The Attacks on the Banks

I have written about the banks and how important they are to the economy. I have written about the efforts of the U.S. government to control and destroy them. I am reminded of the progression of events in Atlas Shrugged in which the government consistently (unconsciously, i.e., not as a result of cognitive purpose) attacked business sectors as they became vital for the country’s survival. I would not give our government as much credit as Ayn Rand did in the novel. But it is the case that banking and finance is the one industry that every sector relies upon to make business and trade function. Banking is a necessity.

Two recent articles have underscored the rocky road that our economy faces. Earlier this month, Reuters published “Column: The crackdown on bank misbehavior masks a troubling reality” which summed up the actions against our major banks over the last few years:

… In the annual letter he writes to shareholders, Robert Wilmers, the chairman and CEO of M&T Bank, has started keeping track of the fines, sanctions and legal awards levied against the "Big Six" bank holding companies. In 2011, those penalties were $13.9 billion. In 2012, they more than doubled to $29.3 billion. Wilmers writes that the past two years represent the majority of the cumulative $52 billion in charges, from 236 separate actions in eight countries, over the past 11 years. Wilmers also cites a study done by M&T, according to which the top six banks have been cited 1,150 times by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times in articles about their improper activities. Perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest bank, JPMorgan, accounts for a sizable chunk of all this. According to a report by Josh Rosner, a managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co, JPMorgan has paid $8.5 billion in fines between 2009 and 2012, or about 12 percent of its net income over that period.

Then today the U.S. Justice Department announced a forthcoming new set of suits, “Justice Department planning new action against financial firms.” We have national government, states, even cities, and aggrieved individuals attacking and attacking the banking industry. There is more than one reason that this is happening, including plain ignorance. But most important is that private banks are major tools of capitalism. They are obvious symbols of the accumulation of wealth and productiveness. They are being attacked not because of their recent errors and failures, but because of what they represent. Their mistakes and leaders who are actually government lackeys are only a justification for the frenzy of destruction and feeding.

I am not personally aware of anyone defending the banks, except for John Allison. Yet, banking is more vital for our economy than the energy industry, because all industries depend upon credit and capital for their operation. If banking becomes critically wounded, the credit for international movements of oil, for example, or even the movement of oil within our own country becomes difficult. It is not possible on a cash or barter basis. Of course, that comment is only referring to what most of us see as the oil business. The search for oil, the research on oil recovery methods, and all that makes up an oil company depend upon a flow of credit and capital, which at root comes from banking.

Banking has to be defended.

From what I can see, it may be hard for bankers to defend themselves. The indicators include John Allison’s comment in his book that if he were still a banker he couldn’t write his book. Then there are the regulations and laws that require banks to not to reveal various regulatory rulings. And, as there is in the recent Apple anti-trust case, the requirement that the victim of government regulation declare that he was guilty of impure thoughts (anyone for the inquisition?). A banker who stands up and declares that the regulators are immoral idiots won’t be a banker for long. No, as opposed to the conflict between the energy companies and the climate fanatics, defense of banking will have to at least begin on the outside.

So, one of the short-term issues we have to take on, if we want this economy to hold up long enough for us to have at least some success on culture change, is the freedom of finance and banking.

Other recent articles about the U.S. government’s comprehensive attack on finance and banking:



U.S. Bank Legal Bills Exceed $100 Billion

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-28/u-s-bank-legal-bills-exceed-100-billion.html



Banks shiver as UBS swallows $885 million U.S. fine

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSBRE96O1FH20130726



Under siege, JPMorgan to quit physical commodities

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE96P10M20130727



JPMorgan to pay $410 million in power market manipulation probe

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSBRE96T0NA20130730



JP Morgan under investigation in Monte Paschi probe: document

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE96U0MP20130731



FERC seeks BP response to natgas market manipulation

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSBRE9740JU20130805



Regulators willing to risk repo damage

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL2N0GH0JP20130816



JPMorgan hit by U.S. bribery probe into Chinese hiring: report

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSBRE97H00P20130818



Bank of America fails to end U.S. govt's mortgage fraud lawsuit

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSL2N0GS0ZV20130827

What I think is profoundly unjust about this is that the government wanted the banks to take over the ruins of other banks and mortgage companies. Now they out to destroy the bank that took on the history and risk at the government’s behest. This is immoral.

Considering Investment Advice Today

Someone who I have gotten to know and respect on-line recently recommended a book of investment advice. Certainly, there are people who understand investments better than others and can clearly explain that understanding. I have no reason to doubt the usefulness of the book if my friend thought it was good.

I did have a problem, however. The advise offered in the book came from decades ago. What about today? Certainly the principles of economics haven’t changed, ever. But the economic and legal context for investment could have.

What isn’t in these books, not the one suggested by my friend (which I haven’t read but he did not mention the subject) nor any of the others I have looked at, is a discussion of their assumptions. I am not referring to their metaphysics or epistemology. I am assuming a basic I mode for these people, otherwise there would be no hope that the investment advise would or could work. Further, I am not referring to the economics fundamentals of how markets work or the ethics of investment. No, I am referring to what you might call the range of decision making within the economy.

One way to open up what I am trying to consider is to ask these questions: Where would the advise in the book work? We know it wouldn’t work in Cuba. How about Venazula? Egypt? Mexico? Sudan? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Obama America?

I am not just looking at the legal system in these examples, or even the safety of the investment (against nationalization or another kind of thief). I am wondering about the legal ability of the business manager, the people who will ultimately determine if a business succeeds or fails, to understand the conditions and make the decisions and execute those decisions.

For example, in Europe and the U.S., there has been a drive since the last financial crisis to add additional layers of regulation and regulators to the financial services industry. Many of the areas that major banks were relying upon for profits and growth are being eliminated or curtailed. This process is ongoing. The major law expanding banking regulation in the U.S., Dodds-Frank, has something over 350 new areas of regulation. As of last week according to a recent news article, the government and the various agencies have missed 63% of the deadlines stipulated in the act. Many of those new regulations have yet to be finalized. Further, there are another 36% of the act which the government has yet to address. Five years after the crisis and three after the passage of Dodds-Frank, the industry is still uncertain as to what is going to happen. Whatever the results, the banks are all going to have to function in the same, regulatory approved method, about which no one has any real world experience. Expect stuff to go wrong in many different ways. Expect the banking system to function less efficiently, and investment decisions to be less reliable.

Then there is the larger size of the Federal Government in the economy. Its annual deficit and demand for funds has been soaking up the capital of the country. This astonishing level of spending is expected to continue, regardless of the activity or lack there of in the real economy.

There is the continuous effort by the Federal Reserve Board to manipulate the economy into growth by completely destroying any meaning to the pricing of capital. Interest rates mean almost nothing now for the business decision maker. He has no tool to determine if his capital project is going to be profitable or if the capital he needs is actually there.

A business decision maker might also be concerned with the changes in the level of new money being introduced into the market. He might be concerned about the lack of stability in what the Fed and the rest of the government is doing or can be expected to do. He has no idea or source to understand what is going to happen. But to him, the difference between 2.5% and 3% interest on loans is not as significant. You can readily see that since 2009, there has been no rush to borrow and invest as interest rates were lowered and have remained at historic lows.

I have seen commentators and business people point out that current profits are from cost cutting, not from new investments coming on line. They point out that there is only a limited amount of costs that can be cut and that point is being reached. There is a certain amount of growth through merger and acquisition, which isn’t economic growth, but still cost cutting. There may be some investment due to the need to replace plant and equipment. But there is little growth.

None of this is similar to the economic context in the U.S. since the end of WWII. Except for the inflation years ending in 1982, business has had sufficient confidence in the future to invest and grow. That isn’t the case today or for the last five years.

Could confidence return and get us going again? I don’t think we can know until the situation calms down and the government stops tinkering. It is possible that the government won’t stop. It is possible that the restrictions on action will overcome the American businessman. That will happen at some point. We just don’t know.

But we do know that the situation is sufficiently different today so as to make application of successful personal investment policies from the 80s and 90s uncertain. The context has changed. That is a major deal. If you are serious about your investments, you have to recognize the underlying premises about how the economy functions.

When I read some of the economic analysis offered by people with mainstream approaches, I see that they treat all non-communist economies the same, regardless of the level of government intrusion. In their mind an economy will continue going along somehow. They believe that the government’s impact is necessarily either minor or for the good of the economy. That is the same attitude of the standard works on investment: the economy is not going to change significantly when the government acts. But that is not true. You need to recognize that there is a point in which the government’s actions are making normal economic activity too difficult. That has been happening now. It might be temporary, I am not going to rationalistically say that we have reached the point of no return. Nor am I going to say that the current situation may calm down and people can work within the levels of controls we will have. But, it will happen. Don’t ignore it.

