If You're Poor In Latvia, Move To Denmark

Expenditure on social benefits in the EU fell to 29.1% of GDP in 2011 from 29.7% in 2009, Eurostat said yesterday. However, do not feel too bad for the broad European social state. While France (as one might expect) nears the top of the list with over 33% of GDP spent on “social benefits”, Bloomberg’s Niraj Shah notes that it is Denmark that spends the most on welfare at 34.3% of GDP, and Latvia spent the least, 15.1%. Of course, in the new normal, as in the US, retirees accounted for the majority of the trasnfer payments with an average of 46% of total expenditure while unemployment benefit accounted for 6%. Interestingly, Greece nears the top of the list with almost 31% of GDP spent on welfare.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/M9PTxkOFiwM/story01.htm Tyler Durden

If You’re Poor In Latvia, Move To Denmark

Expenditure on social benefits in the EU fell to 29.1% of GDP in 2011 from 29.7% in 2009, Eurostat said yesterday. However, do not feel too bad for the broad European social state. While France (as one might expect) nears the top of the list with over 33% of GDP spent on “social benefits”, Bloomberg’s Niraj Shah notes that it is Denmark that spends the most on welfare at 34.3% of GDP, and Latvia spent the least, 15.1%. Of course, in the new normal, as in the US, retirees accounted for the majority of the trasnfer payments with an average of 46% of total expenditure while unemployment benefit accounted for 6%. Interestingly, Greece nears the top of the list with almost 31% of GDP spent on welfare.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/M9PTxkOFiwM/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Carl Icahn Lambasts Ackman’s “Rantings Of A Sore Loser”

We earlier discussed Bill Ackman’s lengthy interview on Bloomberg TV during which he faced up to the $500 million losses (more now) from his Herbalife position, and that it is “not a trade” for him but “will take it to the ends of the earth.” However, it seems his comments that “Herbalife longs are all 80-year-old billionaires” pissed off Carl Icahn enough to warrant his wrath. Icahn called in to Trish Regan and exclaimed, “I fail to understand how Bill Ackman, whom I haven’t spoken to for years, nor do I intend to speak to, would know what I am or am not committed to. I continue to believe Herbalife has a great future, and in my opinion many of the things Ackman says about it are simply the rantings of a sore loser. The stock remains +5% and back near recent record highs.

 

The original Ackman interview “will take Herbalife short to the ends of the earth…”:

ACKMAN HIGHLIGHTS:

-Lost $400-500 million on Herbalife
-Losses are mark-to-market
-‘Lots of ways we can be successful’ on HLF
-Pershing has met with foreign regulators on HLF
-Herbalife re-audit should have been completed by now
-He doesn’t know what FTC is doing on Herbalife
-Re-audit is a short-term catalyst if not done by December
-An Herbalife LBO is more opportunity to go short
-He’ll take Herbalife bet ‘to the end of the earth’
-Herbalife short ‘not a trade for me’
Skeptical of Icahn’s belief in Herbalife long-term
-Puzzled by Bill Stiritz’s Herbalife motivations
-Herbalife fits FTC OCT pyramid warning
-He has data on Herbalife distributor earnings
-Seeks third party auditor on Herbalife retail sales
-Herbalife longs are all 80-year old billionaires.
-He is not short JCPenney
-Hopes JCP becomes a very successful company
-He deserves his share of responsibility for JCP

And Trish Regan and Stephanie Ruhle discuss Icahn’s tempestuous response:

“I fail to understand how Bill Ackman, whom I haven’t spoken to for years, nor do I intend to speak to, would know what I am or am not committed to. I continue to believe Herbalife has a great future, and in my opinion many of the things Ackman says about it are simply the rantings of a sore loser…

 

Interestingly there is something that Ackman and I have in common. Ackman complained at an Oxford conference that every time I went on TV and mentioned Herbalife, the stock went up a few points. Well, that’s also true of him.”

