Deficit Reduction: An Absence of Leadership

I spend a lot of time writing…and talking…about the credit inflation that has taken place in the United States over the past fifty years.  In my mind, this period of credit inflation set the stage for the Great Recession of December 2007 through July 2009.  It also set the stage for the debt overhang that burdens the United States economy to this very day.  It also will account for the mediocre economic growth that the United States will experience for the next four or five years.

Essentially this credit inflation laid the foundation for all the private sector credit expansion that took place during this fifty-year period and for the financial innovation that dominated the country in the latter part of the last century. 

Over the past fifty years, the Gross Public Debt of the United States increased at a compound rate of growth of approximately 8.0 percent.  Private debt rose somewhere between a compound rate of 10.0 percent and 15.0 percent. 

All of these figures exceed the growth rate of the economy, which averaged a compound rate slightly in excess of 3.0 percent.

When credit growth exceeds the rate at which the economy can grow, that is called “credit inflation.”  A good portion of this credit inflation has gone into consumer prices, but even more has gone into asset prices, or, has gone offshore.

The Gross Public Debt stands around $15.0 trillion as of this last October.  In just the past three years this figure has grown by about $4.0 trillion.

If this pace is continued, the Gross Public Debt will rise by more than $13.00 trillion over the next ten years, slightly below the forecast I have been putting out for the last year or more, which is $15.0 trillion or more.  I have argued that, given current attitudes, the government’s debt outstanding will double in the next ten years. 

I feel much more comfortable, at this time, arguing that the debt will double in the next ten years than I do that the debt will increase by only 50.0 percent or 75.0 percent. 

I have very little faith, at the present time, that much will be done to divert us from the path that we are on.  And, just ten years ago we were experiencing a surplus in the government’s budget.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that I am not surprised in the breakdown in the deficit talks of the Congressional supercommittee.  There is no leadership in Washington to bring about a change in direction.  The President’s ability to lead the situation is almost non-existent given the evidence of the recent polling data on support.  And, Congress is even less able to lead given that polls on the public’s confidence in it are substantially below that of the President. 

The problem, as I see it, is that the leadership style of the President is to state, in general, what he would like…a health care bill, a financial reform act, an increase in the debt ceiling, and a deficit reduction plan…and then turns it over to Congress to come up with a plan.

The Republicans in Congress knows that they will not be punished if they stand up and take a very intransigent position.  They have become very direct in this in the last two skirmishes, because they knew that there was no way they would be called out.   They learned this from the first events surrounding the development of the health care bill and the financial reform act.  The Democrats in Congress have just been left out to “hang”.  You really don’t hear anything from them anymore.  They know they have the weak hand. 

So, I continue to predict that the federal debt outstanding will grow…and grow…and grow.

And, as the debt continues to grow, the value of the dollar will continue to trend downward.  Over this time period the debt of the United States government has trended upwards. 

Since 1971, when the dollar was taken off the gold standard, the dollar has declined in value by about 33.0 percent.  Since 1971, the debt of the government has increased by 39 times.  The reason that the dollar has not declined by more is that other countries have followed policies that are similar to those of the United States and the U. S. dollar is still the reserve currency of the world.

As the debt continues to grow, the value of the dollar continues to decline.   Here is the chart of the value of the U. S. dollar against other major currencies over the last ten years.   

The chart begins near the start of the Bush (43) administration.  The two years previous to the beginning of the Bush (43) administration, the federal budget was in surplus.  As can be seen, the value of the dollar was about 10.0 percent above the level it was at the time the dollar was removed from the gold standard.  As federal deficits rose through the last decade, the value of the dollar continued to decline, reaching historic lows earlier this year. 

Thus, I continue to be a pessimist about the ability of the United States government to get its budget under control and I continue to be a pessimist about the future value of the dollar.  We cannot expect to see the value of the dollar really get stronger until we achieve some control over our fiscal affairs. 

Given this view about the future, I continue to be a pessimist about the ability of the United States to maintain its economic lead on the rest of the world going forward. (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/309054-signs-of-the-future-developed-countries-vs-emerging-countries for more on this.) Right now, that is the environment I believe businesses and investors should prepare for.

