Archive

Posts Tagged ‘money’

Can credit card debt management help you to save dollars?

People in this part of the world are used to using credit cards rather than cash for their day-to-day expenses. The proportion of credit use is far more than their retirement savings. Credit cards have given them immense portability and convenience to make frequent purchases. However, this has given rise to several financial diseases which is affecting the fragile US economy. One of the major setbacks is the accumulation of credit card debt. This makes it imperative for the people to know the ways of credit card debt management to avoid getting into a financially sticky situation.

The ways of credit card management

Here are few methods of reduce credit card debt as well as save dollars:

  1. Transfer your credit card balances – This means transferring all your multiple credit card balances into a zero interest credit card. This may be for a year or so as offered by the credit card company. This creates a great opportunity to clear out all your outstanding bills within the promotional period. In this process, you’ll be paying for the principal balance and not for the interest. However, there is a transfer fee for this procedure which hovers around 3-5% of the balance amount. By this method, you’ll save a lot of money even after paying the transfer fee.
  1. Create a budget: Start developing the habit of spending less. Vow to start living a frugal life. This is because the more you spend on useless things, the less you save. Therefore, to fight back such irresponsible behavior, plan a budget that will be comfortable for you to follow. Keep in mind that this budget should not become a burden for you; instead it should motivate you to spend smartly and save money for the rainy day. Use those savings towards debt repayment and you’ll see a remarkable decrease in the number of outstanding bills.
  1. Lower your interest rates: This is one of the most effective steps in the credit card debt management plan. Be vigilant and do your market research to learn about the recent market offers which various creditors are making. After a getting a thorough knowledge of the market offers, contact your current creditors. Request them to lower your card’s interest rate. The creditors will welcome this sort of gesture from you and will readily oblige. If you’ve been a good customer who has been punctual in making the payments, then the creditors will surely consider your request.

During the negotiation phase with your creditors, tell them that you are considering balance transfer as an alternative to lowering the interest rate. This will give them the necessary nudge to accept your terms.

___________________________________________

This article was written by Grace Ruskin.  Grace is a financial writer and is associated with DebtCC Community.

The Buffett Rule

On Monday President Obama unveiled his deficit reduction plan.  In addition to reducing the deficit, he outlined his ideas to pay for the American Jobs Act he proposed two weeks ago.   No surprise his plan includes tax increases on more wealthy Americans.  Phrases such as “shared sacrifice” and people paying “their fair share” make for good sound bites.  However with Washington, the challenge is often deciphering what their pithy sayings mean.

He referenced the “Buffett Rule” as one of his proposals.  It’s named after Billionaire Warren Buffett who has been rather outspoken about the need to raise taxes on the super-wealthy.  Cueing off of a New York Times op-ed piece written by Mr. Buffett a few weeks ago, the Buffett Rule is supposed to make sure people who make over $1 million a year will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone who makes less than the $1 million threshold.

You may agree or disagree with the concept of the Buffett Rule.  Regardless if you think it’s a good idea, I have three primary issues with the proposed Buffett Rule.

  1. Additional Complexity.  As a tax professional, I can attest that the tax code is exceptionally complex and at times unwieldy.  With the myriad of deductions, exemptions and exceptions, it will be virtually impossible to make sure some making over $1 million will pay taxes at a higher rate than someone making less.  Everyone’s tax situation is unique, so it’s near impossible to offer such a guarantee.  It may sound simple, but it’s going to be very difficult to achieve.
  2. Increased Tax Avoidance.  While it may be good for those of us in the tax business, I can assure you that there will be a host of tax professionals looking for ways to minimize the tax liabilities of their clients under whatever new rules are enacted.  It’s simple economics.  The higher the tax rate, the more cost-effective it is to pay someone to find strategies which minimize your taxes.   You may have your opinions about what’s fair and right, but there is nothing illegal or immoral about structuring your affairs to pay less tax.  Tax evasion is illegal, but tax avoidance is not.  As I recently wrote, if you personally feel like you aren’t paying your fair share, then I would encourage you to make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  Trust me… they’ll take your money.  Political discourse and debate are fine, but it’s wrong to castigate someone who is abiding by the law because you don’t think the result is fair.
  3. Unintended Consequences.  Congress has a lousy track record of using the tax code to target certain persons.  The Law of Unintended Consequences often kicks in, and the negative ramifications are often much more detrimental than anyone anticipated.  Two great examples come to mind; one recent and one from decades ago.  The 1099 reporting provision included in the health care reform is the most recent Congressional bumbling.  As soon as it was passed, it became clear the administrative nightmare would far exceed any benefits obtained.  Fortunately, Congress repealed it before it became effective.  The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is the classic example of unintended consequences.  The AMT was enacted in 1969 to tax 155 wealthy families who were viewed as not paying their fair share.  By 2008, 3.9 million taxpayers were subject to AMT, and 27% of them made less than $200,000. This probably isn’t what the 91st Congress had in mind.

