits, the solid red line is payouts. As Josh Mason noted (my bold), "In the pre-neoliberal era, up until 1980 or so, nonfinancial businesses paid out about 40 percent of their profits to shareholders. But in most of the years since 1980, they’ve paid out more than all of them...It was a common trope in accounts of the housing bubble that greedy or shortsighted homeowners were extracting equity from their houses with second mortgages or cash-out refinancings to pay for extra consumption. What nobody mentioned was that the rentier class had been doing this longer, and on a much larger scale, to the country’s productive enterprises."

Versions of these three arguments form the core of the private equity critique. Instead of simply carving a figurine or starting a BBQ, private equity uses its stick to game tax law while cashing out short-term value, leaving others in the firm worse off and the firm itself more prone to collapse and less able to produce long-term value. Do you find this critique convincing? What else is missing?

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

J.P. Morgan Will Keep Gambling with “Other People’s Money” Without a New Glass-Steagall

May 17, 2012David B. Woolner

FDR recognized that our financial system -- and our economy -- depend on a stable banking sector.

When I speak of high finance as a harmful factor in recent years, I am speaking about a minority which includes the type of individual who speculates with other people’s money…and also the type of individual who says that popular government cannot be trusted…

FDR recognized that our financial system -- and our economy -- depend on a stable banking sector.

When I speak of high finance as a harmful factor in recent years, I am speaking about a minority which includes the type of individual who speculates with other people’s money…and also the type of individual who says that popular government cannot be trusted…

High finance of this type refused to permit Government credit to go directly to the industrialist, to the business man, to the home owner, to the farmer. They wanted it to trickle down from the top, through the intricate arrangements which they controlled and by which they were able to levy tribute on every business in the land.

…They did not want Government supervision over financial markets through which they manipulated their monopolies with other people’s money.

And in the face of their demands that Government do nothing that they called "unsound," the Government, hypnotized by its indebtedness to them, stood by and let the depression drive industry and business toward bankruptcy. –Franklin D Roosevelt, 1936

The recent news that the nation’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, has lost $ 2 billion in trades over the past six weeks and is likely to rack up losses in excess of $3 billion before the dust settles has led to increasing calls for the resurrection of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. Passed in the wake of the 1929 financial crisis that led to the onset of the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which virtually ended 1930s-style bank runs, and also separated commercial from investment banking as a further guarantee of the average American’s savings.

The latter provision was put in place because of the widespread consensus among lawmakers at the time that a) it would be a mistake to allow investment bankers access to funds that were guaranteed by the government, and b) that giving investment bankers access to federally insured deposits would undermine the whole purpose of the FDIC. The FDIC was meant to provide the average American and small business person with access to stable and secure banking services for savings, mortgages, and commercial loans. In layman’s terms, this meant that financial speculators would not be able to get their hands on working Americans’ money or mortgages.

Of course, much like today, a good share of the financial sector vehemently opposed those reforms. The president of the American Bankers Association, for example, insisted that the bill’s provisions for deposit insurance were “unsound, unscientific and dangerous.” But other prominent bankers, including Winthrop Aldrich, the president of the Chase National Bank of New York and precursor to JPMorgan Chase, argued in favor of the bill, including its call for the separation of commercial and investment banking. Aldrich even went so far as to insist that the “spirit of speculation should be eradicated from the management of commercial banks, and commercial banks should not be permitted to underwrite securities.”

Flash forward to today. The likes of former Citigroup Chairmen John Reed and Richard Parsons have admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. The current Chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon himself, has admitted that Chase made “a terrible, egregious mistake” in engaging in what he termed “sloppy” and “stupid” activity in the past six weeks. Isn’t it time we recognized that common sense regulation of the banking and financial sector is vital to the overall health of our economy?

Contrary to what free market fundamentalists have been telling us again and again this campaign season, the basic banking and financial structure that was put in place in the early years of the Roosevelt administration was not put in place to strangle the free market. It was put in place to protect the free market—and it did so with great aplomb for over half a century.

If we truly wish to restore the confidence and integrity of our financial system and protect ourselves from another financial disaster, then we will need to do more than merely instigate the Volcker Rule and the other half-measures contained in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Reform Act—half-measures, which we should note, Jamie Dimon and other titans of Wall Street have so vehemently opposed.