Unavoidable Consequences of Regulation

Among the many interesting points that John Allison made in his excellent book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, is that the regulators consistently favored the banks with risky behavior and failed approaches over the successful ones. The deposit “insurance,” the bailout, and the “cures” all reward the failures and punish the successes. This point is even clearer when Mr. Allison discusses the events after the crisis. BB&T was forced to lower, that’s right, lower its capital reserves by the regulators. It was forced by the regulators to change its decision making structure to conform to that in the failed banks and give up a process that had been a significant strength in the bank. The regulators were not interested in success. They were (are) interested in the politically required, currently popular priorities of the non-elected, politically appointed heads of their agency. The regulators were attuned to what the leaders in Congress wanted, not what the market demanded or what was good for the success of the bank or the service of the bank’s customers. This process of political fads is called having a social conscious.

But this is the way it has to be. For a regulator on site to see that a bank is functioning well and is controlling risk he would have to be able to think clearly, independently, and have a good knowledge of banking. None of those characteristics make good regulators. At the very least, the regulator is a bureaucrat who applies regulations. He knows those in detail and by name. His frame of reference is his superior and the head of the agency, not profits or efficiency of the business he regulates. He can’t care about what happens to the business and continue to be a regulator. He doesn’t consider cause and effect except in regard to his agency. He does not know if the regulations will work or not, or care. He doesn’t care about the success of the bank he regulates, only that it not fail worse than the other banks. He doesn’t want to stick out.

All of this is clear from Mr. Allison’s book. It is clear to me from my experiences in the securities business. Talk to your friends in regulated industries. Talk to anyone who has tried to start a new business, or put up a commercial structure.

The Fate of U.S. Banks Is Our Fate

One wonders what politicians and current government-oriented economists think banks are. Ask them to define the concept, banks, and what could come out? Ask them what function they perform in the economy, the private economy, and what would they say? Then, there could be a difference between what they said and what they thought to themselves.

I expect that politicians and the Fed sees them as big piles of money, you know, something like bank robbers view them. Piles of money to loot or to use as influence for their political gain. They don’t view banks as having a particular identity that is necessary for the economy because they believe that they can force the banks into any shape they want and nothing particularly important will happen. Banks are toys, to be played with. Or, banks are whipping boys and every stroke makes the politician look good to the electorate, you know, the mob. The mob hates banks, and has for centuries.

It is my understanding that for a while, primarily in the 19C, some bankers in the U.S. were respected by many people. The name that comes to mind is J.P. Morgan, and his family. Today there is only an echo of that respect left. A PBS program I saw recently ascribed to Morgan a through going desire for power (undefined). That is bad for a banker apparently (but good for Obama).

Before the residential real estate mortgage crisis, banks were very heavily regulated and influenced. Now, the level of government control has gone up dramatically in the Western World. The worst step is Dodds-Frank. Even there I think that few of us, including myself, have but a superficial understanding of how destructive that law will be. It is probably the equivalent of what ObamaCare is for medicine.

But banks are vital for our economy, for an advanced, industrial, integrated economy. Finance, credit, routing of capital, are vital functions in our economy and banks are the number one tool used in those markets. There are a few others, e.g., venture capital funds, hedge funds perhaps, but they are small potatoes compared to the size and range of activities that are banks. To cripple our banks is to cripple our economy.

For the purpose of saving our economy and avoiding disaster, healthy banking is far more important than the size of government spending.

Again, as we have learned from Ayn Rand, and as I have said before on this blog, our first priority for our survival as individuals is freedom, which is the removal of controls and regulations.

Overspending, i.e., the creation of government debt, can kill us, yes. But the only way we win out and survive as men is through freedom. Learn about what is happening. Attack regulation.

Basic Economics: Savings Accounts

Looking at the modern relationships between interest rates, taxes, and price inflation, I have wondered why anyone would put money into savings accounts or buy bonds, especially U.S. government bonds. A savings account, earning 1.6% (The top rate offered by my credit union recently.), after taxes of say 20% and price inflation of 2% gives you a guaranteed annual loss of 0.72%! The situation for bonds isn’t that much better, if at all. For someone with a higher income, with higher tax rates, the loss is substantially greater .

On the other hand, I know that savings accounts have historically been the primary savings vehicle in the U.S. I know from 100 Voices that Ayn Rand held her money from the sales of her novels in savings accounts. What is the difference between then, even as late as the 1970s and the 1990s, which is when I first realized the problem.

In thinking about this issue, one of the first things I saw is that interest rates have been declining as a trend since the spike in 1990. At that time I had a mortgage at 10.75%. The decline in interest rates since then has been the consequence of the Fed’s view that below market interest rates on loans encourages consumption and business activity and that if they don’t have the economic activity that they want, they decide they should lower rates more. Each round of recession and boom and financial crisis over the last twenty plus years has seen the Fed pushing short-term interest rates lower and lower. Today, the short-term rates are about as low as then can go. The rate the Fed controls directly, the rate it charges banks to borrow overnight funds for their Fed “reserves” (deposits) is zero to 0.25%. (Some recent auctions of German government short-term bonds have seen negative interest rates.) And, for the third time since 2009, they are trying to lower medium and long-term rates with “quantitative easing.”

So, first, the problem I am seeing is a very recent event. What are some of the consequences?

First there is the complete disassociation of savings and capital. The creation and use of capital is a vitally important activity in an economy. The creation and use of capital causes prosperity, not to mention the survival of our population. A population as large as ours cannot survive (or occur) without industrialization. Just to maintain industrialization requires capital. Economies either grow or contract. There is no equilibrium.

Over the last twenty years the number of households that have ownership in corporations, i.e., own stocks, has gone up significantly. One major reason is that people recognize that they have to have a more rapid growth in their retirement savings than can be provided by bank savings accounts. The need is two fold. With taxes and other restraints on creating wealth, they are not able to save enough. And then, price inflation has a double impact in that not only will it make the process of saving enough difficult, but it will also make the amount the retiree needs to live increase significantly and unpredictably. Even a 2% price inflation rate is a danger. That means that in just twenty years, a retiree would need 25% more cash for the same standard of living. Since many retirees live longer than that in retirement, and the percentage of people with such long lives is growing, the impact of even small amounts of price inflation is significant and ignored by the government planners. Bernanke has recently remarked that the effect of the Fed’s goal of 2% price inflation on retirees is unimportant in policy decisions.

You might think that a higher percentage of stockownerships is good for the economy. I’m not so sure. I was, but my view is changing. There is a difference between creating capital and owning existing capital. Saving and putting your money directly into a new or growing business is creating capital. Buying a stock from another owner is not.

Consider what should happen when you put your money into a bank savings account. (I am going to ignore the consumer loans and the loans to business for normal business activities.) Businesses come to banks for the purpose of borrowing money to start a new business or grow their existing company. This is the direct application of capital, i.e., new productive activity. Here we also see the division of labor at work. The person who saved the capital is engaged in his own profession or job and by saving, he is putting money into the hands of the banker whose profession is apprising risk and opportunity in expanding production. Then there are the businessmen who compete for funds by presenting their plans and expectations of profit.

The normal person does not have the expertise to appraise business opportunities. (Although in a rational culture he would have a better understand of the reality of business activity than people do today.) This is true in the case where people already know something about the industry. Some financial writers have advised investors to place their money in industries in which they are familiar. It isn’t a bad idea, but it does not address the additional need to be able to appraise the financial, managerial, and competitive strength of a company. Correctly understanding the context for investing is difficult enough for the professional, especially in today’s complex economy. For those who do not have the relevant education, experience or time, the prospects are very poor. No wonder everyone is so hopped up on the gambling metaphor for investing.

The need for non-professional investors to put their savings into asset markets is part of the make-up of the two recent booms: tech stocks and residential real estate. Without the amateur investor, both booms would have been less dramatic. Note that many of these investors lost lots of money, right along side the so-called professionals. This is over and above the normal losses that the non-professional investor tends to lose in the normal course of events. Some professionals use the activity of the individual investor as a contra indicator. If individual investors are buying, the reasoning goes, it is time to sell. Every study that I have seen clearly concludes that the non-professional consistently looses money investing in asset markets.

Then, over the last twelve years, as I have indicated in a previous post, the equity markets have failed to bring positive returns. Comparing equal dollars of purchasing power, today’s Dow (without including dividends or taxes) is 20% to 25% below the level at the end of the tech stock boom.

