Beijing Plays Hedge Ball. WSJ Editorial
A contract should be a contract.
WSJ, Sep 09, 2009
Beijing needs to clarify whether a contract is a contract, and fast. Recent suggestions that the government might allow or even encourage companies to challenge derivatives contracts that went against them send a bad signal to foreign companies and countries doing business with China.
The controversy stems from commodities hedges gone wrong. When fuel prices were high, airlines like China Eastern, Air China and Shanghai Airlines and shippers like China Ocean Shipping crafted derivatives contracts with foreign banks to protect the companies from even higher fuel prices. Instead the price of oil has fallen, leaving the companies on the hook for the downside risk of their hedge—a total of about $2 billion for the airlines alone, by some counts.
The companies are crying foul, and several reportedly sent a letter to the banks that sold them the derivatives suggesting they may be "void, invalid or unenforceable." Worse, the government is getting into the act. The state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, which oversees these companies, on Monday posted a statement on its Web site suggesting that Beijing might countenance efforts to sue to nullify the contracts.
China has been down this road before, pushing foreign counterparties several times over the past decade to back down from derivatives contracts that had turned against a Chinese company. In those cases, the companies or the government variously argued that the firms had been illegally speculating or had not understood the risks they were taking—or even that the people signing the papers on behalf of the Chinese companies hadn't been authorized to do so. It's hard to see how such arguments could apply to the kind of bread-and-butter fuel hedging at issue here.
Policy makers might think the government holds a lot of cards in this case, and in some respects it does. While the derivatives contracts would be tough to wriggle out of legally since they're enforceable through courts in Hong Kong, Singapore or Britain, it would be hard for the banks to collect on any judgment unless they're willing to seize planes at Heathrow or Changi airports.
The banks would have strong incentives not to try, too. Regulators in Beijing decide whether the foreign banks receive various business licenses, for instance, and state-owned enterprises constitute some of the biggest bank clients. Especially since the goal could only be to renegotiate the contracts instead of canceling them, policy makers and executives might think the banks will be willing to pay that price to continue doing business in China.
But this kind of bullying is not free. Most immediately, hedging is a risk-management tool that many Chinese companies can't afford to live without. It works on trust between counterparties that each side will hold up its end of the bargain. Already banks reportedly are demanding higher collateral for derivatives contracts like those at issue here to compensate for the loss of trust. That's an added cost of doing business not faced by other airlines that take their lumps when hedges go wrong. like Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific or America's United.
This incident will leave foreign investors wondering where China stands on its road to commercial rule of law. Following the arrests of Rio Tinto executives in a dispute over ore prices, foreign businesses already have to wonder about their physical safety if they run afoul of Chinese companies in contract negotiations. Now it appears foreign companies can be in financial danger simply for ending up on the "wrong" side of a standard off-the-shelf derivatives transaction.
Beijing officials may not realize the potential effects of this controversy on Chinese companies investing abroad. Chinese mergers and acquisitions in countries like America or Australia have been controversial in large part because politicians in those countries have worried about a lack of transparency within Chinese companies, and whether those companies would play by the rules once they hit foreign shores. Politicians already predisposed to oppose Chinese investment—and perhaps some who'd otherwise support allowing such investments—will hardly take comfort from a sign that Chinese companies won't play by the rules if it doesn't suit them. If Beijing is actively trying to dissuade foreign investment, it's on the right track.
Beijing might be responding to a political storm over the notion Chinese companies have been exploited by Western banks (one wag has called derivatives "financial opium," a charged phrase in China). Or it could be trying to bail out a few companies that made bad fuel-price bets. Or some other political motivation could be at work. Whatever the cause, though, Beijing's only smart way forward is to state clearly that a contract is a contract and that Chinese companies must abide by theirs.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
The jobless stimulus: It's still not too late to redirect $400 billion to business tax cuts
The Jobless Stimulus. WSJ Editorial
It's still not too late to redirect $400 billion to business tax cuts.
WSJ, Sep 07, 2009
The recession may be over on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but on Working Family Avenue it still has a ways to run. That's the lesson of yesterday's August jobs report that showed losses of 216,000, which believe it or not is the slowest monthly decline in a year and caused the White House to praise with the faint damn that the "trajectory is in the right direction." That's the good news.
On the other hand, the jobless rate popped up to 9.7%, the highest rate in 26 years, from 9.4%, reflecting an increase in the size of the labor force. The main concern we see going forward is the slow pace of new job creation to soak up the 7.4 million workers who have lost jobs since 2007.
There are now 26 million Americans who can't find a full-time job. Average weekly hours remained at an abysmally low 33.1—which is putting a strain on family budgets. And the jobless rate including so-called discouraged workers, or those who have stopped looking, leapt to 16.8% from 16.3% in July. Meanwhile, the number of Americans working part-time who want full-time work increased by 278,000 to 9.1 million, which as a share of the workforce is larger than at any time since the recession of 1982. These are the workers that employers will tend to hire first as a recovery unfolds, so it is worrisome that this cohort remains so large.
None of this does much for the credibility of the Obama Administration's stimulus spending plan, which was sold with the promise of a jobless rate this year of "below 8%" if the stimulus were passed. That was off by some three million jobs in a mere seven months. The same economists who fretted in February that $780 billion in stimulus was too small now claim that the $300 billion or so that has been spent has somehow ignited the recovery.
But a tax-cutting stimulus would have provided much more job and economic growth for the buck, and it could even now too. If the Administration really wants to fire up private job creation, how about taking the remaining $400 billion or more and using it to lower business taxes? The unspent stimulus is enough for a two-year down payment on repealing the U.S. corporate income tax, which studies show is a job and wage-increase killer.
Congress could also reconsider its July minimum-wage increase of 70 cents an hour, which almost certainly contributed to the leap in teenage unemployment to 25.5% in August. The rate was 24% in June and 23.8% in July, before the wage hike started to price low-skilled teens looking for jobs out of the workplace. Congress would be wise to suspend the increase until the overall jobless rate falls below 7%.
Of course neither of our proposals is going to happen given the current policy views in Washington, but someone has to speak up for workers who want a job, as opposed to those lucky enough to still have them.
We still believe an economic recovery is under way, and some job growth will certainly follow. But the danger is that the U.S. will recover with only European levels of job creation. The French and Germans have had a hard time bringing down unemployment even during expansions, thanks to the burden of high taxes, regulation and onerous union work rules. The economic agenda now pending on Capitol Hill includes all three of these burdens, so it's no wonder that employers are being supercautious before they add to their payrolls.
The U.S. economy is a remarkably resilient animal, and even deep recessions have always been followed by recoveries, usually strong ones. But businesses aren't going to rehire nearly as many workers amid the current policy uncertainty. The faster Congress defeats cap and trade, union card check and the House health-care bill, the better for job creation
It's still not too late to redirect $400 billion to business tax cuts.
WSJ, Sep 07, 2009
The recession may be over on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but on Working Family Avenue it still has a ways to run. That's the lesson of yesterday's August jobs report that showed losses of 216,000, which believe it or not is the slowest monthly decline in a year and caused the White House to praise with the faint damn that the "trajectory is in the right direction." That's the good news.
On the other hand, the jobless rate popped up to 9.7%, the highest rate in 26 years, from 9.4%, reflecting an increase in the size of the labor force. The main concern we see going forward is the slow pace of new job creation to soak up the 7.4 million workers who have lost jobs since 2007.
There are now 26 million Americans who can't find a full-time job. Average weekly hours remained at an abysmally low 33.1—which is putting a strain on family budgets. And the jobless rate including so-called discouraged workers, or those who have stopped looking, leapt to 16.8% from 16.3% in July. Meanwhile, the number of Americans working part-time who want full-time work increased by 278,000 to 9.1 million, which as a share of the workforce is larger than at any time since the recession of 1982. These are the workers that employers will tend to hire first as a recovery unfolds, so it is worrisome that this cohort remains so large.
None of this does much for the credibility of the Obama Administration's stimulus spending plan, which was sold with the promise of a jobless rate this year of "below 8%" if the stimulus were passed. That was off by some three million jobs in a mere seven months. The same economists who fretted in February that $780 billion in stimulus was too small now claim that the $300 billion or so that has been spent has somehow ignited the recovery.
But a tax-cutting stimulus would have provided much more job and economic growth for the buck, and it could even now too. If the Administration really wants to fire up private job creation, how about taking the remaining $400 billion or more and using it to lower business taxes? The unspent stimulus is enough for a two-year down payment on repealing the U.S. corporate income tax, which studies show is a job and wage-increase killer.
Congress could also reconsider its July minimum-wage increase of 70 cents an hour, which almost certainly contributed to the leap in teenage unemployment to 25.5% in August. The rate was 24% in June and 23.8% in July, before the wage hike started to price low-skilled teens looking for jobs out of the workplace. Congress would be wise to suspend the increase until the overall jobless rate falls below 7%.
Of course neither of our proposals is going to happen given the current policy views in Washington, but someone has to speak up for workers who want a job, as opposed to those lucky enough to still have them.
We still believe an economic recovery is under way, and some job growth will certainly follow. But the danger is that the U.S. will recover with only European levels of job creation. The French and Germans have had a hard time bringing down unemployment even during expansions, thanks to the burden of high taxes, regulation and onerous union work rules. The economic agenda now pending on Capitol Hill includes all three of these burdens, so it's no wonder that employers are being supercautious before they add to their payrolls.
The U.S. economy is a remarkably resilient animal, and even deep recessions have always been followed by recoveries, usually strong ones. But businesses aren't going to rehire nearly as many workers amid the current policy uncertainty. The faster Congress defeats cap and trade, union card check and the House health-care bill, the better for job creation
Friday, September 4, 2009
Industry views: The NREL’s Flawed White Paper on the Spanish Green Jobs Study
The NREL’s Flawed White Paper on the Spanish Green Jobs Study
Institute for Energy Research, Sep 03, 2009
Institute for Energy Research, Sep 03, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Libertarian: There's no evidence for the theory that state spending has shortened this or any other slowdown
Big Government, Big Recession. By ALAN REYNOLDS
There's no evidence for the theory that state spending has shortened this or any other slowdown.
WSJ, Aug 21, 2009
‘So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all,” wrote New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last week. “What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government. . . . [W]e appear to have averted the worst: utter catastrophe no longer seems likely. And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why.”
This is certainly a novel theory of the business cycle. To be taken seriously, however, any such explanation of recessions and recoveries must be tested against the facts. It is not enough to assert the U.S. economy would have experienced a "second Great Depression" were it not for the Obama stimulus plan.
Even those who think government borrowing is a free lunch can't possibly believe the government has already done enough "stimulus spending" to explain the difference between depression and recovery.
CNNMoney recently calculated that the stimulus plan has spent just $120 billion—less than 1% of GDP—mostly on temporary tax cuts ($53 billion) and additional Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits. Less than $1 billion has been spent on highway and energy projects. Commitments for the future are much larger, but households and firms can't spend commitments.
Proponents of Big Government can't say we avoided the next Great Depression due to hypothetical stimulus money that is mostly unspent. So they argue it's more important that the federal government merely continued spending and didn't "slash" spending as in the early 1930s. But the federal government didn't slash spending in the early '30s. Federal spending rose by 6.2% in 1930, 7.7% in 1931 and 30.2% in 1932. Since prices were falling, real increases in federal spending were huge during the Hoover years.
President Obama clearly believes Big Government is the antidote to this and perhaps all recessions. At his first news conference in February, the president said, "The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life." Yet that raises a key question: If the U.S. economy could not recover without a big "jolt" of deficit spending, then how did the economy recover from recessions in the distant past, when the federal government was very small?
A 1999 study in The Journal of Economic Perspectives by Christina Romer (now head of the Council of Economic Advisers) found that "real macroeconomic indicators have not become dramatically more stable between the pre-World War I and post-World War II eras, and recessions have become only slightly less severe." Ms. Romer also noted that "recessions have not become noticeably shorter" in the era of Big Government. In fact, she found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was 10.3 months. If the current recession ended in August, then the average postwar recession lasted one month longer—11.3 months. The longest recession from 1887 to 1929 lasted 16 months. But there have been three recessions since 1973 that lasted at least that long.
The relative brevity of recessions before the New Deal is particularly surprising since the U.S. economy was then dominated by farming and manufacturing—industries far more prone to nasty cyclical surprises than today's service-based economy.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, nobody thought the government could or should do anything except stand aside and let the mistakes of business and banking be fixed by those who made them. There were no Keynesian plans to borrow and spend our way out of recessions. And bankers had no Federal Reserve to bail them out until 1913. Yet recessions after the Fed was created soon turned out to be much deeper than before (1920-21, 1929-33, 1937-38) and often more persistent.
It's clear that U.S. history does not support the theory that Big Government means shorter and milder recessions. In reality, recessions always ended without government prodding, long before anyone heard of Keynes and long before the Fed existed. What's more, recessions ended more quickly before the New Deal's push for Big Government than they have in the past three decades. The economy's natural recuperative powers before the 1930s proved superior to recent tinkering by Big Government economists, politicians and central bankers.
The recent experience of other countries provides another way to test the Big Government theory of economic recovery. If it is true that Big Government prevents or cures recessions, then countries where government accounts for the largest share of GDP should have suffered much smaller losses of GDP over the past year than countries where the private sector is dominant.
The chart nearby [Spending and recession depth - http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-EH223_REynol_G_20090820211046.jpg] lists 13 major economies by the size of government spending relative to GDP using OECD figures for 2007 (the U.S. is well above 40% by 2009). Europe's big spenders are at the top, the U.S. and Japan are in the middle, and fiscally frugal countries like China and India are at the bottom.
The last column shows the change in real GDP over the most recent four quarters—ending in the second quarter for the U.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Sweden and China, but the first for the rest. Four of the five deepest contractions happened in countries with the biggest governments—Sweden, Italy, Germany and the U.K. Japan's government spending in 2007 was about like ours, but Japan's tax rates are far more punitive and the economy has suffered endless "fiscal stimulus" packages. China's central government spent 22% of GDP, but 30%-plus with local government included.
To believe Big Government explains why this extremely long recession was not even longer, we need to find some connection between the size of government and the depth and duration of recessions. There is no such connection in U.S. history, or in recent cyclical experience of other countries.
On the contrary, recessions have become longer as the U.S. government (and the Fed) became larger, more expensive, and more involved in the economy. Foreign countries in which government spending accounts for about half of the economy have also suffered the deepest recessions lately, while economic recovery is well established in countries where government spending is a smaller share of GDP than in the U.S.
In short, bigger government appears to produce only bigger and longer recessions.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).
There's no evidence for the theory that state spending has shortened this or any other slowdown.
WSJ, Aug 21, 2009
‘So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all,” wrote New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last week. “What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government. . . . [W]e appear to have averted the worst: utter catastrophe no longer seems likely. And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why.”
This is certainly a novel theory of the business cycle. To be taken seriously, however, any such explanation of recessions and recoveries must be tested against the facts. It is not enough to assert the U.S. economy would have experienced a "second Great Depression" were it not for the Obama stimulus plan.
Even those who think government borrowing is a free lunch can't possibly believe the government has already done enough "stimulus spending" to explain the difference between depression and recovery.
CNNMoney recently calculated that the stimulus plan has spent just $120 billion—less than 1% of GDP—mostly on temporary tax cuts ($53 billion) and additional Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits. Less than $1 billion has been spent on highway and energy projects. Commitments for the future are much larger, but households and firms can't spend commitments.
Proponents of Big Government can't say we avoided the next Great Depression due to hypothetical stimulus money that is mostly unspent. So they argue it's more important that the federal government merely continued spending and didn't "slash" spending as in the early 1930s. But the federal government didn't slash spending in the early '30s. Federal spending rose by 6.2% in 1930, 7.7% in 1931 and 30.2% in 1932. Since prices were falling, real increases in federal spending were huge during the Hoover years.
President Obama clearly believes Big Government is the antidote to this and perhaps all recessions. At his first news conference in February, the president said, "The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life." Yet that raises a key question: If the U.S. economy could not recover without a big "jolt" of deficit spending, then how did the economy recover from recessions in the distant past, when the federal government was very small?
A 1999 study in The Journal of Economic Perspectives by Christina Romer (now head of the Council of Economic Advisers) found that "real macroeconomic indicators have not become dramatically more stable between the pre-World War I and post-World War II eras, and recessions have become only slightly less severe." Ms. Romer also noted that "recessions have not become noticeably shorter" in the era of Big Government. In fact, she found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was 10.3 months. If the current recession ended in August, then the average postwar recession lasted one month longer—11.3 months. The longest recession from 1887 to 1929 lasted 16 months. But there have been three recessions since 1973 that lasted at least that long.
The relative brevity of recessions before the New Deal is particularly surprising since the U.S. economy was then dominated by farming and manufacturing—industries far more prone to nasty cyclical surprises than today's service-based economy.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, nobody thought the government could or should do anything except stand aside and let the mistakes of business and banking be fixed by those who made them. There were no Keynesian plans to borrow and spend our way out of recessions. And bankers had no Federal Reserve to bail them out until 1913. Yet recessions after the Fed was created soon turned out to be much deeper than before (1920-21, 1929-33, 1937-38) and often more persistent.