It would be far better to heed the advice of Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, and a growing number of economists and members of the business community that it is time to do what the British government is essentially about to do: resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. Doing so would not only help protect the commercial banking industry from the vicissitudes of Wall Street. It would also reduce this size of the too-big-to-fail behemoths like JPMorgan Chase, who seem quite content to gamble with what FDR called “other people’s money” in their endless pursuit of greater and greater wealth and power.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute. He is currently writing a book entitled Cordell Hull, Anthony Eden and the Search for Anglo-American Cooperation, 1933-1938.


Financial crisis image via Shutterstock.

Share This

New Deal Numerology: Endangered Whales

May 17, 2012Tim Price

This week's numbers: $2 billion; $200 billion; 4; 3; $2.3 trillion

$2 billion... is a busted number. That’s how much JPMorgan lost in six weeks on bets made by Bruno Iksil, a.k.a. the London Whale and Voldemort. The first nickname refers to his huge trades; the second may refer to his tendency to harass orphans.

This week's numbers: $2 billion; $200 billion; 4; 3; $2.3 trillion

$2 billion... is a busted number. That’s how much JPMorgan lost in six weeks on bets made by Bruno Iksil, a.k.a. the London Whale and Voldemort. The first nickname refers to his huge trades; the second may refer to his tendency to harass orphans.

$200 billion... is a risky number. That’s the estimated value of the portfolio Iksil was betting on. Even if he doesn’t have a bright future ahead of him in the financial markets, he’ll always get comped a room when he walks into a casino.

4... is an accelerated number. That’s how many days it took JPMorgan to lose another $1 billion after the announcement. They may be resisting any attempts at financial reform, but at least they’re getting a lot more efficient about failing.

3... is a scapegoated number. That’s how many people have been asked to resign from the bank, including top female exec Ina Drew but not Iksil himself. Maybe he was nice enough to loan her his sword to fall on after she forgot to sharpen hers.

$2.3 trillion... is a cushioned number. That’s the value of JPMorgan’s assets. The bank can survive these losses, but if “Too Big to Fail” referred to physical size, this would be when paramedics had to break down its wall and airlift it out.

Share This

Why Wall Street Needs Government Regulation to Save It From Itself

May 15, 2012Jeff Madrick

The inherent problems and contradictions of Wall Street trading make government intervention a necessity.  

The fiasco at JPMorgan Chase is most disturbing because it reflects the inherent riskiness of modern financial trading. Few articles have pinpointed this as the problem. It is the reason strong regulations and high capital requirements are necessary; you can’t outsmart these inherent contradictions.

The inherent problems and contradictions of Wall Street trading make government intervention a necessity.  

The fiasco at JPMorgan Chase is most disturbing because it reflects the inherent riskiness of modern financial trading. Few articles have pinpointed this as the problem. It is the reason strong regulations and high capital requirements are necessary; you can’t outsmart these inherent contradictions.

JPMorgan ran its trading operation out of its risk management group, which was supposed to offset risk, not take on new ones. But even if you are trying to implement a pure hedge—that is, minimize risk—there are two big issues here. One is the inefficiency of markets and the lack of adequate information. You can buy or sell a security—usually a derivative, or a leveraged security based on the ups and downs of another security—to hedge a position, such as a portfolio of bonds you think might readily fall in value. This was the Chase situation. 

However, the first problem with this is that the hedge is not necessarily properly priced, because the markets are inefficient and prices are not transparent to all. It is often too cheap. Second, the counter-party—the seller or buyer on the other side of the transaction—may not meet his or her commitment. This is what happened when AIG sold insurance (credit default swaps) to Goldman Sachs and then couldn’t pay it off without a government bailout when markets collapsed.

The next big issue is the human one. Judging from press accounts, JPMorgan wasn’t trying merely to hedge. In truth, there are no pure hedges or people wouldn’t make money at all. Nothing can eradicate risk completely. Rather, JPMorgan looked like they were taking long and short positions on balance—that is, trying to win bigger by guessing the direction of the markets, not just hedge.   

