Greider's Idea for Rebuilding the Federal Reserve

William Greider‘s promoting an interesting idea about how to radically restructure the Federal Reserve. The crux of his idea comes from one of the least understood powers of the Federal reserve: it can essentially create money.

During the past year, the Fed has flooded the streets with money–distributing trillions of dollars to banks, financial markets and commercial interests–in an attempt to revive the credit system and get the economy growing again…. Where did the central bank get all the money it is handing out? Basically, the Fed printed it, out of thin air. That is what central banks do.

Greider argues this power could be used to do more than just bail out Wall Street.

If Ben Bernanke can create trillions of dollars at will and spread them around the financial system, could government do the same thing to finance important public projects the people want and need? Daring as it sounds, the answer is, Yes, we can….

the essential thing to understand is that [the Fed's] power relies on democratic consent–the people’s trust, their willingness to accept the currency and use it in exchange. This is not entirely voluntary, since the government also requires people to pay their taxes in dollars, not euros or yen. But citizens conferred the power on government through their elected representatives. Newly created money is often called the “pure credit” of the nation. In principle, it exists for the benefit of all.

In this emergency, Bernanke essentially used the Fed’s money-creation power in a way that resembles the “greenbacks” Abraham Lincoln printed to fight the Civil War…. If Congress chooses to take charge of its constitutional duty, it could similarly use greenback currency created by the Federal Reserve as a legitimate channel for financing important public projects–like sorely needed improvements to the nation’s infrastructure. Obviously, this has to be done carefully and responsibly, limited to normal expansion of the money supply and used only for projects that truly benefit the entire nation (lest it lead to inflation).

What kind of projects does he have in mind?

President Obama has announced the goal of building a high-speed rail system. Ours is the only advanced industrial society that doesn’t have one (ride the modern trains in France or Japan to see what our society is missing). Trouble is, Obama has only budgeted a pittance ($8 billion) for this project. Spain, by comparison, has committed more than $100 billion to its fifteen-year railroad-building project. Given the vast shortcomings in US infrastructure, the country will never catch up with the backlog through the regular financing of taxing and borrowing.

Instead, Congress should create a stand-alone development fund for long-term capital investment projects (this would require the long-sought reform of the federal budget, which makes no distinction between current operating spending and long-term investment). The Fed would continue to create money only as needed by the economy; but instead of injecting this money into the banking system, a portion of it would go directly to the capital investment fund, earmarked by Congress for specific projects of great urgency. The idea of direct financing for infrastructure has been proposed periodically for many years by groups from right and left. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood co-sponsored legislation along these lines a decade ago when he was a Republican Congressman from Illinois.

Would anybody other than a crazy person hand this kind of power over to Congress? Continue reading

Research Note: Is Medicare "Government"?

A story like this seems to pop up about every decade. From the July 28 Washington Post:

At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

“I had to politely explain that, ‘Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,’ ” Inglis recalled. “But he wasn’t having any of it.”

Talking about Love, Justice and the Economy without Sounding like an Idiot

Speaking of the emotional map of a good economic model, this excerpt from a Bill Moyers round table discussion really struck me:

SERENE JONES [President of Union theological seminary]: You ask how you would define this crisis? I think it’s a crisis of value. We have misplaced, in deep ways, the ruler that we use to measure what matters most in life. And it has become completely exhausted by monetary value. …

How do we help [my theological students] understand the crisis in such a way that the remaking of the fabric, which can allow our democracy to thrive, happens? And, again, I just keep thinking it’s the simple concepts. How do we get people to rediscover love? …

BILL MOYERS: But isn’t it a fantasy to think that love can tame capitalism. …

CORNEL WEST: … love is not a real small thing. Love is not just the key that unlocks the door to ultimate reality. But there would be no weekend if there were not a trade union movement that loved justice enough, and loved working people enough, so that bosses wouldn’t treat them like commodities to be marginalized.

There would not be racial, the racial justice that we have of Martin King and Fannie Lou Hamer and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Phil Berrigan. There wouldn’t be, without the love that you all had for justice, and the love enough for black people, to say, “Quit niggerizing these people. Quit intimidating them. Quit trying to make them so scared that they won’t stand up and fight.” Love is a serious thing. When you love your mamma, you take a bullet for her if she’s treated unjustly. That’s why justice is what love looks like in public.

SERENE JONES: But this thing about the story of love that we have the capacity for includes, within it, a recognition of the harshness and the brokenness and the darkness of our lives. And love exists in that. It doesn’t exist despite it.

CORNEL WEST: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: I’m not sure you haven’t confused love with justice.

SERENE JONES: Justice is nothing but love with legs. Justice is what love looks like when it takes social form.
(Emphasis added)

As an economic policy geek, I feel a little silly talking about love and the economy. How do you talk about it without sounding like a complete idiot? Well, here’s Exhibit A. And Serene Jones’ line gets it just right: “Justice is nothing but love with legs.”