In fact, the only asset class that has shown consistent positive returns in the last decade is long-term bonds. But that brings us back to the beginning point, the Fed’s push to lower interest rates, because the reason long-term bonds have shown a gain is that interest rates keep falling. When interest rates begin to go up, watch out. Look at the returns of the bondholders of Greece, Spain, and Italy. When the interest rates on these dead bonds moved from less than 3% to near 6% or more, bond holders lost about 50% of their capital on the secondary market. To me, even 6% or 7% doesn’t seem very high when I wonder if the bonds will be repaid, or repaid with money worth anything.

There are surely lots of other consequences of the Fed’s disastrous decisions. Many are clearly visible, including the continued recession we are suffering through. (Officially the recession ended, but the psychology is still that of a recession, the unemployment level is that of a recession, and the government is doing all it can to keep us there, just like it did in the 1930s.) But the consequences that I have discussed are the ones I have recently added to my list.

But then there is the important question: Is the use of savings accounts by people who aren’t financial professionals a good thing in a laissez-faire economy and how?

The first thing to realize is that in a laissez-faire economy prices and wages tend to fall over time, which is the consequence of having a money immune from government manipulation. Prices fall faster than wages so that there is a continuous raise in the standard of living. That means that the dollar you place in a savings account will have a greater purchasing power over time even without consideration of interest paid.

The second important issue is the level of what is called the ordinary interest rate. That is the amount of return required for a person to delay consumption. This interest rate does not include consideration of risk, etc. I have seen suggestions that the rate of ordinary interest tends to be around 1%. That is, the normal person would be willing to put off spending $100 if in one year they had $101, assuming a laissez-faire economy. Other issues, such as the supply of physical capital (one market where supply does play a role in price) and risk factors, increase the interest rate within different market contexts.

So, if a savings account offered 2% interest, it was a great deal. The same is true for bonds issued by businesses. Saving for retirement would require much less of a struggle, later medical bills would be less of a problem, and our standard of living would continue to raise and we could have the flying car (see, my avatar means something – what we have lost due to government interference!).

Then, money placed into savings accounts was then loaned by banks to businesses who were credit worthy and had the best available plans for additional profits. Savings, that is capital, was accumulated and placed in the service of wealth creation, capitalism. That is basic banking.

I think much of the concern and fuss over fractional banking is based upon the view that banks are warehouses rather than institutions involved in the accumulation of capital. In the modern world, even ignoring the stupid, forced level of interest rates required by welfare state banking theory, savings have been diverted from banks and their major source of funds are demand deposits.

While unused demand deposits, and the goods represented by that money, are a kind of unintentional savings, real savings involves conscious decision and results in the funds being placed accordingly. When real savings is placed into profitable enterprise, and market rates of interest paid, investing and profit making activity would actually be a less risky activity.

With the manipulation of the money supply, the extensive regulation of the financial community, and the control of interest rates, none of the prices for savings or the factors of production reflect any part of the reality of business activity, market opportunities, or costs (not to mention political pull). Who knows what can or will happen when no facts are available for reason to evaluate.

So my conclusion is that in a laissez-faire economy, placing your money in savings accounts and buying bonds (of businesses) is a sane and personally beneficial decision.

In our economy, the government has pretty much taken way sane and beneficial opportunities. If you accept the idea that one should know what one is doing, then probably 90% of the investing public is acting irrationally. They do not understand the world as it currently functions, including the existing markets and the impact of government regulations and manipulations. Yes, I think that is true of many of my readers. Sorry.

My Predictions

Although I originally began this blog with the idea of keeping track of inflation and potential results for prices and prosperity in general, I haven’t engaged in prediction. My focus has been on commentary. We are, however, at a point that offers some interesting prospects for the future and I though it might be interesting and possibly helpful to suggest a possible set of outcomes.

Specifically, at this point in late 2012 the governments in the major economies have either implemented or are poised to implement some massive monetary flooding, which they call “easing.” The U.S. Federal Reserve officials have announced an open ended $40B a month scheme that will continue until either employment begins increasing or the end of time, whichever comes first. In Europe, the European Central Bank is ready to create unlimited amounts of money, claiming that it has to reduce the spread in government bond prices (between Spain and Italy, who have had to pay high interest rates, and Germany’s very low rates). China is expected to begin more “easing” in that it is currently seeing a much deeper and more significant drop in economic activity than the government seemed to expect. Apparently they thought that they were a separate, insulated entity. In response, just as any Western mixed economy government would do, the Chinese are moving toward spending newly made-up money. Japan has just begun its own easing program and England began theirs a few months ago. There is a great orgy of money creation in progress.

Those countries with “strong” currencies are also involved. They really don’t want to see their competitive position undercut by having other currencies diving in comparative cost, making their own products much more expensive on the world market. One example is that Switzerland’s central bank been buying euros for several months to keep their currency in line. As has been said by others, there is something akin to the arms race growing where every country inflates their currency in competition with the others. This process could also lead to protectionism, with higher tariffs and import controls.

As long as our economic problems are seen as the consequences of low consumption or low demand (and demand is seen as just money and not production related), we can always expect that the government response will be to create more money. There is some fear of the new money increasing consumer prices beyond a certain level (generally at an annual rate of 2% - some poison is good for you apparently). This concern is an interesting hold over from a point where government economists had a closer contact with reality. But there is little concern about the prospects for unacceptable levels of price inflation. It is the case that the upward pressure on prices from constant increases in the money supply tends to be less when production levels are low.

Consequently, we can expect that we will soon see a lot more money being created and put into the larger, more industrialized economies and interest rate will remain extremely low.

The amount of money that actually comes into the U.S. economy is a question for which I have no good answer. There is certainly some, but not as much as you might think when you hear the Fed brag about its easing. The money created by the Fed for QE1 and QE2 is mostly still sitting at the Fed in the deposit accounts for member banks receiving 0.25% a year.

 

The money supply has continued to grow, but the pace is not as fast as one might expect.

 

You can see in the graph that the average dollar amount of growth every year has been somewhat consistent. That means that the percentage rate of growth is falling. To just keep the constant percentage rate, this graph would need to show a much larger constantly increasing dollar amount, as the total grew each year.

As a result, consumer prices have moved upward modestly in the last few years (by comparison) and asset prices are mixed (housing downward and equities upward, but less than the CPI). Only bond prices have moved upward, as the Fed has moved to force down long-term interest rates as well as short-term. Long-term rates are very low, especially considering the need for capital in our economy. There is no connection today between savings, investment, interest rates, and the capital markets.

In these conditions, I wonder what the Fed believes that more “quantitative easing” or lower interest rates, could achieve. They talk about lowering unemployment as if the problem is that jobs are not being created for of financial reasons. Here we have an excellent example of theoretical, rationalist thinking that doesn’t consider even the possibility of looking at the real world. At present, there is no connection between the interest rate (including the supply of money) and investment/growth decisions. For a business, the difference between 3% and 2.5% on a long-term, profitable investment is insignificant. The real question for businesses is whether the project could be profitable. Some companies have invested when they have cash on hand. Many are considering a merger or acquisition, which doesn’t add to our productive capacity (although it might improve efficiency). But U.S. companies see no justification in future profitability to make the investment needed to put over two million people to work. The Fed and the Government, and Romney and the Republicans just don’t see that.

Another upcoming set of events in the U.S that could have a negative impact on our economy is the end of the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts required by law. These events, both scheduled for January 1, 2013, won’t improve the capital and investment situation, although the rate of growth of government debt will slow some. At least in the short-term, if the tax cuts do end and the rate of spending slows, the immediate result will be a drag on the U.S. economy.

I am not convinced that the supposed mandatory cuts in spending are particularly important economically. Some people try to make this situation seem cataclysmic by quoting a cut of over a trillion dollars. That is fraud, since that is a ten-year number. As is always the case with government cuts, they are loaded mostly into the latter years. I think that the 2013 number is closer to $69B, which is for the full year. When you are talking about a multi-trillion budget and a deficit of over a trillion dollars, sixty-nine billion is an accounting error.

But saying “cuts” is intended to be misleading. The Congress didn’t pass a cut in spending. They authorized a reduction in the expected growth of spending. It was a cut from what they thought current laws would require the government would spend. There is not going to be a cut in spending. Let me repeat: These are not cuts in spending but small reductions in the growth of spending. Even so, there may be some companies that will feel an impact in their expected revenue from government contracts. But, economically, compared to the total level of spending and the prospect of more “easing”, big deal.

