January 31, 2009

Global uncertainty confirmed

The IMF demonstrate the oriental art of inscrutability
Global growth in 2009 is expected to fall to ½ percent ...the global economy is projected to experience a gradual recovery in 2010, with growth picking up to 3 percent. However, the outlook is highly uncertain..
To prove that they are certain that they are on the right track
The uncertainty surrounding the outlook is unusually large.
You have to think about downside risk
The main risk is that unless stronger financial strains and uncertainties are forcefully addressed, the pernicious feedback loop between real activity and financial markets will intensify, leading to even more toxic effects on global growth.
and upside risk
In particular, global financial conditions could improve faster than expected due to stronger policy actions. This could boost consumer and business confidence and alleviate the credit crunch, thereby lifting global growth.

Of course the risk that they may be wrong only leads to greater uncertainty.



.

HCW/IGRA cost effectiveness study hits medical news stands

The clinical news provider VerusMed are now running the story Interferon gamma release assays cost-effective alternatives to skin tests for diagnosing latent TB infection in new health care workers, study finds.

VerusMed ensures that
readers receive the most relevant therapeutic updates through a variety of media channels, including online, e-mail, fax, and RSS feeds
and is
a member of ConnectivHealth, a network of powerful health information brands that enables the delivery, distribution, and organization of important health information for physicians, health care professionals, hospitals, and schools through customized channels.

The news item has also been relayed by Siemens under Industry News

January 30, 2009

Ross Gittins

You don't need me to tell you, but I will anyway. Yes, we're in for a terrible year. The economy's almost certain to drop into recession. Indeed, we may be there already.

That means rapidly mounting unemployment and various businesses collapsing.

...It's a good time to seek out generous discounts. And recessions are a time when the cashed-up and canny buy shares and real estate while they're cheap, setting themselves up for the next boom.

Source

January 29, 2009

Cost effectiveness of Quantiferon - a global view.

From their Shareholder Newsletter September 2008 Cellestis give an overview of the current progress of various studies;

##########

QFT-alone more cost-effective than TST-alone—in USA, UK, Germany, Canada and now Japan

A recently published Japanese study (Kowada et al 2008) has shown that QFT-alone is more cost-effective than TST followed by QFT and TST-alone for contact tracing.

The Markov model constructed in this study showed that the cost of the TST-alone strategy was very high because of unnecessary INH chemoprophylaxis being administered to a large number of individuals due to the poor specificity of the TST. In addition a higher adherence rate for INH and a lower adverse event rate to INH increased the cost effectiveness of the QFT- alone strategy compared with the TST followed by QFT strategy. Moreover, the QFT-alone strategy was shown to be more cost effective in individuals at high risk of tuberculosis mortality, such as the elderly.

This study supports assessments conducted in the US, UK, Canada and Germany—all of which showed that a QFT-alone approach is more cost- effective than a TST-alone approach. De Perio et al (2007) showed that QFT was more cost-effective for health care worker screening in a US setting, while Oxlade et al (2007) showed that, for Canadian contacts who were BCG vaccinated after infancy, QFT-alone was more cost-effective than TST-alone—because of the reduced specificity of the TST.

In assessments conducted in Germany (Diel et al 2007) and the UK (NICE), an IGRA-only approach was cheaper than a TST-only approach for contact tracing; however combining an IGRA with a TST (validation of a positive TST by QFT) was slightly cheaper again. However this approach raises ethical considerations as the TST can miss people who will later develop active TB, but would have been picked up had they been first tested with QFT (Diel et al 2008).

Additionally it requires the maintenance of two testing modalities and does not capture the operational advantages offered by QFT such as the need for a single visit and (in most cases) next day results.

To see a review of literature on economic assessments visit http://www.cellestis.com/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1534.


##########


Cost-effectiveness of IGRAs vs TSTs in HCWs

Following on from the important work conducted by Roland Diel (here, here, here and here) comes a study by de Perio et al "Cost-effectiveness of Interferon Gamma Release Assays vs Tuberculin Skin Tests in Health Care Workers". The authors are from the Divisions of Infectious Diseases University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Central Office Infectious Diseases Program, Washington, DC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for detecting LTBI in new HCWs, namely, the QFT-G, QFT-GIT, and TST.

Diel et al had previously found (in various studies, follow above links) that
screening for tuberculosis by combining tuberculin skin testing and QuantiFERON-TB Gold markedly reduces public health costs compared with tuberculin skin test screening alone. ...QFT is a more accurate indicator of the presence of LTBI than the TST and provides at least the same sensitivity for detecting those who will progress to active TB....The recommendations to use the IGRA in order to verify a positive TST only should be reconsidered.
The de Perio et al study is a Markov model based on actual staff data from the Veterans Health Administration, who conduct between 37,000 and 43,000 pre employment TB skin tests per year.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs vs the TST for detecting LTBI in HCWs. We modeled each step of the LTBI screening process, including the probabilities of having the TST read, of needing to do a 2-step TST, and of obtaining an indeterminate QFT test result. Time costs associated with missing work were included to truly reflect a societal perspective. We used QALYs as the effectiveness measure, the standard in cost-effectiveness analyses.
de Perio et al departed from the Diel methodolgy in that they used a meta analysis of available data;
Unlike our study, which pooled sensitivity and specificity data from multiple published studies, they derived QFT-G characteristics from a single study in which the sensitivity estimate was high. Also, they estimated values for TST characteristics instead of deriving them from the literature and measured effectiveness using life expectancy unadjusted for quality.
They explain the advantage to this approach
The publication of more studies,especially regarding the test characteristics of the QFTGIT, would increase the quality and accuracy of future cost-effectiveness analyses.
Importantly, after rigorous analysis they found
that the QFT-G and QFT-GIT strategies are more effective and less costly than the TST, whether or not the HCW has been previously BCG vaccinated.

Our findings are robust and insensitive to changes across a wide range of probabilities, costs, and utility estimates.

Our sensitivity analyses indicate that the IGRA strategies are clinically and economically worthwhile among low- and high-prevalence populations. Our analysis supports the CDC recommendation of use of the QFT-G in HCW screening.
Below are their findings as to costs (click on image for FULL SIZE)





George Bragues

Source


No one seemed to notice that the more the U.S. Fed chairman did, the worse things got

By George Bragues

(George Bragues is Program Head of Business at the University of Guelph-Humber.)

The strangest thing about the ongoing financial crisis is that U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has so far come out of it relatively unscathed. Except for the narrowing of some credit spreads over the last few months, economic indicators have not sustainably improved since Bernanke initially moved to address the crisis. In fact, matters have grown significantly worse.

Most observers have seen little or no connection here. But there is one. By setting interest rates too low right from the outset, Bernanke aggravated the crisis. He did so by putting a destructive chain of events in motion, starting in the foreign exchange market, then moving into the oil trading pits, the latter eventually making itself felt in the economy, and all of this culminating in the financial conflagration experienced this past fall.

The story begins on Aug. 9, 2007 when BNP Paribas, a leading French bank, announced that it was closing three of its funds due to losses on U.S. subprime mortgage securities, news which roiled credit markets world-wide. In the ensuing week, a cacophony of voices from Wall Street implored the Fed to cut rates. But with inflation running in the upper level of the Fed’s target range, Bernanke tried to forge a nuanced response.

On Aug. 16, the Fed lowered the discount rate at which the Fed lends to commercial banks by half a percent, leaving untouched the Federal Funds rate at which commercial banks lend to each other. The idea was to make it less costly for troubled banks to borrow from the Fed without incurring the risk of stoking inflation through the imposition of lower rates in the general economy.

Yet just over a month later, even though markets had stabilized, Bernanke’s Fed relented to Wall Street’s pressure, reducing the Federal Funds rate as well by a half a percent to 4.75%. It was the first in a series of moves which would see that benchmark rate taken down to 2.75% by the spring of 2008.

Before this loosening of monetary policy began, the Fed had only recently managed to bring interest rates up to a reasonable level. This is evidenced by the Taylor rule, named after Stanford University Professor John B. Taylor, which states that the appropriate interest rate ought to reflect the discrepancy between the actual and optimal rates of economic growth and inflation.

