Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Fight for Feminist Crown

One would be the first woman to get the Democratic presidential nomination and, if successful, go on to become the first female president of the United States. The other is an old, white man. Yet the question of who’s more of a feminist, Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has provoked surprisingly impassioned debate and a volatile divide on the left. 

Since the Sanders campaign started, female fans have had to fend off accusations that their support is anti-feminist. Last week, women’s rights icon Gloria Steinem even suggested that young women only support Sanders to attract boys, and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright opined to Democratic voters that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Meanwhile, Bill Clinton accused “Bernie Bros”—a term that seems to have become a derogatory catchall for Sanders supporters of any gender—of “vicious” and “profane” sexism. Since then, an array of feminists for Bernie have come out swinging, challenging the idea that XX-chromosomes a feminist candidate makes. 

“I can’t think of anything less feminist than suggesting that women should vote for a woman because of her gender alone,” writes Time Assistant Managing Editor Rana Foroohar. “It’s an outdated (and establishment) way of thinking about gender politics.”

At The Village Voice, millennial writer Holly Wood puts it more bluntly: She’d “rather go to hell than vote for Hillary.” 

Some say supporting Clinton is a radical position, notes feminist socialist Liza Featherstone, but “no one who makes this argument can articulate what, beyond her identity as a woman, qualifies Clinton as a passable candidate for socialist feminists.” And while “a Clinton presidency would be symbolically uplifting,” it would also preclude the “possibility of genuinely improving the lives of most of the world’s women.” 

At Jewish newspaper The Forward, Stefanie Iris Weiss declares that she “won’t apologize” for supporting Sanders, even it’s earned her “a hell of a lot of side eye (and worse) from people that I usually agree with.” What Weiss’ friends don’t understand, she writes, “is that I’m not for Bernie in spite of my feminism–I’m for Bernie because of my feminism.”

RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of America’s largest nurse’s union, concurs, proclaiming that she will “vote for the best feminist for president: Bernie Sanders.” Clinton’s camp “doesn’t get to define for us the appropriate way to live up to our feminist ideals,” DeMoro writes. 

Feminist fans of Clinton, however, haven’t taken this apostasy quietly. “Yes, millennials, Hillary Clinton is a feminist,” lectures Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum. “Clinton’s record on women’s rights is about as solid as it gets.” 

“I’ve always admired Sanders, but I happen to think he has more than a tin-ear on gender,” feminist politcal analyst Joan Walsh wrote last week

At New York magazine, Annie Lowrey makes the case that Clinton “is still a revolutionary candidate,” even if her supporters have mangled the message with too much gender and generational warfare. 

And at pop culture site Pajiba.com, Courtney Enlow writes in a largely all-caps post: “I’M NOT SAYING THERE AREN’T REASONS SOMEONE SHOULD DISLIKE HILLARY OR PREFER BERNIE. THAT IS FINE. THAT IS YOUR JOURNEY. BUT LET’S NOT PRETEND FOR A SECOND THAT THERE WOULD BE *THIS MANY* ISSUES WITH HILLARY IF SHE WAS A GODDAMN MAN.” 

The New Hampshire primary results could prove interesting for the Clinton/Sanders gender gap. While millennial women tend to break for Bernie—in Iowa, he outpaced Clinton among young women six to one, and a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote poll had him leading by 20 percentage points with the cohort—in most places Clinton still leads with women overall. But not so in New Hampshire, where not only has Sanders polled better overall going into the primary but also leads among Democratic women 50 percent to 46 percent.

As far as media cycles go, we seem to be in the midst of the kind of backlash to the backlash to the backlash that leaves all sides here asking, can’t we get along? “Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are feminists,” writes Hillary E. Crawford today at Bustle. “Instead of pitting feminists who support Clinton against feminists who support Sanders, female icons should be encouraging women to find common ground.” 

And on The Cut today, Ann Friedman implores the chattering classes to stop it with the narrative that feminist fans of Clinton and Sanders are in the midst of some grand, generational battle for the movement’s soul. 