Combined, the tax cut, possible cuts in the growth of spending, and the Fed’s money flood, mean that there will be less money in people’s pocketbooks, but more, potentially, in the banking system. Remember that the way the Fed’s money gets into the economy is via bank loans. If the banks continue to maintain their stricter standards there is not going to be a significant increase in bank loans. In fact, the current trend is for lower corporate profits, meaning that businesses will be less credit worthy than before (and stock prices should decline, instead of booming). In addition, ever since the beginning of the “Great Recession,” bank regulators have been constantly checking on the “quality” of bank loans. Unless regulators are willing to loosen the strings, banks aren’t taking any riskier loans. I don’t see much of the Fed’s new money getting into the economy. That is not to say that there won’t be an effect. As in the past, there is a tendency to some money to find its way into assets.

In addition, the final Dodd-Frank regulations have yet to appear and the costly ObamaCare provisions are coming into effect. All businesses, but especially banks, are legitimately confident that their costs will increase significantly and their range of action considerably curtailed. Startup businesses have declined. dramatically. For the economic/cultural pessimist, there is much support in the U.S.

In Europe, the central bank is being pushed into acting because the market for Spanish and Italian government bonds demands much higher returns to compensate for higher risk. Personally, I think that there is no uncertainty. Neither Spain nor Italy will be able to repay their bonds in the coming years. (I equate being given worthless money with not being paid.). So the higher rates are certainly justified. But enough of the euro country governments don’t like that. The higher rates mean that Spain and Italy would have to face their insolvency soon, which would be a big problem for the other euro government countries. So the euro block is pushing the central bank to create money to avoid reality. In this case the money will go directly into government spending and will have very negative consequences. Not the least consequence will be a lessening of the pressure on Spain and Italy to solve their problems. (Spain is expected to need the euro bank bailout. No one is currently talking about Italy, but its economy is heading the same direction.) By creating money to buy government bonds the European Central Bank is defaulting on the loans by directly creating inflation and thus reducing the purchasing power of the money that bought the bonds. Everyone in Europe is ignoring that fact. In addition, there will be a lot of upward pressure on prices and everyone will feel the cost. But, most of all, the importance of freeing their economies and being fiscally responsible can be evaded. The ultimate result will be greater disasters.

I expect that China’s new money will be similar to earlier efforts, which went primarily into government owned and controlled businesses, shrinking the portion of the economy that is private. It may also be more of a “consumption” orientation, which will mean less of a push in industrialization, and a move toward Western ideas of a consumer driven economy. That government decision would necessarily reduce the growth rate even without the normal consequences of asset booms and busts.

If more “easing” won’t help solve the unemployment problem (who cares about actual production?) and thus won’t help with economic activity, what will it do?

Well, the U.S. economy isn’t going to grow much, if at all. In fact, it could contract. If the new money just sits at the Fed as before, we needn’t worry about hyperinflation. The money supply will grow, but not significantly faster than before, although those numbers should be watched carefully.

I heard someone point out that since the first “easing” the Dow has risen 4000 points and since the second “easing” nearly 3000. I am sure that the Dow and other indexes will raise some more. The Dow has already gone up a few hundred points since the Fed announcement. What would a push by the Fed be without a serious increase in asset prices? Commodity prices could also rise. Some are saying that industrial commodities, such as copper, will not because industrial production is tending to fall. But the money being created will go somewhere. You just need to keep an eye out to see where that is.

So, if you want to put your money somewhere, based upon recent history, there you are! Just be careful about your timing and don’t lose perspective about the causes of the asset price rise and its duration. Be ready to short.

Of course, economic events are really harder to predict than that, especially in a controlled economy. Something will happen that we don’t foresee and things will happen differently than we expect. One thing we do know, whatever happens, it’s unlikely to be good.

Long-term, the consequence of all of this “easing” is to probably bring the day of reckoning closer, possibly by years. With unemployment staying down, Social Security and Medicare spending will continue to widen the gap between tax income and spending. The demands upon the Treasury will increase, meaning more debt. The low levels of production will mean that wealth is not being created and our personal wealth and standard of living will continue to fall.

I think that money can be made from the chaos and misallocation of resources. You just have to pick your method based upon the circumstances and pay attention to the situation.


P.S. I just listened to Yaron Brook on the Mike Slater show (via a notification from Lassiez-Faire). He says so much of what I just mentioned. I really did work it out before. But he says it well.

A Note on Greek Banks Recapitalization

A Note on Greek Banks Recapitalization

You might have noted in the news stories about the Greek government debt problem that there was talk of needing to recapitalize the Greek banks later. What is going to happen, one way or another, is that the Greek banks, as well as other banks all over Europe eventually (and maybe a few elsewhere), will have to recognize, on their balance sheet, that the Greek government bonds that they hold are worth less than when they were purchased. It is true that the Greek government debt has been worth less on the secondary market for some time, but accounting rules do not necessarily require that that change be recognized on a balance sheet at that time. (I will let an accountant explain that issue, which isn’t necessarily corrupt.)

For the bondholder, buying the bond is the same as loaning money. The bond will pay a certain interest rate for its lifetime, and at a certain point, the issurer, which could be a government or a business, will return the borrowed amount, called a redemption. It is a timed, interest-only loan.

The bank holds the loan as an asset, just as it does all of its loans. But it does have to evaluate the loans that it has on its books. Are they performing? That is, is the borrower following the terms of the loan? Will the borrower be able to pay back the loan?

Accounting rules for banks recognize that loaning money is a risky business. Borrowers can get into trouble and fail to pay the interest and fail to repay the loan itself. In order to protect itself, a bank has to maintain reserves against potential default of a borrower. With this reserve the bank is protected from becoming insolvent and bankrupt when borrowers default. The reserve is actually capital. The more reserves a bank holds against potential loan losses the more of its capital it has tied up. That capital cannot be working and adding to the revenue or profit of the bank when it is held as a reserve. (Do confuse reserves the bank has with “reserves” required by banking authorities, such as the Fed. Those are not reserves in fact, but deposits that provide no protection or income for the bank.)

Due to the standard statist misunderstanding of how banking works, how capitalism works, and what the real benefits of government controls are, governments have established regulations as to what percentage of reserves a bank must have in its loss-loan reserves for different types of loans. Banks in the European Common Market have been heavily regulated for at least as long as U.S. banks, most likely much longer. They are well used to doing what they are told. I think that the experience and knowledge of how to properly rate the risk of most loans does not exist in Europe. Furthermore, the government decisions as to what percentage of a loan the bank must hold in reserve is heavily influenced by political considerations and populist biases. Certainly, if the ability to repay debt were a consideration, the debt of most of the European nations would be rated very low.

The developed governments of the world have gotten together over the years in Basel Switzerland to establish international standards of loan-loss reserve percentages, hence, the Basel Accords and Basel I and Basel II (Basel III is in the works, I think). They agreed that loans to sovereign, national governments required either low or zero percentage reserves. That’s right, a loan to Greece was considered safer than a loan to Apple or Microsoft or GE.

What banks did was to load up on government loans because those loans required fewer reserves. Reserves cost money, that is, reserves are idle cash. If no reserves are required, then the bank’s funds can be loaned and contribute to operating income, and maybe profits and bonuses for employees. Even European banks have some characteristics of a business.

In addition, European banks are much closer to their governments than U.S. banks. They are sensitive to the interests, biases, policies, and intentions of the ruling politicians. They have to be. The politicians have a lot of power and use it against the banks if they wish. What the politicians have wanted, in all of the European countries, is for the banks to help fund the government spending, cheaply. The banks have helped the central European bank and each country central bank to keep interest rates on government debt low by buying significant amounts of government bonds. The Greek banks have done this perhaps more than others and hold massive amounts of Greek government debt (which is a direct path of the country’s savings into the hands of the government, which spent it in a continuous, drunken shopping spree – buying votes, really). The estimate I have seen is 50B euros.

As a result of the various government actions and the way the governments have set things up, the Greek banks are now looking at losses on Greek government debt of seventy percent or more, yes, that is 70% losses. Losses for which they have little or no loss reserves. This degree of loss means that the banks’ total capital, its investment from its shareholders, whatever profits it has ever retained, and all of the reserves of any kind, have been wiped out. The Greek banks are bankrupt. They are bankrupt right now. It just hasn’t appeared on their balance sheet yet.

