Something is Missing...

The Dow-Jones Stock Index dropped almost 400 points today. European stocks also dropped substantially…the FTSE 100 dropped by over 4 and one-half percent. 

European sovereign debt continues to grab headlines a the interest spreads on ten year bonds of troubled countries versus the yield on ten year German bonds remained near peaks. 

Today, the Economic Union moved to speed up the recapitalization of banks that did not show well in the recent stress tests administered to more than 90 banks.  “The move would affect mostly mid-tier banks. Seven are Spanish, two are from Germany, Greece and Portugal, and one each from Italy, Cyprus and Slovenia.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/49d6240e-e527-11e0-bdb8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Yj4RAJ9F)  But, there is little confidence that this move will resolve things because the stress tests were such a joke!

Moody’s downgraded Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup…and a couple of days ago a few European banks…that passed the stress tests. 

And, the top officials in the European Union continue to argue over this issue and they continue to argue over that issue and resolve little…but still hope to kick the can down the street a little further.  No one seems to be facing the real issues because their solutions appear to be so painful.   

In the United States, Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve attempt to grasp another straw in the wind as they continue to throw “stuff” against the wall, hoping that some of it sticks.  For three years now the Fed has thrown “stuff” against the wall but it must be too wet…for very little is sticking to the wall.  The Fed’s current monetary policy is to make sure that they throw all the “stuff” they have against the wall so that no one writing future history books can accuse them of not leaving any unused “stuff’ in the …

And, President Obama has come up with his new economic re-election platform disguised in the form of a jobs program, which includes new proposals to finance the program with various tax increases.  Since this combination is a part of the re-election campaign it must contain a little of this and a little of that to appeal to different parts of his voter base.  The problem with something like this is that it just makes the tax code more complex and provides incentives for the more heavily taxed…in the words of George Shultz, the former Secretary of the Treasury, ”the wealthy and General Electric”...to find ways to avoid bearing the burden of the tax. (See my post from Tuesday, September 20, “The Case Against the Obama Taxes”, http://maseportfolio.blogspot.com/.)   

Something is missing!

My answer has been and continues to be, that the something that is missing is leadership!

The problem is that there are no easy answers…no painless answers. 

People in Europe and the United States have been living high for fifty years.  The goals of high levels of employment and income re-distribution through the spread of home ownership have produced their consequences…excessive amounts of debt in households, businesses, national, state, and local governments. 

The economic policy of almost consistent application of credit inflation for the past fifty years has produced, in the United States, an 85 percent reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar, an under-employment rate of at least 20 percent, and the widest skewing of the income/wealth distribution in recent history.  If this is what credit inflation achieves…I don’t want it. 

Continuing to apply the policies of the past fifty years to the current situation will only exacerbate things.  We are facing an extended period of economic stagnation, at best, and a double-dip recession, at the worst.  Little or no growth in this situation will be accompanied with continued increases in the under-employment rate.  And, of course, continuing with all this stimulation with little of no economic growth will result in even more decline in the purchasing power of the dollar.

And,  as a consequence of the uncertainty related to the attempt to solve these problems, volatility continues to plague the financial markets.  Experts predict that the volatility of these markets will not subside until things settle down on the policy side and some true leadership is shown amongst our governmental officials and regulators.  That is, the volatility will continue until someone steps up to the plate and initiates a real solution to the existing situation.

The problem is that the main job of politicians is to get re-elected.  It is very clear to most politicians that resolving the debt-situation is going to be painful and many are already hearing the discontent of their constituents.  Riots in the streets of Greece and Spain are just a small indication of the disruptions that the politicians fear.  But, there is the fear that if they do too much they will not get re-elected.  The are caught in the trap of having to do something…but not too much.   

The financial markets…the economy…are getting no clear vision of what the future may look like.  They don’t know what their taxes are going to be.  They don’t know what the rate of inflation will be. 

All the financial markets…and the economy…can do is go up…and go down…

Something is missing and the problem with this is that no one in the financial markets…or the economy…can identify where the leadership is going to come from. 

Can you?

The Case Against the Obama Taxes

Yesterday, President Obama proposed a tax plan.  George Shultz has replied: “rich people and large companies like General Electric Co. are the beneficiaries of a complicated tax system.”

“It’s wealthy people and the GEs of the world that know how to manipulate these preferences and get their tax rates down,” said George Shultz, an economist and former dean of the University of Chicago’s business school. “The average Joe doesn’t have access to those lawyers.”

George Shultz, also former United States Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State, made this statement in an interview with Bloomberg press when arguing for a complete change in the tax code to reflect the realities of the 2010s. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/shultz-says-it-s-time-to-clean-house-with-u-s-tax-code-to-boost-economy.html)

One could also say the same thing when referring to the ability of “wealthy people and the GEs of the world” to handle the inflationary environment created by governments that are aiming to sustain “high levels of employment” as designated by the full employment objectives of the United States and many other western nations. 