Debt Ultimately Leaves You With No Good Options

The economies of Europe are hurting, unemployment is too high, and the social nets are under attack.  The economy of the United States is hurting, unemployment is too high, and the social net is under attack.

Options for the governments in each area are decreasing and despair is growing. 

This is exactly what piling on the debt eventually does to you.

I sympathize with the unemployed.  I sympathize with the under-employed.  I sympathize with the labor unions…public sector and private sector…that are losing members and popular support.  I wish there were more for everyone.

Taking on debt, in the beginning, looks like it frees one up…provides opportunities to do more things…own more things…live a better life. 

Eventually, debt does exactly the opposite…limiting your options…constraining your life style…and exerting pressures that are unwelcome.

I sound like a preacher from the early part of the twentieth century…don’t I?  This is exactly what they used to say. 

Except this is just what we are seeing. 

Taking on debt in the early stages of financial leveraging does allow you to do some things that you cannot do without debt.  And, in these early stages, more debt can seemingly “buy” you out of difficulties. 

As we have seen, more debt then becomes the solution to the problems created by debt.  And, it works for a time.

The thing that people don’t see in continually using debt as a panacea for their problems is that the more and more debt they add to their balance sheets, the fewer and fewer options they have. 

Finally, the obligations created by the debt result in a reduction in the options leaving the debtor with very few choices…and, with most of the choices undesirable ones.

So, the government of Greece is faced with selling assets, and tightening up its budget even further, reducing government employment, and cutting social services. 

Portugal is now under the knife although it believed for a long time that it would escape the “cure”.

And, who are becoming the hard-nosed critics that are pushing these governments to take on more radical solutions?

Spain…and Italy…and Belgium….

Why?  Well, because these latter countries are now feeling the potential for the “contagion” to spread in the European continent. 

Spain, who seemed to be getting its house in order, observed a massive shift in voting on Sunday as the long ruling socialist party was basically removed from office.  There is great fear that the accounting in regional governments has been understating the debt of the country and this will have to be recognized and dealt with by the incoming governments.  Whoops!

Italy has a national debt equal to 120 percent of its gross domestic product and is experiencing sufficient economic dislocations that its future was called into question by a bond rating agency.

Belgium is now also coming up on the radar screens of the investment community.  The interest spread on 10-year Belgium debt over 10-year German debt jumped to a near term high on Monday.  Belgium, too, is looking anxiously at what Greece…and Portugal…do to avoid becoming one of the falling dominoes.

Yet there are still calls for these countries to increase their spending and create more debt to solve the employment and social services problems for the countries experiencing such suffering.

Foremost among those calling for more spending and more debt is the fundamentalist preacher Paul Krugman.  To him more debt seems to be the solution to any problem an economy faces. 

Yes, people are hurting, but, as he seeks to achieve a reduction in the “official” unemployment rate, some of us see the increase in the under-employment of our workforce throughout the past fifty years, the period of credit inflation, as the consequence of those, like Krugman, who profess the gospel of governmental deficit spending as the way to put people back to work in their legacy jobs.

Krugman criticizes those concerned with the massive debt levels achieved by  European governments…and by the United States government…and claims that those worrying about these debt levels are like some that are claiming that the end of the world is near.

Yet, Krugman, himself, sounds like a profit of doom, when he claims that the world as we know it will end if governments don’t increase spending and create more debt!

The problem we now face is one in which there seems to be very few choices left for us.  The amount of debt that people and nations have created is acting like a noose around our neck that is getting ever tighter.  We can do as Krugman suggests, and goose up stimulus spending some more creating more debt, but, as we have seen, the outcome of this would be to provide us with even fewer choices in the future.  The noose will just get tighter.

Eventually, the options will run out, leaving us no choices.

It seems to me that we must deal with the choices that are now available to us, even though they may not be very pleasant ones, and act in a way that will allow us more and better choices in the future.  If reducing the debt outstanding at this stage is the only way we to increase our options, then it seems as if this is the way we must go. 