So, if there are to be any banks in Greece, they need to have an injection of capital. Not loans, but new ownership money. The requirement being discussed is ten percent of loans by 2013. Remember, Greece is something like five percent of the Euro zone. I have seen estimates that the recapitalization of all Euro zone banks, with all of the Euro debt problems, is one trillion euros, which is about $1.3T.

Who would want to put money into Greek banks? Not foreign investors. Not domestic investors (if there is anyone with real money to invest). No, there is only one source: the government.

Yes, the bankrupt Greek government is going to put money into Greek banks. The Greek government doesn’t have any money so it aquire the funds from outside the country, just as the government is doing for all of the other help the government is getting. The way it will probably work is that some one like the IMF, the European Central Bank, or one of the two entities that have been created to deal with the sovereign debt crisis will give/loan the money to the Greek government which will then put the money into the banks.

But, the Greek government won’t just hand over the money to the banks. No. It will “invest” the money, i.e., it will buy stock. The Greek government will nationalize the banks. There is some talk about making the stock the government buys a special, non-voting stock, thus preserving an illusion that the original owners have some standing in the bank’s ownership. But, that is what it is, an illusion. The banks will be even more tied to the Greek government than they were.

So, as an overview, here is what we have:
The Greeks (actually you can insert any European Common Market country you want because the pattern is consistent throughout) borrowed from anywhere they could for a massive spending spree.
They required the banks to be a major lender.
They required the banks to have little or no reserves against the loans to the government.
The government can’t repay the loans.
The banks are failing.
The government, with money acquired from elsewhere because it has done stupid, insane things, is going to buy the failed banks.
The banks are even more tied to government policies than before.
The government has ownership and control of the banks.
Does anyone think that the Greek banks will be better off?

Makes sense, doesn’t it. When you live by force, you “win” by force. And you all go down the tubes together. Moreover, I have seen no comment or hint that anyone writing about the European situation has anything to say about the matter. Perhaps they haven’t even noticed.

But the failure of putting two and two together is a common theme in the entire European debt crisis. It is most blatant with the Greeks.

This week there have been more “strikes,” riots, and protests against the terms required by the agencies that would bail out the Greeks. Many of the chanted slogans and posters and banners declare that the foreigners are dictators and imperialists. The protestors want the politicians to “resist”! The Greeks appear like angry four year olds who have been told that they can’t have the toy on the shelf because mommy doesn’t have the money. How and what are the politicians suppose to resist? They are suppose to resist the requirement that they do not incur more debt. They are suppose to resist the requirement that they try to pay back their existing debt. They are suppose to resist the requirement that if they are given money they spend it wisely instead of like a drunken sailor (my apologies to sailors). The Greek protestors have no contact with reality. None. They have no idea that money has some connection to real things. That real things are made by someone who wants to be paid for their efforts. That borrowing actually means that the lender expects to be paid back. The Greek country is a testament to modern education and economic “thinking.”

The Continuing Story in Greece, Europe, and the World

I’m not giving you a blow-by-blow account of events in and around Greece. I am trying to give you some perspective on the situation, which seems hard to find. I am beginning by offering you some stuff that I have found here and there that adds to the picture. They show that the possibility of Greece growing out of its current difficulties is impossible, because real growth is impossible. Read this article from the BBC to get an idea of how the government and business get along. It makes many of our state governments look brilliant by comparison (but not Obama). I found another article about a village that had attracted major industrial investment, but is now dying and businesses that can are moving out of the country (sorry, I proceeded to lose the address of the article). There is also plenty of evidence that money is fleeing from the country. Bank deposits are declining relatively quickly. None of that is good for the survival of Greece without major disruption.

For you one note medical issue people, read this note form a recent weekly email that I receive from John Mauldin (6-24-11):

“But there are very sad things going on. It is not just banks that are losers here. Pharmaceutical companies are starting to refuse to deliver to Greek hospitals, as they are up to two years behind on their payments. It turns out that Greece owes some €6 billion to private businesses like hospitals and simply cannot pay. Those costs are rising, and much of it is to hospitals for medical care supported by the government. They are issuing bonds (shades of California) for the debt in some cases, which sell for a discount of 50%, if they can be sold. And we thought finding €12 billion was a hard thing.  This is not just a Greek problem, it is a concern in many countries that are having financial difficulties.”

The Greeks are being asked to make some very tough decisions. These decisions would be difficult for brilliant, well-trained, market oriented professionals to make, but what the Greeks are depending upon are politicians who claim to be socialists. Their entire operating mode is making promises, throwing around government money (they have no idea where the money comes from), and taking graft (It would be sort of interesting, in a pathological sort of way, to do a study on the number of “socialists” who have become rich and expect luxury since they became politicians, like the Frenchman arrested on rape charges in NYC, Straus-Khan). If the world press was able to look beyond the superficial, and report more on actual events besides government pronouncements and “protestor” activities, we would see that the Greek economy is barely functioning. To me, the problems in Greece bring into question much of the current plan. For example, the Greeks are required to raise E50B by selling off nationalized businesses. But these companies are most likely very badly managed and their assets may have been looted, many of their employees are protesting the entire program in the streets, and the prospect of profitability in the Greek economy is bleak. Who would bid on these companies? Would the Greek government get more than 10 cents on the dollar?

The entire program is based upon premises that have not been substantiated. There is very little connection with reality in the entire effort. Part of the reason is that none of the countries, including the supposed healthy countries like Germany, could comfortably face the same reality oriented scrutiny that Greece should be facing. I am sure, as a semi-reality oriented premise, i.e., the German reputation, that German nationalized companies and German government management is better than that in Greece. But I’ll also bet that it does not rise to the standard of German private enterprise, let alone American private enterprise. So the problems that the Greeks face very likely exist to some significant degree in every European country and at some point down the road, they will each face default and depression.

If Greece defaults, do not be surprised if other countries don’t follow suit. Iceland is expected to walk away from its debt at any time. As for Ireland, from all I have seen, it is a country plunging down the economic hole. Portugal is pretending that it is functioning and will not need another bailout, but it isn’t growing. Spain is seeing massive internal dissent aimed at its austerity programs. But, back to Greece.

So, in the last week the Greek parliament voted to further reduce spending and sell off government “businesses”. This is just the briefest of stop-gap measures (the popular phrase is that they are just “kicking the can down the road”) and it is not considered to be sufficient. More cutting and so on will be needed next year.

Some commentators wonder if the actual events will occur. All that has actually been passed are general bills. The legislation that will provide the details will be offered later, including the specifics of the asset sales. It is noted that the current government originally built its power base on the employees of the government and these government companies, promising them heaven on earth, regardless of the cost, productivity, or sanity of their programs or “businesses”. To sell off these enterprises would be a complete reversal, and it is wondered if these politicians can do it. Politicians of this stripe are great at making promises, but recognize the difference between policies that will get them reelected or appointed and those that no one will pay any attention to. Since these politicians are hardly connected to reality, they could easily declare that they will not act against the “interest of the Greek people”, and say to hell with the bankers, and not sell the assets. It would be a disaster and fairly soon those “businesses” would have to close down, since no money would be available to subsidize them, but the politicians would probably be reelected.

But, even if all of that goes fine, the Greeks will still need over E100B next year. I don’t know how they figured that, but if they are depending upon the Greek economy to assist in the government’s efforts to remain solvent, they will be very disappointed. I expect that the Greek economy will decline faster than they expect. Relatively speaking, it is an advanced economy, probably one of the top 20 or 25 in the world. It is more advanced than the US was in 1930. It is more corrupt and probably more productive, but in terms of interconnectedness and of business practices, it is more advanced. When even a relative small, advanced economy begins to fail, things will unravel rapidly. The politicians in charge will be like military leaders, who are said to always be ready to fight the last war. The politicians (and the economists) do not really know what is going to happen. They are basing their reasoning upon assumptions that most likely have little to do with present day economies. (Since the last depression occurred 80 years ago, we have little actual experience for rational economists to base their expectations. No one knows what will happen. But the irrational people in charge now won’t even realize things aren’t going right for some time.) So the needs of Greece next year will most likely be larger than presently expected. Larger than the current leaders in Germany and France are telling their people they are committed to cover. Politics in those countries will be rather interesting to watch.

