TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.11.2008
Three Steps To Address the Economic Crisis

When Barack Obama is inaugurated, one of the first items on his legislative agenda will be an economic recovery package. By all accounts, the current economic crisis is one of the most complicated in American history, and fixing it will be no simple matter. We asked Benjamin Friedman, the William Joseph Maier of Political Economy at Harvard University, for his suggestions on what to include in the package. Here's his response:

First, I would use the leverage that the Federal Reserve and Treasury are gaining over banks and other lenders to encourage them, where the word "encourage" is a euphemism, to encourage them to begin extending credit. And the reason I say the Federal Reserve and the Treasury is that I'm referring not only to the bank capitalization program, but also to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and also to the various special lending facilities that the Federal Reserve has set up on its balance sheet. And the idea is that through these various facilities, the government is now putting an enormous amount of funds into lending institutions, and my sense it that this level of support ought to give the government the ability to encourage, where again that's a euphemism, these lenders to begin lending again.

Second, I would go forward with another stimulus program. And I would include four elements in it. One, I would include some tax reduction, comparable to what they did earlier this summer. Two, I would include a program of some public works--transportation systems most obviously, but perhaps some others as well. Three, I would extend unemployment benefits. And fourth, I would have some amount of grants to state and local governments to help keep them from having to cut their expenditures as much as they otherwise would. And my suggestion is $200 billion. I would split that approximately half tax cuts and half the other things I've been describing.

One more step I'd take, which would probably be the most complicated of all, would be to take action to give homeowners that have mortgages that exceed the value of their houses incentives to stay in the house rather than default on the mortgage and abandon the property. And there are many different ideas floating around for how to do that, most of which aren't very simple. Obviously, in the case where a lender made a mortgage loan and retained the loan on their books, there's nothing complicated about that at all--having a renegotiation between a lender and a borrower is the bread and butter of what bankers do all day. But so many of these mortgages were not simply kept on the books of whatever institution originated them. Instead, they were sold and the mortgages were purchased by institutions that were putting them in packages and securitizing the packages, and then the securities were in turn used as collateral for CDOs or something else like that. And that's what makes it complicated. There are lots of plans for doing this, and some have merits and lots have demerits. But it's important to do something along those lines.

 --As told to Eric Zimmermann

Posted: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:48 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

goldbeme said:

An extraordinarily quick stimulus package would be to increase the pay lines for NSF and NIH grants.  These are now so low that getting a grant is like winning the lottery.  By far the largest portion of grants (certainly those in my experience) goes for salaries of staff, students, and postdoctoral fellows.  Some NIH institute pay lines are as low as 10% - only 1 in 10 grants gets funded.  This is not only bad for the economy, it is discouraging for students and postdoctoral fellows who see the trauma of their mentors and choose not to go into science, thereby wasting the money the government spent on their training and slowly but surely ending America's position as the world center for science.

November 13, 2008 8:58 AM

r-ennis said:

The stimulus package should be addressed at job creation, not consumer consumption. I would initiate a mandatory "Energy Bond" fund. 1% of everybody's adjusted gross income would have to go into this fund and the Federal Government would guarantee the interest rate, say 7% for the sole purpose of developing alternate clean energy projects. These funds would be made available as debt securities to reputable, well financed projects requiring at least 20% equity. A high level peer group could be set up to administer these funds, which would:

(a) create well paid jobs in construction and manufacturing.

(b) develo the financing required to transform our energy usage patterns

(c) dampen demand for foreign produced consumer products

(d) eventually partially solve the impending Social Security shortfall.

November 13, 2008 3:32 PM

dhurtado said:

I don't pretend to be knowledgable regarding what would make a good stimulus package, but I have never understood the phenomenon of homeowners defaulting on their loans because the market value of their home drops below the outstanding balance of the loan.  It is one thing to default because increased interest rates under an ARM increase the monthly payment, or because the homeowner was not capable of making the monthly payments in the first place, or because the homeowner has otherwise increased his or her overall indebtedness, but why would a rational person who can otherwise continue to make the mortgage payments just abandon the home and stop making payments merely because they have a negative equity?  That's like taking stock that has nose-dived, and instead of just holding onto it or selling low, giving the stock away for free.  It's even worse than that because, by simply abandoning the property and the mortgage, the homeowner still has the obligation, destroys his or her own credit, and removes his- or herself from the housing market for a long time.  Is there really a large number of people who are behaving so irrationally?

November 13, 2008 5:06 PM

dhurtado said:

r-ennis:

I'm not sure I understand your proposal, but how can job creation be accomplished without consumer consumption?  Without consumer demand (which is a function not only of marketing, but also of consumer purchasing power), there is no incentive to produce, and thus no incentive to hire workers.  Simply putting money into the producers' hands cannot create an incentive to invest in production if there is no demand.  

November 13, 2008 7:34 PM

prendergast said:

I'll second that, dhurtado.

r-ennis, another confusing point in your proposal is "(d) eventually partially solve the impending Social Security shortfall."

Why should this be part of a short-terms stimulus?  I'm all for solving the problem, to be sure, but it's certainly a long-term issue that has little to do with our current economic problems, and would do little to actually solve them.

Finally, if we're going to look at long-term, fine: Then why focus so much on Social Security?  The fact is, the long-term shortfall faced by Medicare is several TIMES that of Social Security.  And the Medicare challenge, at the end of the day, is a function of health inflation.  Thus, if we're going to toss a long-term fix in there, (d) should be "as part of health care reform, implement an array of policies to bring health costs under control, which would reduce costs for American businesses and patients, improve our competetitiveness, and free up resources to expand coverage."

November 13, 2008 8:17 PM

prendergast said:

[Sorry, hit submit before i meant to.]

But the bigger question is how would such a problem be administered, particularly with respect to (d)?  It basically proposes a mandatory payroll tax increase (on top of the existing, what, 15% rate) in exchange for giving the money to alternative energy companies?  But how can the government guarantee such a high rate of return?  What if the green projects/companies don't generate that level of return?  Then, the government winds up making the difference between the actual return and the 7% rate--which would actually make the long-term Social Security shortfall WORSE.  In spite of the massive problems with the 2005 Bush partial-privatization plan (including ignoring transition costs), at least they had the good sense not the GUARANTEE a rate of return.

Essentially, I don't have a problem with such a bond fund in theory--but (1) as dhurtado pointed out, it isn't really "stimulus" and (2) such a proposal certainly should not be connected with Social Security.

November 13, 2008 8:34 PM

r-ennis said:

The stimulus should be designed to create jobs, not encourage consumption, because the economy got into trouble by overconsuming and running up private and public debt. Most of the extra consumption would benefit China. I want the money to stay at home.

My energy bond proposal aims at job creation at home to speed along energy independence and needed environmental infrastructure modifications if we are serious about containing GHG's.

As a side benefit, the energy bond issue will create wealth to each familly that will partially provide for their retirement.

I hope this answers your questions adequately.  

November 14, 2008 9:46 AM

dhurtado said:

r-ennis:  

I understand the desireablity of creating jobs, but what you have not explained is how putting money into the hands of producers rather than consumers creates jobs.  Jobs are created by the demand for consumption.  The economy is in trouble because consumers have excessively used credit to finance their consumption, and that, in turn, is at least partly due to the fact that wages have been stagnant for a very long time.  So it seems clear to me tht any recovery plan should include some kind of stimulus package that puts money into the hands of consumers so that they can purchase goods and services without excessive use of credit.

November 14, 2008 1:40 PM