The wealthy and the large corporations can protect themselves or even benefit from inflation.  The “average Joe” cannot do this.  In fact, the “average Joe” ultimately “gets screwed” from inflationary policies aimed at keeping him employed.  Having under-employment rates in the 20 percent plus range is not what was planned as policies of credit inflation dominated the past 50 years. 

Furthermore, credit inflation creates a wonderful stage for financial innovation, shifting jobs from manufacturing and production to financial services and other support industries…like the legal profession.  We can only look at the shift in jobs in the United States over the past fifty years to see the consequences of this development.

The financial innovation of the last fifty years points to another change in the world that not only allowed the financial innovation to take place but provides insight into the world of the future.  The change I am writing about is the advent of the Age of Information.  Financial innovation thrived upon the new technology and the new technology was underwritten by the growth of the financial innovation. 

“Wealthy people and the GEs of the world” (along with the JPMorgan’s, Goldman-Sachs, and others) are able to use this technology “to manipulate” things so as to benefit themselves as much as possible.  They have the tools.  Why did GE come to earn two-thirds of its profits from its finance wing?  And, the same can be said for General Motors and many other “manufacturing” companies. 

And, people are concerned about the fact that over the past fifty years the income/wealth distribution of the United States became so skewed toward the rich.  The credit inflation and social policies of the past fifty years created the conditions for those that could “manipulate” things and get their tax rates down and profit from the inflationary environment that was created by the politicians. 

The “average Joe”? 

The “average Joe” could do little or nothing.  If he “stayed employed”, kept the job at which he was already working, he fell behind.  The “average Joe” needed to become educated, needed to become more technologically savvy, needed to find the “lawyers” and financial advisors to “manipulate” the system.  But, that was not the way the incentives were aligned!

Unfortunately, the objective of the politician does not mesh with that of “the average Joe.”  The objective of the politician is to get elected and then to get re-elected.  Consequently, laws and regulations aimed at keeping “Joe” fully employed in his current job have been crucial.  Empathy with “Joe” was good politics.  The fact that “Joe” was constantly falling behind was not the issue.

The world has changed.  Yet, we can’t seem to get away from the same election strategies that have been followed over the past fifty years.  In my mind, we are going through a cultural shift that is painful and disturbing.  It is a shift that is going to take place, one way or another, and just pursuing the same goals over and over will only exacerbate the pain and the disturbance over time.  And, the constant advancements of information technology will just add to this.  

Shultz is arguing that the “Tax Reform Act of 1986” needs to be revised and reformed, not extended and made more complex.  He argues that “a simplification of the code would allow Congress to lower rates on a ‘revenue-neutral’ basis, while economic expansion would boost tax receipts.

“You’ll get a gusher,” Shultz said. “If you get this kind of stimulative tax policy and other things into effect, there will be a response and revenue will come in.”

 It seems as if “wealthy people and the GEs of the world” will play ball with you when they feel that they are not being singled out and picked on.  Otherwise, out will come the lawyers and the financial advisors and we get results similar to the ones described above.  The problem is that in proposing these changes in the tax codes as Obama has done or creating an environment of inflation, things just don’t stay the same. 

The politician is subject to the same fallacy that is faced by the economist conducting his deductive reasoning.  It is the problem of “ceteris paribus”, the assumption that “all else stays the same.”   When you change the tax code or the inflationary environment, all else does not remain the same.  As a result, you often find yourself facing the problem of “unintended consequences.”  You get results that you didn’t intend to get.  In the case of the economic policy over the past fifty years, you get higher levels of employment and under-employment than you wanted and greater inequality in the distribution of income/wealth. 

The current Obama tax plan is a journey into the past.

Struggling With A Great Contraction

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times recently returned from vacation.   It is interesting to see where this “top” economic commentator stands after taking off from his weekly writing for a full month. 

His view on his return: The major economies of the world are “Struggling with a great contraction.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/079ff1c6-d2f0-11e0-9aae-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Wbu6HxQ0) His concern is not with the possibility of a “double dip” recession, but with something more sustained.  He asks, “How much deeper and longer this recession or ‘contraction’ might become.  The point is that, by the second quarter of 2011, none of the six largest high-income economies had surpassed output levels reached before the crisis hit, in 2008.”  Hence, the great contraction.

The turmoil in financial markets that was seen in August, he contends, tells us, first, that “the debt-encumbered economies of the high income-countries remain extremely fragile”; second, “investors have next to no confidence in the ability of policymakers to resolve the difficulties”; and third, “in a time of high anxiety, investors prefer what are seen as the least risky assets, namely, the bonds of the most highly-rated governments, regardless of their defects, together with gold.”