The Buffett Rule may cause some wealthy people to pay more in taxes, but if history is a predictor of the future, the long-term results will be much different than expected.  Such targeted tax policy generally hasn’t yielded the desired results.  I’m not sure why they think the Buffett Rule will be any different.

Raising Taxes on the Super-Rich

Billionaire Warren Buffett made headlines last week with an opinion article he wrote for the New York Times.  His statement “My friends and I have been coddled enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress” attracted a lot of media attention and discussion.

In writing, “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice” you can deduce his apparent attempt to sway public opinion and encourage Congress to increase the tax burden upon the wealthiest individuals in the country.  He generally described the targets for the additional sacrifice as those making over $1 million each year, but he didn’t offer specific proposals or suggestions of what additional sacrifice they should be required to make.

In the article, Mr. Buffett disclosed his 2010 tax liability of $6,938,744, which he said was 17.4% of his 2010 income.  It’s a hefty sum; not surprising for one of the world’s richest men.  Most of us would be happy to earn $6,938,744 in our lifetime, let alone pay that much in taxes in one year.

I have no qualms with Mr. Buffett sharing his opinion and participating in the debate over U.S. tax policy.  It’s part of his First Amendment rights to free speech.  Hypothetically, I would ask Mr. Buffett one question… if you believe your taxes are too low, what’s stopping you from paying more?

If Mr. Buffett thought $6,938,744 was insufficient or not his fair share, what prevented him from paying more?  I contend the only thing preventing him from paying a greater sum was himself.   If he chose, Mr. Buffett could have voluntarily added to his 2010 tax liability whatever additional amount he thought was fair.  The U.S. Treasury would have gladly accepted his additional contribution.

His tax liability of $6,938,744 is a rather exact number.  While not explicitly stated, it’s implied this was the statutory amount he was required to pay.  Thus, he paid the minimum amount he was legally obligated to pay, which is what everyone does, irrespective of their socio-economic status.

I may be cynical, but I know many wealthy people who advocate for government spending and programs, yet are constantly trying to minimize their personal tax liabilities.  There is nothing wrong with minimizing your tax liability.  It is part of what I do for people on a daily basis.  However, I see a tinge of hypocrisy when you think others should pay more tax, yet look for “loopholes” for yourself.

I think Mr. Buffett’s credibility in advocating for higher personal income taxes would be bolstered if he chose to make a voluntary contribution above and beyond the minimum required tax liability. His convictions would be demonstrated by his actions and not just his words.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Effects of the Credit Downgrade

Late Friday afternoon, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) announced it was downgrading the credit rating of U.S. Treasury securities from AAA to AA+ and retained its negative outlook.  Although S&P previously announced it was considering a downgrade, the announcement was a bombshell dropped at the end of a tumultuous week of economic and political news.

  • After weeks of political posturing and rancorous debate, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011, increasing the debt ceilingPresident Obama signed the legislation on August 2, thereby avoiding a potential default by the U.S. government.
  • After the debt deal was done, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings announced they would retain their AAA rating of U.S. Treasuries but continue to monitor U.S. fiscal health.
  • The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended a 9-day losing streak with a blistering 334 point decline; wiping out all of the gains for 2011.
  • S&P capped the week by announcing their downgrade.

