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.

Austerity versus Growth in Europe

In my last post I discussed the immediate lesson we could learn from the “austerity” programs occurring in Europe today. In this post I want to talk about some of the events in Europe and suggest some future results.

No doubt my readers aren’t really taken in by the emphatic declaration by European socialist politicians that the government planning must include growth, and not just reductions of government spending, otherwise known as “austerity.” All of this is government speak, that is, none of these terms mean what they rationally means when it comes out of the mouth of the European politician or bureaucrats. It reminds me of Clinton’s first term, when someone convinced Bill that investment was a vital element in the economy. For the next year or so every government initiative that Clinton proposed was called an investment. Every action that the European politician wants to take will be called a growth program.

We should know that the Europeans do not know and go out of their way to evade what it is that causes increases in production and wealth. In their minds the cause of all that is good is the government. They do not understand why their economies aren’t performing as they want them to. They don’t understand that all of their laws have cut down economic activity. In the way of what they are calling reforms they have done very little to make actual growth possible. I read somewhere recently that Greek bureaucrats require an overwhelming amount of stuff form someone applying for a business license, including a stool sample. On the episode of “No Reservations” filmed in Lisbon, I leaned that Portuguese agriculture was forced to stop profitable farming in several crops by EU protectionist regulations (protecting the French and Italians). The number of regulations and interference in business in Europe on the EU, country, and state level is many times what it is in the U.S. None of this is being addressed. What has been “reformed” to some small degree in a few countries is a few regulations that made it impossible to fire someone. There is probably more, but minor, and unreported in the general media.

Austerity has been the watchword in Europe recently. Let’s be clear on what that means. It means that the national government’s budget deficit has to be kept below a certain percentage of the country’s GDP, on the order of three percent, according to the recently passed EU law. It doesn’t actually mean that a surplus has to be achieved or that the country’s government debt has to be reduced. It only means that the debt can’t grow at more than a certain rate, which is deemed to be a level that an economy can comfortably service (which probably assumes interest rates kept artificially low). If a country was actually productive, keeping government spending to that level might not pose much of a problem, until the economy wasn’t productive any more. However, for different reasons in each country, with the exception of Germany and the smaller northern euro zone countries, they have been spending much more and driven their debts much higher (Italy’s debt wasn’t that high, but its deficit was, driving interest rates higher). Since their economies are very dependent upon government spending, when the spending slowed the economy began to contract, people’s income dropped, and greater numbers became unemployed. People became unhappy.

Within this context it makes sense to want to see the economy grow. Economic growth would create more jobs and ultimately move the economy to prosperity. Growth basically comes from letting people produce and seek higher income and wealth. That is not what the European politician calling for growth has in mind. He still sees the government as the prime mover. He wants to increase government activity and government spending. He wants to move away from austerity toward what was going on before this mess. He wants to pretend that the mess doesn’t exist. He wants that favorite of all government boondoggles and fountain of spoils, infrastructure projects. But building a bridge is not growth. (BO wants to fix schools and put in wiring for the internet.) So far, the programs that I have heard proposed will not cause economic growth.

The populations in Europe are apparently supporting these “pro-growth,” socialist politicians. France just elected one. Greece will at least come close to pushing out the politicians who voted in austerity. The Greek alternative is someone who wants to renege on the country’s sworn commitments. Spain is trying, but failing to reign in its spending and the population is angry about the results of that attempt. And in a recent German state election, a couple of socialist parties opposed to austerity won a solid election against the person leading Europe away from government spending, the German PM. Even one of the most emphatic pro-austerity governments in northern Europe, the Netherlands, has announced that it isn’t able to keep its spending below the required cap. They are going to have new elections soon and may become an over-spender.

We are faced with the amazing scenario in which the leading, European, social welfare, big party politicians are trying to keep their countries from going into bankruptcy, which is to say that they are at least paying attention, and the voting public is rejecting them and voting in complete, not just partial, idiots. Who would have expected the politicians to show some responsibility?

Why isn’t it working? Why can’t the politicians convince the public to go along with the “austerity?” There are two reasons. First, the public has been taught for years, by their parents, their schools, their churches, and their politicians that the government is the fount of all that is good and that private enterprise is evil. They believe that the government can just make things up and provide them with the long life of leisure and pleasure that they have been promised. They just don’t understand why things should change now.