But then, even before that point we have the French and German leaders coming up with another wrinkle, witch will cause great stress. They are saying that the “private sector” needs to participate in saving Greece. Now, considering that the “private sector” has already put itself out on a limb and bought a lot of Greek debt, it would seem the private sector has already engaged in significant participation. Why anyone in their right mind would do such a thing is beyond me. Then, much of that debt was purchased before the rating agencies really took the Greek government’s ineptitude into account and began lowering the credit rating of Greek debt, meaning that interest rates for Greek debt have gone up, a lot. Interest rates on the open market are now in the upper teens, say 16% or 18%. Say you bought Greek bonds at 8% and it is now 16%. You have lost half of your capital on the secondary market. Your only chance of getting your capital back is to keep the bond until maturity. It will probably still be a loss (due to the declining value of the currency), but perhaps not as much (figuring this out calls for some very complicated math). But now the French and Germans are telling the private sector that they will have to roll over their bonds, that is let the Greek government keep the money, with a new maturity date (I haven’t seen any indication of what duration.), but with interest rates probably lower than market. This is a clear loss for the bond-holder, and in any rational world, would be called a default, as the credit rating agencies have clearly stated.

Given a deserved black eye because of the goings on during the residential real estate boom, the credit rating agencies are trying to act like real credit raters. That is not what politicians want, actually. Welfare state politicians generally do not like letting people know the truth about things. Just in the last couple days, the leaders of Europe, especially that crazy lady in Germany, have attacked the credit rating agencies. It is an ad hominem argument, accusing the agencies of having a bias against Europe. Yes, if you don’t get your way, if someone calls your spade a spade, accuse him if bias. The best defense is a good offence. Offend every one you can.

Well, I can now get to one of my biggest reasons for writing this post. Greece is really small potatoes. I mean, Greece has a small economy, although if it does (which is to say that when it) defaults, the repercussions will be significant, because a lot of banks have significant amounts of Greek debt. But there are also two other small countries in the EU who might take the same opportunity to default on their loans, i.e., Ireland and Portugal. I’m not sure how seriously to take this, but Ireland is in dire straights and Portugal is not improving either. Then anyone who looks sees that Spain and Italy are both in situations not that much different than Greece. The “contagion” effect could go far, especially if these countries have major financial issues when Greece fails. I mean banks failing and soaring private bankruptcies will be dangerous in every country.

Then, hidden and ignored, is the plight of France and Germany (which is to actually say all of the European developed welfare states) that cannot sustain their own spending and borrowing as their populations age and shrink (and go Muslim). The problems in France and Germany are greater than that of the US in the long run, i.e., next few years.

That means that to the extent that France, Germany, and the other apparently healthier countries weaken themselves bailing out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, they bring on their own problems that much sooner.

More broadly, the world is awash with debt. Every major economy that you can name that appears strong has got major debt, and rapidly growing debt. Japan, for example, with the reconstruction it now has to address, was beginning to feel overextended before the earthquake and tsunami. The Japanese economy is under great strain, yet the regional governments, businesses, and the population are all making new insistent demands on the national government to spend more money. The brics, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, that are growing fast depend upon the developed countries for markets, are themselves heavily controlled by their governments, are awash with government spending and debt (domestic and international), and at least three of the four (I don’t know enough about Brazil to say) are rife with corruption. In no way can we say that they are healthy economies, no matter how rapidly they are actually growing.

In spite of the international financial meltdown in 2008, there is little real difference in the way the international economy is functioning, except there is a lot more government debt worldwide and much more government interference. Consistently, they have all blamed the financial problems on the banks and, in fact, made the banks weaker.

The results from this will not be good. I am not predicting the end of the world nor utter catrosphie, I just don’t know enough to do so. But nothing good can come out of the current mix of debt, government controls, ignorance, and purposeful pursuit of policies that have never worked. It can not help but be worse than 2008.

We can avoid the meltdown here, but only by getting hold of things and making real change, to freedom, to capitalism. We will still suffer because there is no avoiding the problems of the rest of the world. But we can survive in fairly good order, if we do it.

China and the world economy

Over the last two centuries there have been many obvious examples of different political economic systems in practice. It all began with the Industrial Revolution that occurred in capitalist countries. Latter, there was the rise of communism and its moral/economic attack on human life. We had the immediate comparison between East and West Germany. For years there has been the obvious comparison between North and South Korea and Cuba and the Cuban refugees just a few miles away in Miami. Now we have the fascinating spectacle of communist China having an apparent capitalist bent. Still, with all of this obvious evidence, there are few people paying attention and noticing the consequences.

But even many of the people watching the Chinese economy are not noticing what is happening, not really. The closet socialists in the U.S. bemoan that America can’t act like the Chinese government and just get things done. We have all of those antiquated laws and protections in place. The Chinese, people are saying, have a better approach to making an economy run well. On the other hand, we have some advocates of capitalism who tout Communist China as a sort of new birth of freedom. Neither of these evaluations are correct. China has opened up options for personal action that the Chinese have never seen. It is a heady feeling, and the Chinese citizen is taking this opening and stretching it as wide as fast as he can. But his feeling is based upon the opportunity and not the reality. The reality is that China is still a communist country. It isn’t free. It still embraces the old prerogatives that communism teaches, plus, the government is attempting to become an economy manager in the manner it perceives the Western governments to be. This is not a good mix for the long-term.

My comments are about the problems that underlie Chinese economy today and the big crisis that is coming. But, if my information is correct…

When China bursts and falls, it will be the capitalist elements that will be blamed. Just watch!

People are very surprised about the success of the Chinese over the last 10 years. They tend to forget that the same Chinese government has killed millions of its citizens. They forget the destruction of the democracy movement just a few years ago. In their minds, China seems to have just come out of nowhere recently.

It is the case that there is a lot of productive energy being used by the Chinese citizen for his own benefit. People living in the right areas are seeing an enormous increase in their standard of living. There is real capital accumulation and utilization. Markets are working. People are finding productive jobs. There is a lot of good happening. The productive aspect of the Chinese economy is not an illusion, unlike the Russian economy which was an illusion during the Soviet era. Yet, there are major problems.

The problems revolve around the fact that the government has not renounced either its own communist nature or the general approach that every other government in the world accepts, namely the twisted Keynesian approach to government controls. This communist government isn’t using the traditional five-year plan, but it is attempting to act as if it can perfectly control the economy by using the “mixed economy” rules that have constantly failed in the West.

It has greater control over the banking system than any Western country does. The banks are either owned outright by the government or controlled sufficiently to make no difference. Consequently, the standards for making loans and evaluating the banks soundness are much poorer than in the West. Estimates are that anywhere from one third to two thirds of all loans made by Chinese banks are not performing, i.e., payments are not being made and the loan will be a loss. That is a percentage far higher than any Western bank has had. You can be sure that the Chinese banks do not have the capital or the reserves to cover those losses. When the weakness of Chinese banks is recognized and begins to affect the economy, the Chinese government will step in and create reserves, i.e., it will inflate the money supply even more than it is already doing now.

The real estate market is in much worse shape than it was in the West. There are reports that the Chinese built an entire city for something more than a million people in the interior. This city stands empty and is, no doubt, beginning to deteriorate. In the real cities, reports are that 60% of the apartments that have been sold are not drawing electricity, i.e., no one is in them. Yet the Chinese are continuing to build at a rapid pace. For those who buy, not having the mortgage system that Western countries have (which is not necessarily a benefit for the West because much of the structure is government created, and thus is not efficient or market driven) the Chinese buyer has a much higher percentage down payment on the property. When the Chinese real estate market fails, the losses are going to be more centered on the productive individual rather than on the banks. Suddenly losing a large part of their new wealth will place a strain on the population of the cities. Things may not remain stable.

At some point, some unforeseen event will stop the continued upward spiral of real estate building and price increases. The last buyer will buy, and all that will be left are sellers, and prices will fall, buildings will go empty, loans will be recognized as losses, banks will either fail or have massive amounts of made-up money shoved into them. Inflation in China could increase dramatically.

What will be the immediate economic consequences? Questions that perhaps cannot be answered in advance include, what will the Chinese do with their hoard of dollars, Euros, and foreign exchange? What will they do with their U.S. Treasury Bonds? There are observers who have been suggesting that China is looking to sell off the U.S. government securities. I haven’t thought so, for no other reason than that the Chinese really don’t want to see the value of those holdings to dive. It made no sense for the Chinese to start selling. But when their economy goes puff!! Who knows what they will do? The degree of collapse cannot be appreciated. There has been no economy of that size, with that many people, so connected to world trade, that has had the size of bubble that China now has. Yaron Brook suggested that their bubble is larger than any seen before. So may be the consequences.

We can easily see that one immediate consequence for the rest of the world will be a hit on the commodity markets and those countries that are depending upon the Chinese, e.g., Brazil. These countries will see an immediate fall in revenue. Commodity prices will fall, hard.

