When one travels in economists' circles, one tends to tap into the issues, controversies and policy ideas 'dismal science' practitioners are debating.

And one issue economists have rattled around concerns the speed of fiscal policy stimulus, or more accurately, the lack thereof. In the digital age, the internet has propelled a host of speed-enhancing changes, and it occurred to this group of economists that U.S. Government policy is decidedly behind the curve in this area.

Here's why: economist David H. Wang noted that the U.S., in an attempt to jump-start its economy stalled by the nation's worst housing slump in more than 15 years, has implemented a host of monetary policy changes to provide monetary stimulus quicker. The U.S. Federal Reserve cut key, short-term interests multiple times during a 10-week span (and later implemented additional rate cuts), and devised two, new, Fed-administered institutions to address the credit crisis, provide liquidity, and ensure the orderly operation of financial markets.

In the private sector, as in public policy, sometimes blinders prevent one from seeing the entire landscape, and a good example of that may be the current status of the U.S. housing sector.

Banks, mortgage lenders, mortgage-backed securities holders and public officials have tended to focus on the plight on subprime and comparable mortgages, and rightfully so, as these loans constitute the largest pool of non-performing assets secured by homes.

U.S. housing: A psychological shift

Still, as economist Glen Langan points out, the unusual focus on subprime has caused the nation to overlook a broader trend regarding the housing sector -- namely, the psychology of the housing market.

"What we're not grasping yet, as a nation, is that even with programs to help people stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure, the public's stance toward the housing market has changed," Langan said. "The psychology of the housing market has changed. And this has little to do with at-risk mortgages. This a psychological shift among middle-income and upper-middle-income homeowners and taxpayers. It looks like they'll be sitting on the fence for a long period of time, and this will delay the housing recovery, hurting the economy in the process."

Every economic problem or setback seeks a scapegoat -- someone decision makers, pundits, and others can blame (unjustifiably) for a turn of events that's preferred by virtually no one.

The criticism is parsimonious, unfair, and injurious -- but that hasn't seemed to stop practitioners from venturing forth with charges that are often tenuous, if not absurd.

Scapegoat-of-the-moment

The ever-incisive FT columnist Martin Wolf points out that former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is being cast as 'the villain' for the housing bubble, its bursting, and consequent impact on credit/bond markets and credit availability. All of it is unfair, Wolf notes, and he provides ample evidence to support his point.

Chiefly: Greenspan did not create low, long-term interest rates. The low, long-term rates were caused primarily by a global savings glut, Wolf said. (See: China's savings rate.) The Fed had little control over this -- Greenspan even creatively and accurately referred to the Fed's inability to force long-term rates higher despite the Fed's best effort: he called it "a conundrum." Given the surplus savings sloshing around in global markets at that time, among other factors, those low rates would have occurred regardless of who was Fed chairman.

First the good news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy.

Now the bad news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said she would raise the prospect of a second stimulus bill when she and other Congressional leaders meet with President Bush this week, CNN reported Monday.

Anemic U.S. economy

Speaker Pelosi did not provide specifics but said March 2008's "disturbing unemployment numbers" which indicated the nation's economy lost 80,000 jobs "compels the President to work with Congress on a second stimulus package to get our economy back on track, create jobs, and speed assistance to families struggling to make ends meet," CNN said.

On Monday, the Bush Administration said it was too soon to talk about the need for a second economic stimulus package because the first one had not been fully implemented yet, Reuters reported.

My Ph.D. adviser David E. RePass, professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, used to frequently recite an axiom about the U.S. Congress that rings true, regardless of era, or circumstance.

"Congress does not react, unless not reacting will result in the wrath of the American voter."

Well, concerning housing, it looks like Congress sees the wrath of the American voter ahead because the legislative body is starting to react.

Two measures working their way through Congress may ease the housing crisis. The first, a bipartisan Senate measure, is a modest step to address the rise in home foreclosures, The New York Times reported Friday.

With a sluggish economy, uncertain job growth, the most serious housing recession in more than 20 years, record oil and gasoline prices, ramping food costs, and a foreign policy landscape that's challenging (to say the least), decision makers in the United States, public and private, have more than enough to be concerned about, near-term, most analysts and citizens would agree.