“When narratives pit women against each other in such a direct and obvious way, that usually means it’s time to start asking deeper questions,” writes Friedman. “Why do we care what two 80-year-old women think of young women’s feminism? Why aren’t we asking young women which candidate they’re supporting and why? Why aren’t interviewers asking older women why their contemporaries aren’t exactly raging for Hillary either? Women young and old still experience sexism, and they want to end it. The difference is that some women see electing Clinton as part of how to end it, and others do not.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Kahe8c
via IFTTT

The Fiction That Drug Trafficking Is ‘Inherently Violent’ Could Harm Sentencing Reform

Sen. Tom CottonAbusing the word “violent”: It’s not just for outraged college students trying to fabricate harms in order to shut down speech they don’t like.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas is abusing the word “violent” to attack the bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which would reduce mandatory minimum sentences (in some cases retroactively) for a host of drug-related crimes. Cotton is claiming the bill will, as it stands, would “lead to the release of thousands of violent felons.” His claim is not really true, but his argument seems to have traction. As Brian Doherty noted yesterday, the legislation may see cuts in a couple of areas connected to whether a criminal had a weapon during a drug offense or after having three drug or violent crime arrests.

What makes Cotton’s claim ring false? Cotton believes that drug trafficking is inherently a violent crime, and as the Washington Post notes, pretty much sees everybody potentially released by the legislation as violent criminals. Caroline Rabbitt, Cotton’s spokesperson told the Post, “It is naive to think that dealing cocaine and taking part in its import and distribution is ‘nonviolent.’ That’s a fantasy created by the bill’s supporters and no serious federal law enforcement expert would agree with it.”

Ah, but they do. In fact more than 130 “law enforcement experts” do. Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa), who have hammered out this legislation, have distributed letters signed by dozens of current and former police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys and others supporting the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Lee and Grassley will be holding a briefing this afternoon to discuss the support of the law.

Cotton’s suggestion that the reforms will result in dumping criminals out into the street is not to be treated seriously. The law does indeed reduce mandatory minimums retroactively, but it’s not automatic. Prosecutors can resist and a judge would make the call based on the circumstances of each case. Molly Gill, government affairs counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) notes that the impact of the bill would actually be fairly small as it stands, given the number of people in federal prison.

“We’re talking about 2,300 people over a period of several years, and not all those people would get reductions,” Gill says, of those who would be affected by the parts of the act that may get dropped.

She also objects to the idea that all drug traffickers are “violent.”

“I would say that I think his view is a minority a view,” she says. “It’s definitely not the view of 80 percent of the voters who think we should be eliminating mandatory minimums for drug offenders.” It’s also not an accurate analysis of who is serving federal time for drug crimes. According to a congressionally funded task force report (from the Charles Colson Task Force), almost half the people in prison for drug crimes have few if any prior convictions. A quarter have no criminal history at all. Fewer than 25 percent were sentenced for having or using a weapon for a crime.

As it stands, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act is itself a compromise from the Smarter Sentencing Act Lee had proposed, Gill notes. The Smarter Sentencing Act would have reduced mandatory minimums and changed sentences for almost all drug cases, affecting tens of thousands of people a year. This act now being considered is much more limited, at Grassley’s demand.

But if you think all drug crimes are “violent,” would you get on board for any sentencing reforms at all? Dara Lind at Vox wonders if it’s even possible to get Cotton to support any sort reduction in mandatory minimums given the language he’s using:

If you believe that every drug dealer is violent, then you’re not going to get on board with a bill reducing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. You’re not going to get on board with a bill that allows some drug offenders currently in prison to take classes and get jobs in exchange for “good time” credits. In short, you’re not going to support the Senate bill, because that’s what the Senate bill does.

The fact that a judge would actually be in the position to decide whether or not an offender represents a threat apparently doesn’t matter (because, Cotton complains, so many of the courts are filled with “liberal Obama judges”).

I contacted Lee’s office for a reaction, and he provided a prepared statement: “We’re working to find a path forward that addresses some of the criticisms while at the same time maintaining both the core principles and significance of the bill and the broad bipartisan support that the bill has already garnered.”  Grassley and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the sentencing act’s other sponsor, have put out statements that say the same

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nVWGG8
via IFTTT

WTI Crashes To $27 Handle As US Energy Credit Risk Spikes Above 1500bps To Record Highs

BTFD?

