I’m beginning to get that spring/summer 2008 feeling again, and it’s no wonder.
The latest GDP report this morning signals that we may be heading into recession again—this time with an unemployment rate above 9 percent. Despite that, the political fight du jour is over just how many trillions of dollars in spending we need to cut—with the Republicans threatening to go nuclear on the debt ceiling, while ruling out any tax increases to reduce the debt they claim to be so worked up about. Europe can’t or won’t get a handle on its bad debts and has a good chance to trigger another financial crisis of unknown dimension. Our own banking system is hardly on solid footing, despite trillions of dollars in direct taxpayer bailouts, subsidies, and guarantees. To make things worse, our governments, fresh off perhaps the biggest financial crisis ever (and I’ve never been convinced that it actually ended), just flat can’t afford another one right now.
The Wall Street Journal reports today that the debt-ceiling fiasco is starting to affect markets and the real economy. Investors have long assumed that Republicans wouldn’t be crazy enough to sink the economy by not agreeing to pay off past obligations, but they’re hedging their bets now, yanking money out of money market funds and increasing the cost of the overnight loans that help finance companies’ day-to-day operations.
The combination is effectively a withdrawal of cash from what has become known as the shadow-banking system, where funds, banks and investors lend and borrow trillions of dollars daily. That cash is now piling into bank deposits, which yield virtually zero but are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
This is not at all yet a run on the shadowing-banking system, but it’s worth watching closely when people start to pull their money out because of jitters about markets as a whole, particularly when the system is fragile.
The Journal reported last night that overnight repo rates—what banks charge to lend short-term against high-quality assets like Treasuries (read a Financial Times explainer here) —have gone from 0.01 percent to 0.1 percent, which is still low, just this week. Bloomberg News reported this afternoon that overnight repo rates jumped to 0.21 percent this morning.
Bloomberg also reports that tremors spread to the mortgage REIT industry, whose stock index plunged by 8.5 percent at one point today before recovering to what was at last check a 2.5 percent drop. Why? Fears over jumping repo rates.
The New York Times reports that as of yesterday investors had pulled $37.5 billion out of money-market funds in the last week.
The Journal says something similar, and says today may be worse:
Investors pulled $9 billion a day out of money funds this week, according Nomura Securities International Inc. The outflows in the past day could be even higher, traders say. Some $62 billion has left money market funds in the past two weeks, according to the Investment Company Institute.
The WSJ should have given us some numbers to put those figures in context. How big is the overall market? How much normally flows in or out in a day or week? The Times does better, reporting there were “daily inflows of $280 million for much of July.” So the market went from an average $280 million inflow a day to an average $9 billion outflow in the last week. And the Times also gets this very good quote from Peter Crane, who runs a company that tracks money-market data, and helps tells us what the numbers mean:
“It’s big, no doubt about it,” he said. “Seventeen billion isn’t a run, but it’s definitely indicative that investors are shifting their assets. If this were to continue for another week or two, it would be very disturbing.”
- 1
- 2
The latest GDP report this morning signals that we may be heading into recession again—this time with an unemployment rate above 9 percent.
Pahhh ... thats just a GOP talking point not even remotely grounded in reality ... a lie if you will. We all know that the stimulis has kept unemplyment well below 8% just like it was projected to. Enough with those GOP lies .. where's Kevin Drum when you really need him.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/03/hellchart.jpg
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 04:30 PM
Hahaha, ooh, the markets are spooked, we have to do what Obama wants! XD If anything, they know he isn't budging on his crazy demands for more taxes in the middle of a recession, so they're gearing up for a govt shutdown, which they know will mean less revenue for govt contractors. As far as I'm concerned, a shutdown of this bloated govt is the best possible outcome, so I'm rooting for it to happen. :) If anybody seriously thought he'd be dumb enough to default, ie choosing not to pay $20 billion in interest when he has $200 billion coming in next month, there'd be a lot more volatility than these minor shifts. It is quite amazing how CJR and the mass media have become the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. I bet none of you will be able to find work blogging online when that market goes paid and really takes off, as very few will pay for hack work like this, basically the tiny Nation crowd and that's it.