A pretty succinct summary…what?

There is too much debt around which means that all the efforts that governments are making to get the economy moving again face the up-hill battle of over-coming the efforts people, businesses, and local and regional governments are making to reduce their debts. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/285172-when-debt-loads-become-too-large)

While national governments deal with their own excessive debt loads and deficits, their central banks have responded with undifferentiated policies to flood banks and financial markets with sufficient liquidity in order to provide time for banks, consumers, businesses, and local and regional governments to “work out” their positions as smoothly as possible. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/290416-quantitative-easing-theory-need-not-apply)

The hope seems to be that “time will heal all things.”

Whereas there is too much deb around, there is too little leadership.  I will quote Wolf on this: “In neither the US nor the eurozone, does the politician supposedly in charge—Barack Obama, the US president, and Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor—appear to be much more than a bystander of unfolding events.” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/285658-if-the-economy-is-a-football-game-we-need-new-strategies)

If there are no leaders, then policy decisions tend to be postponed as long possible, and then, when a result is finally forthcoming, the outcome is more like a camel, something that appears to be an inconsistent piecing together of incompatible parts.

And, this is supposed to produce confidence?  To quote Mr. Wolf again: “Those who fear deflation buy bonds; those that fear inflation buy gold; those who cannot decide buy both.” 

The point being that it is not a time to commit to the future, to invest in real assets or investments.  Hence, the economies of the “high-income” nations stagnate, unemployment remains excessive, and public confidence continues to be depressed.   

Such a general condition argues for a continuance of the economic malaise and not a more robust recovery any time soon.  Hence, the great contraction.

Mr. Wolf still has hope: “Yet all is not lost.  In particular the US and German governments retain substantial fiscal room for manoeuvre…the central banks have not used up their ammunition.”  

But, this hope is based on the existence that leadership in these governments will arise.  Policy makers will come to their senses: “The key, surely, is not to approach a situation as dangerous as this one within the boundaries of conventional thinking.”  

Therein lies the problem.  Mr. Wolf is looking for the hero to ride in on her/his white stallion and provide the leadership necessary to clean up the mess and get things going forward on the right path. 

He has just argued, however, that that leadership does not seem to exist.  So, where is the leadership going to come from?

With all the debt loads outstanding, just how much can be done to overcome the drag on the spending and the economy coming from the efforts of many to de-leverage. 

The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have flooded the world with liquidity.  Their effort here is to give banks, consumers, businesses, and governments time to work out their bad debts.  This also provides time for banks and others to fail, consolidate, and/or raise capital without causing major disruptions to the whole financial system. Banks in the United States continue to fail, banks in the US and Europe continue to consolidate, and banks in the US and Europe continue to raise capital. 

Since debt seems to be the major problem here, the only other major suggestion that has been made that could relieve the credit crisis is to relieve debtors of some of their debt burden.  This would mean that some parts of the debt would need to be written off.  Whereas many have suggested such a program, the difficulty of creating such a problem is in the details and no one seems to have come up with any acceptable details of such a program.  Some have suggested that inventing such a workable and just program of debt reduction is nearly impossible.

So, we are back to square one…there are no “good” options.  And, when there are no “good” options, potential leaders tend to disappear into the woodwork.  It is easy to “lead” when you can create credit without end and encourage everyone to own a house and attempt to guarantee people jobs for their lifetime.  But, real leaders are the ones that can stand up and lead when there are no good options.

It is just that few want to be “out front” when none of the options are nice and comfortable.      

Our Two Choices

It seems as if our policy choices have been reduced to two.  First, our basic problem is that there is too much debt outstanding, debt of consumers, debt of businesses, and debt of governments…state, local, and national.  According to Ken Rogoff of Harvard (and co-author of the book “This Time is Different”), “By far the main problem is a huge overhang of debt that creates headwinds to faster normalization and post-crisis growth.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1e0f0efe-c1a9-11e0-acb3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1UdDrJfzK)

During the past fifty years of credit inflation, the incentive existed for economic units to increase financial leverage.  Consequently, we have reached an extreme position of financial leverage, one that many believe is unsustainable.  As Rogoff claims, people attempting to reduce this “huge overhang of debt” will not borrow, will not spend, and this will result in a period of time in which economic growth and the expansion of employment will be modest at best, and downright slow at worst.

The resulting policy choice, therefore, is to allow the debt reduction to take place and let the economy adjust to more “normal” levels of debt.  This “adjustment” is going to have to take place some time and the best thing for the future of the economy is to let it adjust naturally for this adjustment must take place sooner or later.  By not allowing it to take place, we just postpone the final day of reckoning.