Still, the above wasn't enough to prevent the annual "alarm sounding" about long-term concerns, such as Social Security and Medicare, the likes of which occurred again this week when the Social Security Trustees released their revised 2008 actuarial balance, which is a status report.

Moreover, while it's never prudent to ignore the tax and benefits implications of entitlement programs as large as Social Security and Medicare, it's important that investors and taxpayers also keep in mind one undeniable reality pertaining to statistical analysis of this sort. Namely, that we're dealing with longitudinal projections stretching out decades in which -- if any one of 20 variables (or more) change -- receipts and outlays would change substantially.

Groucho Marx once remarked that whenever things start to look really dark, remain calm, don't panic, and above all, turn on a light.

Given the barrage of financial stresses battering the credit and equity markets these days, consumers, economists and investors alike could use some of Groucho's levity, and some light. In this case the light may appear in the form of the Federal Housing Administration.

What's old is suddenly new

The Federal Housing Administration, the once-viewed-as-antiquated, irrelevant Great Depression-era government agency, is suddenly emerging as the centerpiece of government efforts to bolster the U.S. housing market, reported The Wall Street Journal (subscription required.)

The FHA has become the cheapest, and in many cases, the only alternative for borrowers who can make only a small down payment, and the agency is rapidly gaining market share.

You can add another item to the list of things the market has to be worried about.

In this month's Portfolio magazine, Michael Lewis wonders if the Black-Scholes formula -- the formula used to calculate and manage risk throughout the financial world, including determining the risk of trade positions and hedging strategies -- is flawed.

The Black-Scholes formula is an advanced mathematical formula generally credited with revolutionizing options pricing. Its assumptions are the basis for short trades and options designed to protect a trader against losses, no matter how much the market falls.

However, as Lewis outlines, while the formula has been good, it is not perfect, as evidenced by the October 1987 stock market crash, when traders and institutions learned that even with Black-Scholes techniques deployed, when the market is crashing and no one is willing to buy, it's impossible to sell short. The outcome? On "Black Monday," the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508 points or 22.6% on October 19, 1987.

For Mac Murphy of New Rochelle, NY, a husband and father of two teen-age daughters in college, the rise in the price of gasoline is not an incidental expense.

"It's like an extra car payment, for crying out loud," Murphy said as he pumped $3.39 per gallon unleaded regular gasoline into his wife's car Tuesday.

Gas pump shock

Murphy pays for his daughters' gas bills while the two are studying at college. Each has a car. Up until about a year ago, the bills were about $20-$25 per month each. These days, they're sending back monthly bills that are routinely over $50 each, and those gasoline expenses combined with his and his wife Laura's gas purchases, means ..."about $300 dollars a month in gasoline expenses."

The family has done its best to limit gasoline expenses by carpooling and eliminating unnecessary trips, and next year the family will trade in one car for a substantially more-fuel-efficient vehicle. Still, given that he and his wife each commute by car to different locations, there's only so much they can do to reduce their gasoline costs. Further, Murphy says the expense "is only likely to increase this summer, when gas hits $4 per gallon."

When told by an inquirer that gasoline may actually approach $5 per gallon this summer in high-cost cites such as his metro New York region, Murphy was apoplectic.

With home foreclosures expected to increase in 2008 as the second wave of variable interest rate mortgages reset, an influential member of Congress is expected to introduce legislation that would enable the Federal Housing Administration to buy at-risk loans, enabling them to be refinanced and preventing homeowners from being foreclosed upon, The Financial Times reported Wednesday.

U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is floating a $15 billion initiative that would authorize the FHA to buy as many as 1 million at-risk mortgages, The FT reported. Some loans, such as those for investment properties and vacation homes, would not be eligible for the program.

The overlooked FHA

Overlooked during the "Roaring 1990s" economic expansion and this decade's housing boom, the Federal Housing Administration is a Depression-era agency that insures loans made to borrowers with poor credit.

The ever-incisive FT columnist and economist Martin Wolf has some good news for investors, who are no doubt weighed down by the cacophony of pessimism permeating the U.S. stock and bond markets these days.

Wolf argues that the U.S. housing recession and accompanying credit market concerns are huge dangers, for the U.S. and for the rest of the world, and a bumpy road is ahead, but the public sector, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve, is now coming to the rescue.