Since Friday afternoon, politicians, economists, and pundits have been discussing the impact of the downgrade.  There has also been a lot of pointing fingers of who is to blame for  tarnishing the image of the U.S.  It has also left a lot of people wondering about the real implications of a downgrade in the credit rating of the U.S. Government.

Here are a couple of things I think you can expect from the downgrade.

  • There is a bruising to the American pride and psyche.  Nothing has changed since Friday, but most Americans want to believe we are the best of the best.  The downgrade is likely to increase the uncertainty and pessimism of the American consumer.
  • Interest rates won’t change immediately.  Interest rates are effectively determined by the free markets, not by S&P.  A credit ratings agency simply tries to assess the risk of a particular security, but it’s up to the market to decide the interest rate.  Don’t expect interest rates to change in the near future, but there could be some upward pressure on rates if investors become more leery about the fiscal stability of the U.S. government.
  • The stock markets aren’t going to crash.  As anticipated, the markets were battered yesterday and lost about 5% of their value, but it’s not a direct correlation to the S&P ratings change.  Remember the Dow took a 334 point hit last week before S&P made its announcement.   Furthermore, the 10-year Treasury yield fell from Friday’s rate of 3.558%. This means investors bought more Treasuries; the very securities that are supposedly more risky.  The selloff is more attributable to the poor outlook of the global economy and European sovereign debt worries.  Investors are seeking stability, so they’re buying up Treasuries and gold.

There is one potential redeeming element which may come from the downgrade, but it’s far from certain.  This might serve as a wake-up call for our political leaders to get serious about the fiscal future of our country.  As I wrote last week, the debt deal was long on promises and short on spending cuts.  In my opinion, a 0.6% cut in spending for 2012 is a pittance in light of overall spending.  The rating downgrade could prompt our leaders to get serious about tackling the debt and deficit.

No longer is it just extreme fiscal conservatives who think it unrealistic for the U.S. government to overspend by $1 trillion each year without consequence.  Standard & Poor’s is a significant player in the global economy.  You may question the timing and motivation of their downgrade, but it should serve as a clarion call of the long-term risks and ramifications of our debt and deficit spending.  I can only hope our politicians are listening and have the courage to do something about it.

Details of the Debt Deal

After weeks of political wrangling, Congress and President Obama enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011.  The legislation provides for an immediate increase the debt ceiling of $400 billion, averting a potential default by the U.S. government.  Avoiding default is probably the one thing most Americans are pleased with in this bill.

The debt deal is long on political rhetoric and short on details.  While many of our political leaders are touting the success of this legislation as a significant step towards dealing with the fiscal challenges of our country, there is little discussion of what is actually going to happen.  Beyond deferring the most significant spending cuts to a Joint Select Committee (JSC) composed of 12 Congressional leaders, evenly divided by house and party, there are few details of how the actual spending cuts are going to be achieved.

The Congressional Budget Office scored the spending cuts to be $2.1 trillion between 2012 through 2021. Of this amount $917 billion is supposed to be guaranteed in exchange for allowing the Treasury to sell another $900 billion in bonds.  The remaining $1.2 trillion is supposed to be determined by the JSC.  At this point, no one knows what is going to be cut to achieve any savings.

From what has been released, the bill calls for $21 billion of spending cuts in Fiscal 2012 and $42 in 2013.  Not surprisingly, the substantial cuts happen far in the future, which means there is always the chance the cuts won’t happen.  For those of us who believe government spending is on an unsustainable path, this is not very encouraging.  Here are a couple of things to consider.

President Obama’s 2012 Budget  proposal calls for $2.6 trillion in revenue and $3.7 trillion of spending; resulting in a $1.1 trillion deficit.  The House passed a budget with $2.5 trillion in revenue and $3.5 trillion of spending; racking up a $1 trillion deficit.  According to the debt deal, spending will be trimmed by a measly $22 billion.  This is about 0.6% of all federal  spending for the coming year.

Talking in trillions and billions can seem rather esoteric, so think in these terms.  Assume you make $50,000 this year.  If you managed your finances like the federal government, you would spend over $70,000, borrowing the difference.  If you cut your spending like Congress and the President have proposed, you would only trim your spending by $420 for the next year.  That’s right… just a mere $8 per week, even though you’re overspending by $20,000.  Given those parameters, would you say you were serious about changing your spending habits by cutting $8 per week?