 

We leave it to the chart as the ultimate arbiter of who is winning (so far)…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Os5PBaYXet8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Carl Icahn Lambasts Ackman's "Rantings Of A Sore Loser"

We earlier discussed Bill Ackman’s lengthy interview on Bloomberg TV during which he faced up to the $500 million losses (more now) from his Herbalife position, and that it is “not a trade” for him but “will take it to the ends of the earth.” However, it seems his comments that “Herbalife longs are all 80-year-old billionaires” pissed off Carl Icahn enough to warrant his wrath. Icahn called in to Trish Regan and exclaimed, “I fail to understand how Bill Ackman, whom I haven’t spoken to for years, nor do I intend to speak to, would know what I am or am not committed to. I continue to believe Herbalife has a great future, and in my opinion many of the things Ackman says about it are simply the rantings of a sore loser. The stock remains +5% and back near recent record highs.

 

The original Ackman interview “will take Herbalife short to the ends of the earth…”:

ACKMAN HIGHLIGHTS:

-Lost $400-500 million on Herbalife
-Losses are mark-to-market
-‘Lots of ways we can be successful’ on HLF
-Pershing has met with foreign regulators on HLF
-Herbalife re-audit should have been completed by now
-He doesn’t know what FTC is doing on Herbalife
-Re-audit is a short-term catalyst if not done by December
-An Herbalife LBO is more opportunity to go short
-He’ll take Herbalife bet ‘to the end of the earth’
-Herbalife short ‘not a trade for me’
Skeptical of Icahn’s belief in Herbalife long-term
-Puzzled by Bill Stiritz’s Herbalife motivations
-Herbalife fits FTC OCT pyramid warning
-He has data on Herbalife distributor earnings
-Seeks third party auditor on Herbalife retail sales
-Herbalife longs are all 80-year old billionaires.
-He is not short JCPenney
-Hopes JCP becomes a very successful company
-He deserves his share of responsibility for JCP

And Trish Regan and Stephanie Ruhle discuss Icahn’s tempestuous response:

“I fail to understand how Bill Ackman, whom I haven’t spoken to for years, nor do I intend to speak to, would know what I am or am not committed to. I continue to believe Herbalife has a great future, and in my opinion many of the things Ackman says about it are simply the rantings of a sore loser…

 

Interestingly there is something that Ackman and I have in common. Ackman complained at an Oxford conference that every time I went on TV and mentioned Herbalife, the stock went up a few points. Well, that’s also true of him.”

 

We leave it to the chart as the ultimate arbiter of who is winning (so far)…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Os5PBaYXet8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Most Despised Tax-And-Retreat French President Sinks Deeper Into Economic Quagmire

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

The French habitually appear to be on the verge of having had it. But the incidents have been getting denser, more frequent. There were the protests in the Bretagne and elsewhere, followed by "operation snail" where 2,100 heavy trucks drove side by side down major expressways at a snail’s pace, with everyone behind them going nuts. Every day, there are protests organized by different organizations. On Thursday, the farmers went to town, to Paris more specifically. They were getting there by driving their tractors on major highways, setting up roadblocks as they went, snarling traffic for miles.

They’re all protesting the relentless onslaught of new taxes. At first, buoyant from an election victory, President François Hollande and his government went after the rich then quickly hit even modest households, farmers, truckers, craftsmen, everyone who does or buys anything. Because it’s never enough. In January, the Value Added Tax hike will take effect. For the top tier of items, the VAT will only increase from 19.6% to 20%. But for some of the lower tier items, it will be jacked up massively. For example, for the equestrian industry, the VAT will jump from 7% to 20% – hence the protests the other day.

Now the farmers have had it. While at it, they’re also protesting EU rules on how they should run their businesses and anti-pollution laws that would limit the use of tractors on some days. The word "insurrection" is showing up in the media, though it's still more an exaggeration than a description. "Fiscal discontent” is better, but not broad enough.

After 18 months in office, Hollande's ratings have plunged to the lowest levels of any president since 1958, according to an Ifop/JDD poll, the only poll going back this far. A mere 20% of the French were satisfied with him; 17% among workers and employees; 15% among merchants and craftsmen. Even his erstwhile supporters have abandoned him.

And 79% were dissatisfied. Cited were "social desperation" of the people affected by his policies, but also his leadership qualities, his apparent "inability to decide," his "lack of discipline," his tendency to make decisions and then, when the volume gets too loud, withdraw them. It leaves the country rudderless.