By this standard, after having been established rightly since late 2006, Bernanke’s swift rate-cutting drove the price of credit below the point dictated by the Taylor rule. This deviation was mostly owing to the fact that inflation kept on rising in the fall of 2007 and well into 2008, going above 5% in the spring.

Clearly, Bernanke discounted this disturbing price trend because of his previous scholarly work on the Depression. This had convinced him that the Fed in the 1930s was chiefly responsible for the economy’s breakdown by not doing enough, amid grievous stresses in the financial system, to provide liquidity.

At the 90th birthday celebration for Milton Friedman, who had famously argued that thesis along with Anna Schwartz in A Monetary History of the United States, Bernanke said: “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

Guided by this interpretation of economic history, Bernanke wreaked havoc on the U.S. dollar. Between the time that the news from BNP Paribas alarmed the markets and the Fed’s first rate cut, the greenback actually rallied against the Euro on a flight to safety. But when that cut was made on Aug. 16, 2007, the rally was snuffed out and the U.S. dollar entered a steady descent, from €0.746 to €0.625 in the spring and summer of 2008.

In the past, when countries have similarly tried to deal with a financial crises by relaxing monetary conditions, they often exacerbated the problem by fomenting a run on the local currency that increased the foreign exchange denominated liabilities of its banks. Bernanke’s Fed did not have to worry about this prospect, yet it did need to reckon with the fact that the U.S. dollar is the world’s most elemental financial asset.

And once traders and investors around the globe saw that the Fed was deliberately cheapening the intangible value of that paper, they sought protection in more tangible objects, especially oil. As the Euro rose against the greenback, so too did the price of crude oil, both reaching their peaks in July, 2008.

Going into the original eruption of the crisis in August 2007, oil was already trading near its historical highs. Unlike previous spikes in the mid-’70s, early ’80s and early ’90s, Western economies had withstood the negative impact on firm production and individual fuel costs associated with higher oil prices. Partly, this was because companies had, over the last three decades, become more efficient in the use of energy. Moreover, prices had not yet consolidated above earlier peaks on an inflation-adjusted basis.

However, the price move instigated by Bernanke’s devaluation of the U.S. dollar changed the equation, particularly once oil catapulted above US$80 per barrel in early 2008, putting it at an all-time inflation-adjusted high. As it proceeded higher to US$147 per barrel, egged on by a sequence of Fed rate cuts, the American economy finally succumbed.

In the summer of 2008, eye-popping drops began showing up in industrial production, manufacturing durable orders, retail sales, and personal consumption. Auto sales, which had already been suffering under the burden of ascending energy costs, started going into free fall.

Since financial institutions are effectively long the economy through the loan and equity portfolios they hold, the stage was thus set for the resumption of the crisis in the fall of 2008. This time it would be more acute, inasmuch as the financial system had already been weakened by numerous writedowns and the collapse of Bear Stearns in March.

Lehman Brothers, being the weakest of the remaining major investment banks, was the first to lose the confidence of its counterparties, declaring bankruptcy on Sept. 15. When AIG subsequently emerged desperate for funding, and credit markets seized up, Bernanke teamed up with U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to petition the U.S. Congress to approve a US$700-billion relief package.

Literally at the moment that Congress said yes to Bernanke on Oct. 3, the stock market dove into the ugliest period of the current bear market. By Nov. 21, the S&P 500 was off 53% of its October 2007 peak, the largest drop of the post-war period.

Though they initially reacted positively to the prospect of the bailout legislation, the markets came to understand its passage to signify that an era of activist government was at hand and all that this implies about unpredictable policymaking and anaemic growth.

When confronted with the reality that conditions have deteriorated under Bernanke’s watch, supporters of the Fed’s current policies insist that his prolific printing of money is necessary to stop the economy from spiralling down further. Eventually, it is said, his actions will bear fruit, once the time lag in monetary policy passes.

Yet if we consult the prediction markets on Intrade, which have a good record of forecasting events, we come across a contract being traded based on whether the downturn will extend all the way into 2010. That contract is currently suggesting a worrisome 30% probability of that happening, up from 5% in early November — notwithstanding all that Bernanke has done.

January 28, 2009

Increased public works spending - just another cargo cult?

Mario Rizzo points to an AP item
“Overall, only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half.”
and notes that the Keynes also held that
“Organized public works, at home and abroad, may be the right cure for a chronic tendency to a deficiency of effective demand. But they are not capable of sufficiently rapid organisation (and above all cannot be reversed or undone at a later date), to be the most serviceable instrument for the prevention of the trade cycle.”
So its back to the drawing board for the Keynesians

Lab update

Following the previous post of Quantiferon being available at 17 of their 34 listed laboratories Quest now advise of two more; Sacramento and San Jose, both in California.

Note that the Quest owned Nichols Institute also services many of these laboratories; Get Quantiferon lists Nichols Institute Chantilly Virginia as a user of Quantiferon.

January 27, 2009

Good advice from Texas

Courtland Forum

Question asked by Sunil Modi, MD, Johnstown, Pa., and answered by Cedric W. Spak, MD, MPH (follow the links and be surprised)

January 26, 2009

Q: A 70-year-old African American woman comes as a new patient to request clearance for her job as a day-care worker. She reports that she underwent partial lung resection and thoracoplasty to treat pulmonary TB in 1953, but she never received anti-TB therapy. We have no medical records. The patient declines purified protein derivative (PPD) testing, saying that previous results have been positive, but chest x-ray is always negative. Should I skip the PPD and just do a chest x-ray? If I do the PPD test and the induration is >22 mm, should I treat this patient as having latent TB?

A: Although the resection might have been effective, most experts would consider this patient to have latent TB. Confirm her latent status by ordering QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) testing from whole blood. According to CDC guidelines released in 2005 (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005 Dec 16;54[RR-15]:49-55), the QFT-G can be used in all settings where PPD (now referred to as a “tuberculin skin test” [TST]) had been used previously. If the QFT-G is also positive, you can offer the patient nine months of isoniazid prophylaxis, emphasizing that she has up to a 20% lifetime risk of developing reactivation disease (N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2060-2067).

The devil is in the details

From Switzerland comes this study which, at first glance, is rather non plussed about the role that IGRAs can play in detecting latent tuberculosis in chronic haemodialysis patients.

From the abstract;
Conclusions. In this population, QFT was superior to TST for detecting LTBI, but both IGRAs and TST have important limitations, and are unreliable for screening for LTBI.
However the full article is particularly scathing of both TST and T Spot TB
Our results show that association between probable LTBI (defined as: chest radiography suggestive of prior infection and/or established ‘at risk’ contact with a patient with contagious TB) and results of one of the IGRA tested (QuantiFERON Gold In tube test: QFT) was highly significant. This was not the case, however, for the T-SPOT.TB or the TST.

In this study, QFT was twice as effective at detecting probable LTBI (46%, Table 1) as either the T-SPOT.TB (22%) or TST (25%). Even after adjustment for age, and previous BCG vaccination, haemodialysis patients with probable LTBI had an OR of 4.6 of having a positive QFT (Table 2). Conversely, OR for detecting latent tuberculosis for either T-SPOT.TB or TST was not significant.

Furthermore, detection of patients with prior TB was very low: among five patients with prior TB, T-SPOT.TB and TST identified only one, while QFT identified two. As previously reported, the best predictor of a positive TST was prior BCG vaccination. QFT (8%) and T-SPOT.TB (11%) had similar rates of indeterminate tests.
In a specific population when any reliable result is difficult to obtain (due to chronic illness) QFT has shown to be the most effective.

Furthermore, T Spot TB has more not less indeterminates.

Depression? - hardly, data from St Louis Fed

St Louis Fed



Click on images for FULL SIZE








January 26, 2009

You can bank on it?

Court documents from the US show that whilst a couple were found to have deliberately deceived a bank the fault lay with the lender - for not checking the information supplied by the loan applicant.

"While the Court finds and concludes that the Debtors made a material false representation concerning their financial condition to the Bank in October 2006, with knowledge of its falsity and the intent to deceive the Bank, the Court finds and concludes that the Bank’s nondischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2)(B) must fail.