I’m not sure how I’m going to fold this kind of approach into my economic model. Maybe I’ll fail miserably and look like an idiot. But I’d rather run the risk of making a fool of myself than build the economic model that, like the one that blew up this fall, fails because it hides from reality.

Conservative Healthcare Plans Are to Free Markets As BLTs Are to a Vegetarian Sandwich

This weekend I heard a Republican politician on the radio arguing his health care plan was “pro-free market” and Obama’s was more “big government.” But his plan would stop insurance companies from being able to turn anyone away.

Okay people, let’s get real. It’s one thing to say you want to get the government out of healthcare if you’re still planning on having the government enforce contracts. Or keep the government-enforced monopoly by doctors (if you don’t believe it’s a monopoly, just ask a homeopathy practitioner). Or keep some form of drug patents that give drug companies a monopoly — although how anybody can support the current rigged drug patent system as “pro-free market” is beyond me. Maybe, if you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears, you can even pretend you’re pro-free-market if you don’t want to abolish Medicare.

But insisting that insurance companies have to accept everyone who wants to join them? Come on. The most efficient way insurance company can make a profit is by reducing the number of people they ensure who are either sick or likely to get sick. That’s the best strategy dictated by the free-market.

Arguing that a conservative healthcare plan is “pro-free-market” is like arguing a BLT is a vegetarian sandwich because 2 out of the 3 ingredients are vegetables.

Globalization Cuts Both Ways

In an aggressively global economy, do we really have any power anymore? If we try to change the rules in the US, won’t business just outsource everything to China?

Actually, according to BusinessWeek, Europe just showed us we’ve got a lot more power than you think. Europe’s in the middle of passing a bunch of new rules around Finance — and they won’t just affect folks in the Old Country.

U.S. firms will have to play by the new rules—or find a way around them. Otherwise, they risk losing a large pool of buyers, including European pension funds, insurers, and other big investors.

If anything, globalization gives us the power to set global rules if companies anywhere in the world want access to our markets. Take the case of mortgage-backed securities.

In May the European Parliament passed a plan that likely will force banks and others to maintain a 5% stake in the asset-backed securities they create, rather than selling them off completely. Lawmakers reason that firms with more skin in the game will adhere to strict underwriting standards; lax practices fueled many of the blowups in the bust. “European regulators want to make sure regulated institutions aren’t being used to offload risky securities,” says Rick Watson, managing director of the European Securitisation Forum, a London-based trade group.

The U.S. is mulling a similar law. Whether or not federal lawmakers pass it, U.S. firms may decide to keep a chunk of the investments anyway. If they don’t, their securities won’t sell in Europe, where investors owned more than $500 billion of U.S. asset-backed securities at the peak.

So yes, companies can threaten they’ll leave if we pass new rules. But if they want to sell to us? They can run but they can’t hide.

The Complicated Emotional Map of a Good Economic Model

In my last post, I complained Robert Kuttner didn’t really capture the government’s role in the market. Ironically, he also didn’t capture what I love about the market.

Kuttner, Dean Baker, Jamie Galbraith, they’ll all write that “markets accomplishments much superbly,” “the market is an incredibly powerful force,” etc. But they sound like a little kid who’s been forced to say thank you for the socks she got for Christmas.

Here’s what’s missing: the feeling I got when I bought my iPhone.

I’m not going to irritate/bore you to death with a ten-page rave about my iPhone. I’m sure you already got enough of that from your friends when it first came out — or maybe you are one of those cruel people who splattered friends with iPhone-love drive-by’s. Let’s just say the iPhone was the shiny red bike I’ve been waiting for. And that it feels like Round 2 of the Net, where the Net is no longer deskbound and instead it & all the people on it are with you wherever you go.

But as an economy geek and a one-time small-business owner, it wasn’t just the iPhone itself that blew me away. It was the business model behind it (once Steven Jobs came to his senses and opened up the iPhone a little).

Many a bright software idea has crashed and burned because its inventors couldn’t hack the business side. With the iPhone’s App Store, getting credit cards to work, providing tech support if someone had trouble downloading your app, and a dozen other business problems that could sink a software company — these daunting problems mostly disappeared in exchange for 30% of sales. And since apps could be sold for as little as ninety-nine cents, buying an app wasn’t a big risk for a customer who didn’t know you. The idea of this business model been kicked around for a long time. But Apple was the first to figure out how to execute it flawlessly.

If you’re writing about economy, I think you’ve got to be able to capture this feeling — the delight in the creation of a new product as well as the brilliance of a new way producing and marketing a product to turn it into a profitable success. It’s a feeling Wired captures better than just about anybody else.