One wonderful example of that is the apparent conflicting poll results in Greece. According to polls taken after the last election and the realization that no government could be formed from the relative strength of the parties, the Greek public wants to put into power a person who will reject all of the agreements connected to the bailout that result in “austerity” (the polls have fluctuated as to who is leading). On the other hand, the Greeks by a large majority want to keep the euro, which they would have to give up if they elect the guy they seem to like.

Then, you ask, why do the Greeks want to stay in the euro zone? Again there are two answers, a bad one and a better one. The bad reason is that the Greek prosperity of the last decade began with their entrance to the euro zone. Having the same currency as the Germans, the Greeks were able to borrow to support the government’s crazy spending at very low rates. Their wages climbed to become thirty percent higher than German wages. They think the euro lays golden eggs!

The second, better reason for wanting the euro is that the common currency does facilitate trade. If governments behaved at all sensibly, a common currency in open trading blocs is an excellent idea. The problem in Europe is that each country insisted on having certain protections. It isn’t actually a free market but a highly controlled one. Really, the common market, the EU, is an illusion.

Getting back to the initial discussion, the second reason why the voters want to reject the “austerity” candidates is that “austerity” as a government program is a failure. It is a failure because all it is doing is collapsing their economies. As I have implied above and in my last post, their economies have insufficient capacity for the readjustment of prices and wages and to move assets into productive endeavors. In short, their economies are not capitalistic but controlled.

We have seen the European politicians struggling for an extended period of time to cope with their problem. We have seen several announcements that they have taken major steps and that things would be better only to see the exact same problem continue: concern by lenders that they aren’t going to be paid back. Hundreds of billions of euros have been given or committed to several different countries. The European Central Bank injected nearly one trillion euros into the banking system in loans at 1% interest which resulted in almost no new commercial lending and about five months of better terms for loans in Spain and Italy. The collapse of inter-bank lending, which was supposedly the justification for the loans, has continued to be a problem. Interest rates controlled by the European Central Bank continue to be near 1% and yet the entire bloc is heading into recession, including Germany. Nothing that has been done has dented their problems. Covered them over for a short period of time, perhaps, but done nothing to move the European Community toward growth and prosperity.

The voters do not understand the importance of capitalism, but they do see that with “austerity” their prospects are very poor. Jobs of all kinds are disappearing, wealth is leaving the country when it can, and no one has the leeway to do anything about it. There appears to be a fatalism about their daily lives. They foresee nothing good happening in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, that is what happens when you give government all the power.

So we see that Europe seems to be faced with the alternative of severe recession with “austerity” with no real way out and going back to the government spending that got them into trouble in the first place. Surely, this problem will be blamed on capitalism and politicians who want to have greater control will be successful. Ignorance of capitalism will lead to contraction, probably bankruptcy, and further reduction of freedom. The effects of decades of social welfare state policies will become obvious.

I am not one for disaster scenarios. When people write about upcoming collapse of our economy I tend to yawn. Yet very bad things are happening. Greece is in a depression, although no one else is willing to say so. Spain isn’t that far away from a depression and they haven’t even gotten to the bottom yet. Neither of those countries are particularly large and so far they have had friends who have been able to keep them afloat. Then we must realize that Italy and France are tittering. Italy has set a course that will keep it going for a while, but France has just rejected “austerity” and has already begun new commitments for ongoing spending. Their choice seems to have been made. It isn’t good. I suggest we all reread The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff to get an idea of what could happen.

So, then the question becomes, what are we going to do? We don’t want to live through the same thing here. Obviously, in order to avoid it people will have to learn what capitalism is, in some detail. I think that many people are willing to listen. ARI has several good programs and books that do that. Let’s help them. The more voices explaining capitalism the better.

The Immediate Important Lesson From Europe

We can learn many lessons from what is happening in Europe and what will be happening over the next decade or two. We will see in very explicit detail that democracy is at root a destructive system as it attempts to consume very productive asset it can get its hands on. We shall see that borrowing to spend and consume is inherently a dead-end. We shall see again that government controls do not stop destructive behavior and that few know what good behavior is then. Etc.