The Bank failed to prove that it reasonably relied on the Debtors’ false representation concerning their income, as set forth in the October Loan Application. As a result, the Bank’s claim has been discharged. Judgment will be ordered accordingly"

Moves are underway to allow courts to rewrite contracts thereby forestalling bankruptcy and/or foreclosure; "cramdown"

"The question that faces us now is this: After committing over one trillion dollars in taxpayer money to address the financial crisis, why don't we take a step that would indisputably reduce foreclosures and that would cost taxpayers nothing?" Sen. Durbin said in a statement introducing the legislation.

A measure allowing court-ordered mortgage workouts could be passed separately, or as part of Congress's coming economic-stimulus package. Senate negotiators say Citigroup's endorsement of the measure is important for bringing other big lenders on board quickly, improving the measure's chance of passing with the stimulus bill.

"We think it would be great to put this on the stimulus, and the bank support will make it all the easier to accomplish that," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who, as one of Citigroup's home-state senators and key player on the Senate Banking Committee, is brokering the talks.

The reversal by lenders reflects new political realities in Washington, and a judgment that banks may lose less in the long run by negotiating a compromise on an issue that resonates with Americans squeezed by job losses and credit problems. The proposal appears to have wide support in the new, more Democratic Congress.

For Citigroup, one of the nation's biggest mortgage lenders, the stakes are high. The bank faces tough scrutiny by the new Congress, where Democratic leaders have questioned the bank's efforts to help struggling homeowners.

Quantiferon - Medicare Australia

Note that the medicare item is not for standard or contact screening and is most likely for screening before anti TNF therapy (for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions related to the immune system)

------------------------------------------------
Medicare Item
69471

Test of cell-mediated immunity in blood for the detection of latent tuberculosis in an immunosuppressed or immunocompromised patient - 1 test

July 2007 to June 2008 = 4,544

July 2007 to December 2007 = 2,155
July 2008 to December 2008 = 3,504
------------------------------------------------

For the same period in the previous year there appears to have been a 62% increase in Medicare claims for QFT; remarkable for a country in which the "TST remains the preferred method of screening for LTBI"

Referring to the item for Mantoux which does not have the same restriction as Quantiferon

------------------------------------------------
Medicare Item 73811

July 2007 to June 2008 = 6,768

July 2007 to December 2007 = 2,701
July 2008 to December 2008 = 3,024
------------------------------------------------


So what does this all mean? By placing the data into a pictorial format we are better able to see that from around June/July 2008 Quantiferon has become the preferred test for latent TB infection (click on image for FULL SIZE).





January 25, 2009

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

WSJ

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Squeaky hinges to get the oil

ACCORDING TO U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-8), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009, also known as the economic stimulus, will be marked up, voted on and passed through both houses of Congress before the end of the month.

The bill, which was introduced last week, will contain more than $500 billion in spending that — coupled with more than $200 billion in tax cuts — Congress hopes will stimulate the economy and drag the country out of recession.

But where will all this spending go? No one’s exactly sure, Moran said, and that is why now is the time for localities across the country to be lobbying for a piece of this federal funding.

“The biggest threat, these economists tell us, is that whatever the government does it will be too little and too late. So we’re going to act posthaste,” Moran said. “Those communities, those organizations that are ready with projects that can begin immediately are the ones who are going to get the money.”


Source

January 24, 2009

Should the state fight the correction?

There is little doubt that the easy money driving the boom was created by the loose monetary policies of the state

It has been pointed out already in what respect we are free to call an improvement in the quality and an increase in the quantity of products economic progress. If we apply this yardstick to the various phases of the cyclical fluctuations of business, we must call the boom retrogression and the depression progress. The boom squanders through malinvestment scarce factors of production and reduces the stock available through overconsumption; its alleged blessings are paid for by impoverishment. The depression, on the other hand, is the way back to a state of affairs in which all factors of production are employed for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers.

Ludwig von Mises Human Action, Ch. XX, sec 9 (p. 575)

Microsoft dots the I's

"We're certainly in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime set of economic conditions. The perspective I would bring is not one of recession. Rather, the economy is resetting to lower level of business and consumer spending based largely on the reduced leverage in economy," said Chief Executive Steve Ballmer during a conference call. For consumers, that may mean less discretionary income to spend on a second or third home computer, he said.
Source

Oversold?

The Australian All Ordinaries Index compared with US, UK, Germany and Japan over the last 3 months;


Click on image for FULL SIZE

Welfare, the unwanted guest that never leaves

Whilst super funds have taken a hammering with no end in sight its worth looking at nationalised welfare schemes; from the National Center for Policy Analysis

Measuring the Unfunded Obligations of European Countries

Europe is undergoing two major transitions. On the demographic front, many European countries are undergoing rapid population aging as their Baby Boom generations enter retirement, senior citizens live longer and fertility rates remain well below the population replacement level. On the economic front, 15 European countries have adopted the euro as a common currency, eliminating the ability to use monetary policy to achieve country-specific economic goals. Both transitions will place tremendous, conflicting pressures on the domestic national budgets of European countries.

Executive Summary

These countries remain politically committed to maintaining fiscal discipline, but large portions of their government budgets are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. That means that no real resources are set aside and invested each year by government or individuals to prefund future expenditures on such programs. Spending on promised retirement and healthcare benefits for the elderly will increase. But there will be fewer workers to pay benefits as the bills come due, and the growth of income from which to extract taxes to support these programs will slow. As a result, all European countries have large unfunded liabilities — the difference between the projected cost of continuing current government programs and net expected tax revenues. In general:

■ The average EU country would need to have more than four times (434 percent) its current annual gross domestic product (GDP) in the bank today, earning interest at the government’s borrowing rate, in order to fund current policies indefinitely.
■ At the low end, Spain would need to have almost two and one-half times (244.3 percent) its annual GDP invested.
At the high end, Poland would need to have 15 times its GDP invested in real assets, forever!

No EU government has made the necessary investment. As an alternative, the next-best option is for these countries immediately to gradually but significantly increase saving and investment. In particular, the average EU country could fund its projected budget shortfall through the middle of this century if it put aside 8.3 percent of its GDP each and
every year. Despite this adjustment, a budget shortfall is likely to emerge after 2050, requiring additional fiscal reforms.

What will happen if EU countries do not set aside these funds? Unless they reform their health and social welfare programs, they will have to meet these unfunded obligations by increasing tax burdens as the larger benefit obligations come due. Although spending averages 40 percent of GDP today:

■ By 2020, the average EU country will need to raise the tax rate to 55 percent of national income to pay promised benefits.
■ By 2035, a tax rate of 57 percent will be required.
■ By 2050, the average EU country will need more than 60 percent of its GDP to fulfill its obligations

In some countries, the projected shortfalls are lower than the average. In other countries, they are higher. This is the result of several factors. For instance, life expectancy at birth (in 2004) ranges from a low of 71.2 years in Latvia to a high of 80.7 in Sweden, indicating higher age-related costs in older EU countries than in newer, Eastern countries.

Another demographic factor is fertility, which is below the rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain populations. However, fertility rates in the EU range from a low of 1.18 in the Czech Republic to a high of just 1.93 in Ireland — indicating that the Czech Republic is closer to a population implosion. Partly as a result of these demographic
differences, economic growth rates also differ widely, from a contracting economy in Malta, with a –1.6 percent rate of growth in GDP per capita (averaged over the period from 1996 to 2005), to a 5.7 percent growth rate in Estonia.

In comparison, the United States’ shortfall for Social Security and Medicare alone has been somewhat smaller than the EU average, at 6.5 percent of future GDP. But as a result of the expansion of the Medicare program to cover prescription drugs, the U.S. fiscal imbalance is now 8.2 percent of future GDP. Putting this in perspective, to close its fiscal imbalance:


■ The United States would need to save and invest an amount equal to 8.2 percent of its GDP beginning now and continuing every year forever to pay expected future benefits without future tax increases.

■ This could be accomplished by more than doubling the current 15.3 percent payroll tax on employers and employees, immediately and forever.


Alternatively, the federal government could immediately stop spending nearly four out of every five dollars on programs other than Social Security and Medicare — eliminating most discretionary spending on such programs as education, national defense, environmental protection and welfare — forever.

Each year that the United States does not take action to reduce the projected shortfall, it grows by more than $1.5 trillion, after adjusting for inflation.