 

Because nothing says stability like record high credit risk…

 

And the effective yield on US HY Energy credits has broken above 20% – 400bps above 2008 crisis highs…


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Q5E7G4 Tyler Durden

Woeful 3 Year Auction: Tailing Yield, Plunging Bid To Cover, Sliding Indirects

One would imagine that in a market as skittish for risk as this one, that selling $24 billion in 3 Year paper would be if not as easy as pie, then as simple as last month’s issuance, when not a cloud was visible when the Treasury sold 3 Year paper. One would be wrong, because moments ago the US Treasury managed to sell precisely that amount in February 2019 paper, however at a notable concession to the When Issued, with the high yield of 0.844% tailing the When Issued by 0.7 bps, while the Bid to Cover of 2.742 was the lowest since July of 2009.

The internals were likewise ugly: while the Directs of 15% were modestly higher than the 11% TTM average, the Indirect takedown tumbled from 62.8% to 41.5% the lowest since November, while Dealers were left holding 43.5% of the final auction, far higher than last month’s near record low 27.8%, and suggesting the foreign central banks may have had their fill of short-term paper.

The question then is why was demand for the short-end so weak at a time when the Fed itself may be relenting and not only halting its rate hike, but proceeding with outright NIRP, something which would lead to major capital gains for anyone who bought into today’s auction.  The answer may be revealed as soon as tomorrow during’s Yellen’s semi-annual congressional testimony.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1T4ewCy Tyler Durden

World Equity Market “Wealth” Crashes $6 Trillion Below 2007 Highs

Global equity market investors have lost a stunning $16.5 trillion of their newfound CB-fueled "wealth" in the last six months. This has erased half of the gains from the 2011 lows (but of course leaves all the debt created still in place). However, what is perhaps more troubling given the unprecedented money-printing since the last crisis peak, is that global equity market "wealth" is now down 10% from its November 2007 prior highs.

Trillions of money printed and debt created and equity "wealth" is now down $6 trillion from the 2007 highs…

 

Put another way – your plan failed CBs!


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QpEifW Tyler Durden

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog Poops on Campus Political Correctness

“Can I hump your leg? I know I look like a dog, but I identify as a shinguard.”

That’s how Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, of Conan fame, addressed a female University of New Hampshire (UNH) student in a segment about campus political correctness for Triumph’s Election Special 2016, which streams on Hulu.

The state university was a natural choice to be pooped on not only for its relevance to the presidential primaries but also for its short-lived but self-parodic “Bias-Free Language Guide,” which declared words like “American,” “mothering,” and “healthy” to be beyond the pale of civilized discourse. 

Triumph’s alter ego, Robert Smigel, has described his puppet character as a parody of a Borscht Belt hack comedian, akin to a less-charming Don Rickles. For the better part of two decades, the rubber puppet has been “punching down” at hapless victims of his rapier wit, such as the “nerds” waiting in line for a Star Wars premiere. But he has likely never encountered a more humorless group than the dozen or so UNH undergrads in this video. 

I won’t ruin the microaggressive jokes by transcribing them, but near the end of the segment, a completely over-the-top walking stereotype of a flamboyantly gay African-American man walks into the room, and you can practically see the smoke emanating from the heads of the students as they try to find a non-problematic way to describe him.

These earnest college kids are clearly trying to do what they’ve been conditioned to believe is the right thing, which is to avoid stating things in plain and understandable language in order to spare hurting anyone’s feelings. But the effort is both futile and absurd, which might be the point.

As Smigel told Ben Collins at The Daily Beast:

I told the kids, “Act like you believe in what you’re doing and saying,” so they might have actually gone a bit too far. I can’t tell how that one actually plays because usually people laugh when they’re being made fun of. These kids were trying to hold it in. 

This quote indicates that the UNH students might not actually be as uptight as they appear in the video, which is a good thing! Laughing at yourself isn’t “punching down,” is it?

Reason TV recently asked students at Occidental College how they feel about the school’s proposed system for reporting microaggressions. Watch below.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1V1itag
via IFTTT

Deutsche Bank Is Terrified: “What Needs To Be Done” In Its Own Words

It all started in mid/late 2014, when the first whispers of a Fed rate hike emerged, which in turn led to relentless increase in the value of the US dollar and the initial plunge in the price of oil.

The immediate implication of these two concurrent events was missed by most, but we wrote all about it in November of that year in “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed.” The conclusion was simple: Fed tightening and the resulting plunge in commodity prices, would lead (as it did) to the collapse of the great petrodollar cycle which had worked so effectively for 18 years and which led to petrodollar nations serving as a source of demand for $10 trillion in US assets, and when over would result in the Quantitative Tightening, initially documented last summer which has been unleashed by not only most emerging markets but most notably China, and whose impact has been to not only pressure stocks lower but bring economic growth across the entire world to a grinding halt.

