Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 05, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wall Street spooked by shoddy reporting
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The global economy is a complicated entity that relies on accurate information about financial trends, something that was missing at strategic times during last week's market meltdown.

Indeed, the trigger for the domino effect that plunged stock markets from Asia to Wall Street began in China where the sell-off resulted from rumors the government was going to impose stringent measures to slow down its overheated economy. But those rumors appeared to be unfounded in a supersecret authoritarian bureaucracy where transparency is nonexistent.

China has been attempting to slow its economy for years, something, ironically, we've been pushing them to do. But as Bear Stearns economist David Malpass noted last week, the China sell-off was "valuation related" and resulted, understandably, in cooling down its overvalued stocks.

A memo by Bear Stearns' Hong Kong-based strategist Michael Kurtz on Jan. 16 warned "China (Underweight): Valuations now excessive, stocks are over-owned, and liquidity support may be moderate."

Back in the United States, the markets were spooked by the spreading global sell-off but also by a variety of less-than-accurate reports -- the most egregious being the story that Alan Greenspan was predicting a recession later this year.

Dow Jones Newswires ran a headline, saying "Greenspan: Recession in U.S. 'Possible.'" Bloomberg News Service said, "Greenspan says U.S. may slip into recession."

In fact, he predicted nothing of the sort, and even a cursory reading of what the former Federal Reserve chairman said in remarks via satellite at a global business conference in Hong Kong shows that quite clearly. Story after story, even after the markets' steep decline Tuesday, flatly reported that he saw a possible recession in the near future, without all of the caveats and modifiers for which Greenspan is famous when he talks about hypotheticals.

Here's what he said: "While, yes, it is possible we can get a recession in the latter months of 2007, most forecasters are not making that judgment and indeed are projecting (growth) forward into 2008 ... with some slow down." He went on to describe conditions in the global economy as "benign and stable," a view that is consistent with economic forecasters here and abroad. And he said both the United States and global economies were far more resilient now than ever before, partly as a result of increasing global liquidity.

In short, Greenspan's "widely reported comments weren't nearly as negative as the headlines portrayed," Malpass told his clients. But the r-word he uttered dominated the headlines and, in the 24/7 news world we live in, that message contributed to Wall Street's jitters and helped to push it into the tailspin we saw last week.

To be sure, other factors contributed to Wall Street's fallback, including a 7.8 percent plunge in manufacturing orders, January's steep decline in new housing sales and the terrorist attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan from newly resurgent Taliban forces.

But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has been telling Congress for the past two weeks that the global economy remains strong and he expects continued growth in the U.S. economy this year and next.

"We are looking for moderate growth in the economy going forward," he told a House committee Wednesday.

The economy was clearly slowing in the last three months of 2006 to a 2.2 percent revised Commerce Department estimate, down from its earlier 3.5 percent preliminary figure. But that was due in large part to the cyclical declines in the housing markets and in manufacturing. I think both of these sectors will pick up in the last half of this year.

The housing sector has been the boogeyman of the U.S. economy. But its negative fallout has been exaggerated. Predictions of a housing bubble bursting, bringing down the U.S. economy, have not borne out.

"We are now well into the contraction period, and so far we have not had any major, significant spillover effects on the American economy from the contraction in housing," Greenspan also said last week.

Yes, new home sales were down sharply, in many cases priced out of the market's lower selling range, but Americans were still buying homes. Existing home sales rose 3 percent in January, as declining real-estate prices have begun to bring new buyers back into the market.

Meantime, the economy was still growing within the 3 percent range for the past year and Bernanke sees growth picking up, especially in the last half of the year.

Consumer spending is decent, wages have been rising, U.S. exports are stronger than ever and for the past eight months we have been in a global bull market that shows no inherent signs of slowing down over the longer term. Markets are self-correcting, pausing to catch their breath before climbing higher. All that profit-taking last week steered a lot of money to the sidelines, but it will be returning to the equities markets to pick up cheaper stocks that still have much room to grow.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Kimberly
WRAMC is still an Army installation commanded by an Army General and he is the one directly responsible for the operations of this hospital, not the president -- this one or any other.