The second policy choice is to pursue a significantly aggressive program of credit inflation, one that would force people and businesses to return to borrowing and hence to spending.  Such a policy would help to accelerate economic growth and put people back to work.

This argument is based on the assumption that the United States cannot afford the consequences of a long, slow period of debt reduction and a lengthy period of mediocre economic growth.  The cost of following a “do-nothing” policy in terms of human suffering due to the unemployment and social dislocation created by such a policy would be unacceptable.

The second policy has been the approach taken by the Obama administration, arguing for a resumption of credit inflation, both in terms of government deficits and in terms of expansionary monetary policy.  The question that supporters of this policy debate about is the degree of the credit inflation.  The Obama administration, itself, has tended to follow a more modest level of credit inflation whereas its liberal critics have argued the Obama team has been too timid in how much credit inflation should be imposed on the economy.

Here we get into a debate over timing.  The first policy is needed, according to its proponents, because that is the only way the United States will regain its competitiveness and be able to go forward with the finances of its people in a strong position.  Following the second policy would only postpone the adjustments needed and leave the “day of reckoning” somewhere out there in the future.

The supporters of the second policy argue that we cannot allow economic growth to be so low and unemployment stay so high because of the human cost.  We need to address this now and worry about the debt re-structuring problem later.

The concern over the second policy program has to do with the “tipping point.”  Let me explain.

Right now, the debt overhang appears to be the predominant force in the economy.  Consumers, at least a large portion of them, are not borrowing and spending because of the debt loads they are carrying. (The wealthier consumers seem to be going along fine, thank you.) They are increasing savings in an attempt to get their balance sheets back in line.  Small- and medium-sized businesses are not borrowing to any degree, are not hiring people, and not expanding much at all because they have too much debt on their balance sheets and are trying to keep their heads above water.  Many state and local governments are facing real budget crunches and are cutting back on employment and capital expenditures because of their legal obligations. 

The government fiscal stimulus programs initially attempted by the federal government have been ineffective and disappointing, at best.  The efforts of the monetary authorities to generate bank lending have also been exceedingly ineffective despite historically extreme injections of liquidity into the banking system. Those people supporting the “second policy” continue to call for even more credit inflation whether it be for an new round of “quantitative easing” on the part of the Fed or some other innovative uses of monetary policy. 

The problem with the “tipping point” is this: how severe the tipping point will be if/when the new efforts at credit inflation overcome the efforts of economic units to restructure their balance sheets and eliminate the “debt overhang” connected with the past fifty years of credit inflation. 

The current policy makers seem to believe that the “tipping point” can be managed and the adjustment from debt restructuring to further borrowing can become incremental.  That the trillion or so dollars injected into the banking system by the Federal Reserve can be smoothly removed from the banks once borrowing from them picks up steam.   In this way, faster economic growth could resume again and employers could begin hiring workers at a speedier pace.  

The alternative view is that the “tipping point” cannot be “managed” and that once the gates are open, borrowing will only accelerate and credit inflation will get “out-of-control”, given the magnitudes of liquidity already pushed into the financial system.  Does this mean hyper-inflation?

This discussion leads to a question about whether or not the current policy makers can recognize the “tipping point” (let alone anticipate it) and whether or not they can then smoothly remove all the excess liquidity that has been forced into the banking system.

If one is to look at the record of Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Reserve system one cannot have very much confidence that they will be able to recognize a turning point let alone manage their way through the “tipping point”.  Historically, Chairman Bernanke has had trouble recognizing bubbles, stays with a policy stance far too long and then over-reacts.  Take a look at what happened before the financial crisis of 2008.  The “housing bubble” and the “stock markets bubble” in the middle 2000s were not recognized by Bernanke or the Fed.  Bernanke and the Fed fought the “fear of inflation” for too long into the initial stages of the financial collapse.  And, then Bernanke and the Fed had to over-adjust to the financial crisis they contributed to by “throwing open the windows…and the doors…and whatever…at the Fed” in order to “save the world”. 

Managing a “tipping point”, I would argue, is not one of Ben Bernanke’s strengths.  But, governments, I would argue, are not very good at managing “tipping points.” 

Where does that leave us?  Between a rock and a hard place. 

The government will continue to try to alleviate the suffering of those that have been hurt in the Great Recession and its aftermath.  The Obama administration and the Democrats and the Republicans will compromise on a policy that can still be labeled credit inflation.  The Federal Reserve will continue to look for ways to stimulate bank lending.  And, the only way I can characterize this situation is one of HIGH RISK.  Volatility is going to continue to dominate the financial markets over the next two years or so for the very reasons I have cited above. 