Again, there are two problems within this larger issue. First is the inalterable human temptation to make a big killing, especially when the individual bankers are being paid big bonuses to do so and suffer relatively little if they guess wrong. Call this asymmetric incentive. They may even have changed their own yardstick, or value at risk, to seem like they were taking less risk. No doubt they had some kind of argument to do so.

The second is a more subtle one. Traders usually believe that at some point securities prices will revert to their long-term values compared to each other. This was the philosophy behind the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). It is very likely the traders at JPMorgan doubled down rather than try to unwind their positions, believing that markets would soon adjust to some historical averages and prove them right. The people at LTCM bought when others were selling, certain that they could hold on until markets adjusted. They could not.

These basic facts of Wall Street life are inescapable. Thus, the JPMorgan fiasco is a repeat of what happened time and again in 2007 and 2008, such as with AIG, and what happened in the 1990s with LTCM, and many others.   

Why did Jamie Dimon think he knew better? The repetition even extends to the fact that the risk manager and the trader were friends. The same was true at Citigroup before it lost a ton of money, to the surprise of its own management, as mortgage markets began to crack a few years ago.

These are fundamental, baked-in problems for Wall Street trading. Some, like today’s Wall Street Journal, will say losses are a part of capitalism and capitalists learn from their errors. The main lesson here is that they don’t learn and they can’t.

This is a job for government. Tough regulations are needed. If these firms and their employees had to absorb their own losses, perhaps there would be justification for some of these risks. That banks like JPMorgan are supported by FDIC-insured funds, that they have shareholders, and that they are so big their losses will always be guaranteed by the taxpayers, are all reasons that strong regulations are necessary. Their losses were a failure of regulation once again, reflecting the continued need for strong capital requirements, a broader Volcker rule, and transparency and margin requirements in derivatives trading. Some of that is coming. Clearly, it is not here yet and may not be here at all.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

JP Morgan Proves That Size Does Matter

May 15, 2012Mike Konczal

Breaking up the big banks might not be the whole solution, but it could make resolution authority more credible.

Breaking up the big banks might not be the whole solution, but it could make resolution authority more credible.

Before we start talking about the advantages and disadvantages of introducing size caps and restricting business lines through a new Glass-Steagall, it is important to understand how very big the five biggest banks are. If you need a sense of how big JP Morgan is and why it is hard for it to "hedge" without moving the market, the graph below gives you a sense. This is a graph I put together during Dodd-Frank based on data that was floating around at the time:

When bills restricting size of a large financial institution have been introduced they usually put size in the context of deposit liabilities (what we provide a backstop for and what reflects consumer savings, expressed as a percent of all deposits) and non-deposit liabilities (what reflects a blunt measure of size and potential for shadow banking runs, expressed as a percentage of GDP). The SAFE Banking Act, which has been reintroduced, mostly impacts the six firms listed above. The original SAFE Banking Act had a cap of 3 percent of GDP for non-deposit liabilities for financial firms (2 percent for actual banks) -- a space that ignores over 8,000 banks to just focus on the biggest six.

Yesterday Elizabeth Warren sent out an email with PCCC calling for a new Glass-Steagall. Let's back up: what kind of regulation do we have in the financial sector? First, there's the background regulation that structures and forms the financial markets. How are derivatives treated in bankruptcy? How is capital income and debt taxed? How are contracts and corporations set up and enforced? And so on.

The second level of regulation is "prudential" regulation. Prudential regulation of financial institutions is the various ways regulators regulate banks. Capital requirements are one example. So is prompt corrective action, restricting dividends for troubled firms, etc. One reason to do this for regular banks is to act as a coordinator for dispersed depositors who are unable or unwilling to perform these functions. Another is that financial firms have serious macroeconomic effects on the economy. And another is to intervene in issues of asymmetric information. The everyday libertarian case against regulating a restaurant is "who would want to poison their customers?" As we saw in the last 20 years, Wall Street is comfortable not only selling their customers poison at a high margin, but taking out life insurance on them through the credit swaps market.

The third level is blunter, and that's strict prohibitions, either on businesses or on size. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adding prohibitions? One factor is simplicity compared to other forms of prudential regulations, but what else is there?


Adding prohibitions can help ensure the end of Too Big To Fail. In this sense it works to amplify, rather than replace, Dodd-Frank's resolution authority.