It's clear that U.S. history does not support the theory that Big Government means shorter and milder recessions. In reality, recessions always ended without government prodding, long before anyone heard of Keynes and long before the Fed existed. What's more, recessions ended more quickly before the New Deal's push for Big Government than they have in the past three decades. The economy's natural recuperative powers before the 1930s proved superior to recent tinkering by Big Government economists, politicians and central bankers.
The recent experience of other countries provides another way to test the Big Government theory of economic recovery. If it is true that Big Government prevents or cures recessions, then countries where government accounts for the largest share of GDP should have suffered much smaller losses of GDP over the past year than countries where the private sector is dominant.
The chart nearby [Spending and recession depth - http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-EH223_REynol_G_20090820211046.jpg] lists 13 major economies by the size of government spending relative to GDP using OECD figures for 2007 (the U.S. is well above 40% by 2009). Europe's big spenders are at the top, the U.S. and Japan are in the middle, and fiscally frugal countries like China and India are at the bottom.
The last column shows the change in real GDP over the most recent four quarters—ending in the second quarter for the U.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Sweden and China, but the first for the rest. Four of the five deepest contractions happened in countries with the biggest governments—Sweden, Italy, Germany and the U.K. Japan's government spending in 2007 was about like ours, but Japan's tax rates are far more punitive and the economy has suffered endless "fiscal stimulus" packages. China's central government spent 22% of GDP, but 30%-plus with local government included.
To believe Big Government explains why this extremely long recession was not even longer, we need to find some connection between the size of government and the depth and duration of recessions. There is no such connection in U.S. history, or in recent cyclical experience of other countries.
On the contrary, recessions have become longer as the U.S. government (and the Fed) became larger, more expensive, and more involved in the economy. Foreign countries in which government spending accounts for about half of the economy have also suffered the deepest recessions lately, while economic recovery is well established in countries where government spending is a smaller share of GDP than in the U.S.
In short, bigger government appears to produce only bigger and longer recessions.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Swedish Model
The Swedish Model, by Richard W. Rahn
This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 18, 2009
Do you think America would be better off with a Swedish-type welfare state? This question tends to evoke strong reactions from both the left and right, yet few understand Sweden's economic history and the revisions it has been making to its welfare-state model in recent years. Sweden was a very poor country for most of the 19th century.
The poverty of those years caused many to emigrate from the country, mostly to the U.S. Upper Midwest. Beginning in the 1870s, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world's fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.
Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. However, by the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.
Most full-time employees faced marginal tax rates of 65 percent to 75 percent, as contrasted with 40 percent in 1960. Labor-market regulations were introduced to make it very difficult to fire workers. Business profits were taxed heavily, and financial markets were regulated heavily. By 1993, the government budget deficit was 13 percent of GDP and total government debt was about 71 percent of GDP, which led to a rapid fall in the value of the currency and a rise in inflation.
These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, Sweden began an economic course correction that continues today. Marginal tax rates were reduced for most of the population, and this trend is expected to continue.
The wealth tax and inheritance tax were abolished. Financial markets, telecommunications, electricity, road transport, taxis and other activities were deregulated. Privatization of industry was begun, and the current government is continuing the process. The generosity of some welfare and other benefits has been reduced, with the goal of making work more economically rewarding relative to government benefits. Also, trade liberalization has been expanded greatly. The result has been a pickup in economic growth, and Sweden is no longer falling further behind other developed countries.
One notable success has been pension reform. Sweden was the first nation to implement a mandatory government retirement system for all its citizens. Sweden, like the United States and most other countries, was faced with an increasing, unfunded social security liability as a result of low birthrates and people living much longer. After studying the problem in the early 1990s, the Swedes approved, in 1998, moving toward a Chilean private pension system, first developed by former Chilean Labor Minister Jose Pinera. (Seventeen countries have adopted variations of the Pinerian system, which has been very successful in Chile.)
The new Swedish pension system has four key features, including partial privatization, individual accounts, a safety net to protect the poor and a transition to protect retirees and older workers. The benefits have been substantial budgetary savings, higher retirement income and faster economic growth.
Those who wish to chase the Swedish model need first to decide which model they seek: The high-growth, pre-1960 model; the low-growth model of the 1970s and 1980s; or the reformist, welfare-state model of recent years. The irony is that the current Democratic Congress and administration are rapidly emulating the parts of the Swedish model that proved disastrous and rejecting those parts that are proving to be successful.
Most Swedes now understand that they still have a good distance to go to further strengthen the market economy to ensure continued growth. Thus, they continue to move toward reducing the size of government rather than increasing it.
If the Obama Democrats were wise enough to learn from the Swedes, they would be moving toward trade liberalization rather than away from it. They would be moving to at least partially privatize Social Security. They would not seek to prevent the abolition of the death tax. They would be reducing rather than increasing regulations. They would be reducing rather than trying to increase marginal tax rates on work, saving and investment. They would be reducing the corporate income tax as was done in Sweden.
Finally, the Obama Democrats would be reducing government spending rather than increasing it and not running deficits as large as those that almost sank the Swedish economy 16 years ago.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 18, 2009
Do you think America would be better off with a Swedish-type welfare state? This question tends to evoke strong reactions from both the left and right, yet few understand Sweden's economic history and the revisions it has been making to its welfare-state model in recent years. Sweden was a very poor country for most of the 19th century.
The poverty of those years caused many to emigrate from the country, mostly to the U.S. Upper Midwest. Beginning in the 1870s, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world's fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.
Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. However, by the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.
Most full-time employees faced marginal tax rates of 65 percent to 75 percent, as contrasted with 40 percent in 1960. Labor-market regulations were introduced to make it very difficult to fire workers. Business profits were taxed heavily, and financial markets were regulated heavily. By 1993, the government budget deficit was 13 percent of GDP and total government debt was about 71 percent of GDP, which led to a rapid fall in the value of the currency and a rise in inflation.
These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, Sweden began an economic course correction that continues today. Marginal tax rates were reduced for most of the population, and this trend is expected to continue.
The wealth tax and inheritance tax were abolished. Financial markets, telecommunications, electricity, road transport, taxis and other activities were deregulated. Privatization of industry was begun, and the current government is continuing the process. The generosity of some welfare and other benefits has been reduced, with the goal of making work more economically rewarding relative to government benefits. Also, trade liberalization has been expanded greatly. The result has been a pickup in economic growth, and Sweden is no longer falling further behind other developed countries.
One notable success has been pension reform. Sweden was the first nation to implement a mandatory government retirement system for all its citizens. Sweden, like the United States and most other countries, was faced with an increasing, unfunded social security liability as a result of low birthrates and people living much longer. After studying the problem in the early 1990s, the Swedes approved, in 1998, moving toward a Chilean private pension system, first developed by former Chilean Labor Minister Jose Pinera. (Seventeen countries have adopted variations of the Pinerian system, which has been very successful in Chile.)
The new Swedish pension system has four key features, including partial privatization, individual accounts, a safety net to protect the poor and a transition to protect retirees and older workers. The benefits have been substantial budgetary savings, higher retirement income and faster economic growth.
Those who wish to chase the Swedish model need first to decide which model they seek: The high-growth, pre-1960 model; the low-growth model of the 1970s and 1980s; or the reformist, welfare-state model of recent years. The irony is that the current Democratic Congress and administration are rapidly emulating the parts of the Swedish model that proved disastrous and rejecting those parts that are proving to be successful.
Most Swedes now understand that they still have a good distance to go to further strengthen the market economy to ensure continued growth. Thus, they continue to move toward reducing the size of government rather than increasing it.
If the Obama Democrats were wise enough to learn from the Swedes, they would be moving toward trade liberalization rather than away from it. They would be moving to at least partially privatize Social Security. They would not seek to prevent the abolition of the death tax. They would be reducing rather than increasing regulations. They would be reducing rather than trying to increase marginal tax rates on work, saving and investment. They would be reducing the corporate income tax as was done in Sweden.
Finally, the Obama Democrats would be reducing government spending rather than increasing it and not running deficits as large as those that almost sank the Swedish economy 16 years ago.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Mount Sinai's Scare Campaign
Mount Sinai's Scare Campaign (and John Stossel's reaction). By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. ACSH, August 19, 2009
ACSH's view on this issue was noted by John Stossel on his blog [http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/teach-dont-scare.html] today:
It is nothing new for junk science to make it onto the New York Times op-ed page. But some agendas are so far outside the mainstream they have to buy their way onto the page. That's what the Mount Sinai School of Medicine did in buying a platform for their Dr. Philip Landrigan, an activist who has dedicated his career to raising anxieties about "chemicals" in the environment.
In an August 4 "op-ad" likely costing around $50,000, Dr. Landrigan rails against thousands of new, synthetic chemicals introduced over the last few decades.
He says they are responsible for a full spectrum of diseases in our children -- including cancer, hyperactivity, asthma, reproductive difficulties, and even autism. There is not a shred of evidence to back up such claims. He cites some specific chemicals that have been in the news of late: PCBs (industrial chemicals used until 1977 in fireproofing and insulation ), phthalates (plastic softeners used in a wide variety of consumer products and medical devices), and bisphenol-A (BPA, used to harden plastics and in food and beverage packaging).
He states that these and other chemicals are routinely found in the bodies of both adults and children -- and that this itself is a cause for alarm. In an attempt to gain some legitimacy for his scientifically bereft claims, Dr. Landrigan throws in for good measure the actual documented health risks from exposure to high levels of lead in paint and gasoline (which was the case decades ago but is no longer an issue) and the actual link between asthma and exposure to cigarette smoke. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But for all his claims that "chemicals" are not safe and have not been tested, he does not acknowledge these basic facts:
•Everything in our universe consists of chemicals. Our natural foods (yes, even organic ones) are 100% chemical in composition -- and come replete with myriad natural toxins (otherwise known as poisons) and carcinogens (usually defined as chemicals which cause cancer in high doses in animal studies). Such natural carcinogens and toxins are of no health consequences because they occur at such low doses.
•Nearly all the health claim Dr. Landrigan makes -- regarding chemicals causing cancer or "toxic effects," for example -- are based on high-level animal studies. By that criterion, he should be worried about nutmeg (which contains a natural hallucinogen and the carcinogen safrole), potatoes (which contain a toxicologically significant level of arsenic), and apples (with their own natural carcinogen quercetin glycosides)
•That we can detect traces of myriad "chemicals" in the human body should be no surprise. With today's sophisticated analytical techniques, we can basically find anything in anything. The mere ability to detect a substance does not mean that the substance poses a hazard.
•Landrigan mentions something called "endocrine disruption" and reproductive defects -- but these phenomena have absolutely no practical application to human risk. Again, the claim that trace levels of chemicals adversely affect hormone production is based only on high-dose animal studies. The allegation that synthetic chemicals cause abnormalities in reproductive potential -- including allegedly chemically-induced penis shrinking -- is derived from observations of alligators growing up in polluted Florida lakes. The human data provide no evidence of reproductive problems linked to chemicals.
In short, the paid-for Landrigan piece is alarmist propaganda masquerading as science and represents a great disservice to parents, children, and public health. One cannot help wonder why Mount Sinai let its good name be associated with this unscientific diatribe -- even allowing its logo to be included in the op-ad.
Dr. Landrigan says that our children need our protection. I could not agree more. Dr. Landrigan's false alarms contribute nothing to our children's health but do create needless distractions. Instead of scaring parents about phantom risks, we should, among other things, advocate basics such as seatbelts, bike helmets, smoke detectors, childhood vaccinations, nutritious diets, and healthy recreation. Parents who provide their kids with these should not be needlessly terrified by Mount Sinai about imaginary chemical menaces.
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org).
ACSH's view on this issue was noted by John Stossel on his blog [http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/teach-dont-scare.html] today:
It is nothing new for junk science to make it onto the New York Times op-ed page. But some agendas are so far outside the mainstream they have to buy their way onto the page. That's what the Mount Sinai School of Medicine did in buying a platform for their Dr. Philip Landrigan, an activist who has dedicated his career to raising anxieties about "chemicals" in the environment.
In an August 4 "op-ad" likely costing around $50,000, Dr. Landrigan rails against thousands of new, synthetic chemicals introduced over the last few decades.
He says they are responsible for a full spectrum of diseases in our children -- including cancer, hyperactivity, asthma, reproductive difficulties, and even autism. There is not a shred of evidence to back up such claims. He cites some specific chemicals that have been in the news of late: PCBs (industrial chemicals used until 1977 in fireproofing and insulation ), phthalates (plastic softeners used in a wide variety of consumer products and medical devices), and bisphenol-A (BPA, used to harden plastics and in food and beverage packaging).
He states that these and other chemicals are routinely found in the bodies of both adults and children -- and that this itself is a cause for alarm. In an attempt to gain some legitimacy for his scientifically bereft claims, Dr. Landrigan throws in for good measure the actual documented health risks from exposure to high levels of lead in paint and gasoline (which was the case decades ago but is no longer an issue) and the actual link between asthma and exposure to cigarette smoke. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But for all his claims that "chemicals" are not safe and have not been tested, he does not acknowledge these basic facts:
•Everything in our universe consists of chemicals. Our natural foods (yes, even organic ones) are 100% chemical in composition -- and come replete with myriad natural toxins (otherwise known as poisons) and carcinogens (usually defined as chemicals which cause cancer in high doses in animal studies). Such natural carcinogens and toxins are of no health consequences because they occur at such low doses.
•Nearly all the health claim Dr. Landrigan makes -- regarding chemicals causing cancer or "toxic effects," for example -- are based on high-level animal studies. By that criterion, he should be worried about nutmeg (which contains a natural hallucinogen and the carcinogen safrole), potatoes (which contain a toxicologically significant level of arsenic), and apples (with their own natural carcinogen quercetin glycosides)
•That we can detect traces of myriad "chemicals" in the human body should be no surprise. With today's sophisticated analytical techniques, we can basically find anything in anything. The mere ability to detect a substance does not mean that the substance poses a hazard.
•Landrigan mentions something called "endocrine disruption" and reproductive defects -- but these phenomena have absolutely no practical application to human risk. Again, the claim that trace levels of chemicals adversely affect hormone production is based only on high-dose animal studies. The allegation that synthetic chemicals cause abnormalities in reproductive potential -- including allegedly chemically-induced penis shrinking -- is derived from observations of alligators growing up in polluted Florida lakes. The human data provide no evidence of reproductive problems linked to chemicals.
In short, the paid-for Landrigan piece is alarmist propaganda masquerading as science and represents a great disservice to parents, children, and public health. One cannot help wonder why Mount Sinai let its good name be associated with this unscientific diatribe -- even allowing its logo to be included in the op-ad.
Dr. Landrigan says that our children need our protection. I could not agree more. Dr. Landrigan's false alarms contribute nothing to our children's health but do create needless distractions. Instead of scaring parents about phantom risks, we should, among other things, advocate basics such as seatbelts, bike helmets, smoke detectors, childhood vaccinations, nutritious diets, and healthy recreation. Parents who provide their kids with these should not be needlessly terrified by Mount Sinai about imaginary chemical menaces.
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org).
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Don't Set Speed Limits on Trading - Why penalize efficiency? It creates deep and liquid markets
Don't Set Speed Limits on Trading. By ARTHUR LEVITT JR.
Why penalize efficiency? It creates deep and liquid markets.
WSJ, Aug 18, 2009
The debate over high-frequency trading may seem remote and irrelevant to small investors. After all, they may think, if you're only buying and selling stocks and mutual funds occasionally, what difference does it make whether some traders are able to move quickly in and out of those same stocks, squeezing an extra penny or two of profit here and there?
But this debate is not just about the rarified world of high-frequency traders, dominated by superfast computing and trading by advanced algorithms. It's fundamentally about the competitiveness and health of U.S. markets, and the ease with which all investors are able to find willing buyers and sellers. Small investors may never directly use a high-frequency trading strategy in their lives, but they have a very large stake in whether such strategies are regulated out of existence, as is now urged by some in Congress, the media and Wall Street.
High-frequency trading is, in many respects, just the next stage in the ongoing technological innovation of financial markets. Just as paper tickets for trades were replaced by computer orders, and the trading floor seen on television was made largely irrelevant by electronic exchanges, so has high-frequency trading revolutionized the way most U.S. stocks and related investment products are priced and sold.
High-frequency trading occurs when traders position very fast computers as close as possible to the stock market's computer servers to minimize the distance and time it takes for an order to pass through telecom lines. The traders then program those computers to analyze and react to incoming market data in mere fractions of a second.
Those fractions of a second translate into only slightly better margins in executing trades, but if done in large enough volume they add up to significant value. Because of that, roughly two-thirds of all U.S. daily stock volume is generated by high-frequency traders.
Due to the rise of high-frequency trading, investors both large and small enjoy a deeper pool of potential buyers and sellers, and a wider variety of ways to execute trades. There are today more than 30 execution venues—ranging from established global exchanges to a plethora of specialized markets—catering to the particular trading needs of institutions and individuals. Choice abounds, and investors now enjoy faster, more reliable execution technology and lower execution fees than ever before. All of that contributes significantly to market liquidity, a critical measure of market health and something all investors value.