Before offering his likely scenario for a return to economic health, Wolf summarizes a worst-case-scenario from Nouriel Roubini, economics professor at New York University and founder of RGE Monitor. (Fair warning: Roubini's scenario represents the bleakest of the bear views, hence it's best not to read it on a day when the Dow is down 300 points, etc.)

While recognizing that Roubini's scenario is plausible, Wolf argues that it's not likely to occur, at least not to the degree Roubini suggests.

More than half the collateral backing cash advances made by the U.S. Federal Reserve to U.S. banks is in the form of loans, not securities, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York told The Financial Times.

Economists and analysts had speculated that banks would post only complex housing-related securities -- including mortgage-backed securities -- that they could not refinance elsewhere.

That has not been the case. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York told FT that since the credit crisis began, banks had continued to provide a wide variety of assets as collateral -- including U.S. Treasuries, other government and agency-backed securities, and private-label mortgage-backed securities.

Is China's trade surplus finally trending lower? One economist specializing in China's economy said possibly. but we won't know for certain for a few months.

China's trade surplus totaled $19.4 billion in January 2008 -- the first time the surplus has been below $20 billion in the last three months, The Associated Press reported Friday, citing the government's Xinhua News Agency. Exports rose 26.7% to $109.7 billion, while imports grew 27.6% to $90.2 billion.

U.S. consumer pullback?

"We may be starting to see the impact of the U.S. consumer pullback on China's exports to the U.S.," economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Friday. Wang was born and lived in China for more than twenty years before moving to the United States for graduate study. "If the U.S. economy continues in slow-growth mode, I suspect China's sales to the U.S. will continue to slow."

Amid calls for disclosure of more information on bidding for auction-rate bonds after dealers stopped buying the securities, two economists told BloggingStocks Friday that the problem of a lack of investor demand speaks directly to the need to re-capitalize bond insurers MBIA and Ambac.

"The problem is not merely a lack of demand for bonds. The problem is that institutional investors are shunning these investments because they are concerned about a lack of available insurance for this debt and related credit market uncertainty, which underscores the need to address the liquidity concerns of MBIA and Ambac," economist David H. Wang said Friday.

MBIA, Ambac: two linchpins

The bond insurers, Wang said, are two linchpins of the bond market [municipal, corporate], and, by extension, of the financial markets.

Shares of MBIA (NYSE: MBI) and Ambac (NYSE: ABK) have lost more than 70% of their value in the past six months, as investors have fled them amid concern that the two do not have sufficient capital to fund insurance policies for mortgage-backed and collateralized debt obligations held by banks and institutions. MBIA and Ambac executives have rejected the accusations, arguing that they have sufficient capital to fund claims and can modify/improve their business models, long-term, aided by re-capitalization. MBIA fell 80 cents to $11.82 and Ambac fell 45 cents to $10.08 in Friday afternoon trading.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today unveiled a new $210 billion federal spending plan that he says would create jobs in construction and environmental services.

The Obama proposal would invest money over 10 years in two programs, the largest of which would be a $150 billion effort to create 5 million "green collar" jobs to develop more-environmentally friendly energy sources.

The remaining $60 billion would fund a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild the nation's highways, bridges, airports and other public facilities. Obama said the construction fund would create nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in construction directly - - a sector hard-hit by the housing sector's correction - - the nation's most severe housing slump in more than 20 years.

Rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, called Obama's effort unoriginal. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters, The Associated Press reported.

Furthermore, the Republican National Committee, which seeks to portray Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, included Obama's plan on its 'Obama Spend-O-Meter.' The Republicans assert that Obama's announced programs would add $850 billion in federal spending over four years, including health care, education, national service and foreign aid programs, among others. The RNC's web site did not break down the asserted total by year, but economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Wednesday, assuming equal, annual appropriations of $212.5 billion, the total would not be an unreasonable nor an unwarranted outlay, from an economic standpoint, in his interpretation.

"I don't know where the RNC obtained its $850 billion total, but for the sake of argument, even it was $220 billion per year, that's fairly modest, given the services it includes, including universal health insurance," Affinito said. "Also, given the current state of the economy we may find we may need another $150-$200 billion economic stimulus this year, just to keep the economy growing. So in that regard, Sen. Obama's proposal is insinc with the times and a net positive for the U.S. economy."