Home values down, consumer credit up...WAY up

According to a report in Business Week, consumer credit debt--especially revolving credit such as credit card debt--is mushrooming:

Consumers boosted their borrowing more than expected in June, reflecting another hefty jump in credit card debt.
The Federal Reserve reported Tuesday that consumer credit rose at an annual rate of 6.5 percent in June. It marked the second straight sizable gain. Consumer credit rose by an even larger 7.9 percent in May.

The increase was led by an 8.4 percent rate of increase for revolving credit, the category that includes credit card debt. The category that includes auto loans rose at a 5.3 percent rate, the same as in May.

Total consumer credit rose by $13.2 billion in June to a record $2.459 trillion. The increase was double what economists had been expecting.

Consumer credit as measured by the Fed does not include mortgage debt. Analysts said the big rise in consumer credit reflects the slumping housing market and growing troubles in mortgage markets.
...
Homeowners are unable to borrow against their homes so they are turning back to their credit cards," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Zandi predicted this trend would continue for the next year or so until the housing market stabilizes and home prices start rising again.

If the credit card debt continues to rise at anything near these percentages, get ready for a wave of consumer bankruptcies within a year.

Not that this would put a dent in credit card debt, given the recent report that bankrupt consumers still get flooded with offers of more credit:

Credit-card companies target people fresh out of bankruptcy with credit offers, according to a study that found that nearly 100 percent of more than 300 families surveyed had been offered new credit cards within a year after completing Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings.

The findings show "how the credit industry seeks to profit from financial distress," said the study's author.

Can David Brooks be Reality-Based?

David Brooks is one of the few people in the world who has the New York Times editorial page for a platform. Why he has it is anybody's guess, but it probably isn't because of his economic acumen, honesty or openness, judging from his latest column A Reality-Based Economy.

Brooks is beating his usual drum here: things are soooo much better than us gloomy naysayers say. In this case, he's nominally taking to task the Democratic presidential candidates:

If you’ve paid attention to the presidential campaign, you’ve heard the neopopulist story line. C.E.O.’s are seeing their incomes skyrocket while the middle class gets squeezed. The tides of globalization work against average Americans while most of the benefits go to the top 1 percent.
This story is not entirely wrong, but it is incredibly simple-minded. To believe it, you have to suppress a whole string of complicating facts.

Not "entirely wrong." That's an understatement if I ever heard one. What complicating "facts" do I have to suppress in order to think that CEO's are seeing their incomes skyrocket while the middle class gets squeezed? These, essentially:

• After a lag, average wages are rising sharply. Real average wages rose by 2 percent in 2006, the second fastest rise in 30 years


• Earnings for the poorest fifth of Americans are also on the increase


• Despite years of scare stories, income volatility is probably not trending upward


• Recent rises in inequality have less to do with the grinding unfairness of globalization than with the reality that the market increasingly rewards education and hard work


• Companies are getting more efficient at singling out and rewarding productive workers


• Another reason for rising inequality is that upper income workers are putting in more hours, while lower income workers are putting in less


• It’s "not at all clear that the big winners in this economy are self-dealing corporate greedheads who are bilking shareholders" (he cites a study showing that “the top 25 hedge fund managers combined appear to have earned more than all 500 S.&P. 500 C.E.O.’s combined.”)


• To the extent that C.E.O. pay packets have thickened (and they have), there may be good economic reasons (the bigger a company gets, the more a talented C.E.O. can do to increase earnings)


• We’re in the middle of one of the greatest economic eras ever: global poverty has declined at astounding rates; globalization boosts each American household’s income by about $10,000 a year; thanks to all the growth, tax revenues are at 18.8 percent of G.D.P., higher than the historical average and the deficit is down to about 1.5 percent of G.D.P., below the historical average)

You know, if all that's true....but then how in the world would Brooks or anyone else know that "globalization boosts each American household’s income by about $10,000 a year?" And what do a lot of those things have to do with whether the top is getting rich and the middle is getting squeezed? Does it really matter, for example, whether the people getting the richest the fastest are hedge fund managers or CEOs?

Income volatility is probably not trending upward--meaning it could be, and what the hell is his source?

Then there's the sly little attempt to make you think that real wages are going great guns. I took the time and effort to check that one out, and if that claim is representative of how he arrived at his other "inconvenient facts," then he deliberately misrepresenting at worst and grossly incompetent at best.

Here's the story on real wages. He's right about the 2+ % rise in 2006. But there's a reason he chose 2006, leaving out the several years before it and the performance so far in 2007.

All the following figures are from the BLS Archived News Releases r.e. Real Earnings.