Given the limited choices that are available to us at this time…I would hate to see our options become even more constricted.         

A Problem With Large Government Deficits

 When one discusses large government deficits the discussion generally centers on either the ability of the government to finance those deficits in financial markets or the need to “monetize” the debt, thereby creating the possibility of substantial future inflation.

There is another problem that doesn’t get as much attention yet is very, very important for the running of the government.  It is a problem the United States government is now facing. 

If a government (or anyone for that matter) is running a large deficit in its financial budget then the very existence of such an excessive budget restricts the government in what else it might be able to do.  That is, the government’s flexibility in taking on new expenditures is severly limited. 

The United States government is facing this problem in several areas at this very moment.  Let’s review a couple of them.

The United States government is facing tremendous competition from China in international trade and finance.  The United States is very limited in its ability at this time to respond to the initiatives that the Chinese are making in the world…politically and economically. 

“Flush with capital from its enormous trade surpluses and armed with the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, China has begun spreading its newfound riches to every corner of the world—whether copper mines in Africa, iron ore facilities in Australia or even a gas shale project in the heart of Texas.”  This comes from the article “As China Invests, U. S. Could Lose,” in the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html?ref=business)

A “study, commissioned by the Asia Society in New York and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, forecasts that over the next decade China could invest as much as $2 trillion in overseas companies, plants or property…”

The United States government and United States business does not have that much “dry ammunition” to combat such an investment program.  And, as U. S. government policy continues to underwrite a weak dollar, the ability to take on such an investment program internationally continues to fade into the background.  But, other BRIC nations pose such a challenge as well.

Yet, the United States cannot afford to be un-competitive in this area.

Also this morning we read about the plight of United States regulatory agencies: “US Regulators Face Budget Pinch as Mandates Widen.”  (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/u-s-regulators-face-budget-pinch-as-mandates-widen/?ref=business)  In effect, as Congress has given banking and financial regulators more to do, due to the recent financial crisis, the regulators find that they are finding less and less money to carry out the new charge they have been given. 

Many of us may not be upset with this situation, still it points to the fact that with the large budget deficits forecast into the future, the United States government just cannot commit to fund certain programs people have wanted to see become more aggressive. 

One final situation that has recently occurred.  This has to do with the situation in Libya.  Many have argued that the United States cannot take on more military roles in the world because it just cannot pump up the expenditures on the budget to meet such responsibilities.  Consequently, since it favors military actions in selected spots, such as the one in Libya, it cannot fully participate in the exercise and must get others, like NATO, to carry the burden of the effort.

The question then becomes, “Is this budget constraint keeping the American government from doing things in other areas it believes it should be involved in?”  Like in Yemen or Syria?

The problem is that one can’t do everything…even if that “one” is the richest and most powerful nation in the world and oversees the reserve currency of the world.  And, this is the problem with lots of debt.  It allows “one” to live beyond ones means for a while…but then there is always the possibility that “one” will need to do more…and can’t.

It is an issue of management and discipline.  One cannot constantly push debt limits to the extreme and then expect to be able to go further into debt should the occasion arise at some time in the future. 

Boy, this idea seems “old fashioned”!

But, this is exactly what the United States government has been doing…and it has been doing it for an “extended period”…it has been doing it since the 1960s.  This is the foundation of the credit inflation we have been experiencing for the last fifty years.

And this is the foundation of the decline in the value of the United States dollar for the past fifty years and for the terrible balance of trade situation the United States finds itself in which has led to the surplus of dollars in the hands of the Chinese and others. 

I know…if the value of the dollar declines, the trade deficit should get smaller.  I tried to respond to this issue earlier.  See my post “Does a Decline in the US Dollar’s Value Reduce the Balance of Payments Deficit”: http://seekingalpha.com/article/265072-does-a-decline-in-the-u-s-dollar-s-value-reduce-the-balance-of-payments-deficit. 