January 22, 2009

Brokaw/Buffett interview

TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS:
Last fall, Warren, a pollster told me that the election was between hope and fear. When it comes to the economy, who's winning, hope or fear?

WARREN BUFFETT:
Well, right now fear is. I mean, you're seeing it everyplace. You saw it at-- in the sales of almost every item at-- at Christmas. There's a lot of fear throughout the country. Even-- even with people whose jobs are fine, and who have money in the bank. But they-- they're worried.

BROKAW:
I've been describing this as the domestic equivalent of war. Is that an overstatement?


BUFFETT:
Well, actually, in September I said-- this is an economic Pearl Harbor. I-- that was the time Congress had made it in. It really is an economic Pearl Harbor. It-- the-- the country is facing something it hasn't faced since World War II.

And they're fearful about it. And they don't know quite what to do about it. And the point is-- and-- and it-- and temporarily it looks like we're losing. It has that-- that same aspect. Interestingly enough, we were losing for a while after Pearl Harbor. But the American people never doubted that we'd win. I mean, we had that attitude then. I think, right now, that they're sort of paralyzed.

BROKAW:
Is Barack Obama the right commander in chief for the economy?

BUFFETT:
He's the absolute right commander in chief. That-- you know, that's another thing the American people seem to do, occasionally, is that we elect people that are right for the times. You know, whether it was Lincoln, Roosevelt. And-- and I would say Obama-- you-- you couldn't have-- anybody better in charge.

BROKAW:
But why is he right for the times?

BUFFETT:
Well, he's-- he-- he's smart, he's got the right values, but he also-- he understands economics very well. He's cool. He's-- he's-- he's analytical. But then, when he gets it all thought through, and he's fast-- he can convey to American-- the American people what needs to be done. Not to expect miracles. That it's gonna take time. But that we're gonna get to the other end. And-- and I-- I-- I don't think there's anybody better for the job than-- than-- the president-elect.

BROKAW:
He often cites you as an advisor. And I know that you've been in touch with his economic team. But what often happens to somebody who gets elected to that office, particularly, they're more to you to tell you what they know than they are to listen. Does he listen?

BUFFETT:
He's a listener. I-- I first met him, maybe, four years ago, or something like that. He was a listener then, he's a listener now. But, on the other hand, he makes up his own mind. He will-- he will not be-- his team won't run him. He'll use his team, he'll use them very effectively. He'll synthesize, he'll-- he'll-- he'll analyze. But, in the end, it'll be his decision.

BROKAW:
Apart from his election, in your judgment, is there any other good news in the economy?

BUFFETT:
There's not much good new right now-- no. The-- we are-- we are in the middle of the economic Pearl Harbor right now. I mean, our ships have been sunk. Now-- (LAUGHTER) now we have to get mobilized-- to win the war, which we will.

BROKAW:
Your friend, and my boss, Jeff Immelt -- who is the CEO of General Electric , had a phrase that I thought, in many ways, not just because he's my boss, but I thought he summed it up pretty well when he said, "This is not a cycle, it's a reset."

BUFFETT:
Well, there's-- there-- there's some real truth to that. And-- we have lived in one way in one type of economy. And-- and-- we're now deleveraging that economy. We're-- we're gonna have to live without the same impetus from credit expansion that-- really helped propel the economic engine for a long period of time. The-- the-- that-- that wind will not be at our back. But there's all kinds of things that will be in our back. But that-- he's right about resetting with-- without credit expansion being the propellant for the economy.

BROKAW:
And the stimulus program, that-- the new president wants to have, and that Congress is cobbling together, in your judgment is it sound? Are there some things they're-- they should be doing they're not doing?

BUFFETT:
Well, they're doing-- they-- they-- they're gonna turn the fire hose on this-- on this fire. I mean, the-- the-- and-- and-- it's-- it's-- it's a blunt instrument, to some extent. At-- at-- but it's very, very big. We're-- we're-- we're gonna-- we're gonna have a medicine coming in a dosage we've never seen before. And-- it-- but it won't-- it won't-- it won't have immediate impact. It should-- it takes time for it to-- to hit the economy in real force. So people should not expect miracles in February or March or April. That isn't gonna happen.

BROKAW:
I'm very interested in that. And the conditioning of the American consumer. We've been through some downturns here in the last 40 years. But we've always made a snappy recovery. The first two years of the Reagan administration, that was a very sharp recession. At the end of George Bush 41's administration, very sharp recession. But then we made a big comeback with the information technology. I-- I wonder if the American people don't, in the back of their minds, say, "Well, we'll come out of this one pretty quickly."

BUFFETT:
Well, if they do, I-- I hope they don't get-- (LAUGHTER) feel that way too strongly. And, incidentally, in the-- in the way it was technically-- described, you could describe the 80s as being a fairly quick recession. But if you think of the period from the oil shock all the way through 'til (Paul) Volcker got done, that whole period was one of stagflation and general-- the stock market did nothing. People didn't trust-- money, you know, cash is trash, and they were running from it 'cause they thought--

(OVERTALK)

BROKAW:
Twenty percent interest rates--

(OVERTALK)

BUFFETT:
Sure. And all of that. So-- so I would say that you really had-- a ten year period there where the American economy did not make much progress. I'm not predicting that this time. But I-- that-- that was-- that was a period that most people didn't feel great about the economy. They didn't feel as depressed as they feel right now though.

BROKAW:
We know, or we have a pretty good idea, what the stimulus program will mean to the economy in terms of raw dollars and so on. The economists can't seem to come to a judgment about how long it will take for it to have an effect. Some are saying a year, others are saying it may be up to five years. Do you have a position on that?

BUFFETT:
Well, I-- I don't think it'll be five years Tom. But I-- I don't have the answer to that. I-- I-- I don't know what the stock market will do in the next year. What I do know is that, if you go back to the 20th century, 100 years, you had two great wars, you had other very large wars, you had the Great Depression, you had the flu epidemic, you had a dozen recessions and panics, you had all kinds of things.

At the end of that century the amer-- the average American was living seven times as well as-- the start of the century. The DOW Jones average went from 66 to 11,497. With all those problems. This is a country that has the ingredients that-- that-- well, it unleashes the potential of humans. And-- and they're still here. I mean-- so five years-- you can put me down on that one. You can't put me down on one year. (LAUGHTER)

BROKAW:
And how important is the new president to all of that in terms of instilling confidence, and talking bluntly to the American people saying, "There is gonna be some pain here. And you may have to make some sacrifices."

BUFFETT:
That's exactly what he's gonna say, 'cause it's the truth. And-- and he's-- he's smart enough to know it's the truth, and he-- and he's the kind of person who's going to tell you the truth. So-- I think he's the ideal president for it. But that's not because I think he can wave a magic wand.

It's because I think he can, in a sense, figure, once again, how to get these basic strengths of the American economy in gear again. I mean, we-- we have a wonderful economy that's gummed up at present. And it's gotten gummed in the past many times.

And it is important who's president. It's important that the American people believe in him. It's important that we take the right policy actions. But there are no miracles in a month or two months or three months. And he's going to tell the American people that.

BROKAW
:
Has he--

BUFFETT
:
He always has.

BROKAW
:
You're very good with words. Has he asked you if-- at all for any advice on his inaugural address? (LAUGHTER)

BUFFETT
:
No-- no. No. I have not been sitting around writing four score and-- (LAUGHTER) any of that sort. No, he doesn't need-- he doesn't need any help--
(OVERTALK)

BROKAW
:
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

BUFFETT
:
That's right. Nothing to fear but fear itself, right.

BROKAW
:
But does it have to be in that tone? Like FDR, "We have nothing to fear?" Or John Kennedy saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what-- you can do for your country?" Are we ready for that again?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I don't-- I don't have any specific knowledge. But my guess is it will be inspirational. It'll-- it'll be-- it-- it-- it-- it will be asking something of the American people. I mean, he-- he has every right to expect something of the American people.

I-- I think the American people want something to be asked of-- of them. So I think it will have-- it will-- it-- it'll-- it'll have that same tone, I'm sure, as-- as-- as Kennedy, in that respect. And I think it'll have some tones of-- of Roosevelt in saying that-- you know, we still have 305 or ten million people, whatever it is, who have all the abilities.