#2 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 04:33 PM
"We all know that the stimulis has kept unemplyment well below 8% just like it was projected to. Enough with those GOP lies .. where's Kevin Drum when you really need him."
Man that Obama not only gave a third of the stimulus to tax cuts , but he also renewed the Bush Tax Cuts and is planing to pass more tax cuts and spending cuts as part of the debt ceiling negotiation.
I'm sure all of these cuts will pay for themselves and stimulate the economy any day now, like they have for the last 30 years according to the GOP.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 12:22 AM
And since you asked:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/advice-john-boehner
""The debt ceiling bill is inside your pen. Just take off the top and put it on the paper and the debt ceiling increase will come out."
"Get a big pile of words and then take away all the words that aren't a debt ceiling increase. Done!""
When dealing with a child congress, employ a child's language.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 01:07 AM
It's not a complicated question...
How can the Democrats in Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren
to finance this debt through higher taxes?
HUH?
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:27 AM
Easy answer, hack. The republicans ran up the debt in spite of it's affect on the future economy because:
a)Two Santa strategy is successful in the shallow age of tv communicated politics.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
b) they don't care about children or grandparents - they want to use the excuse of huge government debt to cut the benefits for both.
Once you have the debt from conservatives, you have to deal with the costs of that debt. Now how do we do that?
In good times, one might raise taxes and Democrats have suggested raising taxes on the top income brackets who have experienced very good times since 2009.
But that involves starting a blood fight with republicans and the centrists and this conservative president doesn't want to fight for anything that might make the republicans really mad, so that's a non starter.
Therefore, the only choice left is to borrow the money. When salary doesn't cover your hospital bills, don't you borrow money temporarily?
Then you do the responsible thing and start paying the debt back. Democrats have a history of doing that.
Republicans don't.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 06:10 AM
padikiller asked: "How can the Democrats in Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes?"
Thimbles responded: "Easy answer, hack...
padikiller replies: My bad... I forgot to include the attributions in my post...
"How can the Republican majority in Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy?" --- Sen. Harry Reid, 2006
"How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes?" -- Sen. Barack Obama, 2006
Now tear 'em up, Thimbo!.... You're speaking my language now, boy!...
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 08:45 AM
Let's see, when did we last hear about how not raising the debt ceiling would make the markets sink? Oh, it was before the last govt shutdown in 1995-6, when all the crazy leftie rhetoric Ryan retails now was first floated. Well, the Republicans didn't listen to that nonsense and shut the govt down, which led to much smaller deficits over the next 5 years. We know the gameplan from last time, a shutdown is the only way out of this mess. Just crazy how the lefties haven't learnt their lesson and blatantly lie about a default, just like they did last time. Must be nice to have a bunch of morons as your constituency.
#8 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 09:33 AM
"How can the Republican majority in Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy?" --- Sen. Harry Reid, 2006
Yeah, that's a good question. How did they do that anyways?
"How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes?" -- Sen. Barack Obama, 2006
Yeah, how did they explain that? You got an answer for that, lawyer dude?
Because I do, and it's laid out in my last post. These comments were while the problems were being created. Remember, it was the tax cuts and unfunded what nots that conservatives ALWAYS do that created the debt expansion; the books were balanced when Clinton handed off the country.
And if Republicans wanted to talk about how raising the debt ceiling is awful and have a couple of grandstanders vote 'Nay' I'd have no problem with it.
Individuals voting nay for show is relatively harmless politics. Your entire membership threatening 'nay' if they don't get what they want is hostage taking. Democrats don't do that, not even, especially not even, when the liberal anti-war version of the tea party begs them to take a stand,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c (tune into 1:30 to see how a decent democrat talked about "idiot liberals" in 2007)
The last time they had a chance was with the extension of the bush tax cuts, and those idiot democrats used their leverage in such a way that they gave concessions AND set the stage for the current brinkmanship.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_security_under_attack.php#comment-35790
Democrats say lots of stuff and do lots of gestures but, in the end, they cede to the conservatives on almost every issue and policy.
And the reasons for that is that DLC centrist democrats are weak and cowardly in general, they are bought by the same people as republicans, and the media will always call out liberal passive opposition while ignoring and excusing conservative extremist behavior.