Your reaction and the actions of Democrats on this issue really demonstrate my point that politicians -- of any political party -- do not care about military personnel or veterans except to the extent they can be used as a political issue, in this case another cheap shot at President Bush.

As far as I am concerned, the president has carried out his responsibility by firing the Secretary of the Army and the Hosptial Commander. The marching orders to the new commander should simply be, "Correct the problem."

I have not had the opportunity to hear very much of the testimony, but what little I had heard seems to be directed toward military personnel.

Clyde9

Kimberly,
Please go to a psychologist. It seems to me you blame Bush for everything that's wrong in this country while giving no credit when things are good. I bet you blame Bush when your dog gets sick. It must be difficult to carry on day to day with that mindset.

process that began in 2000.
Hmmm? That would be Clinton since Bush didn't take office until 2001 (Jan). However, he should have ended that practice if it was bad but, I bet he was never even told about it.

Also, that goes back to the budget cuts Clinton was using to show he was cutting spending when really he was just cutting the programs socialists in both parties don't care about to fund programs they do care about better.

the market sinks
scapegoats are found, nothing new here folks

Kimberly
re: Hmmm

1st paragraph. Wrong!

2nd paragraph. The responsibility for the mess at Walter Reed belongs to the Army, specifically the hospital commander, and I would be saying the exact same thing if Bill Clinton were president. In this situation the hospital commander was fired and the Secretary of the Army resigned. This is certainly a valid area of questioning of whoever is nominated to become the Secretary of the Army regarding how he will correct the problem. But it does not need to be micromanaged by either the president or congress.

3rd paragraph. Neither party really cares about military personnel or veterans except for the political mileage they can show by showing how concerned they are which they demonstrate with their crocodile tears.

Clyde9

ctjaeger or anybody
You folks have shown some real thought on the problems and solutions.

If you would, list some of the solutions you think would work and then give the "odds" that Congress will do what you suggest. My problem, I guess, is not that we don't have solutions but that they won't be used.

ctjaeger writes:
I have to disagree when you say "Also, we are not being told about the U.S. debt held by China, Japan, OPEC. If they stop loaning us money, we will see a serious problem in funding entitlements like Medicare in the next few years."

Several points I need to make.

First, the media is constantly informing us that China "owns" America, so we know all about the high percentage of US$ denominated debt held by them.
===================
You are 100% correct. I should have stated that the importance of that to our nation's ability to avoid a decade long recession isn't being clearly stated. They hint at it with there statements but don't really say how and why that will cause a collapse of the dollar and the recession if we aren't careful or if any nation "panic sells" the dollar debt they hold.

Then ctjaeger writes:

Second, you state that Medicare is an example of an "entitlement". These aren't "entitlements", you aren't necessarily entitled to receive Medicare money. By the term "entitlement" slipping into our lexicon as a descriptor of Medicare and SocSec, we are damning ourselves to ever increasing costs. Let the people who need the assistance get it, others will need to work hard and pay their own way.
=========================
Again you are correct in reality but we don't deal with reality anymore. Our government has declared those to be "entitlements." We now even provide those services to those here illegally because, according to our government, just being alive and in the U.S. entitles you to those services, legal or not. Read this Medicare/Medicaid study. Think about the 100 million they are going to immigrate and how they state they will all receive all services and even want to add social security to those who paid in illegally with illegal numbers.
quote:
Medicaid enrollment increased from 41.4 million in 1999 to 58.6 million a 14 percent increase. Enrollment is expected to increase another
72.8 million by 2016.