Who could do a better job? Maybe Santa Claus.

Because no one else seems to be able to, in the eyes of the French. Turns out, 74% think that any of the major figures of the UMP, the party of former President Sarkozy, would do worse or no better. And on the right-wing where Marine Le Pen reigns with her National Front (FN)? 79% of the respondents think she’d be worse or no better than Hollande. There simply is no savior in sight. Much less a solution.

Spending by the government accounts for more than 56% of GDP, the highest in the Eurozone. Even thinking about cutting these outlays would be political hara-kiri. To fund this public mastodon and bring the deficit down to 3% of GDP by 2015, and into compliance with EU stability criteria – it would require a miracle – taxes must be extracted from everyone and everything in the anemic private sector.

But the math just shot craps.

Despite incessant tax increases, the government just confessed that revenues would be about €11 billion less than expected. The shortfall was spread over VAT, income taxes, and corporate taxes. French pundits are now talking about “fiscal saturation,” the point where raising taxes will lead to lower tax revenues, as struggling households and businesses will jump through hoops to limit the taxes they pay. They might work off the record, cut back on purchases, or move business entities to other countries. One of many brutal disappointments for Hollande. Nothing seems to work. Squeezing the French has reached its limit.

French businesses already pay a total of 64.7% of their pre-tax income in taxes, according to the just released report by the World Bank and PwC (PDF). The report compared 189 countries and measured total taxes paid in 2012 – including income taxes, payroll taxes, employer paid “social" taxes for healthcare and retirement systems, real estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. – as a percent of pretax profit. France’s total was the second highest in the EU, after another economic star, Italy, and far above the EU average of 43.1% and the worldwide average of 41.1%.

In France, labor is taxed the most, with employers paying breath-taking 51.7% of their pretax profit in payroll taxes, the worst in the EU and possibly in the universe. Income taxes eat up only 8.7% in pretax profits. As anywhere, sagging profits and a myriad of deductions, loopholes, credits, and other devices allow most companies to get around high tax rates. “Other” taxes consumed another 4.3% of pretax profits.

Confiscatory payroll taxes do one thing very well: stop job creation in its tracks.

Companies are hurting. Of the 15,000 privately held companies that a recent study by accounting and audit association ATH analyzed, 20% lost money in 2012. Over the period between 2008 and 2012, revenues inched up a total of 7%, not even enough to keep up with inflation (8.8%). Net profits plunged 18% during that time. This “permanent degradation” is endangering the survival of many of these companies and is crimping “the investments necessary for the competitiveness and sustainability of these companies," the report observed.

Driven to desperation by the morose economy, the abysmal poll numbers, the tax quagmire, and mounting anger on the street, Hollande’s government is going to attack the problem decisively and head on: another tax reform! This time, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault wants to start from scratch. A mega project would take up the remaining three and a half years of Hollande’s term. Hope? In the same breath, he said that it would be revenue neutral! They just don’t get it.

Revenue neutral isn't going to help the economy. Households and smaller businesses need room to breathe. Yet, bad as it is, no one believes it. Because in France, taxes have the insidious habit of creeping up relentlessly.

These are among France’s real problems. But now France's Financial Markets Authority decided to hound bloggers who’d dared to doubt the veracity of the sacred balance sheets of the even more sacred French megabanks – including Mike “Mish” Shedlock in the US. It’s getting curiouser and curiouser. Read…. Gagging Doubt: French Crackdown On (American) Bloggers Who Question Megabank Balance Sheets


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/SUXj5ejeePM/story01.htm testosteronepit

Hugh Hendry Capitulates: "Can't Look At Himself In The Mirror" As He Throws In The Towel, Turns Bullish

“I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends.”

      – Hugh Hendry

First David Rosenberg, now Hugh Hendry: one after another the bears are throwing in the towel.