The second, and just important development, was observed in early 2015: in March we wrote that “The Global Dollar Funding Shortage Is Back With A Vengeance And “This Time It’s Different” and followed up on it later in the year in “Global Dollar Funding Shortage Intensifies To Worst Level Since 2012” a problem which has manifested itself most notably in Africa where as we wrote recently, virtually every petroleum exporting nation has run out of actual physical dollars.

The point is, it all started with the rising dollar and the ensuing global dollar shortage, and thus, the Fed embarking on what may be the biggest central bank error of all time. To be sure, the consequences are wide ranging: from the collapse in crude, to the tremors and devaluations in China, to the tightening financial conditions, to the (manufacturing) recession in the U.S., and most recently, to whispers that Deutsche Bank, the bank with $60 trillion in notional derivatives, may be the next Lehman Brothers.

Which, incidentally, brings us to none other than one of Deutsche Bank’s most respected credit analysts, Dominic Konstam, who clearly has an appreciation of the existential risk he finds himself in, not only career-wise, but in terms of the entire financial structure. We know this, because after reading his email blast from this morning we realize just how vast the fear, if not sheer terror, is among those who truly realize just how broken the system currently is.

We have reposted his entire letter below, because it represents the most definitive blueprint of everything that is about to be unleashed – especially since it comes from the perspective of one of the people who is currently deep inside Deutsche Bank and realizes just how close to the edge the German bank is.

What Konstam makes clear, in no uncertain terms, is that the the problem is the one we laid out back in November 2014: “It is not oil, it is not in the banks, it is a run on central bank liquidity, especially dollar based and there needs to be much more ($) liquidity.”

His solution? It’s actually quite disturbing to all those who thought that all our warnings that cash would be outlawed were nothing but a joke. For those pressed for time jump straight to the “What needs to be done section” – it’s a doozy.

Strategy Update:

 

What we need….Main point is still policymakers need to recognize the problem and have a total rethink of strategy…Yellen is a detail in the grand scheme of things if its more of the same about risks to the outlook but labor mkt strong, blah blah Even Draghi has clear re-think issues.. no longer about more negative rates in the way they have been doing it but cutting thru the incipient financial crisis.

 

All of these though are symptoms of the wider problem — the collapse in global liquidity that  is on going in the post Fed qe phase, reflected in an overly strong dollar/loss of reserves and end user deleveraging from china to opec to credit. It picks off the weaker links and makes people think that that is the “problem”. So about 3 weeks everyone was saying if only oil would stabilize.. and “it has”.. but that wasn’t the solution; Now it’s if only euro bank credit stabilizes, and no doubt there will be a level when that happens.. but that won’t be it.. The PCA analysis from Jerome was neat becos it captures the investor base-plus running on the hampster wheel thinking it’s found the problem. The very fact that the weightings have shifted from oil to euro financials doesnt mean the problem is different now then it was, it’s the same problem but PCA can’t find it– by definition. (Correlation is not causality). It merely captures the menu du jour.

 

Soon enough the “problem” will be equities generally or maybe core rates dropping “too low”, these weightings invariably will rise — and thats why its very dangerous to use the last year’s correlation to determine which markets have over or under reacted to the best proxy of the problem, at any particular time. For example rates look too low in the PCA now but that’s precisely becos they were almost invariant to lower oil late last year.

 

The refrain from the customer base last year if you recall was that rates don’t rally when there’s risk off.. that must be becos of loss of reserves or investor too long etc (George’s QT). But now they are moving and the correlation is becoming stronger. I would posit that instead of a low correlation dissauding investors from hedging with rates they are actually needing to get super long to make up for poor performance on risk assets becos it is they only thing that comes close to a proper hedge. So the mother of all rate rallies will be driven by investors going way over long on the either side UNLESS or UNTIL policymakers do the right thing…

 

Our traders have been debating whether the market trades long or not with idea that there seems to be better selling.. but CoT got shorter last week and even on the open interest adjment Alex Li did, it still looks to us that the market trades short — or not long enough..And that means we do not want to fade this move absent the policy shift,.. and that means why can’t 10s test the old lows. On the euro financial issue itself.. our equity analysts have got a lot of attention around the specifics of the euro fincl issue from the concerns over exposures to commodities/china.. the inability to earn in a low for long/negative yield world to the overreach of regulation with limitations on capital raising/bail in issues..