We still have a rule of law and a market system and-- and we believe, you know, in-- in-- in-- in everybody reaching their potent-- all of these things are going for us. And I think he will convey that a lot better than I just have. (LAUGHTER)

BROKAW
:
But, at the same time Warren, we have-- new systems in play too. And the ripple effect seems to happen a lot faster now, and goes a lot deeper. Part of the reason we got in trouble this time is the system is so complex, and no one seems to know what's going on just below the surface.

BUFFETT:
Yeah, we-- we have a negative feedback cycle going on now. We have fear which leads to people not wanting to spend. And-- and not wanting to make investments. And then that leads to more fear. And-- we're in a negative feedback cycle. We were in a positive feedback cycle three or four years ago, when everybody lent you more and more (LAUGHTER) on a house that kept going up, and you could keep spending money you didn't have and so on. We'll break out of it. But-- it takes time, and nobody can predict exactly when it'll happen. But it will happen faster, I will guarantee you. Because we have the right president-- in office-- than would be the case otherwise.

BROKAW
:
Do you think that the American taxpayer, or the American consumer, will have learned anything about proportion as a result of this experience? Because we have been on a binge.

BUFFETT
:
Yeah, we've been on a binge.

BROKAW
:
And I count myself on that by the way.

BUFFETT
:
Yeah, well-- well, you look like a guy that's been on a binge, actually. (LAUGHTER) No, I think-- the-- most people won't. But some institutions will. And-- and some will learn it whether they want to or not. But-- but the-- most people have a propensity to spend what they-- what they make and maybe a little more.

And-- and the trouble is they-- they've had a friendly bartender, you know, in-- in terms of this binge. And I think-- I think the bartender is going to, been sobered up materially. And some of the rules about how many drinks he can serve and all of that-- (LAUGHTER) will be tightened up somewhat.

So I-- I-- I do not think we will see a repeat of the factors that led to this soon. We will see bubbles though again in the future. Human nature, you know, greed and fear will keep-- continue to exist. And-- and-- and we will have other bubbles, and they won't be exactly like this one. But they won't-- you won't see this particular type repeated for quite a while.

BROKAW
:
And-- and that building behind us, the U.S. Capitol, Democrats controlling both chambers now, there's gonna be a big cry for more regulations on Wall Street. For the financial institutions to be more closely supervised. Is that a good idea?

BUFFETT
:
Well, it's-- it's-- it's probably a good idea. But I-- I wouldn't look at that as a panacea. What-- what-- what you have to do, to some extent, is you have to create the right incentives also for that are running those institutions.

And, you know, I'm not sure whether I would shoot the-- CEO of any bank that went broke or anything. But I would-- (LAUGHTER) I would make it much tougher than it's been in the past-- to-- to run an institution into the ground. I think-- I-- I think-- I think there are plenty of things to be done in the board room as well as in the rooms of-- the Senate or the House.

BROKAW
:
Well, you've also been very tough on executive compensation. Speaking out on it. Has that era come to an end? Where these huge, huge paydays come whether or not you've been successful.

BUFFETT
:
Yeah, that's-- I-- I hope they have, Tom. And they certainly should. That-- and I think-- I-- I think there will be a lot of curbing of that. But I-- I-- I wouldn't underestimate the desire of people who get paid more than they're worth. I mean, (LAUGHTER) and particularly at the top.

And-- you know, so-- one of my friends says, "Failure goes to their head." You know, they start-- (LAUGHTER) they start thinking that they're entitled to-- eight or nine figures. You know-- with an institution that's failed. That's really up to American shareholders and to boards.

There may be some regulations that help on that. But-- but that-- it's been an old boy's club to quite a degree in board rooms. And-- and-- and-- the-- you know, that should have ceased a long time ago. I think the-- the events-- the recent events will help it get curbed. But-- but the urge for people to rig the-- the compensation arrangements-- will not go away.

BROKAW
:
Well, someone also said to me that no one had any skin in the game. That old golfing phrase. Where they didn't have a stake in it because these new instruments are passed along, they're complex. There were a lot of guys on Wall Street when I would say to them, "What's a credit default swap?" They couldn't explain it to me, for example.

BUFFETT
:
Yeah, well, we may have been better off 'cause they couldn't. That's-- that's-- that enabled them to sell them easier. But they-- you're right. I mean it-- there should be a real downside if you want a big upside. And-- and that has not been the case.

The stock option is all-- you know, it's a one way ticket. I would-- you know, I-- I sort of believe in-- in people that are running businesses having most of their net worth in those businesses. And-- and-- and-- and not just-- not-- not on paper. I mean, with real ownership, having paid for it themselves. And-- but that looked a little old fashioned here a while back. But it may-- it may stage a comeback.

BROKAW
:
Did the president-elect talk to you about tax policy? You've been outspoken as well about-- for example, payroll taxes. It's unfair that your secretary pays more of her income, proportionally, than you do.

BUFFETT
:
That's true. That's right.

BROKAW:
And there's that whole question about capital gains staying stuck at 15 percent. Did he ask your advice on that?

BUFFETT
:
Well, we've talked about that some years back. I mean, not-- not-- not-- not recently. But-- actually, in his-- in his book, The Audacity of Hope we-- he-- he mentions it, conversation or two we had about taxes. But I think that, you know, what we learned in the last 20 year-- we learned that a rising tide lifts all yachts.

But-- but the-- the fellows in the row boat-- boats have been left behind. And-- while the aggregate wealth of the four-- four-- 400 went from 220 billion to a trillion 540 billion. Seven for one. The wage of the average American went no place.

And-- and tax policy has just consistently favored, more and more-- the rich. I mean-- basically you've got, you know, capital gains rates at 15 percent. And-- and-- and I don't pay any-- payroll taxes on that at all. So it's-- it's gotten tilted way to the rich, and everybody said this is wonderful because we need to encourage investment. Well, we've had the lowest tax rates for investment relative to earned pen-- income the last eight years and look at what it's produced.

BROKAW
:
When Joe Biden said, during the course of the campaign, it's patriotic for the wealthy to pay more in taxes, those who are more conservative jumped all over him. Do you think it's patriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I-- I-- (LAUGHTER) I-- yeah, but I wouldn't want to rely on patriotism. I'd rather rely on the tax code. (LAUGHTER)

BROKAW
:
But is-- is it gonna have to come to that?

BUFFETT
:
Well, we-- we're gonna-- we're gonna spend a lot more money now. But here just-- the last-- in the last year-- you know, we spent about 2.9 or-- trillion dollars. We raised about 2.6 trillion. And-- you know, we are raising more and more of that from the people that-- that are-- you know-- are-- are the-- are the working people in the world, (LAUGHTER) and less-- less from people like me.

And we've gotta the money from someplace. I mean, we-- we-- we-- and-- and it's just-- Congress makes that decision as to-- as to whom shall contribute to these things that contribute to our common good. And-- and, in the last decade, the proportion that, counting payroll taxes, and you gotta count them, because they're over 30 percent of the receipts of the federal government, but counting payroll taxes-- the proportion has gone down on guys like me and it's gone up on people like my secretary.

BROKAW
:
And do you think that that can get changed in this administration?

BUFFETT
:
I-- I think it will get changed, yeah.

BROKAW
:
Do you think that Congress and Secretary Paulson, between them, have been tough enough on the financial institutions that have their hands out all over Washington trying to get money out of this bailout program? Bank of America , Citi Bank , AIG , these huge financial institutions that helped get us in trouble in the first place now are being underwritten by the ordinary taxpayer who's out there worrying about losing his job the next day?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I-- I-- I think what's been done has been necessary. I mean I-- I-- if your financial system becomes totally dysfunctional everything else becomes dysfunctional in the country. Now the-- you may hate to help them out, because you-- you may-- you know, they-- they may have gotten us in trouble in many ways.

And the people at the top may have made out like bandits in-- in terms of it. But I wouldn't let that stop me from doing what's right to make next year better. I-- the-- we-- you know, I-- the searching for villains is less important to me now than figuring out a solution that gets us out of this promptly. And-- and-- and-- but I-- I do think that boards that vote big golden parachutes and all that sort of thing. I mean, I think they ought to reexamine their activities.