The value of the dollar continues to decline because those in international financial markets don’t observe the “management and discipline” in the Unites States government that is necessary to change what goes on relative to the budget of the United States government. 

In my view, the United States government does not have to do much to gain the confidence of world financial markets.  The first thing the government must do is accept the goal of maintaining the value of the United States dollar in foreign exchange markets as its primary economic objective.  (I have discussed this in a post to my Instablog, “What is Needed to Reduce the Federal Deficit”: http://seekingalpha.com/author/john-m-mason/instablog.)

This would allow two things to happen.  First, the United States government could get away from its current primary goal, the Keynesian goal of achieving full employment, which it cannot accomplish anyway. (See my post from yesterday: http://seekingalpha.com/article/267307-the-new-way-of-conducting-business.)  The exchange rate goal incorporates an inflation goal within it.

Second, the government needs to focus on “good” long-term management and discipline in its budgetary practices.   Good, long-term management pays off.  My recent example of this is the efforts led by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in the latter part of the 1990s to balance the United States budget.  International financial markets saw this effort; believed that President Clinton and others within his administration supported the effort; and the value of the US dollar began to climb in foreign exchange markets even before a balanced budget was achieved. 

The important thing to note is that the economy also got stronger during this time so that the government achieved not only a greater balance in the budget and a rising value of the US dollar, but it also saw the US economy continue to grow.  International financial markets approved of the “management and discipline” that it believed it saw in the United States government.  Plus, this effort created some room for the Bush 43 administration to add additional “unexpected” expenditures to the budget ,as they were needed, such as the “war on terrorism.

How Much Should the United States Cut the Deficit?

How much should the United States government cut its budget deficit?

This seems to be the big debate in Congress surrounding discussions/negotiations related to the new fiscal budget.

The problem as I see it is that the United States government is focused on the wrong objective! It is focused on an objective, low levels of unemployment that it cannot achieve without creating all other kinds of distortions in the economy, distortions that produce, in many cases exactly the opposite result from what the government is attempting to achieve.

Let me tell you what objective I believe the United States government should focus upon in determining its economic policy stance, which includes its fiscal budget.

I believe that the primary economic focus of the United States government should be on the value of the United States dollar. I believe that the United States government should attempt to stabilize and maintain the value of the dollar in international currency markets.

The current focus of economic policy in the United States government is employment…or low levels of unemployment. This objective was memorialized in The Employment Act of 1946 which set placed the responsibility for achieving high levels of employment, or low levels of unemployment on the back of the United States government.

In 1978 this objective was re-enforced by a new act, The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (known informally as the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act). This act just made stronger the government’s commitment to the achievement of low levels of unemployment.

The ability of a government to achieve full employment was contested in 1968 by the economist Milton Friedman who contended that continued governmental stimulus to achieve a “hypothetical” level of employment, called “full employment” would only achieve more and more inflation as people came to expect the government’s efforts to stimulate the economy through the creation of credit expansion…credit inflation.

Friedman’s expectations proved to be true as the government continued to promote government deficits and the expansion of government debt in economy.

From 1960 through 2010, the gross federal debt of the country expanded at an annual compound rate of more that 7% per year.

From 1960 through 2010, the purchasing power of the United States dollar declined by about 85%.

From 1960 through 2010, the United States removed itself from the gold standard and allowed the value of the United States dollar to float in foreign exchange markets. The value of the United States dollar has declined by more than 30% since it was floated and expectations are for it to decline further.

From 1960 through 2010 under-employment in the United States has gone from a relatively modest number which was not measured at the earlier date to more than 20% in the current environment.

From 1960 through 2010 manufacturing capacity has declined from about 95% to about 75%. The peak capacity utilization has every cycle since the early 1970s has been at lower and lower levels.

From 1960 through 2010 the income distribution of the United States has become dramatically skewed toward the higher levels of income earned. This is the most skewed income distribution curve ever for the United States.

I cannot see how the United States government can continue to keep “full employment” as a goal of its economic policies. Not only has “full employment” not been maintained, it has generated side effects that, it seems to me, has substantially worsened the life of many Americans.