Among the four major categories of Medicaid enrollment (children, and disabled), children make up the largest number of enrollees covered Medicaid and accounted for almost half of all enrollees in 2004.
snip-------------------
The largest category of Medicaid expenditures is nursing facility costs, representing 20 percent of total expenditures in 2004. However, OACT projects that home health services will experience the fastest rise in spending between 2004 and 2016, increasing its share of total spending from 11 percent to 18 percent.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/06/trendsinmedicaid
/report.pdf
==========================
So, while you are correct they shouldn't be entitlements they are considered that by our government. There are no plans to limit any of this and they are all tied to mandatory spending increases based on COLA. From 2001 to 2007 the increase in Health and Human Services alone was 60% or $261 billion and that growth is to rapidly grow even faster as the 78 million boomers retire and get their "entitlement" to Medicare/Medicaid services. Since they are expected on average to live to 100 (childhood mortality rates don't apply to them anymore and they are their own demographic separate from the overall population life expectancy statistic), they will cause a huge burden two ways. Declining number of workers (thus, the desire by Congress to immigrate 100 million over the next 20 years) and rising demand for services the government has promised to pay for (the $54 trillion unfunded liability we face).
==========================
ctjaeger writes:

Third, there is no financing/funding issue with Medicare if other countries stop buying US$ denominated debt. Why? Well, if demand for US Treasury issues declines and the US needs to sell more bonds, the interest rate on those bonds will rise to the level where people will buy them. This does not create an immediate funding crisis, however, in the long-term the interest carry will be higher than we would like. In other words, if they don't like the bonds at 5% maybe they'll buy at 5.5% or 6%.
=========================
This is the problem with that logic. The collapse of the dollar would mean two things. One, it would take interests rates of 20% or so to attract people to the currency. The U.S. citizens would be unemployed to the rate of 15% or so and unlikely to buy the debt. The businesses and wealthy won't want to buy the debt because they would consider them too risky at any interest rate.

Remember that any increase in bond rates causes more risk of unemployment. We live in a debt based society where most corporate spending is based on low interest rates. The higher the rate, the less they expand and the more they move to other nations with better rates and taxes and business policies.

That is another thing Bernanke addressed in his testimony this week.
quote:
Under this scenario, the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP would climb from 37 percent currently to roughly 100 percent in 2030 and would continue to grow exponentially after that. The only time in U.S. history that the debt-to-GDP ratio has been in the neighborhood of 100 percent was during World War II. People at that time understood the situation to be temporary and expected deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio to fall rapidly after the war, as in fact they did. In contrast, under the scenario I have been discussing, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise far into the future at an accelerating rate. Ultimately, this expansion of debt would spark a fiscal crisis, which could be addressed only by very sharp spending cuts or tax increases, or both.
snip-------------------
But if government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace envisioned by the CBO's scenario, the effects on the U.S. economy would be severe. High rates of government borrowing would drain funds away from private capital formation and thus slow the growth of real incomes and living standards over time. Some fraction of the additional debt would likely be financed abroad, which would lessen the negative influence on domestic investment; however, the necessity of paying interest on the foreign-held debt would leave a smaller portion of our nation's future output available for domestic consumption. Moreover, uncertainty about the ultimate resolution of the fiscal imbalances would reduce the confidence of consumers, businesses, and investors in the U.S. economy, with adverse implications for investment and growth.

To some extent, strong economic growth can help to mitigate budgetary pressures, and all else being equal, fiscal policies that are supportive of growth would be beneficial. Unfortunately, economic growth alone is unlikely to solve the nation's impending fiscal problems. Economic growth leads to higher wages and profits and thus increases tax receipts, but higher wages also imply increased Social Security benefits, as those benefits are tied to wages. Higher incomes also tend to increase the demand for medical services so that, indirectly, higher incomes may also increase federal health expenditures. Increased rates of immigration could raise growth by raising the growth rate of the labor force. However, economists who have looked at the issue have found that even a doubling in the rate of immigration to the United States, from about 1 million to 2 million immigrants per year, would not significantly reduce the federal government's fiscal imbalance.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/
2007/20070228/default.htm
============================

However, Congress isn't just talking about doubling but quadrupling or more the immigration rate. That 1/3 increase in the next 20 years means 1/3 more hospitals, prisons, roads, government services, schools, etc.