The reason for this is the timing of the “tipping point.”  The private sector is going to continue to push for balance sheet restructuring.  The government is going to continue to push for more and more credit inflation.  This leaves the future highly uncertain.  Consequently, markets will move this way and that way until some leadership and stability are brought into the picture.

Winning Strategies

Good teams find ways to win even when the calls go against them, even when the weather is bad, and even when their opponents change their strategy. 

Bad calls are a part of sports…and business…and politics.  You have to go on.  It is a part of the game.  Yes, the ref missed the call, but you still have to play out the rest of the game.  Sure, Standard & Poor’s may have not handled the ratings adjustment and timing in the best way possible, but the Obama administration knew that the government’s bond rating might be changed and it also knew that the United States had fiscal problems, political problems, and economic problems. 

The announcement on Friday evening was not a surprise.  Yet, the administration chose to claim that Standard & Poor’s was “incompetent and not credible.”

To some this puts the United States right up there with Greece…and Portugal…and Spain…and Italy.  The blame rests elsewhere.  This is what losing teams do.

The weather, the external environment, is a part of games…and business…and politics.  Yet, your opponent, others, has to face the same external environment that you do.  The snow or wind or rain made playing rough, but the game continues.  Sure, the economic conditions being faced by the United States are difficult, but the Obama administration has been facing them for two and a half years, as have many other countries, and blame cannot continually be placed upon the Bush(43) administration or the rest of the world. 

Again, losing teams put the blame on somebody or something else, like speculators, like rating agencies, like previous Presidents.  And, then they keep on doing just what they have been doing in the past.

Opponents change their strategies during games, or, they may change personnel.  Given the refereeing, given the weather, given the strategy you are pursuing, your opponents may alter the way they do things in order to take advantage of your strategy or your personnel or the weather.  Yes, the Republicans won the mid-term elections, sure the Tea Party advocates came on very strong, and sure the economy did not respond the way that the Obama administration expected, but that is not a reason to blame these factors as a reason why the Obama team didn’t succeed. 

President Obama relied on the same strategy and game plan established at the start of his presidency.  Every issue was addressed by a speech after which the construction of a plan, whether for health care, financial reform, or debt control, was turned over to Congress.  The opponents of President Obama changed how they played the game and largely succeeded in their efforts because the Obama team played the game exactly as they had in the past.      

Losing teams always seem to blame other factors, like their opponents changing strategies for their failures. 

It is obvious that there is great concern in the world over the financial affairs of governments in the United States and Europe.  Yet, these governments continue to claim that others are imposing the problems upon them.  And, as this attitude continues, we all are worse off for it.  This is the way losers play the game. 

The conditions are what they are.  The people in power need to make adjustments to their game plans…they cannot continue to follow the same strategies they have been pursuing in the past.  When is it going to become obvious to these people that what they are doing is not working.  When are they going to realize that the past is the past and that maybe they need to listen to new voices?   Politicians are supposed to be pragmatic…so let’s seem some of that pragmatism.

Where should they start?   

I believe that the United States government needs to change its economic objective.  For more than fifty years, the primary economic objective has been to achieve high levels of employment…a low unemployment rate.  Under this objective, the percentage of people working in labor force has dropped to an historic low of about 55 percent and the underemployment rate has risen to about 20 percent of those of employment age.  Furthermore, pursuing this policy objective has resulted in an income/wealth distribution skewed more toward the rich than ever. 

To continue to maintain this policy as the number one priority of the United States government is like a football team continuing to run the same play over and over again even though the opponent has stacked the defense to stop that very play.

To me, the primary objective of United States economic policy should be the maintenance of a strong dollar.  Although every presidential administration for the past fifty years has supported a “strong dollar”, the policy of credit inflation followed by both Republicans and Democrats to achieve high levels of employment for the past fifty years has achieved exactly the opposite end.  First, the United States dollar was taken off the gold standard on August 15, 1971 and its value was allowed to float.  Next, the credit inflation policies followed by these Republican and Democratic administrations have resulted in a decline in the dollar in world markets of about 40 percent since 1971.

The game plan of credit inflation to achieve low levels of unemployment has not succeeded and the standing of the United States in the world has suffered for it.  That game plan needs to be changed. 

A strong dollar is the foundation for a strong economy because the emphasis is placed upon the competitiveness and innovative capabilities of the businesses and workforce of the economy.  The government must be concerned with education and training, with the ability of companies to innovate and change, and with incentives for people to start and grow companies.  High levels of employment and labor participation are achieved in this way. 