Imagine if the democrats of 2006 pulled anything like this. Imagine the reaction of the media, who blew "General Betrayus" up into a democratic national scandal. Democrats and Republicans are on the same ball field, but they aren't playing the same game, a fact that should be obvious to anyone who's seriously watching.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 12:44 PM
Gotcha Thimbo!...
When the GOP refuses to give in on matters of political principle with regard to raising the debt ceiling without raising taxes, it's "hostage taking"..
When the Dems refuse to give in without raising taxes.. It's a fine example of stalwart patriotism...
Because you and the other commie/liberals say so.
Grow up!
Both parties are playing politics here. They always do. The difference is that the GOP has power that it didn't have last year. The Dems could resolve the debt crisis simply by caving (as you claim they always do anyway). The simple truth of the matter is that they would rather see a default than see their Gravy Train derailed.
The GOP has all the power here and they don't even know it. They keep sludging out pointless bills, but the truth of the matter is that the Gravy Train will be derailed one way or the other, given the Tea Party influence and control of the debate. If there is a default, credit costs will quickly soar and interest payments will soak up just about any bit of money that would otherwise be available to dole out to fund commie/liberal nonsense. We're already seeing substantial increases in the overnight lending rates between banks over the matter.
If you're advocating that the Dems stand their ground in the face of Tea Party demands.... Fine!... I'm with you Brother!. You're speaking my language - advocating gridlock. I'd love to see the debt limit stay right where it is or even lower. I'd rather see the federal revenue go to pay interest to investors in the market than to pay Mama Food Stamp her monthly crack money. At least then the money would be doing society and the economy good instead of harm.
What you (and the rest of the commie/liberals) want is the status quo... 12 percent increases in the annual federal spending with 2 percent increases in the GDP, ad infinitum.. Free money for the gubment... Free money from the gubment..
NEWSFLASH! It ain't happening, Dude. One way or the other. Ride's over!
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:27 PM
" The Dems could resolve the debt crisis simply by caving (as you claim they always do anyway). "
As they did, several times, to an embarrassing degree. These republicans won't accept yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrS9IXVq7rQ
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:59 PM
Thimbles..
There's a bill from the House right now in the Senate..
All the Senate has to do is vote for it. 51 votes and it's done. Just 8 Democrats away from resolving the matter and forestalling default.
Handled.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 03:23 PM
"Imagine if the democrats of 2006 pulled anything like this. Imagine the reaction of the media, who blew "General Betrayus" up into a democratic national scandal."
Somebody imagined:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/cult-of-centrism-or-right-wing-media.html
"Suppose there were a bill coming up to fund, say, money for troop pay. Or the existence of the base in Guantanamo. Or Pentagon black ops budgets for monitoring potential nuclear terrorism threats. Fairly essential things Republicans care about.[And then the democrats stomped all over it and held the near corpse of it hostage, what would the media do?]...
Of course not. Every "liberal" columnist from Joe Klein to Dana Milbank would spend every waking moment tut tutting the crazy, unreasonable Democrats. Regular newspaper articles would breathlessly characterize Democratic actions as hostage-taking, replete with stories about the danger being placed on America and how much regular folks in the heartland hate those awful Democrats. And the howling on the Right? Well, take the regular over-the-top screaming, and amplify the Drudge flashers and Fox News chyrons by tenfold. You would almost almost certainly see physical violence against Democratic legislators.
The point of this exercise, of course, is that we don't really have a cult of centrism in the media. We just have a right wing media. Period."
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 12:27 AM
You guys need to give the stupidity a rest.
The Dems played politics with the debt limit in 2006 when every single Dem senator voted against raising it...
And they're playing politics with the debt limit now that every single Dem representative voted twice against raising it.
Who exactly do you guys think is buying your load of nonsense?
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 11:02 AM
The delusional are not without a certain sense of style:
The Age: Former friends reveal pieces of killer's past
Robert Mendick August 1, 2011
Breivik, 32, refuses to have his prison ''mugshot'' taken to ensure that the stage-managed photographs he took of himself - in full Masonic regalia or clutching his rifle - are not replaced by more humbling images.
Having been refused permission to wear a combat uniform, he has demanded to wear a red Lacoste sweater for his public outings to court or to the police station.
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 10:35 PM