A common response is that the problem with Too Big To Fail isn't that the firms are too big or too complex, but too interconnected. Matt Yglesias notes that in the context of resolution, prohibitions aren't that important: "we can't put investment banks through the bankruptcy process because it's too systemically chaotic. In that case, Glass-Steagall is irrelevant and what we really need is a new legislative mechanism for the resolution of investment banking enterprises. That's what Dodd-Frank is supposed to do. This all just backs in to the point that even though the phrase 'too big to fail' has caught the public imagination, it's never been clear that size is relevant."

But here's Martin J. Gruenberg, Acting Chairman of the FDIC, in a big speech last Thursday:

While there are numerous differences between a typical bank resolution and what the FDIC would face in resolving a SIFI, I want to focus on a few key differences...

In addition, the resolution of a large U.S. financial firm involves a more complex corporate structure than the resolution of a single insured bank. Large financial companies conduct business through multiple subsidiary legal entities with many interconnections owned by a parent holding company. A resolution of the individual subsidiaries of the financial company would increase the likelihood of disruption and loss of franchise value by disrupting the interrelationships among the subsidiary companies. A much more promising approach from the FDIC's point of view is to place into receivership only the parent holding company while maintaining the subsidiary interconnections.
Another difference arises from sheer size alone. In the typical bank failure, there are a number of banks capable of quickly handling the financial, managerial, and operational requirements of an acquisition. This is unlikely to be the case when a large financial firm fails. Even if it were the case, it may not be desirable to pursue a resolution that would result in an even larger, more complex institution. This suggests both the need to create a bridge financial institution and the means of returning control and ownership to private hands.
Resolution authority is an untested solution for a financial firm, particularly one as large and complex as JP Morgan. Size and complexity make a difference. If financial firms were smaller and more siloed, there is an argument that resolution authority, which is one of the core mechanisms of Dodd-Frank, would work more smoothly and be more credible.
Market Power and Competition
As Barry Ritholtz noted on the JP Morgan loss, "Simply stated, once you are the market, you are no longer a hedge." Size makes a difference in these markets, and by breaking up the largest firms you'd see reduced market power. In terms of size, Andrew Haldane argues that economics of scale in banking top out at around $100 billion, or signficantly less than a 3 percent GDP liabilities cap. Beyond market power, the largest banks represent a large amount of political power as well.
And in terms of business lines, Kevin J. Stiroh and Adrienne Rumble, in "The dark side of diversification," look at financial holding companies as they absorb different business lines in the late 1990s and 2000s. "The key finding that diversification gains are more than offset by the costs of increased exposure to volatile activities represents the dark side of the search for diversification benefits and has implications for supervisors, managers, investors, and borrowers." New business lines introduce new profits but also introduce new volatility. The more volatile a firm is, the harder it is for it to fail without bringing down the financial system.
Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:


Share This

What Five Hours From Last Thursday Can Tell Us About Dodd-Frank and JP Morgan

May 14, 2012Mike Konczal

In the course of an afternoon, we saw the problems Dodd-Frank is trying to solve, the solutions on the table, and the efforts to roll them back -- not in that order.

Let's take a quick look at a time frame lasting less than five hours from last Thursday, May 10th, 2012.

In the course of an afternoon, we saw the problems Dodd-Frank is trying to solve, the solutions on the table, and the efforts to roll them back -- not in that order.

Let's take a quick look at a time frame lasting less than five hours from last Thursday, May 10th, 2012.

At 12:10 p.m., Martin J. Gruenberg, Acting Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), gave the keynote at the 48th Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition held by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. In the long-awaited speech, he outlined the overall vision, as well as the problems and pitfalls, of the FDIC using "resolution authority" to oversee the failure and unwinding of a Too Big To Fail financial firm. These powers were granted to the FDIC in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in order to achieve both accountability and stability while avoiding the panic and contagion that occured in the fall of 2008.

At 2:15 p.m., House Republicans passed H.R. 5652, Paul Ryan's Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, by a vote of 218 to 199. This reconciliation act does many things; one is that it takes lots of money from poverty relief programs and gives it to the military, and another is that it renegs on automatic cuts that were agreed to as a result of the Super Committee's failure, which will almost certainly trigger a crisis on the next debt ceiling fight. But for our purposes, one specific thing it does is revoke Title II of Dodd-Frank, which is the resolution authority powers Gruenberg was presenting. It replaces them with nothing.