For ourselves, the consequences will also first connected to the commodities. The price decline will include gold. The number of buyers will decline and the sellers, especially the Chinese sellers will expand. At least during the crisis and for a while afterward, gold prices will be lower. Other commodities will also decline, especially those that the Chinese have been big buyers, e.g. oil. (See what happened in 2008.) The upward pressure on prices for goods in the U.S. that are tied to commodities will be reduced. Consumer prices could even decline.

What will happen after that is hard for me to predict. The Chinese economy is not as closely tied to other countries as ours is. Their banking system, for example, is pretty isolated, from what I can see. Would companies producing for export be forced into closing? Would their exports suffer? Imports would suffer. To the extent that the gap between imports and exports widened, there could be problems. To the extent that the wealthier countries depend upon exporting to China there would be adverse consequences. We will have to see how all of that plays out.

We have no clue what precisely Chinese government would do, except that they are wedded to the belief in the power of the government. To the extent that they see their citizens’ reactions to be threats to communist power, they could unleash the military again. They could try Western style mixed economy solutions, and expand and lengthen any possible recovery. It is unlikely that they would somehow learn that the governmental actions in the economy do not produce prosperity.

No doubt, in the West, government after government will step forward to save the day. At this point, with interest rates on short-term money at near zero, it is laughable that any might think that their theories are going to have any beneficial results. But, our great leaders are also wedded to their theories. Remember, their theories are not based upon any real evidence, but make believe. That they haven’t worked in the past will not hinder their efforts. The Western world might still be in “recovery” when China blows, which means our “recovery” will dip. Our economy will certainly suffer.

The stock market in the U.S. will definitely decline. Since the financial center may not be hit as badly as before, the decline in equities might not be as large, but it will not stand up to this bad news. I am firmly in the camp that considers the market’s recent rise to be pushed by inflation, i.e., government created money. Riding U.S. stocks is a very risky endeavor today. I don’t see a fundamental justification for stocks to have risen. New pressure from China will undercut the equity market.

Frankly, only commodities seem to me to offer any opportunity for increasing wealth today or even just protecting what you have (besides owing a successful business that can deal with economic shocks). I don’t mean riding commodity prices upward. I mean being able to take advantage of the up and down volatility of the prices of commodities.

When China does blow, as people have done in the last sixty years, there will be a flight into the dollar (another reason why commodity prices will drop for those of us in the U.S.). As badly as the dollar is managed, it will look better than any option (other than gold, maybe). Eventually, the damage done to the U.S. economy will be apparent and the dollar will lose strength. Still, when considering the alternatives, no other currency will look stronger. We are now seeing the weakness of the Euro. Bailing out a couple of Euro zone countries with new loans only broadens those who must suffer under the debt burden. Analysts do their calculations and bemoan the apparent fact that there is no way out for an economy with so much debt. Opening up their economy so that it can actually be productive never enters into their consideration.

When is China going to implode? Sooner or later? China is now experiencing some problems with price inflation. For years, as part of the creation of all of that real estate, the Chinese have been expanding bank credit and thus the money supply. They thought that everything was okay until prices began to rise during their “recovery” from the mortgage-backed securities crisis. In response to the crisis, the Chinese government did its stimulus gimmick, spent a lot of money it didn’t have, patted themselves on the back for the apparent recovery of their economy, and now consumer prices are rising. Surprise! Now the Chinese government has to act again. Since interest rates are still very low, they are having to increase the reserve requirement, i.e., banks there, just as they must under our Federal Reserve System, must keep a percentage of their deposits in accounts at the central bank. The higher the reserve percentage, the lower percentage of loans a bank can have outstanding. The Chinese central bank has now increased that percentage for the third time in the last few months. Further, officials in China have placed price controls on certain items, which as anyone knows, does not work. So we are now seeing some significant cracks in the Chinese economy. I don’t know if these cracks are sufficient to cause the bust, but they are at least the beginning. We can look forward to Bernanke like statements about how there is no problem, how the problem is small, then that the problem is only in one sector, and then how the Chinese government saved the world from another evil consequence of capitalism. Plan on it.

What we can do is to start telling people ahead of time what they can expect to see, especially the “capitalism did it” excuse. Maybe fewer people will believe it this time.

Reich: From Regulation to Restructuring

In the second article by Dr. Robert Reich that caught my eye recently, the good doctor is actually criticizing BO and his gang. BO is not being assertive enough and thus the problems that both BO and Reich want to “solve” are not receiving the best solution, according to Reich.


First, Reich addresses the failures in the financial reform bill in Congress. He reiterates the criticisms that I mentioned in my last blog, i.e., that banks are being subsidized to cover their derivative activity (amazingly he includes the AIG transactions, which were actually straight insurance purchases).

But Reich’s primary criticism is that the banking system is not being “restructured”. Reich wants the major banks to be broken up and prohibited from reaching a (unspecified) size. (I wrote about that issue in a previous blog where I pointed out the very drastic consequences for the U.S. and world economy.) His reason is that he does not want them to be “too big to fail”, and thus be bailed out by the federal government if, rather, when things go bump again. Reich is not willing to consider the notion that maybe the government shouldn’t be bailing out banks or anyone. No, he thinks that part is fine. He thinks that the government is “protecting” the economy by bailing out people. Reich wants to break up the banks. I liken it to wanting to play tinker toys with real world businesses.

He does recognize that there may be adverse competitive consequences for U.S. banks, but he brushes those objections aside. This part of his argument is very strange. He says, “…since when is it up to taxpayers to guarantee profitability at America’s largest banks relative to foreign ones?” But, the Dems have never suggested that they wanted to undercut American businesses. Their claims before have always been that their “solutions” for the American economy have been beneficial to all. Reich is propounding a new attitude, a new policy that says that American businesses, and thus its citizens, should be “restructured” in spite of the obvious disadvantage that results.

To further make his case for restructuring, he turns to the healthcare industry. He says, “Similarly, the underlying system of private for-profit health insurance is a key driver of America’s bloated and ineffective health care delivery. We can try to regulate it like mad, but no amount of regulation will cure this fundamental problem.” Similarly, in this case, the problem is the “private for-profit health insurance”. Again, we need restructuring, i.e., a single payer system, socialized medicine.

Regulation for Reich is an attempt to “mend” capitalism. Instead, “The only way to have a lasting effect on industries as large and intransigent as banking and health care is to alter their structure.” And he further lets the cat out of the bag, “That was the approach taken to finance by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and by Lyndon Johnson to health care (Medicare) in the 1960s.” The former maintained a depression that lasted over a decade and LBJ can be thanked for the current mess in healthcare in the U.S., which no one, either Democrat or Republican, is willing to admit. So, all of the past attempts to deal with capitalism’s failings have themselves failed.

Reich’s criticism of regulation, especially in the two industries that he is using as his examples in the article, is that lobbyists and the industries can wiggle out of the intended consequences. He says, “A regulatory approach allows for more bargaining, not only in the legislative process but also, over time, in the rule-making process as legislation is put into effect. It’s always possible to placate an industry with a carefully-chosen loophole or vague legislative language that will allow the industry to continue to go on much as before.” That is, the victims can try to make some decisions of their own and try to run their own lives and businesses. He says, “And that’s precisely the problem.” The problem is that there is some semblance of freedom. That is unacceptable.

The problem in the American economy, according to Reich, is structural. What is the structure now, in Reich’s view. It is capitalism. It is for-profit. It is what the bankers are doing, basically by themselves, without Reich’s approval. The solution is for the government to mold the structure of the economy. Mold the activities of the people. Mold the people themselves.

As I said at the beginning of the first of these two posts, Dr. Robert Reich is a Marxist economist.

This article is unusual for two reasons. He explicitly proclaims that the actions of government should not be considered for their benefit for the economy or business but should be taken in the face of adverse consequences. He is admitting that the left’s solutions should be taken regardless of consequences. Instead, he calls for sacrifice (my word) for the benefit of the “taxpayers”. Second, his demands that the economy be restructured signal a new strategy. Regulation is now something that will be regarded as merely a accommodation to capitalism and rogue businessmen. What is needed is structural change, changes that make the government the direct controller in the economy. Regulation tends to be set up in terms of what business can’t do or what it must do to assure safety or fair play or some supposed good. Reich’s articles are pushing the government to become the primary force in determining the make up of businesses and the economy. Next, it will be the five year plan.

Robert Reich: Stop Subsidizing Wall Street

Robert was on a roll this last few days. He has published articles that have popped up on different web scans as significant comments.