Monthly 2007 changes in real earnings show a significant net loss of purchasing power so far this year:

Jan...............-.3
Feb..............-.3

Mar.............+.1

Apr............. -.5

May.............-.4

June.............+.5

And here are the year-end statements as to changes in real earnings for 1995 through 2006:
Average weekly earnings rose by 4.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2005 to December 2006. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 2.1 percent.
Average weekly earnings rose by 3.1 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2004 to December 2005. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings decreased by 0.4 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose by 3.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2003 to December 2004. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings decreased by 0.2 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose by 1.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2002 to December 2003. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings were unchanged.

Average weekly earnings rose by 3.0 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2001 to December 2002. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings rose by 0.5 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose 4.1 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2000 to December 2001. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings rose 2.9 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose by 3.0 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 1999 to December 2000. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings fell by 0.4 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose by 3.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, between December of 1998 and 1999. After adjustment for inflation, average weekly earnings grew by 0.6 percent.

Average weekly earnings rose by 3.4 percent between December of 1997 and 1998 as a result of a 3.7 percent increase in average hourly earnings which was partially offset by a 0.3 percent decline in average weekly hours. After adjustment for a 1.6 percent increase in the CPI-W over the same period, real average weekly earnings grew by 1.8 percent.

Real average weekly earnings decreased by 0.6 percent from November to December after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.Department of Labor. This loss was due to a 0.6 percent drop in average weekly hours and a 0.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The decline was partly offset by a 0.1 percent increase in average hourly earnings.

Before seasonal adjustment, average weekly earnings increased by 3.4 percent between December of 1996 and 1997 as a result of a 3.7 percent increase in average hourly earnings and a 0.3 percent loss in average weekly hours. After adjustment for a 1.5 percent gain in the CPI-W over the same period, real average weekly earnings grew by 1.9 percent.

Before seasonal adjustment, average weekly earnings increased by 5.2 percent between December of 1995 and 1996 as a result of a 4.0 percent increase in average hourly earnings and a 1.2 percent increase in average weekly hours. After adjustment for a 3.3 percent gain in the CPI-W over the same period, real average weekly earnings grew by 1.8 percent.

We can compare this to several sources on executive pay. This, for example, from Forbes in:
1. April of 2005: "The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003."

2. May of 2007: "The chief executives of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective 38% pay raise last year, to $7.5 billion. That's an average $15.2 million apiece."

Or this, from Lab Manager magazine in April of 2007: "While the median change in CEO total direct compensation (salary, bonus and long-term incentives) was 8.9 percent, corporate net income increased by 14.4 percent, up from 13 percent in 2005, and total shareholder return was 15.1 percent, more than double the 6.8 percent return in 2005."

Then there is this long term chart from Mercer Human Resource Consulting on the year to year percentage change in CEO compensation, exempt employee compensation, corporate profits, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) covering 1996 to 2005:

Year.............CEO*...........Exempt.employees*.......Corporate.profits........Annual CPI

1996.............5.2%....................4.0%...............................11.0%.......................3.0%

1997............11.7%...................4.2%..............................8.9%.........................2.3%

1998.............5.2%....................4.2%................................5.0%.........................1.6%

1999............11.0%...................4.2%...............................15.1%........................2.2%

2000............10.0%....................4.2%................................8.9%........................3.4%

2001.......minus2.8%.....................4.4%.........................minus17.8% ......................2.8%

2002.............10.0%....................3.8%...............................14.8%.......................1.6%

2003...............7.2%....................3.6% ..............................19.2%........................2.3%

2004..............14.5%...................3.4%...............................23.0%........................2.7%

2005...............7.1%....................3.6%...............................13.0%........................3.4%

(1) Annual compensation comprised of salary + bonus

Brooks closes his column with the statement that "Whoever gets globalization right will have a bright future, and in the long run, the facts matter." The facts matter, alright. It's too bad he gets so many wrong, so many irrelevant, and so many from undisclosed sources.

Nor is this the first time Brooks has published really questionable stats that make economists scratch their heads (and wonder why he, of all people, merits space on the Times editorial page). Check out this on AlterNet and this on Brad DeLong's blog.

That White House love of the four Ss: science, spin, and spinning science

July 11, 2007
Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised
By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.
...
Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones. He said, however, that they included assistant secretaries of health and human services as well as top political appointees outside the department of health.

Dr. Carmona did offer to provide the names to the committee in a private meeting.
...
He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

If that doesn't make you sick enough, try this: a White House spokeswoman tried to spin it that Carmona was at fault for not resisting the pressure from...the White House:

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said the surgeon general “is the leading voice for the health of all Americans.”

“It’s disappointing to us,” Ms. Lawrimore said, “if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation.”

Internal Displacement of Iraqis said to be 'Human Tragedy Unprecedented in Iraq's History'

According to the blog Iraq Slogger, a recent report from the Iraqi Red Cresent calls the displacement of Iraqis within the country a "Human Tragedy Unprecedented in Iraq's History."