BROKAW
:
Your friend-- Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the governor of California. That state, in many ways, is ground zero for all of this. I mean, they've got a housing crisis that it'll take years for them to get out of. And their budget deficits are running into the, now--

BUFFETT
:
Huge.

BROKAW
:
--40 billion dollars maybe. Is he asking for your advice?

BUFFETT
:
No-- (LAUGHTER) no, I'm not sure what I'd tell him. But what you will see down-- for one thing, the pension plans of states and-- and cities-- has been decimated-- have been decimated in the-- in the last year. And the costs from that, the lack of revenue they're going to face as the-- economy slows, means that you are going to see a parade of mayors and governors to Washington like you've never seen it.

And they're gonna say, "If you can help out General Motors , and you can help out Citicorp, you can certainly help out, you know, this state or that state." So I-- I think you're going to be-- I think it's gonna make inauguration day look like nothing in terms of the public officials that come in here and say, "We-- we need help." Their revenues are gonna be down. Their expenses, particularly including pension expenses, are going to be up. And you're going to have unbalanced budgets just all over the country with states and cities.

BROKAW:
But how much money can we print? I mean, the people are already saying, in the latest NBC News Wall Street Journal poll they're as concerned about the deficit as they are about almost anything else going on in their lives.

BUFFETT:
Yeah, well, they should-- they should be concerned about the deficit. But they should be more concerned about getting the economy working right. I-- I don't-- I mean, the-- there are consequences to printing money. And-- and they're not pleasant.

I-- I-- so there is no free lunch. And if we do the things we need to do now there's a cost to them. But we are in a war. This is an economic Pearl Harbor. And-- and, you know, we paid for the war later on, as (LAUGHTER) ... But-- but we-- we still-- knew we had to win the war first.

And-- and this is a war that needs to be won. And-- and the sooner the better. Because every-- every time you read about 523,000, or whatever, those people losing their jobs in December, that's-- those are 523,000 human tragedies. I mean, it-- it-- I can think of nothing worse than going home and saying, you know, to a family that, "I've lost my job and we've got mortgage payments and food to buy."

And so we need to solve that one. And-- and we will have consequences to the kind of deficits we're running up. And-- and-- and some of them will be unpleasant. But I would rather face those consequences than to face the consequences of doing nothing.

BROKAW
:
Do you think there's a possibility that-- unemployment will go to double digits before the end of the calendar year, 2009?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I'm not good at predicting. But it-- it-- certainly it-- it's a possibility. It's a possibility. And if we'd done the wrong things I think it would have been a certainty.

BROKAW
:
And what happens to all those people?

BUFFETT
:
I think it's very tough. And I think, in terms of unemployment benefits, I mean, I think that-- I think people like me should be paying higher taxes. And, you know, and you'll-- you'll hear from people who say, "Well, why don't you pay it voluntarily?"

But a voluntarily tax system is not (LAUGHTER) a very good system. I mean, it-- we-- we-- we need the rich of the country contributing more, you know, while the, frankly, a lot of the people, I mean, millions and millions and millions of families are suffering.

BROKAW
:
You live in the same house that you've lived in in Omaha for how long now?

BUFFETT
:
Fifty-- fifty-- a little over 50 years, yeah.

BROKAW
:
Were you ever tempted, in the last five years, to build one of those bigger houses? (LAUGHTER)

BUFFETT
:
No. No. I-- I'm happy where I am. I-- you know, some-- (LAUGHTER) somebody said, one time, that success is getting what you want, and happiness is wanting what you get. You know, and I got that house 50 years ago and I love it. (LAUGHTER)

BROKAW
:
And the last time I was in Omaha you were driving a Cadillac.

BUFFETT
:
I'm driving a Cadillac still.

BROKAW
:
General Motors product.

BUFFETT
:
Right. Right.

BROKAW
:
Are you-- are you storing away extra spare parts? (LAUGHTER)

BUFFETT
:
No. No. I-- I-- I'm all for the-- I'm all for them. I mean, you know, Rick Wagner got handed a very, very, very tough hand. And then this economy has just decimated the-- but they've gotta come up with a business plan that works.


BROKAW
:
And do you think they're on that track?

BUFFETT
:
They're-- they may be starting on that track. But I would be very tough, if I were Congress however, handing money to-- to-- the big three-- to make sure they had a business plan that worked. And I-- I've said before, I would-- I would have the CEOs of those companies, and the head of the union, and anybody else that's-- a big party to this-- take the same downside risk as the American taxpayer.
For-- three quarters of their net worth. So if the American taxpayer ended up losing 20 percent of what they put up, these guys would lose along with them. Now I'd have a big bonus on the upside. But I think they ought to have-- they ought to have something meaningfully personally in the game when they come to Congress and the president with a business plan and say, "This will work." Okay. Let them back it up.

BROKAW
:
Should there be an automobile czar who reports to the president to make sure that they're hitting the markers that are expected of them?

BUFFETT
:
Well, there ought to be some system for making sure they hit the markers. But the best-- best way to have them hit the markers, Tom, is to have them so that if they don't hit those markers, if-- if it doesn't work, what they tell Congress, "We'll work." If it doesn't work they lose three quarters of their net worth or something like that.

BROKAW
:
And what happens at the other end of the pipeline or the car dealers across the country?

BUFFETT
:
Well, that-- that's why you want to have something that's gonna work in terms of the whole-- the whole system. And-- and-- part-- part of anything that's gonna work for the victory has to work for their dealers, or most of their dealers, eventually. And-- and-- and-- you want a realistic thing. Otherwise they'll just come up with a bunch of spreadsheets and-- and keep asking for more money.

BROKAW:
Let me ask you about some of the arguments that have been made, not just here, but around the country, in the last year or so. In Washington, Democrats will say, "What we're going through is all the fault of the Bush administration." Bush administration will say, "This all began with the Democrats. They're the ones who wanted to have cheap money and easy entrance into the housing market." Who's right?

BUFFETT:
I wouldn't worry about it. I-- I-- you know, if-- if-- if-- if this were December 7th, 1941, I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time, you know, wondering about who-- who got those ships in the harbor, you know, so that they were vulnerable or anything like that. I'd figure out how the hell we win the war.

BROKAW
:
The other issue that we hear a lot about these days, or the-- the other subject that we hear a lot about these days is we got in trouble because greed took over America. You know, all-- everybody had to have more. And the greed became a corrupting force. And that famous line from the movie Wall Street--

BUFFETT
:
Greed is--
(OVERTALK)

BROKAW
:
Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good because it motivates people." Greed good or bad?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I-- greed is gonna be present. At-- at-- at-- if-- I would distinguish between greed and ambition. I-- I-- you know, (LAUGHTER) I mean, you know, Henry Ford may have been-- been ambition, or Thomas Edison, or all kinds of people, you know, that-- that they-- there's nothing wrong with wanting something better for yourself than you have today, or wanting something better for your family than you have today.

I mean, it-- it's been part of the American system. And it-- it's led to this-- these wondrous things that have happened. It-- when you start trying to create phony instruments that fool other people so you stick money in your pocket, or-- or-- or leverage yourself to the sky so that, you-- you know, that-- you're vulnerable to the least little-- interruption of-- of financial activity, or economic activity, you know, it-- it's a mistake. But people are gonna be greedy. You better-- you-- you-- you shouldn't design a system that essentially counts on people not being greedy. It's gonna-- it's gonna exist, but you-- you need to temper it in various ways.

BROKAW
:
You're doing a fair amount of business in China. When you talk to your Chinese counterparts, and your friend and your clients over there, the people you're doing business with, do they say to you, "Mr. Buffet, what in the world is going on? You're supposed to teach us about capitalism"?

BUFFETT
:
Well-- well, we've taught them a little about capitalism over the years. I-- I mean, China, for a long time, went no place. But, in the last 30 years, they just-- they've done fabulously. And-- and they-- and partly they've adapted parts of our system to do that. But-- you know, in-- in the end I don't tell the Chinese what to do, (LAUGHTER) and I don't expect them to tell us what--

BROKAW
:
But they don't want to buy, now, some of our instruments. I mean, they're holding back saying, "We're not sure that we want to invest in American treasuries. And we have relied on them."

BUFFETT
:
Well, they-- they have to invest. If-- if you think about it, Tom, if they're selling us a couple hundred billion dollars worth of goods every year more than we're buying from them we have to hand something to-- they're investing every single day.