Normally, this revolution in trading would be welcomed, but the practice of "flash trading," which has recently garnered negative headlines and regulatory action, has led some market observers to condemn high-frequency trading as a whole. This is a mistake. While I support the move to ban flash orders because they have the potential to undermine the goals of market competition, that does not mean we should demonize or regulate out of existence all high-frequency trading.
Some in Congress have suggested a tax on all trades of up to 25 basis points per trade, which would raise the per-transaction price on the purchase of a $20 stock to five cents from less than a penny now. Such a tax has been tried before—from 1914 to 1966, there was a transfer tax set at 0.2% on stock trades. But that expense was simply passed on to investors. Today, a tax on each stock transaction would probably drive high-frequency traders, and the liquidity they bring, to foreign markets.
Others simply assert that all high-frequency trading has no moral or underlying economic value, and that high-frequency trading is simply a game for those who want to profit from getting access to data a split-second ahead of someone else. The Securities and Exchange Commission should ignore these complaints and the caricature that has developed of high-frequency traders.
These traders have developed systems to allow them to beat the competition to displayed quotes. They have taken available space near the markets' data servers to squeeze time out of every transaction. These traders continuously look for inefficiencies, and by exploiting them, correct them. I see nothing sinister or unfair about the advantages that come out of their investments and efforts.
We should not set a speed limit to slow everyone down to the pace set by those unwilling or unable to compete at the highest levels of market activity. Investors large and small have always been served well by those looking to build the deepest possible pool of potential buyers and sellers, make trades at a better price, and all as quickly as possible.
More liquidity, better pricing and faster speeds are the building blocks of healthy and transparent markets, and we must always affirm those goals.
Mr. Levitt was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 to 2001.
Why penalize efficiency? It creates deep and liquid markets.
WSJ, Aug 18, 2009
The debate over high-frequency trading may seem remote and irrelevant to small investors. After all, they may think, if you're only buying and selling stocks and mutual funds occasionally, what difference does it make whether some traders are able to move quickly in and out of those same stocks, squeezing an extra penny or two of profit here and there?
But this debate is not just about the rarified world of high-frequency traders, dominated by superfast computing and trading by advanced algorithms. It's fundamentally about the competitiveness and health of U.S. markets, and the ease with which all investors are able to find willing buyers and sellers. Small investors may never directly use a high-frequency trading strategy in their lives, but they have a very large stake in whether such strategies are regulated out of existence, as is now urged by some in Congress, the media and Wall Street.
High-frequency trading is, in many respects, just the next stage in the ongoing technological innovation of financial markets. Just as paper tickets for trades were replaced by computer orders, and the trading floor seen on television was made largely irrelevant by electronic exchanges, so has high-frequency trading revolutionized the way most U.S. stocks and related investment products are priced and sold.
High-frequency trading occurs when traders position very fast computers as close as possible to the stock market's computer servers to minimize the distance and time it takes for an order to pass through telecom lines. The traders then program those computers to analyze and react to incoming market data in mere fractions of a second.
Those fractions of a second translate into only slightly better margins in executing trades, but if done in large enough volume they add up to significant value. Because of that, roughly two-thirds of all U.S. daily stock volume is generated by high-frequency traders.
Due to the rise of high-frequency trading, investors both large and small enjoy a deeper pool of potential buyers and sellers, and a wider variety of ways to execute trades. There are today more than 30 execution venues—ranging from established global exchanges to a plethora of specialized markets—catering to the particular trading needs of institutions and individuals. Choice abounds, and investors now enjoy faster, more reliable execution technology and lower execution fees than ever before. All of that contributes significantly to market liquidity, a critical measure of market health and something all investors value.
Normally, this revolution in trading would be welcomed, but the practice of "flash trading," which has recently garnered negative headlines and regulatory action, has led some market observers to condemn high-frequency trading as a whole. This is a mistake. While I support the move to ban flash orders because they have the potential to undermine the goals of market competition, that does not mean we should demonize or regulate out of existence all high-frequency trading.
Some in Congress have suggested a tax on all trades of up to 25 basis points per trade, which would raise the per-transaction price on the purchase of a $20 stock to five cents from less than a penny now. Such a tax has been tried before—from 1914 to 1966, there was a transfer tax set at 0.2% on stock trades. But that expense was simply passed on to investors. Today, a tax on each stock transaction would probably drive high-frequency traders, and the liquidity they bring, to foreign markets.
Others simply assert that all high-frequency trading has no moral or underlying economic value, and that high-frequency trading is simply a game for those who want to profit from getting access to data a split-second ahead of someone else. The Securities and Exchange Commission should ignore these complaints and the caricature that has developed of high-frequency traders.
These traders have developed systems to allow them to beat the competition to displayed quotes. They have taken available space near the markets' data servers to squeeze time out of every transaction. These traders continuously look for inefficiencies, and by exploiting them, correct them. I see nothing sinister or unfair about the advantages that come out of their investments and efforts.
We should not set a speed limit to slow everyone down to the pace set by those unwilling or unable to compete at the highest levels of market activity. Investors large and small have always been served well by those looking to build the deepest possible pool of potential buyers and sellers, make trades at a better price, and all as quickly as possible.
More liquidity, better pricing and faster speeds are the building blocks of healthy and transparent markets, and we must always affirm those goals.
Mr. Levitt was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 to 2001.
Monday, August 17, 2009
We Don't Spend Enough on Health Care
We Don't Spend Enough on Health Care. By CRAIG S. KARPEL
It's crazy to adopt a bean-counting mentality amid revolutionary, albeit expensive, advances in medicine.
WSJ, Aug 16, 2009
Americans are being urged to worry about the nation spending 17% of its gross domestic product each year on health care—a higher percentage than any other country. Addressing the American Medical Association in June, Barack Obama said, "Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy." But the president is mistaken. Japan spends 8% of its GDP on health care—the same as Zimbabwe. South Korea and Haiti both spend 6%. Monaco spends 5%, which is what Afghanistan spends. Do all of these countries have economies that are less "threatened" than that of the U.S.?
No. So there must be other factors that affect the health of a nation's economy.
Mr. Obama has said that "the cost of health care has weighed down our economy." No one thinks the 20% of our GDP that's attributable to manufacturing is weighing down the economy, because it's intuitively clear that one person's expenditure on widgets is another person's income. But the same is true of the health-care industry. The $2.4 trillion Americans spend each year for health care doesn't go up in smoke. It's paid to other Americans.
The basic material needs of human beings are food, clothing and shelter. The desire for food and clothing drove hunter-gatherer economies and, subsequently, agricultural economies, for millennia. The Industrial Revolution was driven by the desire for clothing. Thus Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's spinning jenny, Samuel Crompton's spinning mule, Eli Whitney's cotton gin and Elias Howe's sewing machine.
Though it hasn't been widely realized, the desire for shelter was a major driver of the U.S. economy during the second half of the 20th century and the first several years of the 21st. About one-third of the new jobs created during the latter period were directly or indirectly related to housing, as the stupendous ripple effect of the bursting housing bubble should make painfully obvious.
Once these material needs are substantially met, desire for health care—without which there can be no enjoyment of food, clothing or shelter—becomes a significant, perhaps a principal, driver of the economy.
A little-noticed feature of the current recession is the role of the health-care industry as a resilient driver of the general economy. Health-care now accounts for 10.4% of nonfarm employment. Health-care employment grew by 19,600 jobs in July 2009, on a par with the average monthly gain for the first half of 2009, which was down from an average monthly increase of 30,000 in 2008. Remarkably, these gains occurred in a period during which total employment shrank by 6.7 million.
The U.S. health-care economy should be viewed not as a burden but as an engine of growth. Medical and orthopedic equipment exports increased by 65.1% from 2004 through 2008. Pharmaceutical exports were up 74.6%. The unprecedented advances expected to come out of American stem cell, nanotechnology and human genome research—which other countries' constricted health sectors cannot support—will send these already impressive figures skyward.
A study by Deloitte LLP has found that more than 400,000 non-U.S. residents obtained medical care in the U.S. in 2008, and it forecasts an annual increase of 3%. Some 3.5% of inpatient procedures at U.S. hospitals were performed on international patients, many of them escaping from Canada's supposedly superior health system.
"Inbound medical tourism," Deloitte stated, "is primarily driven by the search for high-quality care without extensive waiting periods. Foreign patients are willing to pay more for care within the United States if these two factors play a large role." The deficiencies of the foreign health-care systems the Obama administration wishes to emulate can be counted on to generate ever-increasing revenues for U.S. providers and employment for Americans.
In a 2007 study, Stanford University economists Robert E. Hall (who will take office next year as president of the American Economic Association) and Charles I. Jones reported that modeling they've conducted has found that mid-21st century U.S. health-care expenditures would optimally amount to 30% of GDP or more. They wrote:
"We examine the allocation of resources that maximizes social welfare in our model. We abstract from the complicated institutions that shape spending in the United States and ask a more basic question: from a social welfare standpoint, how much should the nation spend on health care, and what is the time path of optimal health spending? . . .
"Viewed from every angle, our results support the proposition that both historical and future increases in the health spending share are desirable. . . . [W]e believe it likely that maximizing social welfare in the United States will require the development of institutions that are consistent with spending 30 percent or more of GDP on health by the middle of the century."
The administration's health-care plan is biased toward bean-counting rather than designed to maximize American physical and mental well-being. We need to ask ourselves whether there is truly anything more valuable to us than our loved ones and our own health and longevity.
In the signature radio sketch of Jack Benny, whose performing persona was laughably frugal, actor Eddie Marr snarled at him, "Don't make a move—this is a stickup. Now, come on: Your money or your life." Benny didn't respond. The "robber" said, "Look, bud—I said your money or your life!" Whereupon Benny shot back, "I'm thinking it over!"
Confronted for the first time in history with a constant stream of medical innovations that are marvelously effective but tend to be very expensive, our legislative representatives—in particular, the Blue Dog Democrats—would do well to stop "thinking it over" and to commit themselves to action that will preserve the ability of Americans to choose life over money.
Mr. Karpel is the author of "The Retirement Myth" (HarperCollins, 1995).
It's crazy to adopt a bean-counting mentality amid revolutionary, albeit expensive, advances in medicine.
WSJ, Aug 16, 2009
Americans are being urged to worry about the nation spending 17% of its gross domestic product each year on health care—a higher percentage than any other country. Addressing the American Medical Association in June, Barack Obama said, "Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy." But the president is mistaken. Japan spends 8% of its GDP on health care—the same as Zimbabwe. South Korea and Haiti both spend 6%. Monaco spends 5%, which is what Afghanistan spends. Do all of these countries have economies that are less "threatened" than that of the U.S.?
No. So there must be other factors that affect the health of a nation's economy.
Mr. Obama has said that "the cost of health care has weighed down our economy." No one thinks the 20% of our GDP that's attributable to manufacturing is weighing down the economy, because it's intuitively clear that one person's expenditure on widgets is another person's income. But the same is true of the health-care industry. The $2.4 trillion Americans spend each year for health care doesn't go up in smoke. It's paid to other Americans.
The basic material needs of human beings are food, clothing and shelter. The desire for food and clothing drove hunter-gatherer economies and, subsequently, agricultural economies, for millennia. The Industrial Revolution was driven by the desire for clothing. Thus Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's spinning jenny, Samuel Crompton's spinning mule, Eli Whitney's cotton gin and Elias Howe's sewing machine.
Though it hasn't been widely realized, the desire for shelter was a major driver of the U.S. economy during the second half of the 20th century and the first several years of the 21st. About one-third of the new jobs created during the latter period were directly or indirectly related to housing, as the stupendous ripple effect of the bursting housing bubble should make painfully obvious.
Once these material needs are substantially met, desire for health care—without which there can be no enjoyment of food, clothing or shelter—becomes a significant, perhaps a principal, driver of the economy.
A little-noticed feature of the current recession is the role of the health-care industry as a resilient driver of the general economy. Health-care now accounts for 10.4% of nonfarm employment. Health-care employment grew by 19,600 jobs in July 2009, on a par with the average monthly gain for the first half of 2009, which was down from an average monthly increase of 30,000 in 2008. Remarkably, these gains occurred in a period during which total employment shrank by 6.7 million.
The U.S. health-care economy should be viewed not as a burden but as an engine of growth. Medical and orthopedic equipment exports increased by 65.1% from 2004 through 2008. Pharmaceutical exports were up 74.6%. The unprecedented advances expected to come out of American stem cell, nanotechnology and human genome research—which other countries' constricted health sectors cannot support—will send these already impressive figures skyward.
A study by Deloitte LLP has found that more than 400,000 non-U.S. residents obtained medical care in the U.S. in 2008, and it forecasts an annual increase of 3%. Some 3.5% of inpatient procedures at U.S. hospitals were performed on international patients, many of them escaping from Canada's supposedly superior health system.
"Inbound medical tourism," Deloitte stated, "is primarily driven by the search for high-quality care without extensive waiting periods. Foreign patients are willing to pay more for care within the United States if these two factors play a large role." The deficiencies of the foreign health-care systems the Obama administration wishes to emulate can be counted on to generate ever-increasing revenues for U.S. providers and employment for Americans.
In a 2007 study, Stanford University economists Robert E. Hall (who will take office next year as president of the American Economic Association) and Charles I. Jones reported that modeling they've conducted has found that mid-21st century U.S. health-care expenditures would optimally amount to 30% of GDP or more. They wrote:
"We examine the allocation of resources that maximizes social welfare in our model. We abstract from the complicated institutions that shape spending in the United States and ask a more basic question: from a social welfare standpoint, how much should the nation spend on health care, and what is the time path of optimal health spending? . . .
"Viewed from every angle, our results support the proposition that both historical and future increases in the health spending share are desirable. . . . [W]e believe it likely that maximizing social welfare in the United States will require the development of institutions that are consistent with spending 30 percent or more of GDP on health by the middle of the century."
The administration's health-care plan is biased toward bean-counting rather than designed to maximize American physical and mental well-being. We need to ask ourselves whether there is truly anything more valuable to us than our loved ones and our own health and longevity.
In the signature radio sketch of Jack Benny, whose performing persona was laughably frugal, actor Eddie Marr snarled at him, "Don't make a move—this is a stickup. Now, come on: Your money or your life." Benny didn't respond. The "robber" said, "Look, bud—I said your money or your life!" Whereupon Benny shot back, "I'm thinking it over!"
Confronted for the first time in history with a constant stream of medical innovations that are marvelously effective but tend to be very expensive, our legislative representatives—in particular, the Blue Dog Democrats—would do well to stop "thinking it over" and to commit themselves to action that will preserve the ability of Americans to choose life over money.
Mr. Karpel is the author of "The Retirement Myth" (HarperCollins, 1995).
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Arizona’s Budget Breakthrough - An alternative to California’s tax and spend model
Arizona’s Budget Breakthrough. WSJ Editorial
An alternative to California’s tax and spend model.
WSJ, Aug 11, 2009
Perhaps states are starting to learn the right fiscal lessons from the red-ink blowouts in high-tax California and New York. Today, the legislature in Arizona will vote on a tax reform designed to entice more employers and high-income taxpayers to the state. Sponsored by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, the plan would cut state property taxes, the corporate tax and personal income taxes, in exchange for a temporary rise in the sales tax.
Most economic studies agree that states have more jobs and higher income growth when they tax consumption rather than savings, investment and business profits. This explains why most of the nine states with no income tax at all—such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee—have been economic high-flyers in recent decades.
Ms. Brewer’s proposal reflects this economic logic. Effective January 1, 2011, her plan would reduce the state’s corporate income tax rate to 4.86% from 6.97%, which would be one of the largest business tax cuts in the nation in recent years. The proposal also cuts all personal income tax rates by 6.6%, thus lowering the top marginal rate to 4.24% from 4.54%. A hated statewide tax on commercial and residential property would also be abolished.
Arizona has been hit especially hard by the housing slump, and its budget woes were compounded thanks to former Governor Janet Napolitano’s spending spree before she joined the Obama cabinet. On her watch the budget grew by more than 50% in five years—to $10.2 billion from $6.5 billion in 2004. The state now has a $1 billion budget gap, and to close it the legislature will also vote on a one percentage point increase in the sales tax to 6.6% in 2010 and 2011; in the third year the sales tax would fall to 6.1%, and in the fourth year would revert to its current 5.6% rate.
We’d rather see the legislature cut more spending than raise the sales tax, but on the other hand the sales tax would only take effect if it is approved on the November ballot. The political class is giving voters a say in the matter. The sales tax increase also has the advantage of a built-in expiration date, while the tax cuts are permanent.
Democratic opponents are calling this a tax giveaway to big business. But lawmakers needn’t apologize for trying to retain Arizona’s status as a business-friendly state—particularly when jobs are so scarce. Small employers also benefit from the lower property tax rates and the personal income tax reductions. Lower tax payments will enable them to reinvest more in their enterprises.
The opponents should consult a new study of state business taxes by former U.S. Treasury economist Robert Carroll for the Tax Foundation. He examined 50 states and found that states with lower corporate tax rates have higher wage gains and more productivity over time. This tax cut sounds like a high-return investment.