According to the blog:

• the number of internally displaced people (IDP's) in Iraq has quadrupled since January and is up eight times from a year ago.


• many IDP's take refuge in the house of extended family or a friend, while others squat illegally in abandoned houses, live on the streets or in makeshift mud huts and tin shacks; tens of thousands of others live in tent cities.


• the province with the greatest number of IDP's is Ninevah (Mosul area), with 239,547, followed by Baghdad, with 196,227.

The full report isn't readily available, but can be ordered through the blog.

An apparently different report from Oxfam duscussed on the Associated Content web site adds more grim info:

• 1 in 3 Iraqis are in a desperate humanitarian situation, having trouble meeting their basic humanitarian needs for water, food, sanitation, or shelter


• 4 million Iraqis (15% of the population) regularly can not buy enough to eat


• 70% of Iraqis do not have adequate water supplies


• more than 2 million people have been displaced inside Iraq


• an additional 2 million Iraqis have become refugees predominantly in Syria and Jordan

The full version of that report is available, here

God, secular schools, and religiosity, then and now

A few quotes from recent days and a few from the glory days of Fascism:

1. Evils of public, secular schools:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
-- Jerry Falwell

___________________
2. Good guys doing God's work:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” — Adolph Hitler

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-- Adolf Hitler

"We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. . .we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess."
-- Adolf Hitler

"Get the few liberals out. If you don’t do it, it ain’t gonna be done. You will be doing the Lord’s work, and he will richly bless you for it."–Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, describing the goals of the 2004 elections at the Christian Coalition’s Road to Victory Conference, 2002, Washington D.C.

"He [God] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am."
-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
________________________
3. Our heaven-sent leaders:

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany."
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
--Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003

"He [Rumsfeld] leads in a way that the Good Lord tells him is best for our country."
-- Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
_________________
4. Bonus quote from the one and only James (Has Anyone Seen My Mind?) Inhofe, in his 1999 official statement on the impeachment of Clinton (his closed-door impeachment statement that was released into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999):

"I sometimes say one of the few qualifications I have for the U.S. Senate is I am not a lawyer. So that when I read the Constitution, I know what it says; when I read the oath of office, I know what it says; when I read the law, I know what it says. I don't have to clutter up my mind with what the definition of 'is' is. So it makes it a little easier for me.

...
"as a non-attorney, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that there might be certain permissible exceptions to telling the truth under oath. Maybe you who are attorneys, and have a different background than mine, see it differently. But how can you reconcile this idea that under some conditions--if the subject matter is sex or something else--you can lie under oath? I really have a hard time with this.
.....
"Sometimes when I am not really sure I am right, I consult my best friend. His name is Jesus. And I asked that question. Now I will quote to you the response that is found in Luke: 'From one who has been entrusted with more, much more will be asked.'

"Mr. Chief Justice, I think Jesus is right."

What Consumers See Versus What Wall Street Sees

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released their reports on inflation and real wages for May, along with the usual recap of recent trends for those figures.

Real earnings dropped again for May:

Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.2 percent from April to May after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. A 0.3 percent increase in both average weekly hours and average hourly earnings was more than offset by a 0.8 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
...
Average weekly earnings rose by 4.1 percent, seasonally adjusted, from May 2006 to May 2007. After deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings increased by 1.4 percent.

So why did real wages go down? Because the cost of energy, especially gasoline, and the cost of food, were up significantly according to the Consumer Price Index release:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.6 percent in May, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The May level of 207.949 (1982-84=100) was 2.7 percent higher than in May 2006.

...
During the first five months of 2007, the CPI-U rose at a 5.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). This compares with an increase of 2.5 percent for all of 2006. The acceleration thus far this year was due to larger increases in the energy and food components. The index for energy advanced at a 36.0 percent
SAAR in the first five months of 2007 compared with 2.9 percent in 2006. Petroleum-based energy costs increased at a 63.9 percent annual rate and charges for energy services rose at a 6.8 percent annual rate. The food index has increased at a 6.2 percent SAAR thus far this year, following a 2.1 percent rise for all of 2006.
Excluding food and energy, the CPI-U advanced at a 2.1 percent SAAR in the first five months, following a 2.6
percent rise for all of 2006.

A more specific breakdown of inflation over the past three months can help pinpoint the areas really seeing high inflation:

Compound annual 3-month rate of change, ending May:

Energy-------------------70.0
Food and beverages----4.2
Housing------------------2.5
Apparel------------------(-)6.6
Transportation----------30.6
Medical care------------3.3
Recreation----------------.9
Education and
communication---------5.3
Other goods and
services------------------3.0

Special Indexes
Energy-----------------71.0
Food-------------------4.2
All Items less
food and energy------1.6

So the highest rate of cost increase is in energy, followed by education/communication, food, and medical care. Try avoiding those goods and services. In contrast, apparel (a relatively avoidable cost if you're really strapped for cash) is down 6.6%, and discretionary recreation rose less than 1%. Does that make you feel good?

