A Minsky Moment?

John Plender wrote in yesterday's Financial Times,  "Complacent investors face prospect of a Minsky moment."  

One observation is hard to quarrel with, to wit,  "It is historically atypical in that the central banks have been encouraging market participants through quantitative easing to take on more risk to help stave off a perceived deflationary threat. This was, in a sense, a perpetuation of the asymmetric policy pursued by the Federal Reserve before the crisis." we have seen the Greenspan Put on the stock market, the Bernanke Put on the housing market, and are we now seeing the Powell Put on the current bubbles?

Financial assets have grown rapidly relative to the stock of physical capital and certainly some bubbles have been inflated, most notably the growth of unicorns.

On the the hand, he claims hat that "Since the Trump tax changes (sic) are unlikely to have more than a modest impact on potential output, the economy, already close to full employment, could run into capacity constraints."  This is unduly pessimistic.  The Paul Ryan/ GOP/Trump tax cuts have dramatically reduced the cost of equity and, for well capitalized companies, for corporate investment in real capital.  Reducing marginal individual tax rates improves incentives to work.  The limit on state and local tax deductions reduces the tax incentive to drive prices up in the most expensive markets in the nation.

The supply side tax changes combined with the administration's deregulation initiatives has accelerated economic growth after the slowest economic recovery in a century.  Growth, the first real wage rate rises since the 1990s, and the improved incentives have increased labor force participation by attracting workers who have given up or face disincentives to taking paying employment.  Workers on disability have reentered the workforce.  Yes the unemployment rate is the lowest in forty-nine years, but the prime age employment ratio is still below its level at the beginning of the 2007-9 recession even though it is eleven years later.

Not only did the 2017 tax act create supply side incentives for the real economy (which Mr. Plender judges too weak), but it also reduced the tax incentive to over lever.  It limited corporations' ability to deduct interest expense and the lower corporate marginal corporate tax rates reduce debt's tax subsidy.  The debt binges by Netflix and Amazon among others is their last hurray.  

Citing Dr. Doom (Henry Kaufman), Plender worries that "the 10 largest financial institutions held about 10 per cent of US financial assets. Today the figure is about 80 per cent."  While that may reduce the liquidity of financial markets, but it also makes the banking sector more stable.  Canada with similar concentration for a century or more has not had a banking crisis since the 1840s.  A shift of capital raising from the financial markets to the commercial banks by itself would increase the potential for economic growth.  A key initiative by the Republicans with some bipartisan support is to reduce the regulatory burden of smaller banks that are not a systemic threat and shifting the emphasis from regulation to capital.

Who Is Pro-Business? Steve Bannon or the Financial-Media-Tech Complex?

Steve Bannon has left the White House. Various ways can characterize it. He left as planned, he was ousted, Chief of Staff John Kelly is trying to create some order. 

Courtney Weaver and Shawn Daonnan write in the Financial Times, "Bannon goes on offensive after White House ousting." What they write exemplifies the disconnect between the elite and the reality on the ground. I will focus on one particular statement:

They characterize Mr. Bannon as having "clashed with pro-business moderates within the administration." The Goldman Sachs troika and their allies are "pro-business" only in the sense of being for large multi-nationals, investment bankers and their allies in the financial-media-tech complex that prospers at the expense of small businesses and ordinary Americans. 

The financial-media-tech complex destroys jobs, while the little guys have always been the source of 80% of America's job growth. Even here in Kansas, Republican Brownback subsidizes Amazon while the Seattle Goliath drives community building small books stores out of business. 

Why has job growth slowed? Why have we had the slowest economic recovery in a hundred years? The "reforms" of the last eight years have stifled the little guys while protecting the big guys. Is it any surprise we have had increased income inequality and slower growth? The elites get fatter, while Everyman and the community he or she lives in dies.

Five Things to Get the U.S. Economy Moving

Santander Takes a Big Writedown on Its Spanish Real estate Loans

10/25/2012
Banco Santander said profit fell after it amassed provisions against real-estate losses in Spain and as economic activity stuttered in some Latin American markets. Dow Jones's Margot Patrick reports: