Category: Commentary

Jim Yong Kim For The World Bank

By Simon Johnson, co-author of White House Burning

A decision on choosing the next president of the World Bank is expected this week – perhaps as early as Monday.  The Obama administration nominated Jim Yong Kim, president of Dartmouth College and a noted public health expert.  The reaction to this nomination from development economists and people experienced in the business of lending to poor countries has been overwhelmingly negative.

They are making a big mistake.  Mr. Kim would make an excellent World Bank president. Continue reading “Jim Yong Kim For The World Bank” →

The Conventional Wisdom of Tax Reform

By James Kwak

In the Times this weekend, David Leonhardt has a generally good overview of the tax policy showdown that is scheduled for later this year, as the Bush tax cuts approach expiration on January 1. He outlines several of the central issues we face: “hypothetical solutions are a lot more popular than actual ones”; everyone says she wants tax reform, but the tax expenditures that would have to be eliminated are very popular; and any significant deficit solution will directly affect vast numbers of Americans.

I have a few differences with Leonhardt, however. First, after his colleagues David Brooks and James Stewart, he seems to have fallen briefly under the spell of Paul Ryan: “Mr. Ryan’s plan would cut the top rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent, and still leave overall tax collection roughly where it has been, by eliminating tax breaks.”

Continue reading “The Conventional Wisdom of Tax Reform” →

How The Banks Stole Medicare

By Simon Johnson

The world’s largest banks have been accused of many things in recent years, including taking excessive risk in the run-up to 2008, doing great damage to the American economy by blowing themselves up and then working hard to resist any sensible notions of financial reform.

All of this is true, but it misses what is likely to be the most profound negative impact of the banks’ behavior on most Americans. The banks’ actions led directly to an increase in government debt, which in turn has made the reduction of that debt by “cutting runaway spending” a centerpiece of the Republican presidential campaign to date.

As a result of this pressure, Medicare now stands on the brink of being eliminated as a viable form of social insurance. Yet the executives who lead these banks – and the politicians with whom they work closely – will not be held accountable this election season. Continue reading “How The Banks Stole Medicare” →

The Incredible, Magically Metamorphosing Taxpayer-Subsidized Executive Perk

By James Kwak

Once upon a time, the story goes, corporate America was fat and happy. Top executives worked in palatial office suites bedecked with flowers, flew everywhere in private jets, and ate every meal at the Four Seasons or Le Bernardin.

Then there was the shareholder value revolution. Michael Jensen and the rest of the Chicago School efficient-market legions showed that shareholder value was the only thing that mattered and stock prices were the only measure of shareholder value. Activist investors demanded an end to executive perks and ushered in the era of pay for performance, in which executives are paid in stock options, so they only make (a lot of) money if shareholders make money. Congress event went along by capping the tax-deductible amount of executives’ base pay, which helped along the shift to stock-based compensation.

Continue reading “The Incredible, Magically Metamorphosing Taxpayer-Subsidized Executive Perk” →

This Must Be a Joke

By James Kwak

From the Times article on President Obama’s signing of the JOBS Act (emphasis added):

While soliciting investment funds online has triggered fears of fraudulent schemes, the law’s backers said the greater availability of information through social media sites like Facebook would allow would-be investors to conduct their own background checks, making it difficult for such schemes to succeed.

“While it seems reasonable to worry about these issues, there is just so much more information these days,” said Timothy Rowe, the chief executive of the Cambridge Innovation Center, which provides office space for start-up firms next to the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The thing speaks for itself.

(True, the phrase “social media sites like Facebook” is paraphrase from the reporter, not a direct quotation, but I have no reason to believe it isn’t an accurate representation of what the act’s backers said.)

Someone Is Wrong In The Times*

By James Kwak

James Stewart has doubled down on his infatuation with Paul Ryan. Ryan’s budget, he says, is a viable centrist starting point for budget negotiations, and attacks from “left and right” are mere “partisan rhetoric.”

This is several different kinds of crazy. First, Stewart repeats his belief that Ryan’s plan would increase taxes on investment income. But that belief has no basis other than Stewart’s own belief that it would be a good idea. As I pointed out before, Ryan’s own budget argues against raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. The only thing Stewart can find is Ryan’s apple-pie platitudes about the need for tax reform. But Ryan’s own vision of tax reform, as evidenced by his budget’s own words, doesn’t include higher capital gains taxes. (In addition, as a signatory to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Ryan is sworn to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business.” That sounds to me like it includes the capital gains tax rate, which is a marginal income rate.) This is further evidence of columnists’ ability to project their own fantasies onto Paul Ryan’s handsome face.