Maybe I’m being a bit unfair. If you’re reading a book called The Squandering of America, do you really expect to find a love song to entrepreneurship? But I think the fact that you find almost no trace of the exhilaration of the market in books like this points to a weakness in our side. We do outrage really well. But owning up to more complex feelings? Not so much.

An economic model that captures the excitement of entrepreneurship and the power of solidarity — that’s not an easy thing to pull off. But if the model’s going to succeed, I think it’s got to do it.


UPDATE: between this and the last entry on Kuttner’s book, it might sound like I didn’t think much of it. That’s not the case. I’m just using my reaction to a few elements in the book as a springboard to figuring out the RTE model. Squandering America is smart and nuanced, and Kuttner’s managed to pack an amazing amount of interesting economic history details into a very readable story. It’s definitely worth checking out.

Research Stat: Wall Street Now 5 Times Bigger than in the 70s

Every once in a while I come across a stat that blows me away. I write it down on a scrap of paper, and I can’t find it again. So, since this blog is essentially a public journal, I’m going to start storing them here.

One of the reasons why the financial system can cause so much damage now: it’s gotten too damn big:

Over the past generation — ever since the banking deregulation of the Reagan years — the U.S. economy has been “financialized.” The business of moving money around, of slicing, dicing and repackaging financial claims, has soared in importance compared with the actual production of useful stuff. The sector officially labeled “securities, commodity contracts and investments” has grown especially fast, from only 0.3 percent of G.D.P. in the late 1970s to 1.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2007.

How Finance Rules Are Designed to Burn Us

Krugman nicely sums up a big problem with the incentives players have in the financial ecosystem:

The huge bonuses Goldman will soon hand out show that financial-industry highfliers are still operating under a system of heads they win, tails other people lose. If you’re a banker, and you generate big short-term profits, you get lavishly rewarded — and you don’t have to give the money back if and when those profits turn out to have been a mirage. You have every reason, then, to steer investors into taking risks they don’t understand.

Robert Kuttner And the Market/Government Problem

I’ve been reading Robert Kuttner’s The Squandering of America . Although it’s a very smart, nuanced analysis, the economic theory behind it has the same problem that a lot of folks on our side have when they talk about the relationship between the government and the market.

Here’s Kuttner’s theory in a nutshell:

Markets are useful engines of economic growth, but they are not reliable at providing economic security, much less decent wages, retirement, education, or health care. Nor can we trust markets to police the honesty of financial institutions, the cleanliness of air and water, the safety of workplaces, where the stability of the economy as a whole. So alongside markets, we need social institutions financed with progressive taxation, as well as public regulation of the market’s self-capitalizing tendencies. A well-managed economy operate according to these principles can be as least as efficient as a laissez-faire one (which under invests in people) — and a lot fairer. (p. 273, emphasis added)

Here’s my problem: “alongside markets.” In an earlier book, Everything for Sale, Kuttner showed how deeply embedded the government is in almost every nook and cranny of the market. As he sums it up:

even a fervently capitalist society, it turns out, requires prior rules. Rules govern everything from basic property rights to the fair terms of engagement in complex mix markets such as healthcare and telecommunications. Even the proponents of market like incentives — managed competition in health care, tradable emissions permits for clean air, supervised deregulation of telecommunications, compensation mandates to deter unsafe workplace practices — depend, paradoxically, undiscerning, public minded regulation to make their incentive schemes work. (Everything, p. 328 )

If the government is so deeply involved in the market — in housing, education, healthcare, Wall Street, telecommunications, agriculture, Hollywood (copyrights, anyone?), autos & transportation, food, kid’s toys, the workplace, just to name a few — does it really make sense to say it’s “alongside” the market?

I don’t think so. I think “alongside” lets conservatives and moderates play games. It lets them pretend that the government isn’t all that important. And so in the long run, it makes us vulnerable to the right wing attacks Kuttner spends The Squandering of America trying to counter.

If we’re going to end up with a better way of thinking and talking about the economy, we’ve got to crack this nut. We need a metaphor that really gets the relationship between government market.

Affordable Healthcare for All, Now on Sale for Only 4% of Healthcare Spending

The next time someone tries to scare you about the cost of health care for all, here’s a nice stat from Krugman. The Congressional Budget Office just published an analysis of the Senate’s health care bill.

The budget office says that all this would cost $597 billion over the next decade. But that doesn’t include the cost of insuring the poor and near-poor, whom HELP suggests covering via an expansion of Medicaid (which is outside the committee’s jurisdiction). Add in the cost of this expansion, and we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion.

That’s a huge amount of money, no? Not if you put it in context.

There are a number of ways to look at this number, but maybe the best is to point out that it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade. And that in turn means that much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits.

So yes, it’s real money. But can we really say with a straight face that 4% is too much?