But we are now witnessing something that I didn’t expect. We are seeing how not to achieve a turn around in an economy. “Austerity” is a failed program.

Okay, first let’s consider what “austerity” is. It is not actually austerity. The term was first picked up from the context of an over-indebted person. If he wanted to get out of his situation, without going back on his word to pay those people who lent him money, he had to reduce his spending and pay off his debts. Then he would be financially healthy and could begin building wealth.

So, the idea went, governments could reduce their spending, too. Except they failed to remember two different aspects of the individual’s context: first, that the individual had to continue to work, i.e., produce. Production is still the key. Second, they failed to remember that the individual had to spend less than his income. Governments regard “austerity” as merely spending less than they were or perhaps spending less than they were planning, although still increasing their spending. I haven’t seen any of the European governments talking about a budget surplus and paying off their debt.

But, the most important lesson to be learned is the first: Production is the key. What I mean is that just spending less in those countries has no positive effect on the economy, only less of a negative effect. What has a positive effect is the creation of goods and services, i.e., production. Those countries aren’t producing more. Actually, since they have grown the government so much, less spending translates immediately into less purchases and a constriction of business. Business has been forced to depend upon government spending. When that spending disappears, businesses do less business, are less profitable and tend to fail. That is what we are seeing across Europe, especially in the countries with the worst situations.

Those economies haven’t gotten to where they are because of the government spending by itself. The major cause of the poor performance of those economies is government controls. Controls limit what businessmen can do and their ability to produce. Government controls are the lid on man’s productive capacity.

As long as the government controls the economy, and the European Union has a staggering level of controls, those economies are going to suffer. In fact, what we see today is the simultaneous reduction of government spending with the increase in numbers and degree of control. We see tighter and tighter restrictions being placed on business and finance, further weakening their ability to produce while the governments are trying to at least slow the rate of their indebtedness. It won’t work.

This is a lesson for us all. We need to realize that as bad as the debt situation is, and as bad as it can get, and that by itself debt can destroy our economy, that it is not the primary issue and should not be our primary target. At least it shouldn’t be.

We must also recognize that if we only talk about debt and the need to reduce spending as our immediate objective we will not succeed in moving any society towards our viewpoint. They see what “austerity” achieves. No one should want any part of that, including us.

No, our focus should be on production. Our campaign should be to unleash the productive abilities of the United States, to reverse governmental economic controls. to free our businessmen. Freedom. That should be our program.

I do not want for a minute for you to think that I am the originator of this insight. As in most all of my understanding of the world, I learned this from Ayn Rand. She did not write about this issue, but she was asked about it more than once in public forums. It is to our benefit that we can read today what she said in response to those questions in Ayn Rand Answers, pages 46-50. Also look at her answer regarding unemployment benefits on page 124. She isn’t in favor of government spending or any activity that isn’t directly protecting individual rights. She wants to stop inappropriate government spending. But she recognizes that what must be done first is to free the economy. Without that first step, and giving it the time to begin producing (probably shorter than we might think), we will see our economy contract just as the European economies are.

My position in this article isn’t new, but I hadn’t realized until recently that the European “austerity” program was exactly that being proposed by my critics. These are the people who argue that the US government spending had to be stopped as soon as possible. The immediate target of these proponents of “austerity” was Social Security and unemployment benefits. I responded that what would happen is just a lot of misery and the destruction of legitimate business, which is just what is happening in Europe, especially Greece and Spain. If “austerity” were begun in the US today, the results might not be as bad. But no good would be achieved as long as government controls were kept in place.

The only direct, economic destructive element of government spending is that it soaks up savings, which is needed for business investment. But the economy can find capital when it has potential profits in sight. We would learn that finding capital would not be an issue. Today, the drag on the US economy isn’t a lack of capital. Banks will tell you that they have plenty to lend. Businesses have plenty of money to invest if they chose. (I am not really conflating fiat money with capital.) Companies could find capital today if they were confident in the future. With all of the proposed additional controls and the fear of BO’s plans for our future, they are wise to avoid the crazy risk inherent in our political situation. And thus the economy stalls. It isn’t the deficit they are afraid of, but government force.