Continue reading “Someone Is Wrong In The Times*” →

The Impossibility of Defense Cuts

By James Kwak

Apparently the thing we need to keep ourselves safe is a fast, lightweight ship that can sweep mines, launch helicopters, fight submarines, and perform other assorted duties—but can’t withstand heavy combat. I don’t claim to know if we really need the Littoral Combat Ship to ensure our national security. According to an article in the Times, John McCain—the Republican Party’s last presidential nominees and one of the Navy’s more famous veterans—is critical, although other Republicans and the administration are in favor of it.

I do know that the Littoral Combat Ship is a classic example of why it’s so hard to reduce budget deficits. You have local politicians who want the jobs. You have a large group of representatives who are reflexively pro-military and will vote for anything the Pentagon wants, and even things the Pentagon doesn’t want. (You have Mitt Romney, who bemoans the fact that the Navy has only 285 ships, the fewest since 1917. Would he rather have the Royal Navy of 1812, which had 1,000 ships, or our navy, with eleven aircraft carrier groups—while no other country has more than one?) You have a procurement and development process that stretches on for years so that even when a weapons system turns out to be a dud, it has to be kept alive because it’s too big to fail—there is no other alternative. Both the Center for American Progress and the Project on Governmental Oversight have recommended cutbacks in the Littoral program. Yet there is no practical way to check its momentum.

Continue reading “The Impossibility of Defense Cuts” →

Something for Nothing?

By James Kwak

The so-called JOBS act is a victory of faith over basic logic. The motivating idea seems to be that if we reduce the regulations that govern the process of raising capital, small companies will find it easier to raise money, and that money will translate into jobs. Many people have pointed out some of the problems with the bill: recently, for example, Andrew Ross Sorkin highlighted the potential for companies to take advantage of investors, and Steven Davidoff pointed out that regulation is probably not the reason for the decline in the number of small company IPOs.

There are a couple of more fundamental misunderstanding I want to focus on, however. First, it’s not clear that relaxing regulations will actually make it cheaper for companies to raise money. Sure, eliminating the independent audit requirement will save companies a few bucks. But what really affects the cost of capital is not out-of-pocket fees but the price that investors are willing to pay for equity. The less confidence that investors have in a company’s prospects, the cheaper that company will have to sell its stock. If small companies are allowed to provide less information to investors, that could simply make it more expensive for them to raise money.

Continue reading “Something for Nothing?” →

Magical Investment Thinking

By James Kwak

From a Times article on pension fund investing:

Mr. Dear cautioned that there were big differences in how various alternative investments performed during the financial crisis.

He said that Calpers’s investments in real estate had been “a disaster” and that its hedge fund investments had not met their benchmarks and were under review. But he said that its private equity holdings had easily beaten public stock returns over the last decade.

“Over the longer term, that kind of outperformance represents real skill, not luck, and it’s worth paying for,” he said.

Holy confirmation bias, Batman! When one asset class beats the stock market that’s skill. But when your other asset classes do badly—that’s random variation? If high returns on private equity are evidence that you should continue investing in private equity, then low returns in hedge funds and real estate are evidence that you should pull your money out of them.

Continue reading “Magical Investment Thinking” →

Volcker Rule Would Cause Irreparable Damage To The Muppets – And Much More Broadly

By Simon Johnson, April 1st, 2012

A major new research report – released this weekend by the renowned international consulting firm, IMS – finds conclusively that implementation of the proposed Volcker Rule would damage not just the irreplaceable Muppets but also “all children-oriented television or other media-based educational program content.”

The logic in the report is straightforward and, quite frankly, compelling.  The Volcker Rule – which aims to limit proprietary trading and excessive risk-taking by the country’s largest banks – would reduce the ability of “too big to fail” institutions to bet heavily on the price of commodities used to produce puppets (mostly cotton, but also apparently wood, aluminum, and some rare earths.)

“In response to the changing demands of their customers, banks have expanded their role of providing financial resources and services to include risk management and intermediation services to [various kinds of puppets]” (p. ES2)

These services are highly profitable and of great value to the skilled artisans who produce puppets, but if the very biggest banks are not allowed to engage in these activities, then no one else will. Continue reading “Volcker Rule Would Cause Irreparable Damage To The Muppets – And Much More Broadly” →

What’s Liberty Got To Do With It?

By James Kwak

Constitutional law is not my field. I think we spent one day on the Commerce Clause in my constitutional law class. I’ve barely been following the Supreme Court oral arguments this week because I figured (a) they would be silly, (b) we won’t know anything useful until June, and (c) with the rest of the commentariat focusing on it I would have nothing to add. But even at that distance, I can’t help but be shocked by the ludicrous nature of the proceedings, best represented by the framing of the case in terms of individual freedom and government coercion. According to the Times, the case may turn on Anthony Kennedy’s notion of liberty.