Republicans control both houses of the Arizona legislature, and as we went to press the main obstacle to passing the reform was the Arizona Senate’s antitax conservatives. They oppose the higher sales tax. These Republicans should look to one of the triumphs of the Reagan Presidency, the 1986 tax reform, which broadened the tax base but substantially lowered tax rates and thus sustained the 1980s expansion.
Arizona has the chance to be the anti-California, closing the budget deficit by growing the economy, not by raising taxes. We hope legislators don’t blow it, because the U.S. desperately needs an alternative to the tax, spend and tax again philosophy of Sacramento and Albany.
An alternative to California’s tax and spend model.
WSJ, Aug 11, 2009
Perhaps states are starting to learn the right fiscal lessons from the red-ink blowouts in high-tax California and New York. Today, the legislature in Arizona will vote on a tax reform designed to entice more employers and high-income taxpayers to the state. Sponsored by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, the plan would cut state property taxes, the corporate tax and personal income taxes, in exchange for a temporary rise in the sales tax.
Most economic studies agree that states have more jobs and higher income growth when they tax consumption rather than savings, investment and business profits. This explains why most of the nine states with no income tax at all—such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee—have been economic high-flyers in recent decades.
Ms. Brewer’s proposal reflects this economic logic. Effective January 1, 2011, her plan would reduce the state’s corporate income tax rate to 4.86% from 6.97%, which would be one of the largest business tax cuts in the nation in recent years. The proposal also cuts all personal income tax rates by 6.6%, thus lowering the top marginal rate to 4.24% from 4.54%. A hated statewide tax on commercial and residential property would also be abolished.
Arizona has been hit especially hard by the housing slump, and its budget woes were compounded thanks to former Governor Janet Napolitano’s spending spree before she joined the Obama cabinet. On her watch the budget grew by more than 50% in five years—to $10.2 billion from $6.5 billion in 2004. The state now has a $1 billion budget gap, and to close it the legislature will also vote on a one percentage point increase in the sales tax to 6.6% in 2010 and 2011; in the third year the sales tax would fall to 6.1%, and in the fourth year would revert to its current 5.6% rate.
We’d rather see the legislature cut more spending than raise the sales tax, but on the other hand the sales tax would only take effect if it is approved on the November ballot. The political class is giving voters a say in the matter. The sales tax increase also has the advantage of a built-in expiration date, while the tax cuts are permanent.
Democratic opponents are calling this a tax giveaway to big business. But lawmakers needn’t apologize for trying to retain Arizona’s status as a business-friendly state—particularly when jobs are so scarce. Small employers also benefit from the lower property tax rates and the personal income tax reductions. Lower tax payments will enable them to reinvest more in their enterprises.
The opponents should consult a new study of state business taxes by former U.S. Treasury economist Robert Carroll for the Tax Foundation. He examined 50 states and found that states with lower corporate tax rates have higher wage gains and more productivity over time. This tax cut sounds like a high-return investment.
Republicans control both houses of the Arizona legislature, and as we went to press the main obstacle to passing the reform was the Arizona Senate’s antitax conservatives. They oppose the higher sales tax. These Republicans should look to one of the triumphs of the Reagan Presidency, the 1986 tax reform, which broadened the tax base but substantially lowered tax rates and thus sustained the 1980s expansion.
Arizona has the chance to be the anti-California, closing the budget deficit by growing the economy, not by raising taxes. We hope legislators don’t blow it, because the U.S. desperately needs an alternative to the tax, spend and tax again philosophy of Sacramento and Albany.
The Next Fannie Mae: Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors
The Next Fannie Mae. WSJ Editorial
Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors.
The Wall Street Journal, p A16, Aug 11, 2009
Much to their dismay, Americans learned last year that they “owned” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, meet their cousin, Ginnie Mae or the Government National Mortgage Association, which will soon join them as a trillion-dollar packager of subprime mortgages. Taxpayers own Ginnie too.
Only last week, Ginnie announced that it issued a monthly record of $43 billion in mortgage-backed securities in June. Ginnie Mae President Joseph Murin sounded almost giddy as he cheered this “phenomenal growth.” Ginnie Mae’s mortgage exposure is expected to top $1 trillion by the end of next year—or far more than double the dollar amount of 2007. (See the nearby table.) Earlier this summer, Reuters quoted Anthony Medici of the Housing Department’s Inspector General’s office as saying, “Who would have predicted that Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae would have swapped positions” in loan volume?
Ginnie’s mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam’s home mortgage shop. Ginnie’s growth is a by-product of the FHA’s spectacular growth. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages—quadruple the amount in 2006. Among the FHA, Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie, nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.
Herein lies the problem. The FHA’s standard insurance program today is notoriously lax. It backs low downpayment loans, to buyers who often have below-average to poor credit ratings, and with almost no oversight to protect against fraud. Sound familiar? This is called subprime lending—the same financial roulette that busted Fannie, Freddie and large mortgage houses like Countrywide Financial.
On June 18, HUD’s Inspector General issued a scathing report on the FHA’s lax insurance practices. It found that the FHA’s default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days. The FHA’s reserve fund was found to have fallen in half, to 3% from 6.4% in 2007—meaning it now has a 33 to 1 leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory. The IG says the FHA may need a “Congressional appropriation intervention to make up the shortfall.”
The IG also fears that the recent “surge in FHA loans is likely to overtax the oversight resources of the FHA, making careful and comprehensive lender monitoring difficult.” And it warned that the growth in FHA mortgage volume could make the program “vulnerable to exploitation by fraud schemes . . . that undercut the integrity of the program.” The 19-page IG report includes a horror show of recent fraud cases.
If housing values continue to slide and 10% of FHA loans end up in default, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $50 to $60 billion of mortgage losses. Only last week, Taylor Bean, the FHA’s third largest mortgage originator in June with $17 billion in loans this year, announced it is terminating operations after the FHA barred the mortgage lender from participating in its insurance program. The feds alleged that Taylor Bean had “misrepresented” its relationship with an auditor and had “irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud.”
Is anyone on Capitol Hill or the White House paying attention? Evidently not, because on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue policy makers are busy giving the FHA even more business while easing its already loosy-goosy underwriting standards. A few weeks ago a House committee approved legislation to keep the FHA’s loan limit in high-income states like California at $729,750. We wonder how many first-time home buyers purchase a $725,000 home. The Members must have missed the IG’s warning that higher loan limits may mean “much greater losses by FHA” and will make fraudsters “much more attracted to the product.”
In the wake of the mortgage meltdown, most private lenders have reverted to the traditional down payment rule of 10% or 20%. Housing experts agree that a high down payment is the best protection against default and foreclosure because it means the owner has something to lose by walking away. Meanwhile, at the FHA, the down payment requirement remains a mere 3.5%. Other policies—such as allowing the buyer to finance closing costs and use the homebuyer tax credit to cover costs—can drive the down payment to below 2%.
Then there is the booming refinancing program that Congress has approved to move into the FHA hundreds of thousands of borrowers who can’t pay their mortgage, including many with subprime and other exotic loans. HUD just announced that starting this week the FHA will refinance troubled mortgages by reducing up to 30% of the principal under the Home Affordable Modification Program. This program is intended to reduce foreclosures, but someone has to pick up the multibillion-dollar cost of the 30% loan forgiveness. That will be taxpayers.
In some cases, these owners are so overdue in their payments, and housing prices have fallen so dramatically, that the borrowers have a negative 25% equity in the home and they are still eligible for an FHA refi. We also know from other government and private loan modification programs that a borrower who has defaulted on the mortgage once is at very high risk (25%-50%) of defaulting again.
All of which means that the FHA and Ginnie Mae could well be the next Fannie and Freddie. While Fan and Fred carried “implicit” federal guarantees, the FHA and Ginnie carry the explicit full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
We’ve long argued that Congress has a fiduciary duty to secure the safety and soundness of FHA through common sense reforms. Eliminate the 100% guarantee on FHA loans, so lenders have a greater financial incentive to insure the soundness of the loan; adopt the private sector convention of a 10% down payment, which would reduce foreclosures; and stop putting subprime loans that should have never been made in the first place on the federal balance sheet.
The housing lobby, which gets rich off FHA insurance, has long blocked these due-diligence reforms, saying there’s no threat to taxpayers. That’s what they also said about Fan and Fred—$400 billion ago.
Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors.
The Wall Street Journal, p A16, Aug 11, 2009
Much to their dismay, Americans learned last year that they “owned” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, meet their cousin, Ginnie Mae or the Government National Mortgage Association, which will soon join them as a trillion-dollar packager of subprime mortgages. Taxpayers own Ginnie too.
Only last week, Ginnie announced that it issued a monthly record of $43 billion in mortgage-backed securities in June. Ginnie Mae President Joseph Murin sounded almost giddy as he cheered this “phenomenal growth.” Ginnie Mae’s mortgage exposure is expected to top $1 trillion by the end of next year—or far more than double the dollar amount of 2007. (See the nearby table.) Earlier this summer, Reuters quoted Anthony Medici of the Housing Department’s Inspector General’s office as saying, “Who would have predicted that Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae would have swapped positions” in loan volume?
Ginnie’s mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam’s home mortgage shop. Ginnie’s growth is a by-product of the FHA’s spectacular growth. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages—quadruple the amount in 2006. Among the FHA, Ginnie, Fannie and Freddie, nearly nine of every 10 new mortgages in America now carry a federal taxpayer guarantee.
Herein lies the problem. The FHA’s standard insurance program today is notoriously lax. It backs low downpayment loans, to buyers who often have below-average to poor credit ratings, and with almost no oversight to protect against fraud. Sound familiar? This is called subprime lending—the same financial roulette that busted Fannie, Freddie and large mortgage houses like Countrywide Financial.
On June 18, HUD’s Inspector General issued a scathing report on the FHA’s lax insurance practices. It found that the FHA’s default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days. The FHA’s reserve fund was found to have fallen in half, to 3% from 6.4% in 2007—meaning it now has a 33 to 1 leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory. The IG says the FHA may need a “Congressional appropriation intervention to make up the shortfall.”
The IG also fears that the recent “surge in FHA loans is likely to overtax the oversight resources of the FHA, making careful and comprehensive lender monitoring difficult.” And it warned that the growth in FHA mortgage volume could make the program “vulnerable to exploitation by fraud schemes . . . that undercut the integrity of the program.” The 19-page IG report includes a horror show of recent fraud cases.
If housing values continue to slide and 10% of FHA loans end up in default, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $50 to $60 billion of mortgage losses. Only last week, Taylor Bean, the FHA’s third largest mortgage originator in June with $17 billion in loans this year, announced it is terminating operations after the FHA barred the mortgage lender from participating in its insurance program. The feds alleged that Taylor Bean had “misrepresented” its relationship with an auditor and had “irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud.”
Is anyone on Capitol Hill or the White House paying attention? Evidently not, because on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue policy makers are busy giving the FHA even more business while easing its already loosy-goosy underwriting standards. A few weeks ago a House committee approved legislation to keep the FHA’s loan limit in high-income states like California at $729,750. We wonder how many first-time home buyers purchase a $725,000 home. The Members must have missed the IG’s warning that higher loan limits may mean “much greater losses by FHA” and will make fraudsters “much more attracted to the product.”
In the wake of the mortgage meltdown, most private lenders have reverted to the traditional down payment rule of 10% or 20%. Housing experts agree that a high down payment is the best protection against default and foreclosure because it means the owner has something to lose by walking away. Meanwhile, at the FHA, the down payment requirement remains a mere 3.5%. Other policies—such as allowing the buyer to finance closing costs and use the homebuyer tax credit to cover costs—can drive the down payment to below 2%.
Then there is the booming refinancing program that Congress has approved to move into the FHA hundreds of thousands of borrowers who can’t pay their mortgage, including many with subprime and other exotic loans. HUD just announced that starting this week the FHA will refinance troubled mortgages by reducing up to 30% of the principal under the Home Affordable Modification Program. This program is intended to reduce foreclosures, but someone has to pick up the multibillion-dollar cost of the 30% loan forgiveness. That will be taxpayers.
In some cases, these owners are so overdue in their payments, and housing prices have fallen so dramatically, that the borrowers have a negative 25% equity in the home and they are still eligible for an FHA refi. We also know from other government and private loan modification programs that a borrower who has defaulted on the mortgage once is at very high risk (25%-50%) of defaulting again.
All of which means that the FHA and Ginnie Mae could well be the next Fannie and Freddie. While Fan and Fred carried “implicit” federal guarantees, the FHA and Ginnie carry the explicit full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
We’ve long argued that Congress has a fiduciary duty to secure the safety and soundness of FHA through common sense reforms. Eliminate the 100% guarantee on FHA loans, so lenders have a greater financial incentive to insure the soundness of the loan; adopt the private sector convention of a 10% down payment, which would reduce foreclosures; and stop putting subprime loans that should have never been made in the first place on the federal balance sheet.
The housing lobby, which gets rich off FHA insurance, has long blocked these due-diligence reforms, saying there’s no threat to taxpayers. That’s what they also said about Fan and Fred—$400 billion ago.
Corporate Earnings Are No Sign of Recovery
Corporate Earnings Are No Sign of Recovery. By ZACHARY KARABELL
WSJ, Aug 09, 2009
Despite grim predictions, most major U.S. companies have reported positive earnings for the second quarter of 2009. Given how wrong past predictions have been, the fact that earnings have blown away expectations shouldn’t be so surprising. Still, the numbers are genuinely impressive: More than 73% of the companies that have reported so far have beaten earnings estimates—and stocks have rightly rallied.
Yes, profits are down sharply from a year ago, but this is in the context of an overall global economy that is shrinking. If a company made $30 million on $100 million in revenue a year ago, and made “only” $20 million this quarter, it’s accurate to have a headline that says its profits fell 33%. But making $20 million, or a 20% margin, in an economy that contracted is nonetheless startling, or should be.
The same Wall Street culture that failed to anticipate the tipping point in the financial system is just as prone to a herd mentality of negativity. Having overlooked the gaping fissures in the system last year, most analysts went to the other extreme in their analysis of what would happen this year. A similar process occurred in 2002 and 2003, as views whipsawed from unrealistic optimism to irrational pessimism.
This time, the slew of better earnings has also led to the conviction that the worst of the economic travails are behind us. As the stock market has soared, many have declared the recession either over or ending. These voices range from public officials at the Federal Reserve to notable pessimists such as New York University economist Nouriel Roubini. This rosy view assumes a connection between how listed companies are fairing and how the national economy will fair. That assumption is wrong.
The delinkage of the fate of corporate profits from that of the overall economy is not new. Beginning earlier in this decade, profits began to accelerate far in excess of either global or U.S. economic growth.
In 2004, for instance, earnings for the S&P 500 grew 22%; in 2005 and 2006 they grew just under 20%. Those same years global growth barely exceeded 3%. As we now know, some of those elevated earnings were due to the leverage-fueled profits of the financial-service industry. And there’s little doubt that mortgage-laced derivatives artificially elevated growth. But even discounting those factors, the growth of corporate profits would have substantially exceeded the expansion of national economies.
Then, in the second half of last year and the first months of this year, profits plunged along with U.S. and global economic activity. That gave succor to the belief that companies can only grow as much as the economies in which they function grow. For years, most analysts argued that if there was too wide a variance between the two, something had to give. Either profits had to descend or national economic growth had to accelerate. As profits shrank over the past nine months, those who argued that a reversion to the mean was inevitable seemed to be vindicated. But that belief is wrong. Companies are increasingly less constrained by any national economy, and their success is no harbinger of national economic growth or sustained economic health for the United States.
First, companies have been profiting because they can cut costs aggressively. It’s not as if demand in the U.S. or Europe has picked up. Take Starbucks, which reported a surprising surge in profits. Little of that was due to American consumers suddenly becoming comfortable with $5 grande mocha lattes. Instead, it was because Starbucks—faced with weak demand and sluggish sales—closed stores and laid off workers. That has been a trend across industries.
Second, many larger companies have been profiting because they can focus on where the growth is around the globe. Companies such as Intel, Caterpillar, Microsoft and IBM now derive a majority of their revenues from outside the U.S., with the dynamic economies of the Asian rim and above all China assuming an ever-larger role. Companies are thriving in spite of economic activity in the U.S., not because of it.
That suggests the connection between corporate profits and robust economic recovery in the U.S. is tenuous at best. In fact, the financial crisis hastened the trend toward efficiencies, toward leaner inventories, and towards integrating both technology and global supply chains that has been taking place over the past decade.
That has led to severe pressure on the American working class and eroding employment. As these companies profit from global expansion and greater efficiency, they have little or no reason to rehire fired workers, or to expand their work force in a U.S. that is barely growing. If you are a global company, you want to hire and expand where the most dynamic growth is. Unfortunately for Americans, that’s not the U.S.
So we are facing a conundrum: Companies can grow by leaps and bounds—by double-digits—and yet unemployment can skyrocket and remain high. There is nothing on the horizon that would lead one to expect a turnaround in the employment picture.
Job losses slowed slightly last month as the unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in July from 9.5% in June, but that’s a far cry from any sign of job creation. The weight of more than 20 million marginally employed or unemployed, combined with the increasing pace of economic activity outside the U.S., presents the prospect of permanent change in the American economic landscape: high unemployment, moderate to weak growth, and soaring corporate profits.
