Enlightened Economics

Economics for an Enlightened Age

Archive for February 16th, 2011

• US Healthcare Delivering a Heart Attack!

Posted by Ron Robins on February 16, 2011

By Ron Robins. First published February 10, 2011, in his weekly economics and finance column at alrroya.com

Medical spending could deliver a debilitating heart attack to the US economy, despite the recently passed healthcare legislation that hopes to significantly control costs. Depending on assumptions made, the unfunded US government medical liabilities range as high as $125 trillion, equivalent to about eight times America’s annual gross domestic product (GDP). These unfunded liabilities—money that might have to be borrowed—have the possibility of totally derailing the US economy.

In 2008, Richard Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas cited the US government’s unfunded Medicare program liabilities at $85.6trn over the infinite horizon. He said that including the unfunded liabilities of US Social Security the total rises to $99.2trn. Mr. Fisher further added that were they to be funded, it would require a lump sum payment of $1.3 million per family of four to the US federal treasury! Or alternately, an increase of 68 per cent in federal taxes for all individuals and corporations, for now and forever.

The unfunded liabilities figure of $125trn arose from a conversation I had recently with Boston University’s renowned Professor of Economics, Laurence Kotlikoff, who believes they could range that much also using an infinite horizon time frame.

Now really ‘low-ball’ medical unfunded liability estimates come from the 2010 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. They are the reports of the Medicare trustees of the US government. The 2010 estimates of US government medical unfunded liabilities have been shaved dramatically from their prior year reports.

And the Medicare trustees make the following remarks in that regard. They say that, “the Affordable Care Act [the recently passed healthcare legislation] improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially. However, the effects of some of the new law’s provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal, especially in the longer-range future… the actual future costs for Medicare are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections.” In other words, their low-ball estimates are based on such flimsy assumptions as to make them untenable.

And the record of government predictions and cost containment in regard to Medicare expenditures is anything but encouraging. As Gary Shilling, a US economist recently remarked, that in 1967 a special committee of the US Congress predicted by 1990 that Medicare would cost $12 billion. It actually cost $110bn. Quite likely the estimates of US government medical unfunded liabilities, by Richard Fisher and Professor Kotlikoff are nearer the reality, barring truly significant program cuts, changes and increases in taxes.

The US government’s Medicare program began in 1965. It primarily covers medical expenses for people over 65 years of age and for certain disabilities for people younger than 65. Medicare was envisaged as being able to pay its own way through payroll deductions, and for many years it did even more than that: it built up surpluses. However, in January 2011 the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showed that the cash flows of the Medicare trust funds had now grown significantly negative. Also, the CBO sees US government Medicare related costs jumping from an estimated “$870bn in 2011, or 5.8 per cent of GDP… to $1.8trn in 2021… and 7.4 per cent of GDP.”

Also, the US spends disproportionately higher on its healthcare than other developed countries, yet with frequently poorer outcomes. Mark Pearson, Head, Health Division, of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), made these written comments to the US Special Committee on Aging on September 30, 2009. He wrote that, “the United States spent 16 per cent of its national income (GDP) on health in 2007. This is by far the highest share in the OECD… Even France, Switzerland and Germany, the countries which, apart from the United States, spend the greatest proportion of national income on health, spent over 5 percentage points of GDP less: respectively 11.0 per cent, 10.8 per cent and 10.4 per cent of their GDP… For all its spending, the US has lower life expectancy than most OECD countries (78.1; average is 79.1).”

Further illustrating the enormity of the US healthcare spending problem, the US government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said that total US national health expenditure (NHE) “grew 4.0 per cent to $2.5trn in 2009, or $8,086 per person, and accounted for 17.6 per cent of GDP [up from 16.6 per cent 2008].”

Additionally, CMS found that US government Medicare and affiliated Medicaid 2009 program expenditures grew even faster at 7.9 and 9 per cent respectively, accounting for 35 per cent of NHE. The US federal government’s share of health care spending rose by just over 3 per cent in 2009 over 2008, to 27 per cent.

Reining in the growth of US federal government Medicare and related spending will require huge healthcare industry adjustments, spending cuts and continuing modification of government health funded programs. And it will probably require substantially increased taxes to fund its remnants. In recent polls by CNN/Opinion Research Corp Poll and Gallup, the vast majority of Americans said no to cuts in Medicare. A healthcare expense heart attack could be on the horizon for Americans.

Copyright alrroya.com

Posted in Economics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

• A Global Central Bank and Currency?