It might be argued that the correct approach to cutting spending would include some advanced warning. Perhaps people should be given a year or two to get their lives in order in preparation for changes in government spending. Yet, that still doesn’t address the underlying problem. If there isn’t sufficient economic activity, sufficient investment, sufficient production, sufficient productive jobs, advanced warning would provide no benefit. There are no economic alternatives to prepare with. Advanced warning only is beneficial if the person affected has alternatives to what he is currently relying upon.

At this point the response that I receive is that I am evading the moral issue of the theft of the property of those who are paying the taxes (either direct or indirect from the borrowing and inflation). It is wrong, I am told, for the theft to continue. It should be stopped immediately.

Aside from the fact that Ayn Rand did not advance this point when she had the chance, and aside from the fact that I am not disagreeing with either the immorality of the taxes or the spending, and aside from the fact that I vehemently argue that the spending and borrowing has to stop, and aside from the fact that I recognize the moral hazard from the dependency upon government spending, I reject the argument that the morality requires us to act without considering the immediate consequences and how very bad ones can be avoided.

I would argue that Objectivist morality is fundamentally a morality of consequences, that is, of causes and effects, of ends and means. If implementing a moral decision means the destruction of those who are the intended beneficiaries, the innocent and the productive in this case, then there is something wrong with the reasoning. And destruction of the productive and innocent is definitely a result of “austerity.” It isn’t just the person receiving the government handout who is suffering but the entire economy, the productive and innocent. Real, honest businesses are going under. People who made rational decisions within the context of their country are loosing all they possess. It is these people who a morality of self-interest and the social-economic system of capitalism is suppose to protect. It is they who should flourish. “Austerity” is destroying their lives as thoroughly as socialism itself. Therefore, “austerity” is the wrong approach.

While government spending upon anything but the protection of individual rights is automatically a violation of rights and a move toward the destruction of those rights, the spending itself isn’t a major catastrophe, in the sense of the immediate, economic consequences. Just as with a household, it isn’t the spending per se, it is the spending in relation to the income, which means the economy’s production. If the spending is higher than the production allows (not even considering the savings necessary to increase production), then there will be problems. That is true for either a household or a business or a government. It is worse when the overspending is for unproductive consumption, which is always true of governmental spending. “Infrastructure” is consumption. Something constructed by the government might sit there for a while, like a bridge, but it is not paying its own way and replacing itself, as a business investment would, is consumption.

Of course, governmental spending is often accompanied by restrictions on the population because the government wants to keep its monopoly, i.e., only the government can build roads, etc. If there was competition, the incompetence of the government would be clearly demonstrated. Look at the U.S. Post Office.

No, government spending isn’t the cause of a country’s economy failing to grow.

On the other hand, the best any of the commentators that I have read have made only the slight suggestions that regulation has any effect on production and prosperity. It is recognized that regulation has a cost in time and money, but not on an economy’s ability to produce and grow. This is a complete blind spot. I attribute this lack of knowledge to the general rationalist trend found in economics and business schools. Looking at how things actually work is not an acceptable practice. At least at one point in time efficiency studies were all the rage. If there are still such studies they most likely don’t question government mandated business practices. They just treat regulations as acts of nature.

However, the point is that government regulation is treated as just a part of life and is not questioned and its consequences are not considered. This last point is true in a wider scale than you probably realize. Few look to see if the supposed good consequence of government regulation actually happened. No follow up studies are done to evaluate the success of the regulation. Those consequences are assumed and bragged about but never proved or evaluated. Recently, I received an email from Ending Big Government, the website set up by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins in connection with their new book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government. This email was entitled “Story about Stories” in which people who were impacted by government regulations explained what was happening (See here). This is a great idea. The consequences of regulations have to be concretized for people. They have to see in detail that regulation is destructive in order to understand that it has to be stopped. For example, people don’t know how extensive, intrusive, expensive, and anti-productive the FDA regulation is. These details need to be made public. The media won’t do it. The Republicans won’t do it. Who will?

So, let me suggest that you continue to watch Europe attempt to practice “austerity” and how they go into recessions. I think that Spain is already in a depression, or will be soon. Greece certainly is. Think about the consequences as the government just spending less. Think about why their economies can’t seem to grow. What is stopping them?

Next week I hope to finish up a post that will be more specific about Europe and the backlash against “austerity.” I think that we will see another lesson there as well.

Europe Money Flood

As a follow up to my recent comments about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, I want to comment briefly about the flood of money that has just been released by the European Central Bank (ECB). Today, February 29, 2012, the ECB allowed any bank that is in a Common Market country to borrow unlimited funds at nearly zero interest rates for three years (see http://finance.yahoo.com/news/second-cheap-money-round-hard-171320240.html). The total taken was 529B euros ($710B, @ 1 euro = $0.7450). This is the second such offering. Last November, the ECB loaned about 479B euros ($650B). The grand total is now 1.02T euros. Someone suggested that there was some shorter-term debt owed ECB that the banks paid back and that the net new made-up money amount was close to 600B euros ($805B).

Much of the money from last February was just put back into accounts with the ECB. That’s right, when the banks had billions sitting around doing nothing, they took billions more. What the hell, the money was nearly free.

The justification for this exercise in Disney finance was that the banks were no longer willing to make loans to. The banks were not sufficiently confident to risk making loans to nearly anyone. Interest rates for the debt of many European governments was going up, loans to businesses, especially small businesses were declining, and loans to other banks had essentially stopped, even the overnight loans. That’s right. Overnight loans to other banks were deemed to be too risky.

So now, European banks have lots of money. Lots.

What have we seen since November?

Interest rates and the availability of money to governments, even to countries with severe problems like Italy, Spain, and Portugal, has vastly improved.

Commodity prices have begun moving up again. The spot price for copper has climbed over 15% in the last couple months (when it looks like the Greek bailout would go through the copper price would go up, when not, down).

The euro has fallen against the dollar. (The euro would fall against the yen, but the Japanese are doing all they can to make the yen fall. This is the called world competition.) We can count on prices in the euro zone to begin climbing.

These are the more obvious consequences of this flood of money. I am sure that more will surface as time go by.

One interesting thing to look forward to is the time when these loans need to be paid back. Some of the bonds that the banks are buying have a longer time to maturity than three years. How are they going to get their money out? If all the banks are selling bonds at the same time what will that do to the markets and interest rates? Do the banks think that the European economy is going to be robust enough for the banks to be making money or to acquire capital? I did see that one governor of the ECB was concerned with the bank’s ability to pay back these loans. He suggested that the governments be ready to bail out the banks in three years. Which would mean more made-up money or higher government debt.

The banks also have to improve their balance sheet to meet the ECB’s new equity to loan requirements of ten percent. Where is that capital going to come from?

The ECB is prohibited by charter from buying government bonds directly from the government auctions, i.e., financing the debt of the euro zone governments. But that is what they have done by giving the banks cash. In fact, before the first set of loans had been taken, the French President suggested that the banks should put the ECB money immediately into bad bonds. It is such a bad idea. Letting interest rates come down for the problem countries makes it seem as if there isn’t much urgency for them to spend less or engage in economic reforms that are necessary if people are going to find jobs and survive. This exercise is counter-productive. The Europeans have not learned anything.

There is such a fixation with the immediate short-terms that you wonder if people have been surgically altered. To solve problems that they created a little while ago (which they aren’t willing to admit to – except for the excessive government debt to a limited extent) they engage in actions that will create greater problems just a few months later. The process is a spiral, and it is becoming tighter.

It is amazing that they think that putting 600B euros into their economy will have only good consequences.

So, everyone:

Short the euro. Go long on commodities and European stocks, as there will most likely be an equity boom. But be careful. Who knows when that bubble will bust. And, if you plan to go to Europe, you can plan on not having to spend as much. The dollar will be able to buy lots of euros, at least as long as the money that the Fed tried to put into the economy, which is twice the amount the ECB created in Europe, still sits as deposits at the Fed.

Why is it important to watch Europe now?

With so many battles to fight today in the U.S., you might wonder why I am spending time watching and writing about Europe. You could also point out that the U.S. is a vastly different sort of place. Policies and doctrines common in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire were rejected in the U.S. We just do not have the socialist history that they have.

Unfortunately, the argument that everyone else is socialist is becoming accepted in the U.S. That was a big point in the argument for ObamaCare. We are becoming more like Europe. Our government has become a democracy in that demands for government controls and redistribution of wealth are now openly accepted as reasonable political discourse. Our government is spending like a drunken social democrat. Certainly our entitlement commitments are like what is happening in Europe. The problems they are seeing result from the same policies pursed by our own politicians of either party. The concept that made the U.S. different, individual rights, is just as unknown here today as it is in Europe.

Further, the economic policies practiced in Europe are based upon the same economic theories as is used by Bernanke, the Treasury, and the advisors of either U.S. party. Government action, focus on spending (consumption) as the power in the economy, regarding jobs only as a way to acquire income, and ignoring any real issue of production is standard everywhere.

The consequence is that the U.S. is moving toward a situation like that found in Greece, Spain, and Italy just as rapidly as France and Germany. I don’t know which large country will reach disaster first.

It is the case that our economy is not as regulated as those in Europe, although we are moving that direction rapidly. There is a lot of attention being paid to the steps required in Greece and Spain to make it a little easier to hire and fire an employee. But the controls and even the availability of capital aren’t changing much. Many core, important European industries are state owned and the labor unions have more sway than managers.

What is becoming understood, by many modern economists who regard themselves as scientists in some fashion, is that there are limits to the amount of debt that a government can sustain. This point was substantiated in a book, This Time is Different, by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff. For anyone who is serious about economics and the consequences of debt, I recommend this book. It is written by two modern economists, which means that their understanding and conclusions are superficial. They completely fail to recognize the difference between individual actions and those based upon force. Nevertheless, they provide important information and do offer some insight as to what the problems are in Greece, and soon the rest of the social welfare states.

The historical record is undeniable. If a government amasses debt amounting to more than sixty percent of their total production (considering only consumer goods), then they are tending toward trouble. Governments with more than one hundred percent are in trouble and there will soon be a financial crisis of some sort. The book does not mention interest rates, but certainly, if rates raise, the trouble is greater. From other sources, many modern economists seem to be convinced that the national production will be lowered by about one percent when government debt reaches ninety percent.

The U.S. will reach a government debt of one hundred percent of national production of consumer goods (called GDP) this year.

The book does not suggest what the financial crisis will be like. The world has not experienced a government debt crisis in an advanced technological country like ours, with the power that our government has amassed.

So I watch Europe to see how they are dealing with their problems and to see reality take its course. I watch to see if anyone questions their premises. I watch to see if any of the politicians choose to act intelligently or only with regard to their confused voters (see this article about the German PM) It is interesting that the Germans are now trying to put off the pending big, Greek bailout until after the April Greek elections.

I am looking to see how France and Germany confront their own fiscal/debt problems. Will they do something to actually improve their economies or not. France is headed for another Socialist government, it seems. The Socialist party is offering straight contradictions as its platform. It should be interesting.

I am not ignoring the U.S. and its impending problems. I just note that the big battle waged on the occasion of the vote to raise the U.S. government debt limit was over nothing. The amounts of the so-called cuts and what programs those cuts were suppose reduce were all inconsequential. It was all for show. A show that is now generally forgotten and ignored.

The only way that this country is going to avoid the gapping pits that Europe and the rest of the world are staggering toward is for some new group to make the obvious real to people. That means we have to do it. There is no other source for that understanding.


P.S. I watched Yaron Brook’s presentation as to why our country continues to make the same mistakes repeatedly and doesn’t seem to learn. (It was one of the videos at the bottom of the email I got from ARI. Number 191, I think.) It was excellent, and even if you know the issue, Dr. Brook’s phrasing and brevity in this complex subject is worth hearing.

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.”

Current Decline in the Availability of Pharmaceuticals

In the criticism directed at ObamaCare and socialized medicine in general, there were many consequences seen that would be detrimental to the health of men and women. One consequence that wasn’t predicted (as I recall) is occurring now. From what I have seen in various reports recently (listed below), when socialized medicine collides with high levels of government debt, which it must eventually, the results are decidedly unhealthy.

In Greece and Spain, and also in Italy, even in the United States, we are seeing disruptions in the supply of pharmaceuticals. The disruptions are being caused by two related government actions. Especially in Greece and Spain, the governments are not paying their bills. Surprisingly, the companies making the drugs are beginning to refuse to send additional supplies. I say surprisingly because I would bet that there has been some attempt to get the companies to ship regardless of the status of payment for past shipments.

The other cause of shortages, which is already happening in the U.S. and is probably happening in Europe, is that certain drugs aren’t being produced because the prevailing price, i.e., the price that the government is willing to pay, is too low to justify making the drugs. In the U.S., we are seeing pharmaceutical companies selectively choose to not make certain generic drugs because there is little or no profit in the price at which they can sell the drugs. These companies have limited production facilities and they choose to use them to produce the most profitable product. Duh!

There is another factor that is spreading the problem wider. In Europe, many countries have laws that require the government to pay the lowest price being paid by any European government. So, say Greece unilaterally decides, as it has, that to “save” money they will lower the price of some or all drugs. It doesn’t really matter what price they choose, the price is way below what the drug companies would charge if free to do so, so whatever price the Greek government chooses will be a disincentive. Then other countries’ low price law kicks in. If the drug is going to be available to patients, the drug company has to ship at the new, lower price. The moral and health consequences are very obvious. The drug companies no longer have any say in the revenue for which they are working. That is unadulterated authoritarianism. It isn’t that different from how doctors are treated by Medicare in the US.

As far as I know or have seen, there is no law saying that the drug companies have to ship, have to continue to make the medication. Slavery has not progressed to that point. If not today, then soon, the drug companies will not be able to continue shipping product on which they constantly loose money. Supplies will become smaller. Shortages rampant, not just in Europe, but worldwide. Companies may go bankrupt. Drug formula may be lost.

Some of the European drug companies are now saying that their ability to do research and create new drugs is being threatened. I expect that they are being a little timid in making known their concerns. I expect that the drug companies are not in a strong political position. Someone is probably keeping a close eye on drug company research numbers. Too bad the mainstream press isn’t interested in actually reporting news like that.

Since the widespread government debt and fiscal deficit problems is going to be a major problem for some time, one should expect the problems in Europe to get worse. The governments will have more difficulty in paying for medical care. The problem will be spreading beyond drugs and supplies to include doctors, support staff, and hospitals. I wonder if someone is paying the electric bills? A private company would be constrained from cutting off power to a hospital. A government electricity monopoly may not be so constrained.

No doubt the problem of non-payment extends to other sectors of the economy as well. Someone said that Spain in particular had determined that keeping cash and not paying bills made the government look much closer to solvency.

What bill is or is not paid is a function of the decisions by bureaucrats. These people have not learned the lesson that 70 years of Soviet economics taught: there is no substitute for a market. What drug or service is available or not will depend upon accidents, pull, and ignorance. Actual health issues and medical need will not be ignored so much as it will be unknown and unimportant. I mean the mere fact that there could be medical need will be unknown. It is government money and it will be paid to the concerns the bureaucrats choose. The fact that there is a reality is overlooked in the regulations. Good luck to us all.

Keep your eyes open. This news, that has come to us in a trickle, leaking into the mainstream in little droplets. So far the press has not be recognized the debt issue as impacting people’s health. Even if they do, there isn’t anything that can be done about it, however. Many of the European governments do not have the money to pay those bills, even if they wanted to do so. How much longer will their citizens have drugs? How long until we are in the same situation? How much will the loss of several European markets affect drug availability in the U.S.? Who knows?

Having gone to the pharmacy regularly, it would seem almost unimaginable that the drugs we rely on could cease to be there when we need them. Those of us who do depend upon them daily, for example, the millions who keep their blood pressure low or those who survive diabetes with medication, could see those meds disappear in the next few years.

Sources:

Greek crisis takes heavy toll on health
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE7982UN20111009

Spain health service chokes in crisis
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE79A1S120111011

Drug shortage in US
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE79D4GI20111014

BO to take executive action on drug shortages
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE79U23D20111031

More pain for Euro drug makers (includes information about lowest price laws and the threat to research)
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE7A93C220111110

UK pharmacists sound alarm about shortages
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE7A901F20111110

HIV gains ground in Greek crisis
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE7AA37P20111111

US employer health insurance offerings reach new recent low
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE7AA4AI20111111

R&D proposed in Europe over superbugs
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE7AG0VA20111117

Cancer cost becoming unsustainable
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE78P26B20110926

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.