The ability of companies—large ones especially, but even more modest ventures that assemble and source globally—to become more efficient and go where the growth is has never been greater. This is undoubtedly good for stocks and positive for investors, but it is also a challenge for American society that we have not even begun to confront.
Mr. Karabell is president of River Twice Research. His new book, “Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World’s Prosperity Depends on It,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in October.
WSJ, Aug 09, 2009
Despite grim predictions, most major U.S. companies have reported positive earnings for the second quarter of 2009. Given how wrong past predictions have been, the fact that earnings have blown away expectations shouldn’t be so surprising. Still, the numbers are genuinely impressive: More than 73% of the companies that have reported so far have beaten earnings estimates—and stocks have rightly rallied.
Yes, profits are down sharply from a year ago, but this is in the context of an overall global economy that is shrinking. If a company made $30 million on $100 million in revenue a year ago, and made “only” $20 million this quarter, it’s accurate to have a headline that says its profits fell 33%. But making $20 million, or a 20% margin, in an economy that contracted is nonetheless startling, or should be.
The same Wall Street culture that failed to anticipate the tipping point in the financial system is just as prone to a herd mentality of negativity. Having overlooked the gaping fissures in the system last year, most analysts went to the other extreme in their analysis of what would happen this year. A similar process occurred in 2002 and 2003, as views whipsawed from unrealistic optimism to irrational pessimism.
This time, the slew of better earnings has also led to the conviction that the worst of the economic travails are behind us. As the stock market has soared, many have declared the recession either over or ending. These voices range from public officials at the Federal Reserve to notable pessimists such as New York University economist Nouriel Roubini. This rosy view assumes a connection between how listed companies are fairing and how the national economy will fair. That assumption is wrong.
The delinkage of the fate of corporate profits from that of the overall economy is not new. Beginning earlier in this decade, profits began to accelerate far in excess of either global or U.S. economic growth.
In 2004, for instance, earnings for the S&P 500 grew 22%; in 2005 and 2006 they grew just under 20%. Those same years global growth barely exceeded 3%. As we now know, some of those elevated earnings were due to the leverage-fueled profits of the financial-service industry. And there’s little doubt that mortgage-laced derivatives artificially elevated growth. But even discounting those factors, the growth of corporate profits would have substantially exceeded the expansion of national economies.
Then, in the second half of last year and the first months of this year, profits plunged along with U.S. and global economic activity. That gave succor to the belief that companies can only grow as much as the economies in which they function grow. For years, most analysts argued that if there was too wide a variance between the two, something had to give. Either profits had to descend or national economic growth had to accelerate. As profits shrank over the past nine months, those who argued that a reversion to the mean was inevitable seemed to be vindicated. But that belief is wrong. Companies are increasingly less constrained by any national economy, and their success is no harbinger of national economic growth or sustained economic health for the United States.
First, companies have been profiting because they can cut costs aggressively. It’s not as if demand in the U.S. or Europe has picked up. Take Starbucks, which reported a surprising surge in profits. Little of that was due to American consumers suddenly becoming comfortable with $5 grande mocha lattes. Instead, it was because Starbucks—faced with weak demand and sluggish sales—closed stores and laid off workers. That has been a trend across industries.
Second, many larger companies have been profiting because they can focus on where the growth is around the globe. Companies such as Intel, Caterpillar, Microsoft and IBM now derive a majority of their revenues from outside the U.S., with the dynamic economies of the Asian rim and above all China assuming an ever-larger role. Companies are thriving in spite of economic activity in the U.S., not because of it.
That suggests the connection between corporate profits and robust economic recovery in the U.S. is tenuous at best. In fact, the financial crisis hastened the trend toward efficiencies, toward leaner inventories, and towards integrating both technology and global supply chains that has been taking place over the past decade.
That has led to severe pressure on the American working class and eroding employment. As these companies profit from global expansion and greater efficiency, they have little or no reason to rehire fired workers, or to expand their work force in a U.S. that is barely growing. If you are a global company, you want to hire and expand where the most dynamic growth is. Unfortunately for Americans, that’s not the U.S.
So we are facing a conundrum: Companies can grow by leaps and bounds—by double-digits—and yet unemployment can skyrocket and remain high. There is nothing on the horizon that would lead one to expect a turnaround in the employment picture.
Job losses slowed slightly last month as the unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in July from 9.5% in June, but that’s a far cry from any sign of job creation. The weight of more than 20 million marginally employed or unemployed, combined with the increasing pace of economic activity outside the U.S., presents the prospect of permanent change in the American economic landscape: high unemployment, moderate to weak growth, and soaring corporate profits.
The ability of companies—large ones especially, but even more modest ventures that assemble and source globally—to become more efficient and go where the growth is has never been greater. This is undoubtedly good for stocks and positive for investors, but it is also a challenge for American society that we have not even begun to confront.
Mr. Karabell is president of River Twice Research. His new book, “Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World’s Prosperity Depends on It,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Monday, August 10, 2009
USAID Partners With Chevron To Promote Agricultural Development in Angola
USAID Partners With Chevron Corporation and the CLUSA To Promote Agricultural Development in Angola.
USAID
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chevron Corporation and the Cooperative League of the United States of America (CLUSA) to assist Angola in diversifying its economy by revitalizing small and medium scale commercial farming, and promoting agricultural development that is environmentally friendly, socially just and economically sustainable.
Benefits of Implementation
The partnership between USAID, Chevron and the CLUSA will enable farmers to develop and improve the commercial viability of their products and services. The mechanisms the partnership will use to assist Angola in reaching its agricultural sector development include:
To build on the successes of this partnership, USAID, Chevron and CLUSA will coordinate technical assistance and research to promote environmentally friendly resource management agricultural and agribusiness practices and will serve as the facilitators of "best practices" to country-level partners. They will work together to monitor the impact, effectiveness, and sustainability of their support to agricultural activities.
USAID
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chevron Corporation and the Cooperative League of the United States of America (CLUSA) to assist Angola in diversifying its economy by revitalizing small and medium scale commercial farming, and promoting agricultural development that is environmentally friendly, socially just and economically sustainable.
Benefits of Implementation
The partnership between USAID, Chevron and the CLUSA will enable farmers to develop and improve the commercial viability of their products and services. The mechanisms the partnership will use to assist Angola in reaching its agricultural sector development include:
- Providing finance, business and training support to small and medium scale farmers and related agricultural enterprises;
- Strengthening the capacity of agrarian schools;
- Providing assistance to non-governmental organizations that deliver savings and credit products to small and medium scale farmers and related agricultural enterprises;
- Technical assistance to commercial banks providing wholesale lending to rural finance institutions; and
- Financing and support to private sector-based agricultural initiatives that promote sustainable, integrated value chains that link producers, input suppliers, financiers, buyers and other agribusinesses.
To build on the successes of this partnership, USAID, Chevron and CLUSA will coordinate technical assistance and research to promote environmentally friendly resource management agricultural and agribusiness practices and will serve as the facilitators of "best practices" to country-level partners. They will work together to monitor the impact, effectiveness, and sustainability of their support to agricultural activities.
Friday, August 7, 2009
US Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails
There Is a Military Option on Iran. By CHUCK WALD
U.S. Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.
WSJ, Aug 07, 2009
In a policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Iran, “We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage.” But the Iranian government has yet to accept President Obama’s outstretched hand. Even if Tehran suddenly acceded to talks, U.S. policy makers must prepare for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. While there has been much discussion of economic sanctions, we cannot neglect the military’s role in a Plan B.
There has been a lack of serious public discussion of the military tools available to us. Any mention of them is either met with accusations of warmongering or hushed with concerns over sharing sensitive information. It is important to discuss, within legal limits, such a serious issue as openly as possible. Discussion strengthens our democracy and dispels misinformation.
The military can play an important role in solving this complex problem without firing a single shot. Publicly signaling serious preparation for a military strike might obviate the need for one if deployments force Tehran to recognize the costs of its nuclear defiance. Mr. Obama might consider, for example, the deployment of additional carrier battle groups and minesweepers to the waters off Iran, and the conduct of military exercises with allies.
If such pressure fails to impress Iranian leadership, the U.S. Navy could move to blockade Iranian ports. A blockade—which is an act of war—would effectively cut off Iran’s gasoline imports, which constitute about one-third of its consumption. Especially in the aftermath of post-election protests, the Iranian leadership must worry about the economic dislocations and political impact of such action.
Should these measures not compel Tehran to reverse course on its nuclear program, and only after all other diplomatic avenues and economic pressures have been exhausted, the U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.
Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility. They assume that the U.S. military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified.
Such assumptions are false.
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would mostly involve air assets, primarily Air Force and Navy, that are not strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces in countries that border Iran offers distinct advantages. Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform clandestine operations. It would be prudent to emplace additional missile-defense capabilities in the region, upgrade both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to pressure Iran from all directions.
Conflict may reveal previously undetected Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them. Moreover, nuclear sites buried underground may survive sustained bombing, but their entrances and exits will not.
Of course, there are huge risks to military action: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around an unstable and oppressive regime; Iranian reprisals be they direct or by proxy against us and our allies; and Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf states, first and foremost in Iraq.
Furthermore, while a successful bombing campaign would set back Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. An attack would also necessitate years of continued vigilance, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its nuclear program.
But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing. If the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program despite the best efforts of Mr. Obama and other world leaders, we risk Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of radicals in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race.
A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome. But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a U.S. military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option.
Gen. Wald (U.S. Air Force four-star, retired) was the air commander for the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and deputy commander of the U.S. European Command. He was also a participant in the Bipartisan Policy Center’s project on U.S. policy toward Iran, “Meeting the Challenge.”
U.S. Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.
WSJ, Aug 07, 2009
In a policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Iran, “We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage.” But the Iranian government has yet to accept President Obama’s outstretched hand. Even if Tehran suddenly acceded to talks, U.S. policy makers must prepare for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. While there has been much discussion of economic sanctions, we cannot neglect the military’s role in a Plan B.
There has been a lack of serious public discussion of the military tools available to us. Any mention of them is either met with accusations of warmongering or hushed with concerns over sharing sensitive information. It is important to discuss, within legal limits, such a serious issue as openly as possible. Discussion strengthens our democracy and dispels misinformation.
The military can play an important role in solving this complex problem without firing a single shot. Publicly signaling serious preparation for a military strike might obviate the need for one if deployments force Tehran to recognize the costs of its nuclear defiance. Mr. Obama might consider, for example, the deployment of additional carrier battle groups and minesweepers to the waters off Iran, and the conduct of military exercises with allies.
If such pressure fails to impress Iranian leadership, the U.S. Navy could move to blockade Iranian ports. A blockade—which is an act of war—would effectively cut off Iran’s gasoline imports, which constitute about one-third of its consumption. Especially in the aftermath of post-election protests, the Iranian leadership must worry about the economic dislocations and political impact of such action.
Should these measures not compel Tehran to reverse course on its nuclear program, and only after all other diplomatic avenues and economic pressures have been exhausted, the U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.
Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility. They assume that the U.S. military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified.
Such assumptions are false.
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would mostly involve air assets, primarily Air Force and Navy, that are not strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces in countries that border Iran offers distinct advantages. Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform clandestine operations. It would be prudent to emplace additional missile-defense capabilities in the region, upgrade both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to pressure Iran from all directions.
Conflict may reveal previously undetected Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them. Moreover, nuclear sites buried underground may survive sustained bombing, but their entrances and exits will not.
Of course, there are huge risks to military action: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around an unstable and oppressive regime; Iranian reprisals be they direct or by proxy against us and our allies; and Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf states, first and foremost in Iraq.
Furthermore, while a successful bombing campaign would set back Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. An attack would also necessitate years of continued vigilance, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its nuclear program.
But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing. If the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program despite the best efforts of Mr. Obama and other world leaders, we risk Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of radicals in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race.
A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome. But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a U.S. military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option.
Gen. Wald (U.S. Air Force four-star, retired) was the air commander for the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and deputy commander of the U.S. European Command. He was also a participant in the Bipartisan Policy Center’s project on U.S. policy toward Iran, “Meeting the Challenge.”
Thursday, August 6, 2009
How Japan Restored Its Financial System - The focus was on better risk controls, not higher capital reserves
How Japan Restored Its Financial System. By KATSUNORI NAGAYASU
The focus was on better risk controls, not higher capital reserves.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
Regulatory authorities around the world are currently discussing ways to prevent another financial crisis. One idea is to mandate higher levels of capital reserves. Japan’s banking reform shows that a comprehensive solution would work better.
After our bubble economy collapsed in the 1990s, it took policy makers many years to address the real issue: the health of our financial system. When they did, they injected public funds into large Japanese banks across the board, enhanced deposit insurance safety nets, and accelerated the disposal of nonperforming assets based on strict risk assessments. The market selected which banks could survive under a system of multiple regulatory requirements, not just a capital requirement. Many banks were absorbed into larger entities.
Japan also avoided moral hazard by studiously avoiding the classification of any bank as “too big to fail.” Regulators instead put more emphasis on improving banks’ risk controls and did not require them to have excess capital. The financial system soon regained its health and the economy enjoyed seven consecutive years of uninterrupted growth, starting in 2001.
Today’s regulatory dialogue in the United States and Europe has implicitly assumed that large financial institutions are “too big to fail.” This assumption may encourage banks to take excessive risks, resulting in potentially more bank bailouts. It has also skewed the regulatory debate toward a focus on requiring banks to hold higher levels of “going concern capital,” such as common equity.
This is a dangerous path to follow. If regulators mandate higher capital requirements for banks, there is no guarantee that banks will be able to raise that capital in equity markets. They may have to shrink their balance sheets to meet the requirements, potentially curtailing their capacity to lend and support economic growth. A narrowly defined approach to capital regulation would also reduce banks’ options for raising other types of capital when they need it. This could result in systemic risk when another financial crisis hits.
A better regulatory framework must combine capital regulations with other tools, including a resolution mechanism for financial institutions that fail, a retail deposit insurance system, and a prompt corrective action system that allows regulators to force a bank to take action before it fails. As long as the regulators can effectively control systemic risk by taking such a multifaceted approach, banks should also be allowed to absorb losses, raising capital other than common equity. It should be acceptable to allow banks to fail, and there should be no need for excessive capital requirements.
A new regulatory framework must also distinguish between banks whose main business is deposit taking and lending—the vast majority of banks world-wide—and banks that trade for their own account. The recent financial crisis demonstrated that balance sheet structure matters. Trusted banks with a large retail deposit base continued to provide funds to customers even in the depths of the crisis, whereas many banks that relied heavily on market funding or largely trading for their own account effectively failed. Investment banks with higher risk businesses by nature should be charged a higher level of capital requirement—otherwise, sound banking will not be rewarded.
Higher capital requirements attempt to rectify market or systemic failure by denying the market mechanism, where banks that take too much risk fail, and those that don’t, survive. Excessive regulation will stifle healthy competition in banking.
Policy makers instead should learn from Japan’s experience by improving the range of regulatory rules available and setting reasonable capital rules for banks based on their actual business models. That’s the best way to ensure banks perform their essential role at the lowest long-term cost to taxpayers, customers and shareholders.
Mr. Nagayasu is president of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and chairman of the Japanese Bankers Association.
The focus was on better risk controls, not higher capital reserves.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
Regulatory authorities around the world are currently discussing ways to prevent another financial crisis. One idea is to mandate higher levels of capital reserves. Japan’s banking reform shows that a comprehensive solution would work better.
After our bubble economy collapsed in the 1990s, it took policy makers many years to address the real issue: the health of our financial system. When they did, they injected public funds into large Japanese banks across the board, enhanced deposit insurance safety nets, and accelerated the disposal of nonperforming assets based on strict risk assessments. The market selected which banks could survive under a system of multiple regulatory requirements, not just a capital requirement. Many banks were absorbed into larger entities.
Japan also avoided moral hazard by studiously avoiding the classification of any bank as “too big to fail.” Regulators instead put more emphasis on improving banks’ risk controls and did not require them to have excess capital. The financial system soon regained its health and the economy enjoyed seven consecutive years of uninterrupted growth, starting in 2001.
Today’s regulatory dialogue in the United States and Europe has implicitly assumed that large financial institutions are “too big to fail.” This assumption may encourage banks to take excessive risks, resulting in potentially more bank bailouts. It has also skewed the regulatory debate toward a focus on requiring banks to hold higher levels of “going concern capital,” such as common equity.
This is a dangerous path to follow. If regulators mandate higher capital requirements for banks, there is no guarantee that banks will be able to raise that capital in equity markets. They may have to shrink their balance sheets to meet the requirements, potentially curtailing their capacity to lend and support economic growth. A narrowly defined approach to capital regulation would also reduce banks’ options for raising other types of capital when they need it. This could result in systemic risk when another financial crisis hits.
A better regulatory framework must combine capital regulations with other tools, including a resolution mechanism for financial institutions that fail, a retail deposit insurance system, and a prompt corrective action system that allows regulators to force a bank to take action before it fails. As long as the regulators can effectively control systemic risk by taking such a multifaceted approach, banks should also be allowed to absorb losses, raising capital other than common equity. It should be acceptable to allow banks to fail, and there should be no need for excessive capital requirements.