Putting all the emphasis on credit inflation to ensure high levels of employment works against the things mentioned in the previous paragraph.  Credit inflation works to put people back in their old jobs rather than encourage innovation and training to raise productivity and change.  Credit inflation puts emphasis on financial leverage and financial innovation and leads to the financial sectors of the economy becoming more important than the manufacturing sectors.  And, credit inflation results in the income/wealth distribution becoming more skewed toward the wealthy. 

If the basic philosophy of the Obama administration continues to be one based on the further application of credit inflation to the economy it will have fundamental problems going forward.  One, economic growth will continue to stagnate.  Two, the administration will face greater and greater opposition, first, from its opponents because they will see that nothing has changed in the game plan and that the game plan is not succeeding; and second, because its supporters will become more and more dissatisfied with its performance.  Three, potential outside opponents, like China, Russia, Brazil, and so forth, will prepare much more aggressive game plans against the United States because they can smell the weakness.  Note the responses of China, Russia, and others, to the Standard & Poor’s downgrade. 

Winning teams focus on building strong organizations with the best personnel for the times and with the best game plans for the game they are playing.  They adjust with the conditions.  They find ways to win.  And, they do not make excuses.  

United States At Blame for Eurozone Problems?

Recommended read this morning, the op-ed piece by Kenneth Rogoff, “The Global Fallout of a Eurozone Collapse,” in the Financial Times. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e66a3d7c-9073-11e0-9227-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OaJbLwdu)

“It is ironic that the euro…is suffering from having an overly strong exchange rate, particularly against the dollar, and at precisely the moment when a huge depreciation would be most helpful.”

“I think it would be more accurate to say that markets are more worried... about the US’s lack of a plan A than Europe’s lack of plan B.”

“Unfortunately…the euro is looking very much like a system that amplifies shocks rather than absorbs them.  The UK, which of course did not adopt the euro, has benefited from a sharp sustained depreciation of the pound.  The peripheral countries of Europe are meanwhile stuck with woefully weak competitive positions and no easy adjustment mechanism.  European leaders’ plans to achieve effective devaluation through major wage adjustment seem far-fetched.  The only clean rescue for Europe would be if growth far outstripped expectations.  Unfortunately, post-financial crisis growth is likely to continue to be hampered by huge debt burdens.”

The worst of all worlds for this crisis…stagflation.

And, the United States continues to pound away creating more and more credit inflation for itself and the world…both in terms of monetary and fiscal policies.  (See my post about the Fed’s feeding of world inflation: http://seekingalpha.com/article/273506-cash-assets-at-foreign-related-financial-institutions-in-the-u-s-approach-1t.) 

“The markets are more worried about the US’s lack of a plan A…”

To me the world is seeing the current leadership in Washington, D. C. as little different than any group of leaders in Washington, D. C. over the past fifty years.   For the past fifty years the government debt produced by the United States government has risen at a compound rate of growth of more than 8 percent per year.  Economic growth has averaged a little more than 3 per cent every year for this same 50-year period.  

This is “credit inflation.”

And, the value of the dollar?

In 1961, at the start of this binge, the value of the dollar was pegged to gold.  In August 1971, President Nixon floated the dollar.  With the open capital markets that arose in the 1960s, a country could not independently follow a policy of credit inflation and keep the value of its currency fixed. 

Since the dollar was floated, the general trend in the value of the dollar has been downward with three exceptions.  The first was in the Volcker years of the early 1980s; the second was when Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury in the late 1990s; and the third was in the world rush to quality during the financial crisis of 2008-2009. 

The leaders of the United States have not had a plan to halt the decline in the value of the dollar for the past fifty years.  And, the Obama Administration is no different from any of the other administrations that preceded it since 1961. 

United States government officials have stated their support for a “strong” dollar throughout this time and yet have done little or nothing to stem the decline.

Again, “watch the hips and not the lips!”

And, the longer-term trend in the value of the United States dollar is still downward.

However, in an interdependent world, actions have repercussions elsewhere.  And that is what Rogoff is calling our attention to.  The policy actions of the United States government impact others.  And, the blanket government policy of credit inflation followed by Republican and Democratic Presidents over the last 50 years has come to dominate the world. 

Not only is it exacerbating the sovereign debt problems of Europe, it is spreading inflation throughout the world as the US dollars pumped into the US banking system by the Federal Reserve flow almost seamlessly into commodity markets throughout the world. (Again, see my post from yesterday.)

The irresponsible creation of debt and more debt does come to a limit.  And, as one approaches the limit, the number of options available to the issuer of the debt shrink in number as the desirability of those options also lessen. (“Debt Ultimately Leaves You With No Good Options,” http://seekingalpha.com/article/271651-debt-ultimately-leaves-you-with-no-good-options.)