They may be going into sovereign wealth funds instead of treasuries, or something of the sort. But the-- they're giving us what you might call vendor financing. I mean, because every day we ship money to the Chinese. And they can-- they can take those dollars and they can buy treasuries, they can buy U.S. equities, they can buy U.S. real estate. But we're force feeding dollars to the Chinese by our purchases. They have to invest here. So they're not gonna quit investing here.

BROKAW
:
A lot of people are gonna be looking in on this, and wondering how has it affected Warren Buffet? Berkshire Hathaway stock is down. Significantly. Has your lifestyle changed at all?

BUFFETT:
No. (LAUGHTER) I-- I've never sold a share in my life. I-- I-- I've been through three earlier periods where Berkshire's stock's gone down 50 percent. I mean, it-- it-- it-- you shouldn't own stocks unless you can handle them going down 50 percent.

If you own a farm nobody tells you when it's gone down 50 percent 'cause you don't get a quote every day. But you really look to the farm and the-- what it's-- its pro-- what it produces to determine whether you made a good investment. Now if people look to the newspaper every day at the price of a stock to determine whether they made a good investment they're making a mistake.

They have to look to the business, the asset itself. If you own an apartment house you wouldn't get a quote on it every day. You'd just look at-- what the rent rolls were, and what your taxes were and expenses were. And if they all came in with-- in line with what you expected when you bought it you'd feel you'd made a satisfactory investment, and you'd never get a quote on it. So I don't-- I don't look at quotes. Mostly-- I can't tell you what Berkshire Hathaway is selling for today.

BROKAW:
You were a child in the Great Depression. You witnessed World War II. It was a very difficult time right after World War II, a lot of people forget about that. You've been through these-- cycles of boom and bust. Where does this one fit in your lifetime?

BUFFETT
:
Well, this is-- this certainly is nothing like World War II. I mean, you know, the-- with the country threatened. And-- and it's not like the Great Depression. But it's a severe economic-- you know, this is-- this is number one-- the-- since World War II.

But, in the end, you know, it-- since 1776 it's never paid to bet against America. I mean, you know, (LAUGHTER) I mean we come through these things. There was a song during World War II that-- that said, "We did it before, and we can do it again." Maybe you can remember-- you know, I can remember it. And-- and the truth is we've done it before and we'll do it again. We-- we come through things. But it's not-- it's not always a smooth ride.

BROKAW
:
And Barack Obama, as president of the United States, we know he has very strong oratorical skills, and the capacity to inspire people. Does he have to change, however, the way he governs from Washington and move around the country a lot more and become a kind of cheerleader for the economy and for the country's innate sense of optimism?

BUFFETT:
Yeah, he won't be-- he won't be a cheerleader for things beyond what he believes in-- he'll be a fact teller in-- in-- a way that's-- makes good sense to the American public. I mean, he-- he doesn't have to make up anything. Or the-- the rah-rah isn't called for.

What's called for is cool analysis and-- and a plan as to where you're going. And getting realistic expectations about the time it'll take to get there. And I think he's-- he has all those qualities. He is-- he-- he's not a rah-rah guy.

But he is-- he's a believer in-- in-- in the very things that have allowed this country to do what it's done. I mean, it-- we are the miracle of the, you know, of the world. Just think of seven for one improving the standard of living in a century. I mean, you can go back many centuries where it didn't move one percent virtually.

So we have a system that works. But it's gummed up. I think he'll convey that. And it-- the-- he-- he won't over promise. He-- he-- he will have a very clear vision of what he's trying to do. And-- and how long it's gonna take. I think he'll be very good at working with Congress to get it done. I think he'll be very good at explaining to the American people why Congress needs to do things.

BROKAW
:
And the hardware dealer in North Platte, Nebraska, or the banker in Savannah, Georgia, or in Amarillo, Texas, the guy who's got a couple businesses in town, maybe an auto parts store and something else, they just hunker down during '09 and hope for better times and-- and--

BUFFETT
:
They-- they work through it, just like, you know, 1931 my dad-- lost his job in-- (LAUGHTER) in Omaha, and he had two little kids, and he owed $55 a month on a mortgage, and no job. And he worked through it. And-- and he came through for the country, and the country came through for him. And that fellow in Savannah, or in North Platte, his kids are gonna live better than he did, and his grandchildren are gonna live better than his kids did. The-- the system works.

BROKAW:
The tricky part for the new president is to give people hope and make their dreams soar. But simultaneously, in this climate, to ask for sacrifices. To make them understand they are gonna have to go through some pain. How does he do that? How do you put those two pieces together?

BUFFETT
:
Well, it was done-- you know, it was done after December 7th, 1941. I mean, we-- we knew we were going through-- a period of enormous pain. I mean, the ultimate pain in terms of sending-- sending-- primarily the-- young men off to-- off to war. And-- and we knew that we weren't gonna be able to buy consumer goods. Everybody is going to go to work in defense plants and that sort of thing.

But they couldn't buy cars. Or couldn't buy refrigerators. All of that. So, they accepted that. And they knew it was gonna take a long time. They didn't know how long it was gonna take. They didn't know whether the war was gonna be one year or four years. They-- they did feel the United States was gonna prevail in the end. And so, that same sort of message that is in the same time table, not exactly the same situation ..

BROKAW
:
But they were conditioned by the Great Depression, war. And they were used to not having things.

BUFFETT:
Yeah.

BROKAW
:
And so, it was one more era of sacrifice for them. We're used to having everything, including credit cards. (LAUGHTER)

BUFFETT
:
Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

BROKAW
:
Put it down and sometime, we'll pay.

BUFFETT
:
That's right. But-- yeah. I would say this, the last six months, I think has been-- has been a-- a big bucket of cold water though I-- in terms of I-- I would say-- I would say the American public's expectations, in some ways, have been reset by events of the last six months to a year. And-- now, they-- they'd be happier for a-- a-- a little less of a-- a credit propelled economy.

So I-- but that can-- Obama can talk to the American public about that. I mean-- they'll want to listen to him. And he's very easy to listen to. And you can learn a lot by listening to him. So I-- I think this is gonna be an educational experience for the country.

BROKAW
:
You've been in the room. You've-- you've heard him on the phone on conference calls. You're not the first very high powered person in the financial word-- world that I've heard say, "The guy's really impressive."

BUFFETT
:
Yeah.

BROKAW
:
But what is it about him that makes him impressive in those meetings?

BUFFETT
:
Well, he's smart. He listens. He doesn't-- he doesn't delegate decision making over to anybody. I mean, in the end, he-- he-- he absorbs what people are saying. And in the end, he comes out-- you know-- with better ideas than I come out with when I'm listening to the same thing. And he just-- he has an ability to-- to extract from other people a lot of information, a lot of analysis. And-- and take the best of it. And--
(OVERTALK)

BUFFETT
:
He's like a great editor in a sense. I mean you could-- you could argue that he's a great editor-- of people's ideas. And-- and-- and that he's not afraid to act. I mean, he's got a confidence about him which is warranted. It's not an arrogance. It's-- it's-- but it's a confidence. And he-- he-- he believes in himself. He believes in his country. And-- and-- and-- he'll get the job done.

BROKAW
:
And one of the things you always worry about with a president is whether they develop hubris.

BUFFETT
:
Yeah.

BROKAW
:
Whether they--

BUFFETT
:
A leader of any kind.

BROKAW
:
Right.

BUFFETT
:
A leader of any kind.

BROKAW
:
Right. And do you think that he'll be tempted in that regard?

BUFFETT
:
Well, I-- I-- I think-- I think any leader who has everybody coming around him telling him all the time how wonderful they are, you know, and-- and bowing-- and-- playing "Hail the Chief" when they walk into a room. I-- I mean, it's something to be guarded against. I-- I-- but I'm sure he's more conscious of that than-- you know, than I am.

I-- but it's-- it's-- it's something that, whether you're a general or a pope or-- (LAUGHTER) you know, or a CEO or a president, it's-- you're gonna have-- you're gonna listen to an awful lot of people who tell you how wonderful you are. And there are very few people will say, you know, you're just-- you put on your pants one leg at a time. So it's-- it's-- it's-- it's something to be guarded against. But I'm not worried about that (UNINTEL).