It is good to have someone like you that see the fallacy of what our government is doing but, how do we get them in government to see that fallacy. The solutions they are proposing aren't the solutions you see nor the reality you see. They are living in "never-never" land. Never admit socialism isn't working and never reform those things that are sending us for a huge fall economically.

Listen to CNBC World at night and what economists around the world say are in store for the U.S. dollar and economy. Or subscribe to foreign investment alerts that are telling people to steer clear of U.S. bonds, stocks and assets. That station and Bloomberg (357 and 353 on Direct TV) interview people from Australia, London, China, Singapore, Japan, etc. They are all becoming more and more concerned about the soundness of our dollar and thus, even at 20% interest rates, in the future, would probably shun the U.S. bonds.

We depend on foreigners to fund our spending. We can't afford to fund it ourselves anymore. If we raised interest rates enough to internally fund our debt we would plunge the nation into a recession. If we drop the interest rates, we lose the foreign investors in our debt. Yet, if we even just leave them at this rate, there are risks with inflation as the dollar drops in value and our buying power with it.

Many say we have gone too far and there is no way out of this prior to a long recession. The faith in the dollar is rapidly disappearing around the world because of what Saddam showed them when he went to the sale of oil in euros in 2000 and before we could get in their and return oil sales to dollars saw the dollar drop 24% to the euro. Now, Iran and Venezuela are going to do the same. China, Malaysia, OPEC and other nations are starting to sell the dollar off for the euro, gold and silver and other currencies.

If you were President and we had many like you in Congress, we might have a chance but, we don't.

Old Man
I have to disagree when you say "Also, we are not being told about the U.S. debt held by China, Japan, OPEC. If they stop loaning us money, we will see a serious problem in funding entitlements like Medicare in the next few years."

Several points I need to make.

First, the media is constantly informing us that China "owns" America, so we know all about the high percentage of US$ denominated debt held by them.

Second, you state that Medicare is an example of an "entitlement". These aren't "entitlements", you aren't necessarily entitled to receive Medicare money. By the term "entitlement" slipping into our lexicon as a descriptor of Medicare and SocSec, we are damning ourselves to ever increasing costs. Let the people who need the assistance get it, others will need to work hard and pay their own way.

Third, there is no financing/funding issue with Medicare if other countries stop buying US$ denominated debt. Why? Well, if demand for US Treasury issues declines and the US needs to sell more bonds, the interest rate on those bonds will rise to the level where people will buy them. This does not create an immediate funding crisis, howevever, in the long-term the interest carry will be higher than we would like. In other words, if they don't like the bonds at 5% maybe they'll buy at 5.5% or 6%.

Asian news
This is one reason I am glad I have satellite and watch Asian news at night. I get an entirely different set of news analysis from them because they don't have the same ties to our economy or our politicians the media does here.

For example, the majority of them, are calling for a recession here later in 2007 or in 2008 but because of the dollar's decline more than other factors. The cost of everything at Walmart, will go up that is imported and that will mean less money to spend on domestic goods and services as the dollar falls.

They also are more negative on Housing but not because of the home sales as much as the foreclosures on people who borrowed over 100% of the home value and now have ARM's catching up to the Fed rates. Caps on annual increases have limited the rise but each year, more people find that rate higher and for millions they can no longer make the payment because they were too extended to start with.

Then you have the situation like Denver. 20,000 to 40,000 homes sold to illegals with subprime loans that were for 100% and with ARMs. If you are illegal, you just walk away, go to a new state, get a new TID and start over leaving an empty house for the loan company to try and sell in a down market. That is why, I believe, Denver has seen one of the highest default rates.