 

One of the main issues we would argue is that policymakers need to be break what wd become a liquidity issue for banks in the status quo. TLTROs had poor take up becos banks were capital constrained and didn’t want to lend — that now limits their access to liquidity going forward so if the exposure/bail in concerns force banks to the ECB there better be an open door. In the xtreme the ECB cd buy the (sub) debt but the politics probably don’t allow that — better might be to simply offer cheap liquidity for alternative vehicles to do so or better yet have unconditional LTROs — either way it is probably not the time to go deeper negative on rates. The exposure issue has been downplayed but make no mistake banks are heavily exposed to Asia/MidEast and while 10% writedown might be worst case for China but too high for the whole, it is what investors shd and do worry about — whole wd include the contagion to banking hubs in Sing/HKong..

 

and for the record BIS data is as follows for countries’ bank exposures — we’ll give China first, whole second.. Australia: 32bn/74bn; france 43bn/226bn; germany 28bn/120 bn; japan  70 bn/367bn; uk 169bn/657bn; US 87bn/409bn. Note according to Fed rough proxy of US bank capital is over 1.5 tn so in worst case scenario it would “only” be 3% of capital.. a lot but managable.. but that’s then becomes the problem for UK, French banks in particular,,ironically not obviously Germany so much..altho Europe has the issue of earning the capital that US banks are better able to do.

And now, the conclusion we’ve all been waiting for:

So back to the  original question WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Simple?
 

  1. Recognize the problem. It is not oil, it is not in the banks..it is a run on central bank liquidity, especially dollar based and there needs to be much more ($) liquidity. Keynes said to deal with overinvestment boom you cut you don’t raise rates. QE is impractical but getting the dollar down would greatly lift dollar based liquidity. So for a starter Fed shd stop raising rates and clearly signal an extended time out.
  2. Draghi shd follow up with a one 2 punch, not to get rates down but open the refi spigot to banks and ease liquidity concerns.
  3. China needs to come clean. Devalue, stabilize reserves and then allocate 1 tn+ to short up strategically important institutions. Stop intervening in equity markets.
  4. And Basel 3 (?4) should be delayed specifically regarding leverage ratios and threat of higher. As a token move there shd be deemphasis of the SSM/bail in rules until there is clarity from the ECB on liquidity sources for stressed banks.
  5. how about some fiscal stimulus
  6. on negative rates — instead of making them punitive on the banks allow the banks to earn the spread, make them punitive to savers.. Cash shd be charged interest put the micro chip in large denom notes/tax cash withdrawals.. encourage spending not saving .. mortgage rates can be negative and banks can still earn a spread. The spread is the problem not the rate.

The existential fear is tangible, as is the implied threat: “don’t do these things, and if Deutsche Bank and its $60 trillion in derivatives blow up, it will be on you.”

And now we check to the central bankers who will do precisely as instructed, because Deutsche Bank is simply too vast and too systemically important to fail: in fact its failure would be orders of magnitude more costly and more destructive for modern capital markets than Lehman.

As a result, we expect all of Konstam’s suggestions, from a major China devaluation, to a halt to negative rates, to a Yellen relent (perhaps as soon as tomorrow), to negative rates being passed on to savers, to the taxing of cash withdrawals “to encourage spending not saving”, and all the other bullet points. Unless, of course, someone is intent on seeing Deutsche Bank liquidate, as was the case with Lehman.

That said, Konstam’s final sentence is the most ominous:

“Austria July 31 1932 was a great success; Sept 1 1933 beginning of the end (see Worgl experiment, Gesell).”

He is referring to the “Miracle of Worgl“, when during 1932 – in the middle of the Great Depression – the Austrian town unleashed a monetary experiment in which “Certified Compensation Bills” were issued, a form of currency commonly known as Scrip, or Freigeld, one influenced by the monetary theories of the “hyper-Keynesian” Silvio Gesell.

Why does Konstam bring up scrip as the solution to not only Dutsche Bank’s problems, but the entire problem of a run on central bank liquidity?