At 5 p.m., the large, systemically risky firm JP Morgan had a surprise conference call where it announced, following what was disclosed on its 10-Q, that it had a giant loss of $2 billion in the last quarter. This suprised the market and sent analysts running to their phones and computers.

There are two ways to look at the relationship between the Dodd-Frank financial reform framework and JP Morgan's loss disclosure. One is that it shows the need for a strong implementation of Dodd-Frank broadly and the Volcker Rule specifically, which is designed to separate prop trading from large, risky financial firms. Marcus Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform has a great post up discussing what happened, how the principle of the Volcker Rule should work in this situation, and the threats it faces. Dodd-Frank is designed to make the financial markets more transparent and robust to shocks through such mechanisms as expanding clearing requirements for derivatives and reducing interconnectedness between large financial firms. It is also designed to make it less likely that any individual firm will collapse by having stronger capital requirements for larger financial firms and eliminating certain business lines they can participate in through the Volcker Rule. This is crucial for a Too Big To Fail firm like JP Morgan.

But the second is to acknowledge that businesses run profits and they run losses. There is something to a conservative like Kevin Williamson's remark that "The odd thing about this is that it is now considered somehow scandalous when a business loses money. It’s a scandal when banks make profits, and it’s a scandal when they make losses." On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Though it was clear quickly at 5 p.m. Thursday that JP Morgan wasn't in danger of collapsing, if things had been different it could have failed.

This illustrates the need for a mechanism to allow firms to fail in a way that fairly allocates losses to the right parties. The way corporations fail in this country is a series of legal choices we've made, and we found in the fall of 2008 that the mechanism we have for a shadow-bank financial firm failing -- Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- dragged down the entire system with it. Hence the move to bring in the FDIC to make sure a financial firm fails in a way compatible with fairness. The FDIC has special powers -- advance planning and living wills, debtor-in-possession financing and liquidity, making payments to creditors based on expected recoveries, keeping operations running, the ability to transfer qualified financial contracts without termination, and the ability to turn up or down regulations going into a potential resolution based on prompt corrective action -- appropriate to what our 21st century financial system needs.

Now what did Gruenberg present? The whole speech is recommended, but these goals are worth highlighting:

The second step will be the conversion of the debt holders' claims to equity. The old debt holders of the failed parent will become the owners of the new company and thus be responsible for electing a new board of directors. The new board will in turn appoint a CEO of the fully privatized new company. For a variety of reasons, we would like this to be a rapid transition.

In summary, what we envision is a resolution strategy under which the FDIC takes control of the failed firm at the parent holding company level and establishes a bridge holding company as an interim step in the conversion of the failed firm into a new well-capitalized private sector entity. We believe this strategy holds the best possibility of achieving our key goals of maintaining financial stability, holding investors in the failed firm accountable for the losses of the company, and producing a new, viable private sector company out of the process.
Shareholders are wiped out, the bank is recapitalized through previous debt holders, and the old board is fired. Stability and accountability are both emphasized. This is not simple, and this is where Dodd-Frank hangs together or it falls apart. It is a system of deterrence and detection alongside FDIC resolution. The Volcker Rule is meant to prevent having hedge fund-like gigantic losses out of nowhere, which would allow the FDIC to have some lead time to try to steer a firm back to solvency through prompt corrective action before resolution. Well-capitalized and transparent derivative markets will help with issues of contagion and panic that come with a major financial firm approaching collapse.
This isn't perfected yet. The big problems are given special attention in the speech: the international component of these firms, their size and complex corporate structure, their liquidity needs, and the lack of available or appropriate acquisition firms. These are not simple problems to solve, though it is clear that the FDIC wants to solve them. Now is the worst time to pull the plug and replace it with nothing, though that is the course House Republicans are on. Because no matter how many regulations are put in place, firms fail. We need a system that allows that.
Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

Share This

The Dimon Fiasco: A Stark Lesson on Why Finance Needs Government Regulation

May 11, 2012Jeff Madrick

J.P. Morgan Chase's trading losses are a perfect example of why we need increased government regulation of banks.