Many politicians and commentators are calling this a historic piece of legislation.  They refer to it as a down payment on our debt and an important first step.  This may be true, but it’s an indication of how difficult it is for Congress to cut federal spending.   If they can barely manage to trim $22 billion, how are they going to come anywhere near close to $1 trillion?  It would take over $1 trillion of additional cuts and/or revenues to balance the budget, before we can even begin to pay down the debt.

The debt deal further illustrates the Congressional propensity to defer hard decisions.  Effectively, it will be a future Congress and potentially a different President, who will have to make the hard decisions to cut spending and balance the budget.  Given the history and culture of Congress, it’s no wonder the debt deal is long on politics and promises and short on specifics and spending cuts.

Debt Ceiling Extension – Short or Long-Term

One of the issues in the debt ceiling debate is the size of the increase in borrowing capacity, which effectively determines how long before the government runs out of money again.  President Obama and some Congressional leaders have demanded any debt ceiling increase cover the projected federal deficit for at least 18 months, thereby deferring the next debt ceiling vote until after the November 2012 election.

Congress has passed and the President has signed three debt ceiling measures over the past 2 ½ years. Here is the  history of the debt ceiling votes since President Obama took office in January 2009.

  • February 2009 – debt ceiling increased to $12.1 trillion, lasting 10 months
  • December 2009 – debt ceiling increased to $12.4 trillion, lasting 2 months
  • February 2010 – debt ceiling increased to $14.3 trillion, lasting 15 months

President Obama’s current insistence for a limit to last 18 months is longer than any of the three extension bills he previously signed.  Given the acrimonious nature of the current debate and political wrangling, it’s understandable why he prefers to push any future debate beyond the 2012 election.   However, a political preference to avoid a contentious issue does not justify vetoing legislation with a shorter time frame.

Many Republicans are willing to pass a shorter-term measure because they believe the political sentiment on this issue is in their favor.  In all fairness, if they believed a short-term measure was detrimental to their political future, they would be pushing for a longer term solution as well.

The supporters of the 18-month measure have argued a short-term increase will continue to negatively impact the economy and jeopardize the U.S. Government’s credit rating.  However, neither Moody’s nor Standard & Poor’s have indicated the size of debt increase as a significant factor in assessing the credit rating of U.S. Treasury securities.  Both have stated there are two primary factors they are considering; 1) the U.S. not defaulting on any of its payments and 2) a meaningful reduction in future budget deficits.  The length of a new debt ceiling has not been mentioned as having any bearing on their assessment.

The markets seem to echo this sentiment.  We’re days away from the August 2nd default date, yet there has been no appreciable change in the trading or pricing of U.S. Treasuries.
It appears traders and investors assume Congress will pass some measure to prevent the government from defaulting, even if it’s short term.  Although investors prefer Congress to act sooner, they understand the political landscape and realize such issues often result in deals being cut at the last moment, or Congress passes a short-term extension to grant themselves more time to reach a deal.

The 2011 Budget is a good example.   Rather than shutting down the government for failing to reach an agreement, Congress passed six continuing resolutions to fund the government from October 1, 2010 through April 8, 2011, before the final budget deal was reached.  The shortest continuing resolution was 3 days, keeping the government operating from December 18 – 21, 2010.  Although it may be annoying and unnecessary, short-term extensions to keep the government operating have become rather common.

At this point, I think a short-term resolution is probably the most likely bill to pass.  As much as the President may want an 18-month limit and some conservatives want no increase in the debt ceiling, neither one of them wants to be the blame for the U.S. government defaulting and the potential economic chaos which could result.  Political winds can shift rather quickly, and no one wants to be caught downwind of decision which freezes the markets or dramatically increases interest rates.

If you have read any of my prior articles, you know I strongly believe dramatic long-term changes to our fiscal policies are necessary. At the same time, significant changes in policies or spending should not be hastily passed, and I would much prefer good legislation over expediency.