A new regulatory framework must also distinguish between banks whose main business is deposit taking and lending—the vast majority of banks world-wide—and banks that trade for their own account. The recent financial crisis demonstrated that balance sheet structure matters. Trusted banks with a large retail deposit base continued to provide funds to customers even in the depths of the crisis, whereas many banks that relied heavily on market funding or largely trading for their own account effectively failed. Investment banks with higher risk businesses by nature should be charged a higher level of capital requirement—otherwise, sound banking will not be rewarded.
Higher capital requirements attempt to rectify market or systemic failure by denying the market mechanism, where banks that take too much risk fail, and those that don’t, survive. Excessive regulation will stifle healthy competition in banking.
Policy makers instead should learn from Japan’s experience by improving the range of regulatory rules available and setting reasonable capital rules for banks based on their actual business models. That’s the best way to ensure banks perform their essential role at the lowest long-term cost to taxpayers, customers and shareholders.
Mr. Nagayasu is president of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and chairman of the Japanese Bankers Association.
A new database tracks emerging threats to trade
Protectionism Exposed. By CHAD P. BOWN
A new database tracks emerging threats to trade.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
In May, the United States slapped new tariffs on steel pipe imports from China. In June, China imposed new barriers on U.S. and European Union exports of adipic acid, an industrial chemical used to make nylon and polyester resin. In July, the EU also decided to restrict imports of steel pipe from China.
The important question now is, do these events foreshadow spiraling protectionism and tit-for-tat retaliation that threaten a global trade war? Or is trade policy always like this, and we’re just noticing more now, given the global slowdown and heightened fears of Smoot-Hawley-style protectionism?
A new set of data on protectionism can help answer that question. The World Bank’s newly updated Global Antidumping Database, which I help organize, displays in almost real time emerging trends in this form of protectionism in more than 20 of the largest economies in the World Trade Organization. Some of the numbers are worrying.
The count of newly imposed protectionist policies like antidumping duties and other “safeguard” measures increased by 31% in the first half of 2009 relative to the same period one year ago, which itself is not an alarming number. But many governments take more than a year to make final decisions on such policies after receiving the initial request for protection from a domestic industry. The fact that industry requests for new import restrictions were 34% higher in 2008 relative to 2007 is a worrying trend even though 2007 saw a historical low in such requests. And with the recession continuing, requests for new import restrictions were 19% higher in the first half of 2009 relative to 2008.
This suggests a wave of new protectionist measures may be on the way. While leaders of the Group of 20 large economies unanimously pledged not to resort to protectionism at a Washington summit last November and reaffirmed this in London in April, virtually all of them have slipped at least a little bit.
Nor is it just the U.S., EU and China: Since the beginning of 2008, Indian companies alone are responsible for roughly 25% of all requests for new trade barriers, attacking a range of imports that include steel, DVDs, yarn, tires and a variety of industrial chemicals. While it is too early to know the final resolution of these new investigations, Indian policy makers have imposed at least preliminary barriers on more than 20 different products being investigated.
The burden of this protectionism is not uniformly distributed among exporting countries. In the first half of this year, China’s exporters were specifically named in more than 75% of these economies’ newly initiated investigations. In the second quarter, China’s exporters were targeted in all 17 of the cases in which new trade barriers were imposed around the world.
Despite all this bad news, there is a silver lining. The fact that countries may be resorting to antidumping actions and safeguards in lieu of other protectionist policies, such as across-the-board tariff increases or a proliferation of “Buy-America”-type provisions in national stimulus packages, is a partial sign of the strength and resilience of the rules-based WTO system. It is important to have a reliable trading system that allows for the transparency necessary to clearly see the new trade barriers, because industry demands for protectionism are somewhat inevitable in a recession.
That’s encouraging because “little” acts of protectionism could add up to a big problem. Having accurate data on the extent of the problem is important, but the only solution is for policy makers to recognize the dangers of the path they’re headed down.
Mr. Bown, an economics professor at Brandeis University and fellow at the Brookings Institution, is author of “Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement” (Brookings Press, 2009).
A new database tracks emerging threats to trade.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
In May, the United States slapped new tariffs on steel pipe imports from China. In June, China imposed new barriers on U.S. and European Union exports of adipic acid, an industrial chemical used to make nylon and polyester resin. In July, the EU also decided to restrict imports of steel pipe from China.
The important question now is, do these events foreshadow spiraling protectionism and tit-for-tat retaliation that threaten a global trade war? Or is trade policy always like this, and we’re just noticing more now, given the global slowdown and heightened fears of Smoot-Hawley-style protectionism?
A new set of data on protectionism can help answer that question. The World Bank’s newly updated Global Antidumping Database, which I help organize, displays in almost real time emerging trends in this form of protectionism in more than 20 of the largest economies in the World Trade Organization. Some of the numbers are worrying.
The count of newly imposed protectionist policies like antidumping duties and other “safeguard” measures increased by 31% in the first half of 2009 relative to the same period one year ago, which itself is not an alarming number. But many governments take more than a year to make final decisions on such policies after receiving the initial request for protection from a domestic industry. The fact that industry requests for new import restrictions were 34% higher in 2008 relative to 2007 is a worrying trend even though 2007 saw a historical low in such requests. And with the recession continuing, requests for new import restrictions were 19% higher in the first half of 2009 relative to 2008.
This suggests a wave of new protectionist measures may be on the way. While leaders of the Group of 20 large economies unanimously pledged not to resort to protectionism at a Washington summit last November and reaffirmed this in London in April, virtually all of them have slipped at least a little bit.
Nor is it just the U.S., EU and China: Since the beginning of 2008, Indian companies alone are responsible for roughly 25% of all requests for new trade barriers, attacking a range of imports that include steel, DVDs, yarn, tires and a variety of industrial chemicals. While it is too early to know the final resolution of these new investigations, Indian policy makers have imposed at least preliminary barriers on more than 20 different products being investigated.
The burden of this protectionism is not uniformly distributed among exporting countries. In the first half of this year, China’s exporters were specifically named in more than 75% of these economies’ newly initiated investigations. In the second quarter, China’s exporters were targeted in all 17 of the cases in which new trade barriers were imposed around the world.
Despite all this bad news, there is a silver lining. The fact that countries may be resorting to antidumping actions and safeguards in lieu of other protectionist policies, such as across-the-board tariff increases or a proliferation of “Buy-America”-type provisions in national stimulus packages, is a partial sign of the strength and resilience of the rules-based WTO system. It is important to have a reliable trading system that allows for the transparency necessary to clearly see the new trade barriers, because industry demands for protectionism are somewhat inevitable in a recession.
That’s encouraging because “little” acts of protectionism could add up to a big problem. Having accurate data on the extent of the problem is important, but the only solution is for policy makers to recognize the dangers of the path they’re headed down.
Mr. Bown, an economics professor at Brandeis University and fellow at the Brookings Institution, is author of “Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement” (Brookings Press, 2009).
Autocracy and the Decline of the Arabs
Autocracy and the Decline of the Arabs. By FOUAD AJAMI
The Arab world is plagued by despots. But don’t expect the U.N. to give President Bush any credit for challenging this order.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
‘It made me feel so jealous,” said Abdulmonem Ibrahim, a young Egyptian political activist, of the recent upheaval in Iran. “We are amazed at the organization and speed with which the Iranian movement has been functioning. In Egypt you can count the number of activists on your hand.” This degree of “Iran envy” is a telling statement on the stagnation of Arab politics. It is not pretty, Iran’s upheaval, but grant the Iranians their due: They have gone out into the streets to contest the writ of the theocrats.
In contrast, little has stirred in Arab politics of late. The Arabs, by their own testimony, have become spectators to their history. A struggle rages between the Iranian theocracy and the Pax Americana for primacy in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. The Arabs have the demography—360 million people by latest count—and the wealth to balance Iran’s power. But they have taken a pass in the hope that America—or Israel, for that matter—would shatter the Iranian bid for hegemony.
We are now in the midst of one of those periodic autopsies of the Arab condition. The trigger is the publication last month of the Arab Human Development Report 2009, the fifth of a series of reports by the by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on the state of the contemporary Arab world.
The first of these reports, published in 2002, was treated with deference. A group of Arab truth-tellers, it was believed, had broken with the evasions and the apologetics to tell of the sordid condition of Arab society—the autocratic political culture, the economic stagnation, the cultural decay. So all Arabs combined had a smaller manufacturing capacity than Finland with its five million people, and a vast Arabic-speaking world translated into Arabic a fifth of the foreign books that Greece with its 11 million people translates. With all the oil in the region, tens of millions of Arabs were living below the poverty line.
Little has altered in the years separating the first of these reports from the most recent. A huge oil windfall came into the region, and it was better handled, it has to be conceded, than earlier oil windfalls. But on balance the grief of the Arabs has deepened, and the autocracies are yet to be brought to account. They remain unloved, but they remain in the saddle.
In a clever turn of phrase, The Economist recently wrote of an Arab Rip Abu Winkle awakening from a slumber into which he had fallen in the early 1980s to marvel at how little has changed. He would find Hosni Mubarak still at the helm in Cairo, the policeman Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. He would miss Hafez Assad in Damascus, but he would be reassured that his son Bashar had inherited his father’s dominion. He would of course find the same dynasties in Jordan and in the Arab states of the Peninsula and the Gulf.
Wily rulers, the men at the helm may have failed their peoples. They may have denied them decent educational systems. They may not have figured out a way into the modern world economy. But they have mastered the art of political survival. “He who eats the sultan’s bread, fights with the sultan’s sword,” goes an Arabic maxim. The economic dominance of the rulers, the absence of the countervailing power of property and the private sector, has increased the awesome power of the governments and their security establishments.
It is no mystery, this sorrowful decline of the Arabs. They have invested their hopes in states, and the states have failed. According to the UNDP’s report, government revenues as percentage of GDP are 13% in Third World Countries, but they are 25% in the Middle East and North Africa. The oil states are a world apart in that regard: the comparable figures are 68% in Libya, 45% in Saudi Arabia, and 40% in Algeria, Kuwait and Qatar. Oil is no panacea for these lands. The unemployment rates for the Arab world as a whole are the highest in the world, and no prophecy could foresee these societies providing the 51 million jobs the UNDP report says are needed by 2020 to “absorb young entrants to the labor force who would otherwise face an empty future.”
The simple truth is that the Arab world has terrible rulers and worse oppositionists. There are autocrats on one side and theocrats on the other. A timid and fragile middle class is caught in the middle between regimes it abhors and Islamists it fears.
Indeed, the technocrats and intellectuals associated with these development reports are themselves no angels. On the whole, they are unreconstructed Arab nationalists. The patrons of these reports are the likes of the Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi and the Palestinian leader Hanan Ashrawi, intellectuals and public figures whose stock-in-trade is presumed Western (read American) guilt for the ills that afflict the Arabs. Anti-Americanism suffuses this report, as it did the earlier ones.
There is cruelty and plunder aplenty in the Arab world, but these writers are particularly exercised about Iraq. “This intervention polarized the country,” they say of Iraq. This is a myth of the Arabs who are yet to grant the Iraqis the right to their own history: There had been a secular culture under the Baath, they insist, but the American war begot the sectarianism. To go by this report, Iraq is a place of mayhem and plunder, a land where militias rule uncontested.
For decades, it was the standard argument of the Arabs that America had cast its power in the region on the side of the autocrats. In Iraq in 2003, and then in Lebanon, an American president bet on the freedom of the Arabs. George W. Bush’s freedom agenda broke with a long history and insisted that the Arabs did not have tyranny in their DNA. A despotism in Baghdad was toppled, a Syrian regime that had all but erased its border with Lebanon was pushed out of its smaller neighbor, bringing an end to three decades of brutal occupation. The “Cedar Revolution” that erupted in the streets of Beirut was but a child of Bush’s diplomacy of freedom.
Arabs know this history even as they say otherwise, even as they tell the pollsters the obligatory things about America the pollsters expect them to say. True, Mr. Bush’s wager on elections in the Palestinian territories rebounded to the benefit of Hamas. But the ballot is not infallible, and the verdict of that election was a statement on the malignancies of Palestinian politics. It was no fault of American diplomacy that the Palestinians, who needed to break with a history of maximalist demands, gave in yet again to radical temptations.
Now the Arabs are face to face with their own history. Instead of George W. Bush there is Barack Hussein Obama, an American leader pledged to a foreign policy of “realism.” The Arabs express fondness for the new American president. In his fashion (and in the fashion of their world and their leaders, it has to be said) President Obama gave the Arabs a speech in Cairo two months ago. It was a moment of theater and therapy. The speech delivered, the foreign visitor was gone. He had put another marker on the globe, another place to which he had taken his astounding belief in his biography and his conviction that another foreign population had been wooed by his oratory and weaned away from anti-Americanism.
The crowd could tell itself that the new standard-bearer of the Pax Americana was a man who understood its concerns, but the embattled modernists and the critics of autocracy knew better. There is no mistaking the animating drive of the new American policy in that Greater Middle East: realism and benign neglect, the safety of the status quo rather than the risks of liberty. (If in doubt, the Arabs could check with their Iranian neighbors. The Persians would tell them of the new mood in Washington.)
One day an Arab chronicle could yet be written, and like all Arab chronicles, it would tell of woes and missed opportunities. It would acknowledge that brief interlude when American power gave Arab autocracies a scare, and when a despotism in Baghdad and a brutal “brotherly” occupation in Beirut were laid to waste. The chroniclers would have to be an honest lot. They would speak the language of daily life, and the truths that Arabs have seen and endured in recent years. On that day, the “human development reports” would be discarded, their writers seen for the purveyors of double-speak and half-truths they were.
Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and an adjunct fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author, among other books, of “The Arab Predicament: Arab Political Thought and Practice since 1967 (Cambridge University Press, 1981).
The Arab world is plagued by despots. But don’t expect the U.N. to give President Bush any credit for challenging this order.
WSJ, Aug 06, 2009
‘It made me feel so jealous,” said Abdulmonem Ibrahim, a young Egyptian political activist, of the recent upheaval in Iran. “We are amazed at the organization and speed with which the Iranian movement has been functioning. In Egypt you can count the number of activists on your hand.” This degree of “Iran envy” is a telling statement on the stagnation of Arab politics. It is not pretty, Iran’s upheaval, but grant the Iranians their due: They have gone out into the streets to contest the writ of the theocrats.
In contrast, little has stirred in Arab politics of late. The Arabs, by their own testimony, have become spectators to their history. A struggle rages between the Iranian theocracy and the Pax Americana for primacy in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. The Arabs have the demography—360 million people by latest count—and the wealth to balance Iran’s power. But they have taken a pass in the hope that America—or Israel, for that matter—would shatter the Iranian bid for hegemony.
We are now in the midst of one of those periodic autopsies of the Arab condition. The trigger is the publication last month of the Arab Human Development Report 2009, the fifth of a series of reports by the by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on the state of the contemporary Arab world.
The first of these reports, published in 2002, was treated with deference. A group of Arab truth-tellers, it was believed, had broken with the evasions and the apologetics to tell of the sordid condition of Arab society—the autocratic political culture, the economic stagnation, the cultural decay. So all Arabs combined had a smaller manufacturing capacity than Finland with its five million people, and a vast Arabic-speaking world translated into Arabic a fifth of the foreign books that Greece with its 11 million people translates. With all the oil in the region, tens of millions of Arabs were living below the poverty line.
Little has altered in the years separating the first of these reports from the most recent. A huge oil windfall came into the region, and it was better handled, it has to be conceded, than earlier oil windfalls. But on balance the grief of the Arabs has deepened, and the autocracies are yet to be brought to account. They remain unloved, but they remain in the saddle.
In a clever turn of phrase, The Economist recently wrote of an Arab Rip Abu Winkle awakening from a slumber into which he had fallen in the early 1980s to marvel at how little has changed. He would find Hosni Mubarak still at the helm in Cairo, the policeman Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. He would miss Hafez Assad in Damascus, but he would be reassured that his son Bashar had inherited his father’s dominion. He would of course find the same dynasties in Jordan and in the Arab states of the Peninsula and the Gulf.
Wily rulers, the men at the helm may have failed their peoples. They may have denied them decent educational systems. They may not have figured out a way into the modern world economy. But they have mastered the art of political survival. “He who eats the sultan’s bread, fights with the sultan’s sword,” goes an Arabic maxim. The economic dominance of the rulers, the absence of the countervailing power of property and the private sector, has increased the awesome power of the governments and their security establishments.
It is no mystery, this sorrowful decline of the Arabs. They have invested their hopes in states, and the states have failed. According to the UNDP’s report, government revenues as percentage of GDP are 13% in Third World Countries, but they are 25% in the Middle East and North Africa. The oil states are a world apart in that regard: the comparable figures are 68% in Libya, 45% in Saudi Arabia, and 40% in Algeria, Kuwait and Qatar. Oil is no panacea for these lands. The unemployment rates for the Arab world as a whole are the highest in the world, and no prophecy could foresee these societies providing the 51 million jobs the UNDP report says are needed by 2020 to “absorb young entrants to the labor force who would otherwise face an empty future.”