The United States is experiencing this difficulty as we speak.  There are “things” the government would like to get into but can’t because there is no fiscal room for anything more, and there are “things” the government must get out of but don’t want to because they are in political favor. 

In a world of excessive debt, there are no good choices…period!

Rogoff goes on to talk about whether or not the world will succeed in forming a co-reserve currency system.  This would happen as the benefits of the co-reserve currency system were observed which would result in a trend towards the consolidation of currencies throughout the world. 

The current period of stress, Rogoff argues, is a period of learning.  “Having a smaller number of currencies is a phenomenon that makes a lot of sense economically, economizing on transactions’ costs and leveraging economies of scale.  The real question is whether common currency is sustainable politically.  My guess is that if the current slow patch in global growth does not quickly subside, we will not have to wait long for an answer.”

European Credibilty

In a solvency crisis, the question of credibility always arises.  The issue is one of trust…who can one trust?

The European Banking Authority (EBA), which opened for business this year, is now under the gun.

One of the jokes of the earlier European sovereign debt meltdown was the stress test that was administered to European banks.  The “stress” of the tests were not that stressful and the results were dismissed as irrelevant.

One goal the EBA set out to achieve was to administer a stress test that was credible and would provide a “realistic” view of how European banks would weather a new round of financial distress.

The tests were begun in March…the results of the stress tests were to be released in June.

The EBA has now asked banks to resubmit their information because “The EBA is currently assessing and challenging the first round of results from individual banks.  This will mean that another round of data will be required…Errors will have to be rectified and amendments made where there are inconsistencies or unrealistic assumptions.”

That is, there are “concerns that some countries and institutions made mistakes or used overly rosy assumptions.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cf770d00-8c6f-11e0-883f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O1hWLIwZ)

But, there seems to be another problem imbedded in these European stress tests.  “As with 2010, the EBA has also failed to include the possibility of a sovereign debt default, in spite of bail-outs in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal.”

What?

Much of the discussion surrounding the issue concerning what the European Union should do about Greece and the restructuring of Greek debt hinges on the inability of European banks to handle a write-down of Greece’s sovereign debt. 

I quote from my Tuesday morning post:

“Moody’s Investors Service estimates the European banks hold about €95 billion in Greek sovereign and private debt—and could lose one-third of it in a worst case scenario.”

European banks hold some €630 billion in Spanish debt. If Greece defaults in any way, shape, or form, the question is, “What about Ireland? And, Portugal? And, Spain? And, Italy? And…?” (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/272549-how-long-will-the-bailouts-continue.)

Where is the credibility in the stress tests, even if the banks use more pessimistic scenarios in the information they resubmit to the EBA?

And, as I suggested yesterday, leaders in America should be paying attention to the lessons being generated by the events now going on in Europe. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/272746-european-choices-continue-to-narrow-more-debt-is-not-the-solution)

The monetary and banking authorities are facing a situation in which one out of every seven commercial banks in the country is on the FDIC’s list of problem banks.  About one out of every four commercial banks in the country is “troubled.”  The number of banks in the banking system dropped by 320 banks in 2010 and we are on track for the number of banks to decline in 2011 by about the same number, which is about 5 percent of the commercial banks in the United States. 

The American banking system is not that healthy.  And, as a consequence, commercial banks, as an industry, are not lending.  The housing market continues to sink.  And, commercial real estate continues to be listless.  There are big pieces of the economic picture missing.

Maybe the leaders in the United States need to admit to these problems.  Maybe they need to learn something from the European situation in which the severity of the banking problems are hidden in incomplete stress tests while the whole “relief” program for Greece…and others…are being based upon the weaknesses in the banking system. 

The credibility of the European leadership is not doing well in the face of their lack of transparency.

The credibility of American leadership is facing similar shortcomings.

Maybe this is why Sheila Bair is leaving the FDIC…the end of her term of appointment being just a convenient excuse.  Maybe Sheila Bair knows something that the current administration does not want out in the public domain. 

My friends tell me that if the way a person talks does not match up with the way a person walks…then there is a credibility problem!  That is, watch the hips…not the lips!

I see this problem in Europe.

I see this problem in the United States.  President Obama and others in his administration, Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner, are explaining their actions in ways that do not seem to be consistent with the facts.  The result is public and investor confusion, uncertainty…and discontent…with their policies.

Europe does not seem to have anyone that can provide the leadership it needs…and this does not bode well for its future.

One keeps hoping that Obama will step up and provide the leadership for the United States.  But, I am afraid that this will not happen.  After all the number one responsibility of any government official is to get re-elected.  And, we are in that season.      

Have Things Changed in the United States Budget Debate?

Last week, April 7, 2011 to be exact, things started to change. Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, guided the ECB to an increase in its policy interest rate, moving from 1.00 percent to 1.25 percent. (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/262429-trichet-delivers-ecb-hikes-its-interest-rate.)

