On the Brink is Paulson’s story, or at least a heavily vetted spin on his story. (He keeps no notes and never uses email—this is a smart guy.) The book focuses primarily on the period from September 2008 through the end of the Bush administration. Its author comes across in its pages as honest, overtaken by events, and swamped by odds beyond his control. But in reality he is a prime constructor of modern Wall Street, a man who worked long and hard—alongside his competitors—to bring you the risk-taking and crazy gambling of the 2000s.
One of the more amazing aspects of the health-care debate is how steady public opinion has remained. Despite repeated and intense sales efforts by the president and his allies in Congress, most Americans consistently oppose the plan that has become the centerpiece of this legislative season. For every person who strongly favors it, two are strongly opposed. Why can't the president move the numbers? One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help.
In surveying American opinion just before and a week after President Barack Obama’s healthcare summit, we found a third of respondents more supportive of his plan, a third less so and a third unchanged. This would seem to confirm that the summit achieved nothing. But looking deeper into our March 3 data reveals some surprises. These may give second thoughts to those Republicans who want some type of health reform but are under orders to vote no on Obamacare. When we asked who was putting the nation’s interest ahead of political gain, we got a surprise: most independents – and almost half of Republicans – chose the Democrats.
Heated debate continues to rage in the United States on whether the economic recovery will be V-shaped (with a rapid return to robust growth above potential), U-shaped (slow anemic, sub-par, below trend growth for at least the next two years) or W-shaped (a double-dip recession). slew of poor economic data over the past two weeks suggests that the U.S. economy is headed for a U-shaped recovery—at best—in 2010. The macro news, including data on consumer confidence, home sales, construction and employment, actually suggests a significant downside risk even to the anemic levels of growth which RGE forecast for H1. The U.S. faces continued challenges in H2—particularly as historic levels of fiscal stimulus fade—and appears far too close to the tipping point of a double-dip recession.
Economists have long known that the overall performance of the economy as measured by GDP has a direct bearing on unemployment. But the relationship between changes in output and changes in the unemployment rate deviated from expectations in 2009. Okun’s law tells us that, for every 2% that real GDP falls below its trend, we will see a 1% increase in the unemployment rate. Since real GDP was almost flat in 2009 while its trend level increased by 3%, the unemployment rate under Okun’s law should have increased by 1½ percentage points. Instead it rose by 3 percentage points, more than twice the predicted increase. We examine what might have disrupted the usually reliable empirical relationship described by Okun. Our results indicate that the main factor driving the unusual rise in unemployment relative to output was very rapid productivity growth, which allowed businesses to cut back sharply on labor while maintaining output levels.
The Senate on Tuesday cleared a hurdle to extending unemployment benefits and health-care subsidies for the jobless until year's end, the latest modest bipartisan success on jobs and the economy. The vote was 66-34, with eight Republicans, including newly-elected Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joining the Democrats. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against the measure. The Senate bill extends eligibility for enhanced unemployment-insurance benefits and eligibility for tax credits for laid off workers who obtain health insurance through the Cobra program, both through year's end.
Now that they have raised federal spending as a share of GDP to 25% and don't want to return to the 20.7% 40-year average, Democrats are looking for political cover to pay for it. They want the commission to declare that there's no way you can cut future spending enough to balance the budget, and then to propose ways to raise huge new chunks of revenue beyond the current tax code. Mr. Obama's nominees will endorse both propositions, and if GOP appointees go along the headline will be: Bipartisan Commission Says Taxes Only Way to Balance Fisc. One way to increase the odds of dodging this trap would be for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to name the likes of former Texas Senator Phil Gramm as one of his three appointees.
The President’s chance of legislative success is way above the 10% I projected shortly after the Brown election when I declared a comprehensive bill dead. Was I wrong, or have things changed dramatically? A little of both, I think. As of this posting, Intrade estimates about a 50% chance of success. That seems a little high. I’ll guess it’s a coin toss as to whether the Speaker can round up 216 votes for two bills, multiplied by an 80% chance that if she does they can overcome other hurdles to get two signed laws. That puts me at a 40% chance President Obama gets to declare victory, but with lots of uncertainty. Click through for an analysis of vote counting, timing, process, and the probability a comprehensive bill becomes law.
When the time comes to tighten monetary policy, the Federal Reserve will be embarking on a tightening cycle like no other in its history. First, this tightening cycle will have two policy dimensions, in that the FOMC will have to decide on the path of its asset holdings in addition to the path of the short-term interest rate. Second, we will be using tools to drain reserves that are new and that will have to be implemented on a scale that the Fed has never before tried. And third, we will be operating in a framework of interest on reserves that has not been fully tested in U.S. markets.
Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, on Monday called for an upfront levy on large financial institutions to pay for the costs of their failure – but she signalled willingness to compromise. As regulatory reform talks grind towards a conclusion in the Senate, Ms Bair told the Financial Times that she was still pushing for a pre-funded “resolution authority” to wind down the next Lehman Brothers-style failure even though the biggest banks faced an additional $90bn tax announced by President Barack Obama.

Today's News