As Investment Week reports, speaking at Harrington Cooper’s 2013 conference this morning, Hugh Hendry said “he is no longer fighting the two-way feedback loop which is continuing to boost risk assets.” The reflexive feedback loop envisioned by Hendry is the following and centres on the currency war being played out between the US and China, “in which US QE prompts dollar-denominated investment to head to China, and China fights the resulting upwards pressure on its currency by manufacturing an investment boom. Hendry said this creates a “global supply glut”, leading to falling US inflation expectations (as this supply far outweights US domestic demand) – which in turn prompts the Federal Reserve to loosen policy once again.” Rinse. Repeat.

Of course, there is a limitation here as we have explained previously, namely the amount of “high-quality collateral” which the Fed and the other central banks can and are rapidly soaking up, in the process destroying bond market liquidity, but that “discovery” will be made by the Fed far too late, despite even the repeated warnings of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.

And since Hendry is constrained by daily, monthly and annual P&L, he simply does not have luxury of waiting for the “fat tail” event, which incidentally will be quite terminal and thus hardly profitable for anyone exposed to fiat-denominated assets.

So the end result is that Hugh Hendry is merely the latest bear to throw in the towel:

“I can no longer say I am bearish. When markets become parabolic, the people who exist within them are trend followers, because the guys who are qualitative have got taken out,” Hendry said.

“I have been prepared to underperform for the fun of being proved right when markets crash. But that could be in three-and-a-half-years’ time.”

“I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends.”

So what does the newly christened “bull” like?

Though he first began turning more positive on the likes of US and Japanese equities last year, Hendry suggested this morning the current environment created more counter-intuitive opportunities. “This applies to European banks, Greek equities, Spanish equities. You have got to be in things that are trending,” he said.

 

The manager’s Eclectica Absolute Macro fund had a 64% value at risk equity allocation in September, up from 45% in August, with December 2013 Japanese TOPIX index futures his biggest single holding on a VaR basis.

 

Addressing attendees this morning, Hendry said his comments would take on a “confessional” tone, and admitted his performance over the past year had been “at best, mediocre”. Hendry’s CF Eclectica Absolute Macro fund has lost 2.6% in the nine months to 30 September, according to the firm.

In other words the “dash for trash” mentality, which we predicted in September 2012 when we forecast that the most shorted stocks would outperform the market (and they have), has just won another convert. That, and of course, Fed-balance sheet induced momentum chasing, in which the only thing that matters is one’s view how many “assets” the Fed will hold at any point in the future (see from April: “Bernanke & Kuroda Capital LLC: Overweight S&P 500, 2013 Target 1950“).

Finally, Hendry’s “come to Bernanke” moment does not come easily:

The manager acknowledged his changing stance may be viewed by some investors as a ‘top of the market’ signal, but said he is not concerned by the prospect of a crash.

 

“I may be providing a public utility here, as the last bear to capitulate. You are well within your rights to say ‘sell’. The S&P 500 is up 30% over the past year: I wish I had thought this last year.”

 

Crashing is the least of my concerns. I can deal with that, but I cannot risk my reputation because we are in this virtuous loop where the market is trending.”

Sadly, his last statement is just the latest confirmation that in the New Centrally-Planned Normal, FOMO or Fear of Missing Out (the trend, the year end bonus, you name it) is indeed the new POMO as we warned in May.

And like that, everyone is now on the same side of the boat.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2VGgVDEKqNQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Hugh Hendry Capitulates: “Can’t Look At Himself In The Mirror” As He Throws In The Towel, Turns Bullish

“I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends.”

      – Hugh Hendry

First David Rosenberg, now Hugh Hendry: one after another the bears are throwing in the towel.

As Investment Week reports, speaking at Harrington Cooper’s 2013 conference this morning, Hugh Hendry said “he is no longer fighting the two-way feedback loop which is continuing to boost risk assets.” The reflexive feedback loop envisioned by Hendry is the following and centres on the currency war being played out between the US and China, “in which US QE prompts dollar-denominated investment to head to China, and China fights the resulting upwards pressure on its currency by manufacturing an investment boom. Hendry said this creates a “global supply glut”, leading to falling US inflation expectations (as this supply far outweights US domestic demand) – which in turn prompts the Federal Reserve to loosen policy once again.” Rinse. Repeat.

Of course, there is a limitation here as we have explained previously, namely the amount of “high-quality collateral” which the Fed and the other central banks can and are rapidly soaking up, in the process destroying bond market liquidity, but that “discovery” will be made by the Fed far too late, despite even the repeated warnings of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.

And since Hendry is constrained by daily, monthly and annual P&L, he simply does not have luxury of waiting for the “fat tail” event, which incidentally will be quite terminal and thus hardly profitable for anyone exposed to fiat-denominated assets.

So the end result is that Hugh Hendry is merely the latest bear to throw in the towel:

“I can no longer say I am bearish. When markets become parabolic, the people who exist within them are trend followers, because the guys who are qualitative have got taken out,” Hendry said.

“I have been prepared to underperform for the fun of being proved right when markets crash. But that could be in three-and-a-half-years’ time.”

“I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends.”

So what does the newly christened “bull” like?

Though he first began turning more positive on the likes of US and Japanese equities last year, Hendry suggested this morning the current environment created more counter-intuitive opportunities. “This applies to European banks, Greek equities, Spanish equities. You have got to be in things that are trending,” he said.

 

The manager’s Eclectica Absolute Macro fund had a 64% value at risk equity allocation in September, up from 45% in August, with December 2013 Japanese TOPIX index futures his biggest single holding on a VaR basis.

 

Addressing attendees this morning, Hendry said his comments would take on a “confessional” tone, and admitted his performance over the past year had been “at best, mediocre”. Hendry’s CF Eclectica Absolute Macro fund has lost 2.6% in the nine months to 30 September, according to the firm.

In other words the “dash for trash” mentality, which we predicted in September 2012 when we forecast that the most shorted stocks would outperform the market (and they have), has just won another convert. That, and of course, Fed-balance sheet induced momentum chasing, in which the only thing that matters is one’s view how many “assets” the Fed will hold at any point in the future (see from April: “Bernanke & Kuroda Capital LLC: Overweight S&P 500, 2013 Target 1950“).

Finally, Hendry’s “come to Bernanke” moment does not come easily:

The manager acknowledged his changing stance may be viewed by some investors as a ‘top of the market’ signal, but said he is not concerned by the prospect of a crash.

 

“I may be providing a public utility here, as the last bear to capitulate. You are well within your rights to say ‘sell’. The S&P 500 is up 30% over the past year: I wish I had thought this last year.”

 

Crashing is the least of my concerns. I can deal with that, but I cannot risk my reputation because we are in this virtuous loop where the market is trending.”

Sadly, his last statement is just the latest confirmation that in the New Centrally-Planned Normal, FOMO or Fear of Missing Out (the trend, the year end bonus, you name it) is indeed the new POMO as we warned in May.

And like that, everyone is now on the same side of the boat.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2VGgVDEKqNQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Or A Bank? Here's How They Stack Up

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The following graphic was put together by the folks at Promontory Financial and is extremely telling. It looks at three ways in which a U.S. citizen might choose to go about sending a $1,000 downpayment to Europe for the purpose of renting a vacation home. They put Bitcoin side by with with a traditional bank wire as well as a credit card transaction. The results might surprise you…

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/dyWP5uxSKPk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Or A Bank? Here’s How They Stack Up

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The following graphic was put together by the folks at Promontory Financial and is extremely telling. It looks at three ways in which a U.S. citizen might choose to go about sending a $1,000 downpayment to Europe for the purpose of renting a vacation home. They put Bitcoin side by with with a traditional bank wire as well as a credit card transaction. The results might surprise you…

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/dyWP5uxSKPk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Larry Summers: "History Will Overwhelmingly Approve QE"

For anyone who still suggests, incorrectly, that Larry Summers was the “wrong” choice for Fed Chairman just because he would promptly end QE the second he was elected as the erroneous popular meme goes, we have one soundbite from his recent Bloomberg TV interview refuting all such speculation: “if you had to say, should we have used this tool or should we not have, I think the answer is overwhelming that we should have.” He had some other amusing logical fallacies (including discussing whether the market is in a bubble) all of which are transcribed below, but the best one is the following: “I think it does bear emphasis that the people who were most appalled by it are the people who have been predicting hyperinflation around the corner for four years now and they have been wrong at every turn.” And let’s not forget that “subprime is contained” – until it isn’t. Then again, the last time we checked, the history on the biggest monetary experiment in history – one in which both the Fed and the BOJ are now openly monetizing 70% of gross bond issuance – has certainly not been written. Finally, in the off chance Summers is indeed correct, what history will instead say, is why instead of monetizing all the debt from day 1 of the Fed’s inception in 1913, and thus pushing the stock market into scientific notation territory, did the Fed leave so many trillions of “wealth effect” on the table?