That lack of information, more than distortion is another thing this author ought to have addressed. It isn't just distortion but absence of information that is pulling us down and could cause a collapse of the dollar.

We have seen a 60% drop in the value of the dollar to the Euro just since 2000, 83 cents to $1.31 today. Now, we may be facing further drops to the yen, the yuan and other currencies. In each case, any drop means we lose buying power on anything we buy from them. That would be and will be good in the long run but not the short.

In the long run, industries that left could come back here and actually have "low wage labor" in buying power, compared to other nations. For example, though it is still below us, China has 4 to 5 times the buying power which means the $2 an hour GM pays its workers in China puts them at almost twice what our min wage workers earn here. In Hong Kong the wage is about $5 an hour or in buying power $25 an hour.

Those consumers are rapidly growing and rapidly replacing us as the consumer base nations around the world use to depend on us for. Also, we are not being told about the U.S. debt held by China, Japan, OPEC. If they stop loaning us money, we will see a serious problem in funding entitlements like Medicare in the next few years.

Lack of information is as bad as distortion of information.

John, Lambro's not talking about ...
... the economy, he's talking about how the media distorted Greenspan's remarks to make the economy (and the Administration) look bad.

Greenspan should have known that would happen, and you can bet that he will be a lot more careful next time.

We the people?
“We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed.”

It is "we the people" that have driven congress to spend trillions of dollars we don't have.

What nearly no one who complains about outrageous spending will admit is that it isn't that "evil" military industrial complex that makes up the largest portion of federal outlays, but the various social programs.

The number one single outlay is social security, which is scheduled to skyrocket within the next few years.

Even more of a threat is Medicare, whose budget will consume over 50% of federal revenues within the next 2 decades.

In the 1950s, military spending was a full 50% of the budget, while social spending was barely 15%. Today , the military consumes about 15% of the budget while the wasteful social programs consume more than 2/3rds of the budget.

The ONLY way to get the spending situation under control is to sacrifice these social programs. At the VERY least, social security and medicare MUST be means tested.

But that will never happen, because the primary beneficiaries of those two programs are also the biggest voting block. They'll NEVER let their "free stuff" be threatened. So what if future generations will forever be saddled with that burden, gimmie my viagra now!

Shoddy reporting
Is the reporting shoddy or deliberately inaccurate? Who benefits from the inaccuracy?
Certainly the Democratics will benefit, but will not money managers who are prepared also benefit?

John
I believe that you are absolutely correct. However, if you come back to this column in a couple of hours you will find that truth will be overlooked. You will read a lot of ranting and raving on both sides, with endless name calling and insults. Many will wander off the subject to make a point that has nothing to do with the subject. Kind of sad in a way.

Indebtedness
I'm with you, John.

Greenspan and NYT
Lambro is correct, but it's worse than indicated.

AP ran a headline based on Greenspan's remarks that he thought a recession LIKELY. Hundreds of outlets carried it.

On Feb. 28, the NY Times ran a story saying that manufacturing was ALREADY in a recession. The next day the ISM's Manufacturing Index came in at 52.3; anything about 50 means expansion.

The press's performance last week was indicative of a group of people who will grasp at anything and everything to try to make the economy and the administration look bad. It's total disgrace, and totally typical.

Economic Disaster Looms
GAO Chief David Walker: Economic Disaster Looms

Do you not think if we do not change the out of control spending in Washington that we are heading toward an “economic disaster”?

NM-AUSTIN, Texas – David M. Walker sure talks like he’s running for office. “This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids,” the comptroller general of the United States warns a packed hall at Austin’s historic Driskill Hotel. “We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed.”

But Walker doesn’t want, or need, your vote this November. He already has a job as head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government.

Basically, that makes Walker the nation’s accountant-in-chief. And the accountant-in-chief’s professional opinion is that the American public needs to tell Washington it’s time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.