Many people see the $2 billion in trading losses announced by J.P. Morgan Chase as the quintessential example of why strong regulation is needed. There is a lot of irony in this story. It is a true story about the importance of government.

J.P. Morgan Chase's trading losses are a perfect example of why we need increased government regulation of banks.

Many people see the $2 billion in trading losses announced by J.P. Morgan Chase as the quintessential example of why strong regulation is needed. There is a lot of irony in this story. It is a true story about the importance of government.

When Sandy Weill, the rough and tough entrepreneur, ultimately built a financial conglomerate from many pieces—including Salomon, Smith Barney, and Travelers Insurance—into Citigroup, Jamie Dimon, someday to be the outspoken CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase, had always been at his side. A bright and dutiful young man, Dimon stayed with him when Weill was consigned to a number two role at American Express after selling his firm, Shearson Loeb Rhoades, to the credit card giant in the early 1980s. He was with him in San Francisco, when Weill was charged with slimming down American Express’s subsidiary, Fireman’s Fund. Weill’s expertise was making companies lean and mean, which often entailed ruthless lay-offs. Dimon ran the numbers for Weill and participated in the implementation of the lean and mean philosophy.

When Weill finally left American Express, Dimon again went with him. Finally, they found the consumer finance company Commercial Credit Corp, which made high interest loans to low-income consumers, including early subprime mortgages, much like the old Money Store. According to biographers, Dimon liked the industry because it was unregulated. He and Weill took over the company, fired lots of people, issued a stock offering quickly, and used it to rebuild the Weill dynasty, which would soon include Smith Barney, Shearson again, and, the giant Travelers Insurance in 1993.

But Weill still had no serious investment banking presence, so he turned his attention to Salomon Brothers, king of risky bond and currency trading, the birthplace of what later became Long-Term Capital Management, and maker of much money and several major trading losses. How risky was this trading firm?

Dimon was skeptical. But here is the irony. Weill sent Dimon to study how Salomon made its money, and the originally hesitant Dimon said he now believed the risks could be controlled. Immediately after the acquisition in 1997, however, Weill was clobbered by Salomon losses due to the East Asian financial crisis and many more to come. Weill quickly limited trading exposure at Salomon. Dimon must have learned that losses are inherent in such businesses.

Dimon was finally at Weill’s side when Travelers merged with Citicorp to form Citigroup, becoming a massive financial giant. He left soon after in a personal dispute as Citigroup took on more and more risk, more and more debt, and adopted unethical practices that were later unearthed by Eliot Spitzer, which resulted in more fines than for any other company.

Dimon wound up running J.P. Morgan Chase, where he emerged as a hero after limiting mortgage market risks before the crisis that felled so many. He became the most respected of Wall Street’s leaders, and he was arguably the best of them. But Wall Street trading profits are too tempting, and individual Wall Street traders too hard to control. Even with tight oversight, they often go their own way. And they often lose hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars in the process.

Dimon may have known precisely what his London trader, the “Whale,” was doing. I doubt it. But it’s likely the so-called “London Whale” had been making big bucks for the firm for a long while. Giving him more line would only be natural.  

Herb Allison, former president of Merrill Lynch, is a strong skeptic of commercial and investment banks’ trading operations. He even thinks over time they may all lose money. What happens is that they make plenty along the way, then lose it in a big bust.  As author Michael Lewis divulged, a Morgan Stanley trader, Howie Hubler, lost $9 billion in 2007 and 2008. Nevertheless, Hubler left Morgan with millions of dollars, and later returned to work on the Street.

Dimon, among the most cautious of executives, couldn’t control this trading animal with a life of its own, either. That’s the important conclusion. A Volcker rule to limit speculative trading for banks is necessary. They are using federally insured money to finance much of their banking operations, enabling them to leverage other facets of the company. They are using shareholder money, not their own, to take risks, yet they take enormous bonuses when all goes right. And they are implicitly using taxpayer money, because if they lose too much, they will be bailed out by the federal government. They remain too big to fail.

Serious capital requirements must be implemented against such trading, and banks must also change banker compensation procedures further. For traders, it’s a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. And so it is with the bank CEO as the firm’s overall earnings rise and are socked with a blow only every once in a while. These compensation plans have changed under pressure from the federal government to some degree. But probably not enough. The firms’ partners and employees have to be on the line for losses over time.