The simple truth is that the Arab world has terrible rulers and worse oppositionists. There are autocrats on one side and theocrats on the other. A timid and fragile middle class is caught in the middle between regimes it abhors and Islamists it fears.
Indeed, the technocrats and intellectuals associated with these development reports are themselves no angels. On the whole, they are unreconstructed Arab nationalists. The patrons of these reports are the likes of the Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi and the Palestinian leader Hanan Ashrawi, intellectuals and public figures whose stock-in-trade is presumed Western (read American) guilt for the ills that afflict the Arabs. Anti-Americanism suffuses this report, as it did the earlier ones.
There is cruelty and plunder aplenty in the Arab world, but these writers are particularly exercised about Iraq. “This intervention polarized the country,” they say of Iraq. This is a myth of the Arabs who are yet to grant the Iraqis the right to their own history: There had been a secular culture under the Baath, they insist, but the American war begot the sectarianism. To go by this report, Iraq is a place of mayhem and plunder, a land where militias rule uncontested.
For decades, it was the standard argument of the Arabs that America had cast its power in the region on the side of the autocrats. In Iraq in 2003, and then in Lebanon, an American president bet on the freedom of the Arabs. George W. Bush’s freedom agenda broke with a long history and insisted that the Arabs did not have tyranny in their DNA. A despotism in Baghdad was toppled, a Syrian regime that had all but erased its border with Lebanon was pushed out of its smaller neighbor, bringing an end to three decades of brutal occupation. The “Cedar Revolution” that erupted in the streets of Beirut was but a child of Bush’s diplomacy of freedom.
Arabs know this history even as they say otherwise, even as they tell the pollsters the obligatory things about America the pollsters expect them to say. True, Mr. Bush’s wager on elections in the Palestinian territories rebounded to the benefit of Hamas. But the ballot is not infallible, and the verdict of that election was a statement on the malignancies of Palestinian politics. It was no fault of American diplomacy that the Palestinians, who needed to break with a history of maximalist demands, gave in yet again to radical temptations.
Now the Arabs are face to face with their own history. Instead of George W. Bush there is Barack Hussein Obama, an American leader pledged to a foreign policy of “realism.” The Arabs express fondness for the new American president. In his fashion (and in the fashion of their world and their leaders, it has to be said) President Obama gave the Arabs a speech in Cairo two months ago. It was a moment of theater and therapy. The speech delivered, the foreign visitor was gone. He had put another marker on the globe, another place to which he had taken his astounding belief in his biography and his conviction that another foreign population had been wooed by his oratory and weaned away from anti-Americanism.
The crowd could tell itself that the new standard-bearer of the Pax Americana was a man who understood its concerns, but the embattled modernists and the critics of autocracy knew better. There is no mistaking the animating drive of the new American policy in that Greater Middle East: realism and benign neglect, the safety of the status quo rather than the risks of liberty. (If in doubt, the Arabs could check with their Iranian neighbors. The Persians would tell them of the new mood in Washington.)
One day an Arab chronicle could yet be written, and like all Arab chronicles, it would tell of woes and missed opportunities. It would acknowledge that brief interlude when American power gave Arab autocracies a scare, and when a despotism in Baghdad and a brutal “brotherly” occupation in Beirut were laid to waste. The chroniclers would have to be an honest lot. They would speak the language of daily life, and the truths that Arabs have seen and endured in recent years. On that day, the “human development reports” would be discarded, their writers seen for the purveyors of double-speak and half-truths they were.
Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and an adjunct fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author, among other books, of “The Arab Predicament: Arab Political Thought and Practice since 1967 (Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Vegetables don’t want to be eaten and other lessons from Britain's organic food war
Vegetables don’t want to be eaten and other lessons from Britain's organic food war. By Trevor Butterworth
STATS.org, August 4, 2009
A major British study recently turned conventional wisdom on organic food on its head, triggering a war between science writers, reporters, activists and chefs. Was it a “myth” that organic produce was nutritionally superior to conventional food – or did an agency with an agenda cook up some flawed science to appease big agribusiness?
Bad Science, a book by Ben Goldacre, has become an unusual bestseller in the British Isles, powering its way into the higher reaches of nationally and locally compiled bestseller lists since its publication in the Fall of 2008. Goldacre is a doctor for Britain’s National Health Service (though he plays this down on the grounds that arguments from positions of expertise are often self-defeating with the public), and the book is a continuum of a column by the same name he writes for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper. The Royal Statistical Society awarded him first prize in their inaugural 2007 award for statistical excellence in journalism, and the British Medical Journal, in reviewing “Bad Science,” declared that Goldacre “is fighting what sometimes seems like a one man battle against a tide of pseudoscience and an army of quacks,” and that the country was lucky to have him.
The book’s popularity seems to speak to increasing consumer frustration with information promoted as “scientific,” whether in news stories, government pronouncements, or advertisements for pills and panaceas, and to the hopeful sign that people want to know – or want someone to examine on their behalf – the underlying principles that determine whether such research claims can be considered reliable or unreliable.
These principles came to the forefront in Britain last week – and the rest of the world – with the publication of a new study claiming that there was no reliable evidence that organically-produced food was better, nutritionally, than conventionally-produced food.
The study, “Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review,” was funded by Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), and conducted by researchers from the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit at the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; it was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Senior reporter Karen McVeigh told readers of the Guardian in the opening paragraph of its news report on June 30 that the review’s “conclusions have been called into question by experts and organic food campaigners,” and more than half of the article focused on criticisms of the study, namely that the researchers had been “selective in the extreme,” used “questionable methodology, were contradicted by numerous other studies, and neglected to mention the risks of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming. As Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, the non-profit that advocates for and certifies organic farming in Britain, told the paper, “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.”
Given the way the story was reported, with the validity of the study immediately questioned in the opening paragraph (and with the paper being home to Goldacre’s column), readers could have been forgiven for concluding that the FSA had indeed funded some dodgy research, peer-review notwithstanding.
But at the Guardian’s sister, Sunday paper, The Observer, science editor, Robin McKie, defended the study. “[I]t is certainly not the work of dogmatic and intractably hostile opponents of the cause,” he wrote before weighing in on one of the key criticisms of the study, namely, that it did not take pesticide and fertilizer residues on conventional food into consideration.
“For a start, the idea that organic fruit and veg contain no harmful chemicals compared with non-organic produce is simply wrong, scientists argue. Certainly, there are pesticide residues in the latter but there is no evidence these are cumulatively harmful.
More to the point, organic crops - because they are untreated with chemicals - have correspondingly high levels of natural fungal toxins. Thus they balance out: artificial pesticide residues in non-organic crops, natural fungal toxins in organic.”
As Professor Ottoline Leyser, a molecular biologist at York University told McKie:
“People think that the more natural something is, the better it is for them. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is the opposite that is the true: the closer a plant is to its natural state, the more likely it is that it will poison you. Naturally, plants do not want to be eaten, so we have spent 10,000 years developing agriculture and breeding out harmful traits from crops. ‘Natural agriculture’ is a contradiction in terms.”
Over at the Times of London, science editor Mark Henderson took a similar position, as well as noting that
“Research that appears to support health claims for organic food also suffers from a quality problem. Many studies lack proper controls or fail to detail the organic regime and crop variety being evaluated or the analytical techniques used for assessment.
Studies that fail to meet these standards cannot provide useful evidence and are rightfully excluded from systematic reviews. It is no coincidence that the school had to throw out about two thirds of the available literature.”
The Times also noted that previous reviews by the French and Swedish food standards agencies had come to the same conclusion as this new study.
But as the Observer called into question the thrust of the Guardian’s initial news report, so the Times sister paper, The Sunday Times seemed to question the daily paper’s characterization of the study.
“We dig out the facts from the manure,” said the article’s sub head, but as reporter Chris Gourlay dug away, he seemed less convinced by the FSA’s evidence: The new study’s findings were “controversial” and the Food Standards Agency “claimed a comprehensive review,” but as Carlo Leifert, Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University told Gourlay, the researchers “have ignored all the recent literature as well as new primary research which show the health advantages of organic.” He added that he intended “to rip their study apart in scientific journals.”
Other newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, warned that “studies have found” that children born to farmers in summer, when pesticide use was highest, were “less intelligent.” One columnist rued the focus on nutrition in the Daily Telegraph noting that “All food is nutritious; having no food is what kills. The wider benefits of organic foods are still worth pursuing. It is what food does not contain and the effects that it does not have that really matter.” The Telegraph’s gossip columnist warned that the pro-organic produce Prince Charles had reportedly taken a dim view of the FSA study and was girding for battle.
One notable pattern emerged in the coverage: If the reporter specialized in science, they thought the study well done and conclusive; if the reporter was a generalist, the study was flawed and controversial. So what did the scourge of bad science make of the review and the media coverage?
Goldacre began his column by noting that news coverage had given organic advocates a blanket right of reply to the study. This, he said, was “testament to the lobbying power of this £2bn [$3.38 billion dollars] industry, and the cultural values of people who work in the media.”
He pointed out one of the salient aspects of the study, namely, that it was only about the nutritional content of organic and conventional food, and not about any other kind of benefit. Critics of the study, however, only wanted to talk about other kinds of benefits to prove that the study was flawed; this was, he said, “gamesmanship.” And it was gamesmanship that worked to undermine the public’s understanding and ability to engage in a debate on the evidence by claiming that key evidence was ignored by the FSA.
“The accusation is one of ‘cherry-picking’, and it is hard to see how it can be valid in the kind of study conducted by the FSA, because in a ‘systematic review’, before you begin collecting papers, you specify how you will search for evidence, what databases you will use, what types of studies you will use, how you will grade the quality of the evidence (to see if it was a ‘fair test’), and so on.
What is it that the FSA ignored which so angered the Soil Association? As an example, from their press release, they are ‘disappointed that the FSA failed to include the results of a major European Union-funded study involving 31 research and university institutes and the publication, so far, of more than 100 scientific papers, at a cost of €18m [$25.9 million dollars], which ended in April this year’. They gave the link to qlif.org.
I followed this link and found the list of 120 papers. Almost all are irrelevant. The first 14 are on ‘consumer expectations and attitudes’, which are correctly not included in a systematic review of the evidence on food composition. Then there are 22 on ‘effects of production methods’: here you might expect to find more relevant research, but no.
The first paper (‘The effect of medium term feeding with organic, low input and conventional diet on selected immune parameters in rat’), while interesting, will plainly not be relevant to a systematic review on nutrient content. The same is true of the next paper, ‘Salmonella infection level in Danish indoor and outdoor pig production systems measured by antibodies in meat juice and fecal shedding on-farm and at slaughter’: it is not relevant.
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of these are unpublished conference papers, and some of them are just a description of the fact that somebody made an oral presentation at a meeting. The systematic review correctly looked only at good-quality data published in peer-reviewed academic journals.”
This is a devastating indictment, not just of the Soil Association’s position, but the degree to which reporters did little more than act as stenographers to its criticisms of the FSA study. [Yes, we too followed the link to http://www.qlif.org/ and found that Goldacre was correct in his categorization of the research]. Readers of the Guardian may have been forgiven for wondering why they bothered to read the initial news story, given that the reporter’s focus on what was wrong with the study turned out to be more spin than science.
The uncomfortable question for the media – and the Guardian in particular – is to what degree would Goldacre’s rearguard defense of science be needed if the journalists who reported on the latest data did a better job of analysis before presenting it to the public?
STATS.org, August 4, 2009
A major British study recently turned conventional wisdom on organic food on its head, triggering a war between science writers, reporters, activists and chefs. Was it a “myth” that organic produce was nutritionally superior to conventional food – or did an agency with an agenda cook up some flawed science to appease big agribusiness?
Bad Science, a book by Ben Goldacre, has become an unusual bestseller in the British Isles, powering its way into the higher reaches of nationally and locally compiled bestseller lists since its publication in the Fall of 2008. Goldacre is a doctor for Britain’s National Health Service (though he plays this down on the grounds that arguments from positions of expertise are often self-defeating with the public), and the book is a continuum of a column by the same name he writes for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper. The Royal Statistical Society awarded him first prize in their inaugural 2007 award for statistical excellence in journalism, and the British Medical Journal, in reviewing “Bad Science,” declared that Goldacre “is fighting what sometimes seems like a one man battle against a tide of pseudoscience and an army of quacks,” and that the country was lucky to have him.
The book’s popularity seems to speak to increasing consumer frustration with information promoted as “scientific,” whether in news stories, government pronouncements, or advertisements for pills and panaceas, and to the hopeful sign that people want to know – or want someone to examine on their behalf – the underlying principles that determine whether such research claims can be considered reliable or unreliable.
These principles came to the forefront in Britain last week – and the rest of the world – with the publication of a new study claiming that there was no reliable evidence that organically-produced food was better, nutritionally, than conventionally-produced food.
The study, “Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review,” was funded by Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), and conducted by researchers from the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit at the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; it was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Senior reporter Karen McVeigh told readers of the Guardian in the opening paragraph of its news report on June 30 that the review’s “conclusions have been called into question by experts and organic food campaigners,” and more than half of the article focused on criticisms of the study, namely that the researchers had been “selective in the extreme,” used “questionable methodology, were contradicted by numerous other studies, and neglected to mention the risks of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming. As Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, the non-profit that advocates for and certifies organic farming in Britain, told the paper, “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.”
Given the way the story was reported, with the validity of the study immediately questioned in the opening paragraph (and with the paper being home to Goldacre’s column), readers could have been forgiven for concluding that the FSA had indeed funded some dodgy research, peer-review notwithstanding.
But at the Guardian’s sister, Sunday paper, The Observer, science editor, Robin McKie, defended the study. “[I]t is certainly not the work of dogmatic and intractably hostile opponents of the cause,” he wrote before weighing in on one of the key criticisms of the study, namely, that it did not take pesticide and fertilizer residues on conventional food into consideration.
“For a start, the idea that organic fruit and veg contain no harmful chemicals compared with non-organic produce is simply wrong, scientists argue. Certainly, there are pesticide residues in the latter but there is no evidence these are cumulatively harmful.
More to the point, organic crops - because they are untreated with chemicals - have correspondingly high levels of natural fungal toxins. Thus they balance out: artificial pesticide residues in non-organic crops, natural fungal toxins in organic.”
As Professor Ottoline Leyser, a molecular biologist at York University told McKie:
“People think that the more natural something is, the better it is for them. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is the opposite that is the true: the closer a plant is to its natural state, the more likely it is that it will poison you. Naturally, plants do not want to be eaten, so we have spent 10,000 years developing agriculture and breeding out harmful traits from crops. ‘Natural agriculture’ is a contradiction in terms.”
Over at the Times of London, science editor Mark Henderson took a similar position, as well as noting that
“Research that appears to support health claims for organic food also suffers from a quality problem. Many studies lack proper controls or fail to detail the organic regime and crop variety being evaluated or the analytical techniques used for assessment.
Studies that fail to meet these standards cannot provide useful evidence and are rightfully excluded from systematic reviews. It is no coincidence that the school had to throw out about two thirds of the available literature.”
The Times also noted that previous reviews by the French and Swedish food standards agencies had come to the same conclusion as this new study.
But as the Observer called into question the thrust of the Guardian’s initial news report, so the Times sister paper, The Sunday Times seemed to question the daily paper’s characterization of the study.
“We dig out the facts from the manure,” said the article’s sub head, but as reporter Chris Gourlay dug away, he seemed less convinced by the FSA’s evidence: The new study’s findings were “controversial” and the Food Standards Agency “claimed a comprehensive review,” but as Carlo Leifert, Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University told Gourlay, the researchers “have ignored all the recent literature as well as new primary research which show the health advantages of organic.” He added that he intended “to rip their study apart in scientific journals.”
Other newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, warned that “studies have found” that children born to farmers in summer, when pesticide use was highest, were “less intelligent.” One columnist rued the focus on nutrition in the Daily Telegraph noting that “All food is nutritious; having no food is what kills. The wider benefits of organic foods are still worth pursuing. It is what food does not contain and the effects that it does not have that really matter.” The Telegraph’s gossip columnist warned that the pro-organic produce Prince Charles had reportedly taken a dim view of the FSA study and was girding for battle.
One notable pattern emerged in the coverage: If the reporter specialized in science, they thought the study well done and conclusive; if the reporter was a generalist, the study was flawed and controversial. So what did the scourge of bad science make of the review and the media coverage?
Goldacre began his column by noting that news coverage had given organic advocates a blanket right of reply to the study. This, he said, was “testament to the lobbying power of this £2bn [$3.38 billion dollars] industry, and the cultural values of people who work in the media.”
He pointed out one of the salient aspects of the study, namely, that it was only about the nutritional content of organic and conventional food, and not about any other kind of benefit. Critics of the study, however, only wanted to talk about other kinds of benefits to prove that the study was flawed; this was, he said, “gamesmanship.” And it was gamesmanship that worked to undermine the public’s understanding and ability to engage in a debate on the evidence by claiming that key evidence was ignored by the FSA.
“The accusation is one of ‘cherry-picking’, and it is hard to see how it can be valid in the kind of study conducted by the FSA, because in a ‘systematic review’, before you begin collecting papers, you specify how you will search for evidence, what databases you will use, what types of studies you will use, how you will grade the quality of the evidence (to see if it was a ‘fair test’), and so on.