Dr. Reich is an academic that loves to serve his fellow man. He has been a member of three Democratic administrations and believes that he is an expert on “public policy”. Surveying his “policy” recommendations, I conclude that he feels that he was born too late. He would have been very happy to be a leading Marxist economist. At every turn he has recommended turning away from capitalism toward state control of all aspects of the economy. He regards actions taken by the government as wiser and morally superior to individual action. The use of force is okay with Dr. Reich.

What brings him to mind is that I came across his blog. This particular entry is entitled: “Financial reform bill unlikely to end taxpayer subsidy of derivative trading on Wall Street”

This may not sound particularly controversial because the federal government subsidizes many industries and companies. Handing out federal money is a major activity of both political parties and nothing at all new.

You might ask, which specific taxpayer subsidy is he talking about? How are the taxpayers subsidizing derivative trading. One answer could be that our government has decided that financial companies who traded derivatives were bailed out because of the “too-big-to-fail” irrationality. That is, some financial companies got carried away trading derivatives, lost gobs of money, and the government bailed them out by giving them money. That would be a subsidy, you say. Sorry, no. That is not what our Dr. Reich has in mind.

Just like any other sector of the economy, existing banks do receive a portion of the public dole. Considering how convoluted and contrived federal spending and the means of providing subsidies and support has become in the U.S., there are possibly many different actual subsidies that the banks receive. I have not researched it. But, upon reflection, I can think of two. One is that a considerable proportion of the money that the bank lends comes with no expense. It comes from the expansion of the money supply by way of the Fed. When the Fed. expands bank credit the bank receives new money in its reserve/deposit account at the Fed. The bank can then take that money into it’s own coffers and loan it out. The bank’s only expense or risk is that the Fed. may decide that the amount of money it has put into the economy should be reduced and begin a process of restriction and shrink the reserve accounts, which would require the bank to call in loans. The risk of restriction is small. It rarely happens.

Another benefit that existing banks receive from the current situation is a considerable reduction in competition. The regulatory burden on banks (and the rest of the financial sector as well as the economy as a whole) is extremely large. Even someone who has some understanding of banking would be staggered by the amount of paperwork, filing, extraneous record keeping, staff, and expense of the regulations. Just keeping track of all of them, and learning about and implementing new ones takes a considerable staff and administrative expense. The cost of regulation is one of the factors leading to bank consolidation. The economies of scale of a larger bank make it easier to cover the cost of regulation. Competition is reduced by the consolidation and by the tremendous expense and risk involved in starting a new bank of any size.

But none of these means of supporting the current banking establishmen is what Dr. Reich means is that banks are protected against their folly by government guarantees of customer deposits. What he is referring to is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which isn’t a corporation at all but a government entity. You see its initials all the time. Somewhere on its promotional and contractual material, every bank has placed “Member FDIC”. I’m not sure that “membership” is optional, but the marketplace, supposedly, would punish any bank that wasn’t a member. I mean, who wouldn’t want their deposits insured?

The FDIC collects funds from the banks, just like insurance, and guarantees that if the bank defaults, the FDIC will cover the difference between the bank’s assets and the deposits, up to $250,000 per customer (not per account). The FDIC was created during the depression to try to give people some confidence in their banks. Banks had been failing at a rapid pace for want of capital. People were afraid that they wouldn’t be able to get their money. Deposit insurance seemed the ticket.

But it is a fraud. It isn’t insurance. The fees collected by the FDIC could not cover much, and are certainly not sufficient for the size of the major banks today. Even when it was created it was recognized that the FDIC could not stand on its own, so it was backed with federal government guarantees. When the FDIC runs out of money, the federal purse bails it out. It did, too, during the 70’s when Thrifts began failing in large quantities (more government malfeasance). So, today, everyone who has paid attention knows that if banks begin failing the feds will have to pony up more money to cover the FDIC’s obligations.

Now along comes Dr. Reich, who wishes to expound on the virtues of government and, since it is popular to bash banks these days, bash the “rich” bankers. He capitalizes on the ignorance and poor education of most Americans, and forthrightly declares that the banks are being subsidized.

He has to ignore that the precarious situation of the banks over the last five years is directly related to the cheap money policies of the Fed., the efforts of the federal government to eliminate sound credit practices in the mortgage industry, and the forced semi-nationalization of the largest banks. Ignoring facts and reality is a way of life for Dr. Reich.

So the subsidy that Dr. Reich is referring to is actually no subsidy at all but a insane obligation left over from the 30’s that could put the federal government on the hook for trillions. Now, does Dr. Reich want to end the subsidy? No. He thinks that the FDIC is a fine organization. Instead, he is focusing on the derivative trading.

Not just any derivative trading, but the defensive or hedge trading. There are really two different approaches to derivative trading. One approach is intent on making money, just like most investment. This derivative trading is generally short term and is a form of speculating, i.e., expectations of advantageous price changes. This kind of trading can often result in significant losses, just like speculating on the price of a stock. You expect the price of the stock or derivative to go up, but it often goes down, and until you sell it, you lose money on the market price. Not all derivatives function that way.

A defensive or hedge approach to derivative trading is exemplified by the corn farmer, perhaps the source of one of the first derivative markets. When the corn farmer plants his crop he founds his expectations on the current price of corn, or perhaps on what his experience suggests the price will be when he harvests and delivers his crop to market. But of course, the future is not known. The price could be very different in a few months. It the market price for corn is lower, the farmer is sure to lose money. So the farmer buys a derivative. He buys a financial product that will pay him money if the price falls. He buys what is called a put option. If the price of corn on his delivery date is the same as the put or higher, the farmer reaps his expected profits and is happy. The money he paid for the put is lost. If the price of corn has dropped, the farmer makes up for his losses from his crop by the return on the put. The farmer has maintained his position.

The put option is purchased from another party who holds the same view of the future as the farmer, that the corn prices in future will be the same or better than today. He knows that he has a risk of lower prices, but he has factored that into his business, and has either reserves or a hedge of his own to cover potential losses. The farmer regards the cost of the put as a business expense and the seller of the put regards the potential loss as a factor in his business. The transaction and the decisions are done in a very businesslike manner.

So the bank has certain exposures to interest rates. If the interest rates change in a manner that is unprofitable, the bank will lose money. To offset potential losses, the bank buys derivatives just as the farmer did. For these derivatives to make sense, they must offer significant return with little cost, just like the corn farmer’s put option. The bank regards this as a business expense. It is a good banking practice.

What Dr. Reich does is confound the two different types of derivative activities. It may be true that some, most, or even all banks engage in both types of derivative trading. But it is clear that Dr. Reich is trying to have it both ways in that he yells “derivatives” in such way to capitalize on the danger of volatile aggressive trading, while also mentioning in an aside that banks are using hedge derivatives.

Reich says, “If derivative trading is so useful to them in order to “mitigate the risks” of other banking activities, the banks should be willing to foot the bill.”

Dr. Reich wants it to seem that the taxpayers are getting ripped off by overly aggressive banks who are risking huge taxpayer funds by aggressive, semi-rational derivative trading. He says that taxpayers are footing the bill. This is the same thinking that considers tax breaks or reductions to be a government expense. No money is going to the banks (in fact it costs the banks money to “belong” to the FDIC). As noted above, the reason the taxpayer may pay any money is if the Fed. policies drive many banks to the brink of default. If one or two banks fail because of poor business practices or banking decisions, for example, the FDIC will generally be able to meet its obligations. The problem is when there is a systemic or broad problem. But, according to Reich’s thinking, the bankers have a sweet deal: if the bankers have “bet” right, they pocket lots and lots of money; if they “bet” wrong, the taxpayers will have to pay. He says, “Derivatives can generate huge risks for the economy unless carefully regulated. Neither logic nor experience suggests that you and I and every other taxpayer should be subsidizing this gambling.” But none of his argument is related to reality from start to finish.

Let me make one observation about derivatives and the banks. The derivative tools banks and other intelligent large volume traders use are the result of brilliant inductions from highly complex, high-speed, high volume, international trading. They are intellectual marvels. But, at root, the banks and other financial traders are being taken for a ride. The tools work very well when the basic data they depend upon are real, but the data isn’t. Instead, the data, which is interest rates and money flows, is contrived and manipulated by governments around the world, mainly the U.S. In the long run, and when they need it most, the banks will be let down by their tools precisely because the tools depend upon being connected to reality, and the governments interfere. This situation is an excellent example of von Mises observation that prices are cognitive tools.

At the beginning of this entry I mentioned that Dr. Reich had two articles of interest recently. I will discuss the second in my next blog, hopefully in a day or two.