BROKAW
:
During the course of the campaign, when he'd talk about his economic policies, a lot of his opponents said, "He's a socialist." I mean, they started shouting it at-- from-- from-- and he would say, "Look, if I were a socialist, would I have Warren Buffet-- (LAUGHTER) as one of my advisors and one of my friends?"

BUFFETT
:
Yeah. No, he believes in an America where there's more and more goods and services to go around. But he does believe in having everybody get a better shot at it than-- than has existed in the last 20 years. I mean, it-- in any country-- we're a country that has, you know, 46,000-- $47,000 of GDP per capita. And we've got 20 percent of the households making $21,000 a year or less. So they're-- they're-- there is a chance-- you know, I'm-- I'm very lucky.

I mean, I'm-- I'm the right guy in the right place at the right time sort of. But I-- I didn't have anything to do with that. And-- and it's fine that I'm motivated to keep working and make more money and all of that sort of thing. But there should be a system. Because this system delivers these goodies to me, there should be a system to make sure that they're-- that at least-- that there's some reasonable level of-- of prosperity enjoyed by almost everybody in the country.

BROKAW:
At one point during the course of the campaign, I asked the two of them who they wanted as their treasury secretary. Your name came up from both of them. Even John McCain said.

BUFFETT:
Yeah, but Ralph Nader never got on board. (LAUGHTER)

BROKAW:
He-- he wouldn't have, Warren.

BUFFETT:
No. No it's not-- it's not for me. But-- but I'm-- you know--
(OVERTALK)

BROKAW:
But why wouldn't it be? I mean, your father was a Congressman. You-- you were a child here. You have a lot of strong ideas about this--

BUFFETT:
It takes--

BROKAW:
Paul Volcker is your age. He's gonna come back into government.

BUFFETT:
Yeah. Well, I wouldn't have the energy for it, frankly. I-- and-- and-- and-- and-- I'm spoiled. You know, I get to-- I get to do what I like to do every day with people that I like doing it with. And I-- I would not be good at reporting to 535 members of Congress and answering questions from every one of 'em. I-- I'm better at something else.

BROKAW:
A lot of people are concerned that the government is just throwing money down a rat hole with the bailout program, with the 700 billion dollars of troubled assets. And the kinds of money that we're handing out to Detroit and other places. Is there an economic component to all of this that will pay off at some point?

BUFFETT:
Well, that's exactly what we did in 1933. I mean, in 1933, when Roosevelt came in, there was something called the Reconstruction Finance Corp, RFC. Actually, Hoover enac-- it got enacted under Hoover in '32. But-- Roosevelt appointed Jesse Jones in 1933. And they put preferred stocks into the banks. They concentrated on banks, but they went into other things.

Incidentally, Jesse Jones was-- when he put that money in, he told 'em what the compensation rate was gonna be too. I mean, he was a tough tsar. And it helped take the United States out of a depression. I mean, the RFC was-- was an important component. And I'm sure they got criticized at the start. And they said, "People, you're throwing money into the wrong things and all that."

I'm sure he made mistakes. But when you're fighting a war, I mean you don't expect every single maneuver to be a huge success. What you want to do is win the war. And-- and the-- it's a component making sure that the financial system does not get dysfunctional, which was-- it was-- it was there almost. That's an important part of it.

And there is no way-- you may want to-- you may-- you maybe want to punish Wall Street or something. But you can't-- you can't separate Wall Street, Main Street, side streets. We are connected. This is one big community. And-- and you better have credit flowing.

BROKAW:
But who are our other allies in this war? When-- Bill Clinton took office, for example-- he was helped a lot by your friend Bill Gates and the other people in Silicon Valley who created a whole new industry that had an enormous economic impact on this country.

As you look down the road or over the horizon, where do we get help now? Is it gonna be from Asia? Is it gonna be from China and what they're doing? And can green industries do as much as a lot of their proponents say that they will for the American economy?

BUFFETT:
It'll be from the American people, big time. I mean, when you think about it, you know, you go back to the mid 1800's or something. And people thought, you know, if you had done-- if you-- come along with-- well, it was later than that. The tractors or the combines or that sort of thing. And put all these people out of work. But they found other things to do.

Could I have predicted that the motion picture industry would have sprung up?

Or the electric utility industry? Or-- to make it later, the semi conductors or software? The American genius is that it frees up millions and millions of people with all kinds of potential. Sometimes, potential they didn't even know. To come up with things that I can't dream up myself. I will guarantee you that 30 or 40 years from now, you will see all kind of things being turned out in the United States that people hunger for but that-- they couldn't conceive of them themselves.

But somebody did. That-- that it was-- it was out there. Inspired by-- partly inspired by the system we have. Because we have-- we do have a-- we have a market system that-- that people are-- goods and services. And a lot of people figure out ways to get it to 'em. And we got the-- we-- we-- you know we have equality of opportunity to quite a degree. Not perfect. But-- but we can-- we can let a fellow like Jack Welsh, you know, end up running General Electric.

And-- and on the other hand, we got Mike Tyson fighting for the heavyweight championship. And we don't have Jack fighting for the heavyweight championship. You know? (LAUGHTER) And Mike Tyson running General Electric. We get people in the right jobs doing the right things with the right talents. And that will continue to exist. And that will deliver goods and services you and I can't dream of.

BROKAW:
And how long will it be before Warren Buffet is tooling around Omaha in an electric car?

BUFFETT:
Well, we have this investment -- (LAUGHTER) in a Chinese company. I'm going to have-- I'm going to have an electric car at the annual meeting at Berkshire next year.

BROKAW:
And is that gonna be the future of this country as well?

BUFFETT:
Well, I-- I think an electric car is-- is definitely part of the future. I mean I-- it-- it makes so much sense. I mean, the battery, obviously, is the big stumbling block. But we-- we'll figure out how to do that. I mean, we figured out a lot of things in this-- I-- I will predict that within-- certainly within five years, there is a-- a reasonably priced electric car that will go a long way with a plug in arrangement.

BROKAW:
Paul Krugman, among others, says we're not doing enough. That we've got to even-- open the valves even greater than we have been. A lot of people are concerned about the deficit and what the consequences are gonna be down the stream. Are we doing enough?

BUFFETT:
I don't know the perfect answer. Nobody else does either. I mean, Paul Krugman doesn't know it. And Barack Obama doesn't know it. And (Treasury Secretary-Designate) Tim Geithner doesn't know it. All we know is we have to do something on a very major scale. And if we find out six months down the road that we've-- you know, we've gone a little off course, left or right, we-- that can be adjustment-- we do not want to sit around and debate for six months what the perfect solution is.

We wouldn't know it if we found it. The-- the important thing to do is do what we know we need to do now. And-- and we'll always-- there will always be critics on that. That-- that-- the important thing is, that the person that's there takes the action that makes sense at the time. Did we handle the-- the aftermath of Pearl Harbor the next month perfectly? I don't know whether we did or not. But I would doubt that. You know, somebody now can come up with a better system. The important thing is, we got going.

BROKAW:
A year ago, some of your big business friends and Republican friends were pretty critical and pretty skeptical about Barack Obama. Have they come around?

BUFFETT:
Well, I-- I would say this. I-- I've never quite seen the amount of good will. I mean that-- the people that didn't vote for him-- I've got plenty of friends that didn't ... -- are-- are-- they were critical of him. They want him to succeed. I mean, there's-- people realize this is something very big and something important. And so, they are not-- nobody is hoping he falls on his face. So they are-- they are going to be behind him. And-- in a big way. I--

BROKAW:
And they've been impressed by his appointments.

BUFFETT:
Yeah, they've been impressed by his appoint-- they've been impressed by what he's said-- since-- since-- election day. I mean-- you know, I-- I have heard amazingly little-- carping at-- at-- at Obama since-- since the election by people who, you know, they-- they didn't want to-- they didn't vote for him. And you know, he doesn't quite stand for what they believe in. But boy, they-- they want him to succeed.

BROKAW:
Do you think you'll ever get him to stop by a Dairy Queen? (LAUGHTER)

BUFFETT:
I think-- my guess is he's been to the Dairy Queen. I'll work on his girls. (LAUGHTER)