All this is a case study in why finance needs more government rules and regulations than most other industries. The omnipresent claim that such rules undermine liquidity in markets is almost laughable. In truth, we have a lot of liquidity when we don’t need it and little when we do—such as after the Lehman Brothers catastrophe in the fall of 2008. As regulations were eliminated and weakened after the 1970s, finance became more unstable, crises more frequent, and trillions of dollars were invested down the rat holes of speculation and fantasy, while Wall Street employees made countless millions. Yes, finance is important to economic growth, but only if government controls it properly. Otherwise it can be and has been damaging.       

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.


Banner image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

Share This

A Visual Guide to the Conflicting Theories About How to Fix the Economy

May 10, 2012Mike Konczal

A map of the contrasts between 2012's different theories of what's ailing our economy and how we can fix it.

A map of the contrasts between 2012's different theories of what's ailing our economy and how we can fix it.

Since there's so much renewed focus on debates between those with a demand-side approach and those with a supply-side approach to what is wrong with the economy, I think it's a useful time to redraw my mapping of all the explanations of our crisis. I did this exercise in 2011, with a focus on different explanations of what is wrong with the economy and ways certain policies overlapped between them. I'm going to redraw this to emphasize the policy as it exists on a spectrum of options and give some new links.


The first approach is to say that we have a lack of demand in the economy. Those who believe this usually have three sets of policies for dealing with the weak economy: fiscal policy, monetary policy, or (mortgage) debt policy. Here are the three circles with a policy response spectrum for each of the issues. In general, the response on the right side of the arrow is more aggressive.

For those who want an explanation of how the three link together, some explanations include "Debt, Deleveraging, and the Liquidity Trap" and "Sam, Janet and Fiscal Policy," both by Paul Krugman, as well as "Consumers and the Economy, Part II: Household Debt and the Weak U.S. Recovery," by Atif Mian and Amir Sufi.

Some people put more of an emphasis on one circle versus another. Some think one will be the major factor, and some think another has no traction in the economy. In my humble opinion, it is useful to think of this as a three-legged stool. They all hang together, and contraction on any specific part of the three policies will require more expansion on another part to offset it. They are also all different battlefields policy-wise, requiring different agents and different arguments.

Fiscal Policy

For those who would like to see the government run a larger deficit to increase spending, the big question is whether to just give people money (particularly in the form of tax cuts, but also through other means like food stamps and unemployment insurance) or to use the money to invest, hiring people to work on infrastructure and other public works. The multipler is believed to be larger when it comes to hiring people, plus it results in public works and other investments in our economy -- things like roads, bridges, schools, etc. That takes time, though. This debate goes back to the composition of the ARRA stimulus and continues today.

Chrstina Romer has an overview about what we know on fiscal stimulus. Dylan Matthews reviewed nine studies about the effects of the ARRA stimulus bill that was passed in 2009. On the other hand, as Karl Smith would say,  "Why is the US government still collecting taxes when borrowing is cheaper than free?"

Monetary Policy

For monetary policy, the big debate is whether the Federal Reserve should engage in unconventional monetary policy through monetary instruments or by setting more aggressive targets. Paul Krugman gave a nice overview of the debate between these two approaches here.

Joe Gagnon wrote "The World Needs Further Monetary Ease, Not an Early Exit," justifying further action using monetary instruments. The larger case is that Bernanke can do more by guiding short-term interest rates than he could with the blowback he'd get from doing more aggressive targeting.

For the NGDP target group, Scott Sumner has been the best writer on this: see "Re-Targeting The Fed" and "The Case for NGDP Targeting: Lessons from the Great Recession." (A nice background on this movement is Lars Christensen's "Market Monetarism: The Second Monetarist Counter-revolution.") Brad Delong argues that a 2 percent inflation target is too low. Charles Evans's conditional higher inflation target is first alluded to in this speech of his; Yglesias covers his Brookings paper on his approach versus the instruments/guidance approach here.