Everyone may be tired of the debate and just want it to be over, but don’t allow politicians to obscure what they’re doing by waiting until the last minute to present and pass something.   Spending cuts and tax increases affect real people.  Tough choices need to be made… that’s a given.  Let’s just make sure we all have time to understand the choices being made by our elected officials; before they are enacted.

Decoding the Debt Debate

If you’re following the current debate on raising the debt ceiling, you’re probably frustrated.  Your angst may be triggered by, the partisan bickering, the lack of great leadership or the uncertainty of what may happen and what it all means.

Politicians from all political persuasions and affiliations have become very adept at obfuscation.  Knowing whatever they say or do can and will be used against them in a future election, politicians have become very proficient in deflecting and dodging direct answers.  They speak in vague terms and try to boil everything down to a 30 second sound bite.

Politicians and political commentators often use terminology that is confusing and often misleading.  You almost need a secret decoder to decipher what they are saying.  I don’t all of the secret codes, but I have a few.

As you listen to the debate, the following are a few terms to keep in mind.

  • The National Debt – The cumulative amount of money owed by the U.S. government. These are actual bonds held by various investors (including the Chinese government and your friendly bank).  The total outstanding debt is approximately $14.5 trillion.
  • The Debt Ceiling – The total amount of bonds the U.S. Treasury is authorized to issue.  The debt ceiling is currently equal to the National Debt.  A law must be passed to increase the debt limit.
  • Deficit – This is the amount of money the government is spending in excess of revenues it collects in one fiscal year (October 1 – September 30).  The deficit for fiscal 2011 is projected to be $1.4 trillion.
  • Credit Rating – Every bond traded on a public market is rated by an independent credit rating agency, which assesses the financial strength of the issuer and the likelihood of default.  The lower the rating, the higher the interest rate required.  For bonds already issued, a change in credit rating will often influence the price at which the bond is traded on the market.

Aside from these terms bantered about, I believe there are a few important factors you need to pay close attention to in any deal that is reached.  These will be the types of issues our  political leaders will attempt to obfuscate.

  • Time Horizon – The time horizon for the spending cuts and additional revenues will be calculated over the next 10 years.   If Congress and the President agree to cut $1 trillion in spending, it won’t all come in fiscal 2012.  They may sound like everything is happening this year, but any plan will be adopted over the next decade.  Raising the debt ceiling is the only thing to take effect immediately.
  •  Timing – Look at the timing for when additional revenue is received and spending cuts are enacted.  If history repeats itself, the revenues will start to be received soon, and the  bulk of the spending cuts will happen in the latter years.  In the world of pork barrel politics, elected officials use government spending to buy votes, and the termination of programs will frequently cost votes.  Thus, politicians have a real incentive to defer spending cuts to another day.
  • Details –It won’t be easy, but do your best to understand the details of the plan.  Congress is trying to make major changes to the tax code, Social Security, Medicare and  Medicaid, and they’re rushing to get it done in the next few days.  I don’t think you want a repeat of Nancy Pelosi’s famous quote, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

I believe this is a serious issue, and how it is resolved could have far-reaching implications for the future.  No one knows what will happen if the government defaults on its debt, since it has never happened.  As I previously wrote, I think Congress will and should raise the debt ceiling, but it also needs to curtail government spending.  Racking up over $1 trillion of debt each year is just as perilous as defaulting on the current obligations by not raising the debt ceiling.

I also have serious reservations about our leaders’ability and willingness to cut spending.  The 2011 budget compromise is a good illustration of this.  Although they supposedly agreed to $38 billion in spending cuts, most of it was accounting gimmicks and money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway.  One analyst calculated the reduction in spending on specific programs to be less than $1 billion in comparison to fiscal 2010.

As the debate continues forward, follow closely.  Here’s why.  Last week, President Obama was pushing a plan to cut spending by $3.7 trillion and add $1 trillion of new revenue, for a net decrease of $2.7 trillion over the next decade.  Sound like a reasonable compromise?  Before deciding, you may want to consider this.  When the Administration presented their 2012 budget to Congress, they also provided a 10-year budget estimate.  The Administration projected total deficits over the next 10 years to be in excess of $9 trillion.  If the current deal cuts it by $2.7 trillion, that still means we’ll add over $6 trillion to the national debt, pushing out total debt close to $21 trillion by the end of the decade.  Still think it’s a good deal?