Probably not, and for much the same reason that the NY Times reported on Saturday that:

A closely watched survey by the University of Michigan released yesterday found that consumer confidence this month dropped to the lowest level in 10 months. Americans also now expect significantly higher inflation than they expected a few months ago, the survey said.

Wall Street had a very different reaction, according to the NY Times:

Wall Street barreled higher again yesterday after the week’s most anticipated economic reading indicated that inflation excluding the price of gasoline remained tepid last month, easing some concerns that have jolted stock and bond markets in recent sessions.
...
The three major stock indexes finished the week higher, even as yesterday’s Consumer Price Index showed prices rose at the fastest pace in 20 months in May as the cost of gas jumped. Investors were enthusiastic that the core index, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 0.1 percent. The figure, which the inflation-wary Federal Reserve watches closely, was below the 0.2 percent increase Wall Street expected.

I don't know if the difference between the consumer response and the investor response represents a true disconnect or just a disagreement over the likely future rate of inflation. But as I've said in another post, the rising cost of food--which seems much steeper to me than the official figure from the BLS--is actually changing grocery shopping habits in the area where I live, to the benefit of Aldi's, a discount, bring-your-own-bags German grocery.

I don't think inflation of the essentials of food, medical care, and education will be moderating any time soon. I have real doubts that gas prices will moderate in the long term, and I don't think most Americans have any real alternatives to buying gas, given that most public transportation has been dismantled, and almost all retail shopping of any significance is now unreachable on foot.

Where Did All Those Trumpeted New Jobs Go?

According to the monthly reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the US economy gained a net of almost half a million jobs in the third quarter of 2006. Then BLS issued its aggregate quarterly report earlier this month, titled "BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: THIRD QUARTER 2006."

Like magic, most of the new jobs announced in the monthly reports disappeared. Instead of a net gain of almost half a million, BLS says the net gain was 19,000. That's not a type--nineteen thousand. Somewhere around 4% of the previously announced total.

Possibly worse is that the total number of private sector firms dwindled by some 8,000 in the third quarter of 2006--8,000 more businesses dies than were born.

An excerpt of relevant material from the quarterly summary:

Private Sector Establishment-Level Gross Job Gains and Job Losses
Opening and expanding private sector business establishments gained 7.4 million jobs in the third quarter of 2006, a decrease of 397,000 from the previous quarter. Over the third quarter, expanding establishments added 6.0 million jobs, while opening establishments added 1.4 million jobs.

Gross job losses totaled 7.3 million, an increase of 50,000 from the previous quarter. During the quarter, contracting establishments lost 6.0 million jobs, while closing establishments lost 1.3 million jobs. (See tables A, 1, and 3.)

The difference between the number of gross jobs gained and the number of gross jobs lost yielded a net change of 19,000 jobs in the private sector for third quarter 2006.

From June 2006 to September 2006, gross job gains represented 6.5 percent of private sector employment, while gross job losses represented 6.5 percent of private sector employment. (See tables A and 2.) These gross job gain and loss statistics demonstrate that a sizable number of jobs appear and disappear in the relatively short time frame of one quarter.

Number of Establishments Gaining and Losing Employment

Another way to look at the dynamics of business activities is to monitor the number and proportion of business units that are growing and declining. The third quarter of 2006 represented the first quarter where the number of contracting establishments exceeded the number of expanding establishments since the second quarter of 2003. Out of 6.9 million active private-sector establishments, a total of 1,865,000 establishments gained jobs from June 2006 to September 2006. (See table C.) Of these, 1,524,000 were expanding establishments and 341,000 were opening establishments. During the quarter, 1,542,000 establishments contracted and 349,000 establishments closed, resulting in 1,891,000 establishments losing jobs.

Overall, the number of active private sector establishments decreased by 8,000 during the quarter. This change is the difference between the number of opening establishments and the number of closing establishments.

What in the world could cause such a discrepancy between the monthly and quarterly figures? The report in the NY Times notes:

The figures do not cover exactly the same things, as a small proportion of employers — notably railroads and religious organizations — are not covered by unemployment insurance. And Kirk Mueller, a branch chief in the section of the bureau that deals with current employment statistics, said differing seasonal adjustment factors could affect the results.

Nonetheless, the Times piece also states that "Eventually, the monthly numbers will be revised to reflect the results of the quarterly survey." In other words, the quarterly figures will be treated as the final figures.
Nineteen thousand jobs over three months. Around 4% of the previously announced net gain.

Eight thousand more private sector employers going out of business than entering business.

Anyone want to reconsider the state of the economy?