What is it that the FSA ignored which so angered the Soil Association? As an example, from their press release, they are ‘disappointed that the FSA failed to include the results of a major European Union-funded study involving 31 research and university institutes and the publication, so far, of more than 100 scientific papers, at a cost of €18m [$25.9 million dollars], which ended in April this year’. They gave the link to qlif.org.
I followed this link and found the list of 120 papers. Almost all are irrelevant. The first 14 are on ‘consumer expectations and attitudes’, which are correctly not included in a systematic review of the evidence on food composition. Then there are 22 on ‘effects of production methods’: here you might expect to find more relevant research, but no.
The first paper (‘The effect of medium term feeding with organic, low input and conventional diet on selected immune parameters in rat’), while interesting, will plainly not be relevant to a systematic review on nutrient content. The same is true of the next paper, ‘Salmonella infection level in Danish indoor and outdoor pig production systems measured by antibodies in meat juice and fecal shedding on-farm and at slaughter’: it is not relevant.
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of these are unpublished conference papers, and some of them are just a description of the fact that somebody made an oral presentation at a meeting. The systematic review correctly looked only at good-quality data published in peer-reviewed academic journals.”
This is a devastating indictment, not just of the Soil Association’s position, but the degree to which reporters did little more than act as stenographers to its criticisms of the FSA study. [Yes, we too followed the link to http://www.qlif.org/ and found that Goldacre was correct in his categorization of the research]. Readers of the Guardian may have been forgiven for wondering why they bothered to read the initial news story, given that the reporter’s focus on what was wrong with the study turned out to be more spin than science.
The uncomfortable question for the media – and the Guardian in particular – is to what degree would Goldacre’s rearguard defense of science be needed if the journalists who reported on the latest data did a better job of analysis before presenting it to the public?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The SEC vs. CEO Pay
The SEC vs. CEO Pay. By RUSSELL G. RYAN
The agency stretches the law to confiscate a bonus.
WSJ, Aug 05, 2009
A lawsuit filed on July 22 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should send a mid-summer chill down the spine of every chief executive and chief financial officer of a U.S. public company.
Exploiting an ambiguously worded phrase in Sarbanes-Oxley, the agency has for the first time claimed that it may under that law “claw back”—some might say confiscate—bonus money and stock sale proceeds from CEOs and CFOs even when it lacks evidence to charge them with wrongdoing.
Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed through Congress in the summer of 2002 in reaction to public outrage over notorious corporate accounting failures at Enron, WorldCom and other companies. As is often the case with such far-reaching and hastily conceived legislation, many of its details were half-baked, poorly worded, and riddled with ambiguity.
A prime example was the so-called clawback feature of Section 304, which was designed to prevent crooked CEOs and CFOs from taking home big bonuses and cashing out company stock while they were knowingly defrauding shareholders. It empowered the SEC to force these executives to reimburse their companies for all bonuses and stock sale proceeds received during any financial period for which their company was later required to restate its financial statements due to “misconduct.”
But in its haste to “do something” about the scandal of the day, Congress muddied the question of whether the “misconduct” required for such a clawback had to be committed by the executive himself (or at least known to him), or could be that of a subordinate, completely unbeknownst to the executive.
Many executives and legal advisers have cautiously assumed that bonuses and stock proceeds were at risk only for executives who actually engaged in misconduct themselves—or at least were aware of it and acquiesced. In fact, the SEC itself has rarely used this feature of Sarbanes-Oxley at all, and had done so only in cases where it alleged personal misconduct by the targeted chief executives or chief financial officers. A prominent example was the agency’s stock-option backdating case against Dr. William McGuire, the former CEO of UnitedHealth Group.
But the SEC has abruptly changed course. It has sued Maynard Jenkins, the former CEO of CSK Auto Corporation, an auto-parts company that had previously settled with the agency on charges of accounting fraud after restating three years’ worth of financial statements.
Several subordinate executives have been charged with both civil and criminal securities law violations. But the SEC has never accused Mr. Jenkins of any wrongdoing. In a press release announcing this case, the agency highlighted its novel position that no such accusation—much less proof—was necessary to claw back his bonuses and stock sale proceeds for the three years in question, which totaled more than $4 million.
Mr. Jenkins is contesting the lawsuit, and he has grounds for optimism. On a visceral level, it seems shocking that a U.S. law enforcement agency could take more than $4 million from any citizen without so much as an accusation of personal misconduct, or at least knowing acquiescence in someone else’s misconduct. Indeed, according to a report by Bloomberg, two of the SEC’s five commissioners voted not to file the lawsuit at all.
In an unrelated case earlier this year, the SEC unsuccessfully argued an equally aggressive interpretation of Section 304. Stretching the law’s wording that clawbacks are appropriate only when a company is “required to prepare an accounting restatement,” the agency argued that Section 304 also allows clawbacks when no restatement is actually prepared, so long as the SEC later concluded the company should have done so.
A federal judge in St. Louis rejected that theory and threw out the charge. In recent years, courts have similarly rejected the agency’s overly aggressive interpretations of laws preventing “selective disclosure,” insider trading, aiding and abetting, and other violations.
The irony is this. Despite all the recent criticism the SEC has taken for supposed laxity in its enforcement program, the agency has in fact consistently taken very aggressive positions in its enforcement cases, such as with laws concerning foreign bribery, market timing of mutual funds, and many forms of insider trading.
For the most part, investors expect the SEC to push the envelope to protect their interests. But the wisdom and fairness of pursuing no-fault clawbacks from unaccused executives is dubious at best.
Mr. Ryan is a securities lawyer and was an assistant director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s division of enforcement from 2000-2004.
The agency stretches the law to confiscate a bonus.
WSJ, Aug 05, 2009
A lawsuit filed on July 22 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should send a mid-summer chill down the spine of every chief executive and chief financial officer of a U.S. public company.
Exploiting an ambiguously worded phrase in Sarbanes-Oxley, the agency has for the first time claimed that it may under that law “claw back”—some might say confiscate—bonus money and stock sale proceeds from CEOs and CFOs even when it lacks evidence to charge them with wrongdoing.
Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed through Congress in the summer of 2002 in reaction to public outrage over notorious corporate accounting failures at Enron, WorldCom and other companies. As is often the case with such far-reaching and hastily conceived legislation, many of its details were half-baked, poorly worded, and riddled with ambiguity.
A prime example was the so-called clawback feature of Section 304, which was designed to prevent crooked CEOs and CFOs from taking home big bonuses and cashing out company stock while they were knowingly defrauding shareholders. It empowered the SEC to force these executives to reimburse their companies for all bonuses and stock sale proceeds received during any financial period for which their company was later required to restate its financial statements due to “misconduct.”
But in its haste to “do something” about the scandal of the day, Congress muddied the question of whether the “misconduct” required for such a clawback had to be committed by the executive himself (or at least known to him), or could be that of a subordinate, completely unbeknownst to the executive.
Many executives and legal advisers have cautiously assumed that bonuses and stock proceeds were at risk only for executives who actually engaged in misconduct themselves—or at least were aware of it and acquiesced. In fact, the SEC itself has rarely used this feature of Sarbanes-Oxley at all, and had done so only in cases where it alleged personal misconduct by the targeted chief executives or chief financial officers. A prominent example was the agency’s stock-option backdating case against Dr. William McGuire, the former CEO of UnitedHealth Group.
But the SEC has abruptly changed course. It has sued Maynard Jenkins, the former CEO of CSK Auto Corporation, an auto-parts company that had previously settled with the agency on charges of accounting fraud after restating three years’ worth of financial statements.
Several subordinate executives have been charged with both civil and criminal securities law violations. But the SEC has never accused Mr. Jenkins of any wrongdoing. In a press release announcing this case, the agency highlighted its novel position that no such accusation—much less proof—was necessary to claw back his bonuses and stock sale proceeds for the three years in question, which totaled more than $4 million.
Mr. Jenkins is contesting the lawsuit, and he has grounds for optimism. On a visceral level, it seems shocking that a U.S. law enforcement agency could take more than $4 million from any citizen without so much as an accusation of personal misconduct, or at least knowing acquiescence in someone else’s misconduct. Indeed, according to a report by Bloomberg, two of the SEC’s five commissioners voted not to file the lawsuit at all.
In an unrelated case earlier this year, the SEC unsuccessfully argued an equally aggressive interpretation of Section 304. Stretching the law’s wording that clawbacks are appropriate only when a company is “required to prepare an accounting restatement,” the agency argued that Section 304 also allows clawbacks when no restatement is actually prepared, so long as the SEC later concluded the company should have done so.
A federal judge in St. Louis rejected that theory and threw out the charge. In recent years, courts have similarly rejected the agency’s overly aggressive interpretations of laws preventing “selective disclosure,” insider trading, aiding and abetting, and other violations.
The irony is this. Despite all the recent criticism the SEC has taken for supposed laxity in its enforcement program, the agency has in fact consistently taken very aggressive positions in its enforcement cases, such as with laws concerning foreign bribery, market timing of mutual funds, and many forms of insider trading.
For the most part, investors expect the SEC to push the envelope to protect their interests. But the wisdom and fairness of pursuing no-fault clawbacks from unaccused executives is dubious at best.
Mr. Ryan is a securities lawyer and was an assistant director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s division of enforcement from 2000-2004.
‘Blue Dogs’ or Corporate Shills?
‘Blue Dogs’ or Corporate Shills? By Thomas Frank
WSJ, Aug 05, 2009
Capitalism is said to be in terrible trouble these days, with the profit motive suffering rampant badmouthing. Entrepreneurs are facing criticism, damnable criticism. And this criticism must stop.
If we don’t watch what we say, some warn, the supermen who shoulder the world will soon grow tired of our taunting, will shrug off their burden and walk righteously away, leaving us lesser mortals to stew in our resentment and envy.
So far have things gone that the editors of the Washington Post, ever vigilant against deteriorating public morals, apparently decided last week that Americans required a strong dose of instruction in the basic principles of their old-time economic religion. Stephen L. Carter, the famous law professor from Yale University, took the pulpit. And from the heights of the Post’s op-ed page, he instructed us to cheer whenever we discovered that someone was making money.
“High profits are excellent news,” he intoned. “The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay.”
Since that’s the one and only way a firm can make a profit—fraud isn’t a problem, I guess, nor are subsidies or cherry-picking or price-fixing or conflicts of interest—profit is a foolproof sign of civic uprightness.
Professor Carter’s essay was supposed to be a word of caution in a dark, anticapitalist time. But if you read your newspaper closely, it’s not hard to spot glimmers of profit-taking here and there. For example, while some see the city of Washington as a stage for anticorporate posturing, in fact it is ingeniously entrepreneurial.
Consider the “Blue Dog” Democrats, whose money-making ways were the subject of a page-one story in the Washington Post on the very day after Mr. Carter’s sermon. The Blue Dogs, as the world knows, are the caucus of conservative House Democrats who have been much in the news of late for their role in weakening the Obama administration’s plans for a public health-insurance option.
Much of the writing about the Blue Dogs revolves around the question of why they do what they do. What makes the Dogs run? Where did they get their peculiar name? And why do they chase this car but not that one?
The Blue Dogs’s official caucus Web site answers with rhetorical tail-chasing in which “centrism” is so exalted that it justifies any position the centrist takes by virtue of the label itself. The slightly more sophisticated explanation currently in vogue with the media—the Dogs come from heartland districts where the culture wars are a big deal—helps even less.
As the syndicated columnist David Sirota pointed out last week on the OpenLeft blog, having constituents who care deeply about, say, gun rights doesn’t really have anything to do with the pro-corporate stands on mortgage modification and health insurance that have made the Blue Dogs famous.
Friday’s page-one Post story about the Blue Dogs suggests a far simpler explanation: Entrepreneurship. In addition to everything else, the Dogs are champion fund raisers. Individual Dogs do far better than garden-variety Democrats when it comes to bringing in contributions from folks with business before Congress, like the insurance industry and the medical industry. According to CQ, their political action committee is the only Democratic PAC to rival the big Republican dogs; in 2009 fund raising it has been bested only by Mitt Romney’s gang.
So this is the Blue Dogs’ day, with games of fetch down on K Street that had me reminiscing, as I read the Post’s description, about the times when Tom DeLay and his pack did their own tricks for industry’s table scraps.
My guess is that the Blue Dogs, like Jack Abramoff’s Republicans before them, are more keenly attuned than their colleagues to that force of universal goodness, the profit motive. Theirs is simply a less ferocious version of what we had before, with cuddly bipartisan righteousness replacing the fierce red-state righteousness of DeLay’s dogs. But the master is the same as ever, and surely we can still count on the profit motive to deliver the very best in public policy.
Still, there remains the problem of the senseless moniker, “Blue Dog.” In the interests of improved political nicknames, let me propose an alternative. Back in 1932, the future Illinois Sen. Paul Douglas advised progressives not to expect too much from the Democratic Party. It was, he wrote, “maintained by the business interests” as a kind of “lifeboat.” Whenever the GOP ship sprung a leak—whenever Republicans were no longer willing or able to do business’s bidding—the interests simply piled into the other party and made their escape.
The Democrats have improved considerably since those days, at least from a progressive standpoint. But there are still branches of the party willing to carry out the ancestral mission. Let’s call them what they are: the lifeboat caucus.
WSJ, Aug 05, 2009
Capitalism is said to be in terrible trouble these days, with the profit motive suffering rampant badmouthing. Entrepreneurs are facing criticism, damnable criticism. And this criticism must stop.
If we don’t watch what we say, some warn, the supermen who shoulder the world will soon grow tired of our taunting, will shrug off their burden and walk righteously away, leaving us lesser mortals to stew in our resentment and envy.
So far have things gone that the editors of the Washington Post, ever vigilant against deteriorating public morals, apparently decided last week that Americans required a strong dose of instruction in the basic principles of their old-time economic religion. Stephen L. Carter, the famous law professor from Yale University, took the pulpit. And from the heights of the Post’s op-ed page, he instructed us to cheer whenever we discovered that someone was making money.
“High profits are excellent news,” he intoned. “The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay.”
Since that’s the one and only way a firm can make a profit—fraud isn’t a problem, I guess, nor are subsidies or cherry-picking or price-fixing or conflicts of interest—profit is a foolproof sign of civic uprightness.
Professor Carter’s essay was supposed to be a word of caution in a dark, anticapitalist time. But if you read your newspaper closely, it’s not hard to spot glimmers of profit-taking here and there. For example, while some see the city of Washington as a stage for anticorporate posturing, in fact it is ingeniously entrepreneurial.
Consider the “Blue Dog” Democrats, whose money-making ways were the subject of a page-one story in the Washington Post on the very day after Mr. Carter’s sermon. The Blue Dogs, as the world knows, are the caucus of conservative House Democrats who have been much in the news of late for their role in weakening the Obama administration’s plans for a public health-insurance option.
Much of the writing about the Blue Dogs revolves around the question of why they do what they do. What makes the Dogs run? Where did they get their peculiar name? And why do they chase this car but not that one?
The Blue Dogs’s official caucus Web site answers with rhetorical tail-chasing in which “centrism” is so exalted that it justifies any position the centrist takes by virtue of the label itself. The slightly more sophisticated explanation currently in vogue with the media—the Dogs come from heartland districts where the culture wars are a big deal—helps even less.
As the syndicated columnist David Sirota pointed out last week on the OpenLeft blog, having constituents who care deeply about, say, gun rights doesn’t really have anything to do with the pro-corporate stands on mortgage modification and health insurance that have made the Blue Dogs famous.
Friday’s page-one Post story about the Blue Dogs suggests a far simpler explanation: Entrepreneurship. In addition to everything else, the Dogs are champion fund raisers. Individual Dogs do far better than garden-variety Democrats when it comes to bringing in contributions from folks with business before Congress, like the insurance industry and the medical industry. According to CQ, their political action committee is the only Democratic PAC to rival the big Republican dogs; in 2009 fund raising it has been bested only by Mitt Romney’s gang.
So this is the Blue Dogs’ day, with games of fetch down on K Street that had me reminiscing, as I read the Post’s description, about the times when Tom DeLay and his pack did their own tricks for industry’s table scraps.
My guess is that the Blue Dogs, like Jack Abramoff’s Republicans before them, are more keenly attuned than their colleagues to that force of universal goodness, the profit motive. Theirs is simply a less ferocious version of what we had before, with cuddly bipartisan righteousness replacing the fierce red-state righteousness of DeLay’s dogs. But the master is the same as ever, and surely we can still count on the profit motive to deliver the very best in public policy.
Still, there remains the problem of the senseless moniker, “Blue Dog.” In the interests of improved political nicknames, let me propose an alternative. Back in 1932, the future Illinois Sen. Paul Douglas advised progressives not to expect too much from the Democratic Party. It was, he wrote, “maintained by the business interests” as a kind of “lifeboat.” Whenever the GOP ship sprung a leak—whenever Republicans were no longer willing or able to do business’s bidding—the interests simply piled into the other party and made their escape.
The Democrats have improved considerably since those days, at least from a progressive standpoint. But there are still branches of the party willing to carry out the ancestral mission. Let’s call them what they are: the lifeboat caucus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