To me this is a good example of why we must watch this closely.  Despite the political rancor, everyone in Washington is looking for a deal which will make them look good.  Let’s just make sure the American people get as good of a deal as our politicians.

Cost of a Job

What is the cost of a job?  Priceless… if you’re without one.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a., the Recovery Act or the Stimulus), was enacted in February 2009 to create jobs and stimulate business investment in the recession which became severely pronounced at the end of 2008.  The original cost estimate was $787 billion. The most recent estimate is a $862 billion price tag.

President Obama and the supporters of the Stimulus argued that unemployment would exceed 9% without the Stimulus, but it would never be higher than 8% if the Stimulus was enacted.  Sadly, the unemployment rate reached 8.2% in February 2009, the month the Stimulus was passed, and exceeded 9% in May 2009. The rate has remained above 9% for over two years, except during February and March of 2011.

The Stimulus proponents have maintained that it was beneficial, and things would have been much worse without the Recovery Act.  This may be true, but it’s a difficult argument to make.

On July 1, 2011, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors released the most recent report on the progress and effect of the Recovery Act.  The report touted the Recovery Act’s success in creating or saving 3.6 million jobs.  Even if you accept the inclusion of a “saved job”, which is a controversial claim itself, the average cost per job is currently estimated to be $278,000.

The opponents of the Stimulus seized on this number to further criticize the Stimulus.  In their mind, the cost per job is highly excessive and is further proof of the government’s inability to spend money efficiently and effectively.  The White House argues the calculation was skewed, and the Recovery Act was intended to do much more than create jobs.

Despite all of the rhetoric coming from all sides of the political spectrum, the long-term benefits of the Recovery Act remain questionable.  One long-term effect is easily quantifiable – the additional debt incurred to fund the Recovery Act.  Since the government didn’t have $862 billion of extra cash on hand, we had to borrow it.  Thus, every American is responsible for an additional $3,800 of debt as a result of the Stimulus.

The effectiveness of the Stimulus may be debated a long time to come.  Whether we are better off or not, no one will ever truly know.  However, one thing is probably clear.  We’re not likely to see another $800 billion Stimulus Bill anytime soon.  With a $14 trillion debt, which is growing by over $3 billion per day, we simply can’t afford it.

If your job was created or saved as a result of the Stimulus, you probably think it was money well spent, although I doubt you actually got $278,000.  If you did, let us know how you achieved it.  Then again… maybe you better keep it to yourself.

Controlling Oil Prices

President Obama announced yesterday that he was authorizing the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) over the next 30 days.  The decision was made in coordination with our European allies who also will be releasing an equal amount.

Supply disruptions from the ongoing conflict in Libya were cited as the rationale for the release, but several industry analysts and commenters question this rationale.  The current stockpile of oil and gas hasn’t dramatically decreased since the Libyan conflict began, and most industry analysts believe there are adequate supplies, irrespective of what happens in Libya.  Although oil prices climbed dramatically at the beginning of the conflict, they have dropped nearly 10% over the past few weeks.

Many commentators suspect the real motivation is an attempt to drive potential speculators from the market.  If this was the intent, it seems to be working… at least for the moment.  Yesterday, the market price for oil dropped $5 per barrel, and gasoline futures dropped $0.14 per gallon.

Although we may all profit from lower fuel prices, the long-term cost of this decision may not be worth the short-term benefits.  The effects of this strategy may be short-lived.  By current estimates the world consumes nearly 89 million barrels of oil per day (the U.S. consumes 21 million barrels each day).  Thus, releasing 1-2 million barrels per day isn’t going to have a dramatic effect on long-term  supplies.

If hindering the profits of traders and speculators was a primary motivation, then it’s huge misappropriation of power.  The SPR was created to protect the country against a sudden disruption of oil supply, especially for the military.  Although the SPR has been tapped for non-military uses in the past, it was never intended to be a tool to control market prices.  It’s dangerous for politicians to use a strategic asset to achieve a political or economic result.