What’s wrong with this? Liberty should have nothing to do with this case. I’ll repeat the analysis, made my dozens of law professors more expert than I (Charles Fried, for example). The question is whether Congress has the power to impose the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, which gives it the power to regulate interstate commerce. If the individual mandate does in fact regulate interstate commerce, then it’s fine unless it violates some other part of the Constitution.

Continue reading “What’s Liberty Got To Do With It?” →

Is the GOP Still the Party of Business?

By James Kwak

Jonathan Weisman of the Times wrote an article about the reluctance of many Republicans in Congress to extend policies that are traditionally favored by big business (and the Chamber of Commerce), such as infrastructure spending and funding for the Export-Import Bank. This points to a split between the traditional corporate wing of the GOP and the newer, ultra-conservative tax revolt wing.

My guess is that this will blow over and the Republicans will figure out a way to keep big business happy without upsetting the Tea Party too much. But it points out a potential shift among the people who fund the GOP.

Continue reading “Is the GOP Still the Party of Business?” →

Insurance or Redistribution?

By James Kwak

Mark Thoma makes an important point about the “individual mandate” that applies equally well to health care and to Social Security:

“I don’t see anything wrong with asking people to pay the expected value of their health care — a mandate to get insurance to cover the catastrophic things that society would cover in any case — to avoid this type of gaming of the system. Yes, it’s true that many healthy people will pay, remain healthy, and seem to get nothing. But that’s the wrong way to look at it. They have insurance whether they pay for it or not. Society will not let them die of a standard, treatable illness so insurance services are present. In fact, it’s the knowledge that society is providing these services that motivates many people to take a chance and go without.”

This is the relatively common argument that, since people already have guaranteed access to a basic level of emergency care, they should have to pay for it.

There’s a slightly different point in there that I emphasized above and that I want to focus on. Health insurance, like any kind of insurance, can be framed after the fact as redistribution. You pay health insurance premiums, you stay healthy, and therefore you “lose”—your money goes to pay for other people’s losses. But this is true of any kind of insurance. It’s equally true of homeowner’s insurance: if your house doesn’t burn down, you are the victim of redistribution from you to the people whose houses do burn down.

The other way to think of insurance is, well, as insurance. We want and value insurance in the current period, before we know if we’ll be “winners” or “losers” in the future period. The insurance itself has value to us. In fact, whenever you buy insurance, you are hoping that you will end up as a loser.

The framing of the health care individual mandate as a transfer from the healthy to the sick is the exact same as the framing of tax-funded social insurance programs as a transfer from the rich to the poor. At the time you enter the system, you probably don’t know which category you will fall into. You might have some knowledge of the probabilities, but you could turn out to be very wrong: there are plenty of people who are healthy in their twenties but get very sick later. In either case, the framing as redistribution and the focus on winners and losers is a way of making something that all people value—protection from risk, backed by the federal government’s balance sheet—seem like a from of zero-sum redistribution brokered by that evil, meddling federal government.

Why Do New York Times Columnists Keep Swooning for Paul Ryan?

By James Kwak

After David Brooks last year, now it’s James Stewart who has fallen for Paul Ryan’s rugged good looks. He attempts to defend Ryan’s tax proposals against charges that they favor the rich:

“To me it sounds like a proposal to raise [the wealthy’s] taxes by depriving them of cherished ‘loopholes,’ to use the proposal’s word. . . .

“There’s no getting around the fact that a 25 percent rate on the top earners would nearly double Mr. Romney’s effective rate and more than double it for the 101 of the top 400 taxpayers who pay less than 10 percent, assuming the loopholes are indeed closed.”

Continue reading “Why Do New York Times Columnists Keep Swooning for Paul Ryan?” →

Last Ditch Attempt To Save A Little Bit Of Investor Protection In The United States

By Simon Johnson

As it currently stands, the “JOBS” bill now before the Senate would gut investor protection in the United States.  The title of the bill is a complete misnomer – anything that weakens investor protection makes it more risky to invest in companies and increases the cost of capital to honest entrepreneurs.  (For more background on the bill and links, see this piece.)

Much of the 1930s-era Securities legislation, which served us well for more than 70 years, is about to be repealed in a moment of bipartisan madness.

Almost all attempts to amend the House version of this legislation – and to make it more favorable to investors – have now failed in the Senate, and the “cloture motion” received more than 60 votes (so the bill cannot be filibustered).  But Senator Jack Reed (D., Rhode Island) is leading one last charge to make the Senate version more reasonable. Continue reading “Last Ditch Attempt To Save A Little Bit Of Investor Protection In The United States” →