Because it’s coming.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mqh4hq Tyler Durden

Former Fed President Demands Negative Rates To Combat “Terrible” Fiscal Policy

Narayana Kocherlakota is a funny guy.

Before abdicating his post at the Minneapolis Fed to former Goldmanite/TARP architect Neel Kashkari, Kocherlakota was the voice of Keynesian “reason” for the FOMC.

Although his pronouncements never measured up to the power of the Bullard, Kocherlakota did call on a number of occasions for MOAR dovishness, noting that if the US economy were to decelerate (which it has), more asset purchases may be warranted.

He’s also suggested on a number of occasions that if the government wants to help the Fed out, it will issue more monetizable debt, thus giving Janet Yellen more paper to buy in a world where central bankers are increasingly bumping up against the limits of Keynesian insanity. 

In October, following the Fed’s “clean relent”, Kocherlakota suggested that the time has come for NIRP in the US. As a reminder, here are the bullets: 

  • KOCHERLAKOTA SAYS FED SHOULD CONSIDER NEGATIVE RATES
  • KOCHERLAKOTA: TAPERING ASSET PURCHASES LED TO SLOWER JOB GAINS
  • KOCHERLAKOTA SAYS JOBS SLOWDOWN ‘NOT SURPRISING’ GIVEN POLICY
  • KOCHERLAKOTA: TAPERING ASSET PURCHASES LED TO SLOWER JOB GAINS

On Tuesday, Kocherlakota is back at it, calling for the FOMC to be “daring” and take the NIRP plunge. “Going negative is daring, but appropriate monetary policy,” he wrote Tuesday on his website. However, it’s necessary because fiscal policy makers have made “a terrible policy failure.”

Right. It’s all the fault of an inept Congress, the universal central banker scapegoat for all that ails the global economy. If only they’d issue more debt (because $19 trillion clearly isn’t enough), the FOMC would be free to buy still more bonds, but because lawmakers are recalcitrant, the Fed apparently needs to go negative in order to put the faltering US economy back on the right track and point inflation back to a “healthy” 2%. 

It’s too bad Narayana’s opinion no loger officially matters, because as we’ve seen in Europe and Japan, NIRP is exceptionally effective at banishing the deflationary impulse, boosting wage growth, and restoring growth. 

*  *  *

Full post from Kocherlakota’s website

Negative Rates: A Gigantic Fiscal Policy Failure

Since October 2015, I’ve argued that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should reduce the target range for the fed funds rate below zero.   Such a move would be appropriate for three reasons:

  1. It would facilitate a more rapid return of inflation to target.
  2. It would help reduce labor market slack more rapidly.
  3. It would slow and hopefully reverse the ongoing and dangerous slide in inflation expectations. 

So, going negative is daring but appropriate monetary policy. But it is a sign of a terrible policy failure by fiscal policymakers.

The reason that the FOMC has to go negative is because the natural real rate of interest r* (defined to be the real interest rate consistent with the FOMC’s mandated inflation and employment goals) is so low.   The low natural real interest rate is a signal that households and businesses around the world desperately want to buy and hold debt issued by the US government.   (Yes, there is already a lot of that debt out there – but its high price is a clear signal that still more should be issued.)  The US government should be issuing that debt that the public wants so desperately and using the proceeds to undertake investments of social value.

But maybe there are no such investments?  That’s a tough argument to sustain quantitatively.  The current market real interest rate – which I would argue is actually above the natural real rate r* – is about 1% out to thirty years.  This low natural real rate represents an incredible opportunity for the US. We can afford to do more to ensure that all of our cities have safe water for our children to drink. We can afford to do more to ensure that our nuclear power plants won’t spring leaks.  We can afford to do more to ensure that our bridges won’t collapse under commuters.

These opportunities barely scratch the surface.  With a 30-year r* below 1%, our government can afford to make progress on a myriad of social problems.  It is choosing not to. 

If the government issued more debt and undertook these opportunities, it would push up r*.  That would make life easier for monetary policymakers, because they could achieve their mandated objectives with higher nominal interest rates. But, more importantly, the change in fiscal policy would make life a lot better for all of us. 

I don’t think that Chair Yellen will say the above in her Humphrey-Hawkins testimony tomorrow – but I also think that it would be great if she did.  

N. Kocherlakota

Rochester, NY, February 9, 2016


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PMbFgK Tyler Durden