In my mind, such actions raise serious questions.

  • Where in the Constitution does the government have the power to manage the price of a particular asset or commodity?
  • Is the government now in the position of trying to make or break a market?
  • Who gets to decide when the price is too high or too low?
  • How does a national asset become a tool to manage a particular market?

I agree that government has a role to enforce free and fair trading practices.  If illegal and unethical trading occurred, then go after the culprits, or pass legislation if rules need to be  changed.  Absent illegal or immoral activities, the government doesn’t have a right to control the market because our political leaders don’t like the result of what is happening.   Government’s attempt to regulate and control market prices sounds a lot like socialism – not free enterprise.

We may never know for certain the true motivation for this decision, but the people who work and study this stuff full-time, have reasonable suspicions of the real intent behind the release of oil from the SPR.  If the chasing speculators out of the market was the primary motivation, it was a terrible decision.  The government’s attempt to artificially control prices never works out well in the end.  Furthermore, this type of foray into the free markets is a dangerous exercise/abuse of power.

A Double Dip Recession

Many recent economic indicators are pointing to a slowing of the U.S. economy.  This has raised the speculation that we may be headed for a double dip recession.

The following  definitions will help us to speak the same language:

  • Recession – two successive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by GDP
  • Recovery – increase in economic activity and growth in GDP following a recession
  • Double Dip Recession – short period of recovery followed by another recession

As much as we may like steady economic growth, history has proven that the economy is cyclical.  There are periods of economic growth and decline.  There are also times of boom and bust.  While there have been several recessionary periods, the last double dip was thirty years ago when the economy slowed in late 1981 after rebounding from a recession in 1980.

The most recent recession may have officially ended in the summer of 2009 as GDP stopped declining, but that doesn’t mean that all has been well with the economy for the past two years.  Growth has been rather meager and sporadic, and there certainly hasn’t been any boom in economic growth to restore the trillions of dollars of wealth lost from 2007-2009.

Here are some of the recent economic statistics that make the current outlook a little bleak.

  • The unemployment rate bounced back up to 9.1% in May 2011
  • 54,000 new jobs were created in May, down from 232,000 in April
  • Retail sales dropped 0.2% in May 2011, the first decline since June 2010; auto sales were down 2.9% for the month
  • For the ninth straight week, over 400,000 people filed new claims for unemployment
  • Although oil prices have declined in recent weeks, gas is still approximately $1.00/gallon more than a year ago, and continued unrest in the Middle East and the upcoming  hurricane season in the U.S. could cause another spike
  • Higher fuel and commodity prices are causing significant inflation in food prices
  • Housing values continue to fall and an estimated 25% of all homeowners owe more on their home than its current market value
  • A $14 trillion national debt and $1.4 trillion annual budget deficit make it difficult for the U.S. government to spend money to help stimulate economic growth

Time will tell if we have a double dip recession or be able to avert it.  Irrespective of the economic terms of recession and recovery, the immediate economic outlook is not exceptional.  Things may not get much worse, but I don’t think things are going to change all that dramatically in the near future.

I believe there are three primary factors that will continue to hinder our growth.

  1. Unemployment – It’s hard to have strong economic growth when 10% of the population is out of work, and another 5-10% have either given up looking for work or are underemployed.
  2. Housing – Aside from the fact that housing has historically been a leading contributor to economic recovery, current market values put more people at risk for default and make it difficult for people to relocate.  Additionally, your house is often your largest asset, and it’s hard to have much confidence in the economy when you consider how much money you have lost and continue to lose on your investment.
  3. National Debt – The magnitude of the debt and annual deficits pose a substantial risk to the country and the economy.  The debt is manageable because interest rates are at historic lows.  A return to even moderately normal rates would place tremendous pressure on the Treasury and a rise in government interest rates will reverberate through the entire economy.

Unfortunately, there is no easy fix to any of these problems, and our political leaders have not demonstrated the ability or willingness to seriously tackle the issues.  Thus, I think the best we can hope for in the near term is an economy that sputters along with relatively stagnant growth overall.  The worst could be traumatic.

These are a few of my thoughts… what do you think?