The night before the announcement, Portugal declared that it would seek a bailout from the European Union.

Last Friday evening, President Obama, the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives reached an eleventh-hour agreement on the 2011 fiscal budget.

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech laying out his ideas about improving the fiscal position of the United States government in the upcoming future.

Has Trichet and the ECB provided the turning point?

It is not altogether clear that the financial markets believe that the real attitudes in the United States have changed. Since the Trichet announcement, and through the political maneuvering in the United States over the past week, the Euro rose from about $1.42 per Euro to about $1.46 per Euro. Op-ed pieces in the Financial Times have argued that the Americans are really not serious about getting the budget under control. Seems as if people are not convinced yet that there is anyone in the American government that is intent upon really doing something about the situation. They are just posturing.

And, there is one person I have not mentioned that plays a vital role in this scenario: Ben Bernanke.

Bernanke in now on the opposite side of the picture from Trichet. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/261863-the-euro-trichet-vs-bernanke)

Trichet has turned the corner and raised interest rates.

Bernanke continues to promote QE2.

The Europeans cannot fault the Americans for messy governance. Since the sovereign financial cookie began to crumble in Europe in January 2010, the governments in Europe have fallen all over themselves trying to avoid any real fiscal action that would restore order to the national problems of the continent.

This has allowed countries to delay taking real actions that might resolve the European situation.

Then Trichet stepped up. Because of the pending ECB movement, Portugal had to move, they had to show some activity before the rate increase was announced.

Now, other European nations are on notice. Trichet has indicated that the recent move was not necessarily a part of multiple moves in the interest rate. But, I don’t think that any European nation doubts that Trichet and the ECB will continue to raise rates if the troubled nations don’t seriously attack their problems.

As I said, Bernanke is on the opposite side of the picture.

The Bernanke record? Before the Jackson Hole speech in late August (http://seekingalpha.com/article/222704-bernanke-in-the-hole), a Euro could be purchased for about $1.27. By early November, the price of a Euro had climbed to about $1.42. Into January, as the governments of the European Union messed around, this price dropped to around $1.30. Trichet started making noises that maybe the ECB needed to start raising interest rates and this resulted in value of the Euro rising again to around $1.40. And, Bernanke continued to defend the Fed’s quantitative easing!

What is Bernanke holding out for? What does he know about the economy or the banking system we don’t?

Of course, Bernanke has always been late to the dance. He was still promoting excessively low interest rates in the early 2000s when the housing bubble and the stock market bubble were accelerating. He was still fighting inflation in August 2007 as the regime of the Quants broke. He was still worried about inflation in August of 2008 until he wasn’t worried about inflation in September 2010. (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/106186-the-bailout-plan-did-bernanke-panic)

Any bets that Bernanke will be late to the party once again?

But, when it comes to the lack of confidence in the will of the United States to support the value of the dollar, Bernanke is not alone. With two exceptions, the United States government has followed a policy of credit inflation for the last fifty years that has resulted in a decline in the value of the dollar against major trading partners of around 35 percent. The value of the dollar has declined against other, non-major trading partners, by even more than 35 percent over this time period.

The two exceptions came when the monetary policy of the United States was led by Paul Volcker, 1979-1987, and the fiscal policy was led by Robert Rubin, 1995-1999. During these periods the value of the United States dollar rose strongly. Yet, overall, the value of the dollar still declined by 35 percent.

And, the United States dollar is the reserve currency of the world. We should be really proud of having this responsibility. And, in carrying out this responsibility the economic policy of the United States government has caused other sovereign nations to lose part of their wealth due to the fact that the United States was inflating their currency and causing a decline in the value of the currency reserves these nations were holding.

For the near term, Bernanke is going to “stay with the fight”. That is quantitative easing is going to be continued through June. Between now and then the “debt ceiling” fight is going to heat up along with the competition now being billed as the “budget debate.”

And, the value of the United States dollar will continue to decline (baring other shocks to the world).

The value of the United States dollar will continue to decline over time as long as the rest of the world believes that we will not get our fiscal house in order and also believes that our central bank will continue to inflate the globe!

How will we know if the rest of the world begins to take our fiscal and monetary responsibilities seriously?
We will know that attitudes have shifted once we begin to see the value of the dollar firm up and even begin to rise on information about growing discipline over the budget and monetary policy. (I have written an Instablog on this: see “What is Needed to Reduce the Federal Deficit,” March 3, http://seekingalpha.com/author/john-m-mason/instablog.)

For now, we hear a lot of platitudes in the budget debate but very little noise of rubber hitting the road. We have a right to remain skeptical.