Full Bloomberg TV interview below:

Summers on whether quantitative easing has worked:

“I don’t think there’s any question that the Fed’s efforts to provide liquidity to the markets made a huge difference in getting us out of this crisis and preventing what could have been a depression scenario. I don’t think there’s much doubt, looking at the slow growth of output that we have had, the failure to achieve escape velocity, the fact that inflation is still trending down, that the right bias of policies towards accelerated rather than towards the break. Are the problematic aspects of QE? Of course. Are the reasons why it cannot be maintained forever? Of course. But if you had to say, should we have used this tool or should we not have, I think the answer is overwhelming that we should have. I think it does bear emphasis that the people who were most appalled by it are the people who have been predicting hyperinflation around the corner for four years now and they have been wrong at every turn. You can debate different views. I am not going to try to make a precise judgment as to just when tapering ought to take place. But on the question of whether the Fed stepping up and providing liquidity when no one else would was the right thing to do, I think historians will judge that about 98 to 2.”

On whether Washington understands that QE has benefited the financial industry:

“I’m a Democrat. My primary concern is not with the Street. It is with the incomes of the middle class. But sometimes doing the right thing has had some beneficiaries. That is not the motivation for doing QE. I think the primary consequence of QE is that we have avoided the bottom falling out of the economy in the way that it did when they did not do QE in 1930 and 1931 and made the depression great. As a consequence of saving the economy, has it been better for Wall Street? Yes, it has been. Is that a reason not to save the economy? I surely don’t think so. Would it be better if we were growing the economy in other ways? Should we be investing in fixing Kennedy airport which is in shambles at a time when we can borrow money cheap, at a time when construction unemployment is in double digits? Of course. Should we be doing something about 25,000 schools across the country where the paint is chipping off the walls? Of course. Should we be allowing a situation where the brightest young scientists who can’t get research funding until they are 40? Of course we shouldn’t be. Quantitative easing is not the best tool for growing the economy, but to say that because it has been a good time for Wall Street we need to put the brake on instead, would be to do grave damage to our economic future and I don’t think that is the right way to frame the question at all.”

On how he would tackle wealth disparity:

“I would be growing the economy. I would be starting to grow the economy by putting many more people to work, doing the things that build the economy. We have deferred more maintenance in the last five years than any time in the country’s history. We will pay for that. The next generation is going to pay for that. It is going to mean larger budget deficits in the future. Why isn’t this the time when we have so much unemployment, such cheap building materials, and the ability to borrow money and next to nothing — why isn’t this the time to be doing something about that? And that would mean a large number of middle-class jobs. We have pursued policies that have led to a lot more investment in derivatives and a lot less investment in fixing potholes than we should make as a country. Those policies are not defense policies. Those policies are the abdication of the responsibility to invest in the future that has been the consequence of our fiscal policies. A bunch of it is the public sector. The potholes, the failure to fix the airports, the fact that we still have an air traffic control system that relies on vacuum tubes like an old black and white TV — that is a large part of it. But it is also the case that we have a regulatory framework where it takes forever to cite anything and to get anything done. When you drive in from the airport in London or Beijing, you can talk on your cell phone and it does not get interrupted. That is not true when you drive in from LaGuardia or Kennedy airport as you well know. That is not the public-sector’s fault except in so far that it is the fault of a range of regulations that create great uncertainty.”