Mortgage Debt Policy

For debt relief policy, the godfather of the "balance-sheet recession" view is Richard Koo -- see his "U.S. Economy in Balance Sheet Recession: What the U.S. Can Learn from Japan’s Experience in 1990–2005." To understand how mortgage debt and a balance-sheet recession is different than the wealth effect of people just feeling poorer from losing their housing value, see this interview with Amir Sufi. Adam Levitin has testimony about how to adjust bankruptcy to prevent housing foreclosures and better assign losses. Atif Mian, Amir Sufi, and Francesco Trebbi make the case that foreclosures are having a major real, negative economic impact in "Foreclosures, house prices, and the real economy." R. Glenn Hubbard and Chris Mayer argue for economic stimulus through refinancing here.


Meanwhile, on the supply side, there tends to be another three sets of policy arguments. One is that government policy is the issue, another is that governement budgets are the issue, and the third is that the labor force is the issue. Again, the issue on the right side of the spectrum should be considered the more aggressive approach in understanding the topic.

Government Budget/Debt

The first major cluster of supply-side arguments focus on the government budget and the deficits the government is running. These usually argue that private capital and job creators are sitting on the sidelines due to worries about government spending, future tax burdens, and/or a potential debt/solvency crisis. "Growth in a Time of Debt" by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, as well as "Spend and Save" by Noam Scheiber, are places to start. These often go hand-in-hand with philosophical defenses of a program like the Ryan Plan and assaults on the social safety net (e.g. Yuval Levin's "Beyond the Welfare State").

At their most aggressive, these arguments say that short-term consolidation would expand the economy instead of shrink the economy. This "expansionary austerity" is less popular than it was in 2010-2011 (see David Brooks, "Prune and Grow") due to what is happening in Europe, though it still shows up. "A Guide for Deficit Reduction in the United States Based on Historical Consolidations That Worked" by AEI and "Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending" by Alesina and Ardagna are places to start.

Another aggressive argument is that any increased government spending would have to come at the expense of private capital, crowding out investment by definition. This "Treasury View" was a very common Chicago School argument against expansion in 2009, though is mentioned less now -- see Brad Delong's "The Modern Revival of the 'Treasury View.'"

Goverment Policy

Government policy arguments usually rely on the idea that economic performace is weak because of regulatory decisions made under the Obama administration, especially the passage of health care and financial reforms as well as regulatory decisions by the EPA. Suzy Khimm gives an overview of this argument and its political impact. Alan Greenspan is the most prominent advocate of this argument (see his paper "Activism"). Robert Lucas argues that Obama may have turned America into a social democratic country, which could explain the weak economy, in "The classical view of the global recession."

At the more aggressive end of this argument is the idea that the unemployment rate is high because the government is encouraging the unemployed to go on vacation (i.e. it's not a Great Recession but a Great Vacation). Instead of adding to background uncertainty, the government's policies are actively creating the unemployment they are trying to fix. See "Compassionate, But Inefficient" by Casey Mulligan and "The Dirty Secret of Unemployment" by Reihan Salam.

The other argument at the aggressive end is the idea that the level of GDP in 2007 was in a bubble, unsustainably high as a result of debt and/or bad sectoral allocations to finance and housing (caused solely by government policy, of course). A related argument is that the collapse of the housing bubble has permanently reduced U.S. potential output. See the arguments of James Bullard in the links here or here; it is also part of the main thesis of Raghuram Rajan's Foreign Affairs article.

Labor Productivity

The last cluster of arguments are centered around labor productivity. Some argue that we have an issue of labor mismatch. Our workers lack the skills necessary for high-tech 21st century jobs, or the recession has tossed the lowest productivity workers out of the labor force, or there are geographic and related issues that weaken our ability to match unemployed workers to job openings. See David Brooks here and Narayana Kocherlakota here for job openings, and Tyler Cowen's "10 Percent Unemployment Forever?" for the productivity argument.

The more aggressive version of this argument is that our problems are related to a lack of producitivty gains from so-called "protected" sectors of the economy, and without labor market reforms our economy cannot grow. Usually this is code for public sector workers; sometimes it means various growth-related government policy decisions (immigration, copyright/patents). This should properly be thought of as a long-term growth issue, though it is being folded into our current short-term economy by those who would make these arguments. David Brooks makes the case here; Raghuram Rajan makes a similar case in Foreign Affairs.

In general, the supply arguments have not held up well (remember when U.S. debt rallied on a ratings downgrade? good times), but here they are. Did I miss anything?

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:


Share This