Posted by Ron Robins on February 16, 2011

By Ron Robins. First published January 27, 2011, in his weekly economics and finance column at alrroya.com

There are many paths forward for the global monetary system, but the hitherto unthinkable is becoming debatable: a global central bank and currency. However, despite the recent financial distress and potential for further financial calamity, the creation of such a new institution or currency is far off. But would a global central bank with possibly its own currency help bring monetary solace, universal prosperity and humankind together? Or would such a bank and currency result in yet another calamitous monetary failure?

The 2008-2009 financial debacle showed just how unprepared the global financial system was to deal with a loss of faith in, and imploding of, the global banking system. To stave off a global financial meltdown, the central banks of the US, the EU, Japan and many others around the world advanced vast sums in loans and guarantees to banks and financial entities. And the US Federal Reserve (the Fed) in particular loaned out hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign-owned banks, in effect acting as a bank of last resort to the global banking system.

As big as the Fed is, it and other central banks, for many reasons, may not be able to address the demands of a future global financial maelstrom with possibly even larger calls for loans of last resort. For the Fed, this is due to 1) the declining relative importance of the US economy and the dollar in relation to the global economy, and 2) potential political interference in its activities.

The mounting problems and lessening importance of the US economy and its dollar globally are obviously why a new international currency regime is being considered. International Monetary Fund (IMF) data (published in The Economist magazine) shows that while the US now makes up about 24 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP), its dollar accounts for 84 per cent of foreign exchange transactions. Furthermore, over 60 per cent of international central bank reserves and about 60 per cent of global bank deposits are denominated in US dollars.

The continuing use of the US dollar internationally is largely dependent on the performance of the US economy and its domestic fiscal and monetary policies. Domestically, the US government is growing massive unsustainable debts while the Fed is hugely expanding the creation of new money and the buying of US government bonds (its quantitative easing programs). These actions are likely to further devalue the US dollar globally. Thus, holders of US dollars and assets will increasingly be less interested in retaining them.

Rising to compete with the US dollar has principally been the euro. However, with its member countries’ debt problems, the attention is turning primarily to China’s yuan. It is probably no accident that on January 12 China made a significant step forward in yuan foreign exchange convertibility by allowing it to trade in the US. China has also recently made deals with Russia, Brazil and other countries to settle trade accounts in yuan.

Such gains in the international acceptance of the yuan make it likely to be included in the revised and re-invigorated Special Drawing Rights (SDR) issued by the IMF. The SDR is presently a type of currency used in a limited way among central banks and the IMF. However, its role could eventually be expanded and in the decades ahead might even form the basis of a global currency.

The SDR comprises a basket of currencies that include the US dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling. Besides including the yuan, a revised form of SDR might include additional currencies and even gold or other commodities as well. As gold has an inherent market value, proponents for its inclusion suggest it could help bring further stability to the SDR. Changes to the SDR are favoured by many countries such as Russia and France.

Hence, the IMF may well begin to act in the coming years as a quasi global central bank. However, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California in the US cautions—quoting the Economist magazine of November 4, 2010—that, “no global government… means no global central bank, which means no global currency. Full stop.” Economists like Mr Eichengreen have the weight of evidence on their side regarding the need for a global government before a true global central bank and currency could come about. One only needs to look at the European Central Bank’s problems to see how the lack of an overarching, integrated and authoritative governance structure greatly impeded its ability to deal with the recent crises.

Advocating against the concept of a global central bank and currency are some free market proponents such as Ron Paul, a US Republican and now chairman of the powerful US Congress’s Monetary Policy Sub-committee. He and many others believe currencies should be freely chosen and have intrinsic value, backed by commodities, most likely that of gold. They say without gold backing, any currency and central bank issuing such currency, is deemed to eventual failure due to the historical fact that governments inevitably print excessive amounts of money. This ‘printing’ thereby debases the currency’s value and essentially commits fraud against the holders of the affected currency.

It is possible that the world may proceed towards a global central bank and currency over time. In the near future, the IMF will probably revise, re-invigorate and expand its SDR program to assist in the transition from reserve dependence on the US dollar. But the dangers with the SDR are that it is still largely linked to the viability and variability of national economies and their domestic policies and currencies. Advocates of a completely free market approach such as that proposed by US Congressman Ron Paul might also hold sway. The idea of a global central bank and currency is still just an idea. But it is an idea arising out of the calamity of our present day reality. It deserves hot debate.

Copyright alrroya.com

Posted in Banking, Economics, Monetary Policy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started