On whether he believes we need bubbles:

“I don’t believe in bubbles. Obviously almost when you say something it’s a bubble, you are saying it is not that great. What I did say and what I believe very profoundly is that it has been a long time since we have had rapid, healthy growth in this country. When we had growth prior to the financial crisis it was growth that was reliant on bubbles. We have a framework that may well not produce growth in the absence of bubbles. That is not an argument for bubbles. That is an argument for changing the framework. When I spoke at the IMF about the risks of what economists call secular stagnation, what I was calling for was not a resumption of bubbles, I was calling for a framework that would make bubble free growth possible.”

On whether he sees any bubbles right now:

“I think that under confidence is a much larger risk than overconfidence in the American economy today. Do I see certain developments, do I hear the word covenant-lite more frequently than i would like to? Yes I do. Are there spreads that look at little tight? Yes, there are. But in the fullness of it, I think the risks we are having too little confidence, too little lending, and too little spending our much greater than the risks of the reverse. Responding wisely and effectively to financial crisis requires — it is a very difficult thing for people to appreciate and people to recognize. This goes to almost every financial error. Almos
t every financial error takes the form of doing today what you wish you would have done yesterday. That is what bubbles are about. People see a stock go up and they wish they had bought it yesterday so they buy it today. And it goes up more and there’s a bigger bubble. Similarly with respect to panics. What caused this crisis is that there was overconfidence and complacency, excessive borrowing and lending, and unsustainable spending. That is what caused this crisis. But now, after the crisis, the only way we will get the economy back to normal is if we have more confidence, more borrowing and lending and more spending. It is that human tendency to do today what you wish you had done yesterday that can often lead us in the wrong direction. That is why i keep stressing the importance and emphasizing the accelerator rather than the brake, the importance of public and private spending, the importance of maintaining the flow of credit. Those are the things that need to be our priorities.”

On whether Washington is to blame:

“I think there are clearly excesses and I think that in particular in financial regulation, as with health care, policy has run ahead of execution. There are aspects of the execution that create great uncertainty. People cannot know what they will be prosecutors for. People make agreements and they cannot rely on those agreements completely holding. I think that is problematic. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s any question that our financial institutions need to hold much more capital than they were before this crisis and that was the right step. I don’t think there is any question that if we are going to avoid the panics and runs that we saw him that there needs to be tighter liquidity requirements. I think the broad thrusts of the change in financial policy are appropriate, but I think there are real things that need to be done.”

On whether corporate America would be investing more if there was less gridlock and political uncertainty:

“I’m sure they would be. I’m sure they would be investing if there was more rapidly functioning and more predictable regulatory frameworks around everything from citing to the choice of fuels to the nature of reporting to the rules of immigrants. I am someone who has been for public investment. I have also been someone who has said that confidence is the cheapest form of stimulus. That is a very important principle for government to remember going forward and we need to pay more attention going forward to increase business confidence.”

On whether austerity measures in the UK worked:

“I don’t think the right reading of the British situation would emphasize austerity. I think the British economy is not as strong as the way you just spoke would suggest. I think insofar as it is, it goes to easy monetary policy and it goes to the consequences of a much weaker pound. It goes to a number of structural reforms. I don’t think you’ll find many economists taking the position. I don’t think you’ll find many objective observers making the case that it was the austerity that was responsible for anything that’s positive that’s happening in Britain.”

On whether Washington is open to proposals from Wall Street regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

“I think Washington should be and I suspect is open to advice from any quarter. I think the idea that somehow the right thing to do is to privatize these institutions to a coalition of hedge funds who have bought up the stock at a very low price and expect to earn an inordinate return. The idea that that is the right thing for public policy strikes me as being at the edge of ludicrous. It is not something that I would remotely support. It is not an argument against listening. There’s a big difference between listening and taking extraordinarily self-serving advice. I think one would have to recognize that how could it be otherwise that those who purchase large amounts of the securities that make proposals that would raise further the value of the securities, that their advice is anything but disinterested or detached.”

On why he pulled himself out of the running for Federal Reserve Chairman:

“Given the context and the controversy, I thought it was the right thing for the Federal Reserve for me to withdraw. I thought it was the right thing for the national economy. I don’t think that either would have been well served by the controversy that would have continued had I remained a candidate.”


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/U0nOWhgeBqc/story01.htm Tyler Durden