Why should the government substitute the maintenance of the value of the United States dollar as its primary objective for the conduct of its economic policy?

Here I quote Paul Volcker: “a nation’s exchange rate is the single most important price in (the) economy; it will influence the entire range of individual prices, imports and exports, and even the level of economic activity. So it is hard for any government to ignore large swings in its exchange rate.” This quote is from Paul Volcker (“Changing Fortunes: the World’s Money and the Threat to American Leadership,” by Paul Volcker and Toyoo Gyohten, Times Books, 1992, page 232.)

Yet “ignore large swings in its exchange rate” is exactly what the United States did and is doing. The consequences of ignoring this value? I have reported those above.

By focusing on the level of unemployment the way the United States government did and pursuing an economic policy of credit inflation, the United States government actually weakened the country and hurt its citizens. The “unintended results of good intentions!”

The United States government should not, and realistically cannot, reduce its budget deficit too rapidly. Markets realize that.

But, the United States government must signal that it is changing the objective of its economic policy and is sincerely pursing a path to reduce or even eliminate the credit inflation it has inflected on its country…and the world…for the last fifty years.

My guess is that until international financial markets see this shift in policy objectives and sense a realistic change in the attitudes of the politicians in Washington, D. C. the dollar will continue to decline in value because participants in international financial markets will just see the government continuing to act in the same way it has over the past fifty years, acting in a way that will continue the policy of credit inflation.

And, if the government continues to act in this way, the economic health of the economy will continue to deteriorate and the standing of the United States in the world will continue to become relatively weaker.

In my view the government does not have to reduce the deficit by massive amounts this year. It does, however, have to signal that it is changing its goals and objectives and then provide enough evidence of this change in focus to convince the international financial markets that it is sincere.

In the current political environment, however, this may be too much to ask.

Will the Financial Industry Dance Alone?

Last Wednesday, February 23, I argued that “The Music’s Begun Again..” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/254474-the-music-s-begun-again-time-to-start-dancing), and I fully believe that to be the case.

The economy has been growing. Since its low point in the second quarter of 2009, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has risen by 4.4%. The compound rate of growth has been approximately 0.7% per quarter which works out to an annual rate of roughly 2.9% per year. So the economic recovery continues.

However, capacity utilization of the manufacturing industries remains low, at 76.1% in its latest reading, substantially below the previous peak of around 82%. Even this peak was the lowest peak since the 1960s when the series was originally constructed.

My calculation for under-employment still hovers above 20%, again a high for the period following the 1960s

And, this, of course, raises the fear of a period of economic “stagflation” for the United States. Although the economy is recovery, one certainly could not apply the term “robust” to describe it.

From the credit side…more and more evidence comes in every day that the credit inflation that began in the 1960s continues. Although the world is going through a massive re-structuring, our leaders in the government continue to cry…more of the same…more of the same.

As with the last fifty years, credit inflation begins with the Federal government. The national debt is set to more than double over the next ten years and none of our leaders seem to be really seriously concerned about it.

For the debt to double over the next ten years, government debt would need to increase at a compound rate of about 7.2% per year during this time period. This is not too different from the compound rate at which the gross federal debt increased annually over the fifty years which began in January 1961.

During this period of time, the United States saw the biggest buildup in private financial leverage in the history of the country and also saw the biggest spurt of financial innovation ever to take place in the world.

Aided by advancements in information technology, the world of finance seemed to take on a life
of its own, separate from what was going on in the real economy. Employment in finance rose to approach 50% of all employment in the country as the number of financial institutions and the number of financial instruments traded ballooned.

We were getting a glimpse of the future.

Thanks to our leaders in Washington, D. C., and elsewhere, the “music” is playing again and, as we read daily, people have begun to dance once again in earnest. We read that auto sales are up because the auto companies have gotten auto finance to step up to the dance floor.

But, sovereigns are also leading the charge. Check out a lead in the Financial Times, “Sovereigns Turn to Pre-crisis Financial Wizardry” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53b445a0-4045-11e0-9140-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FMM69iWr). It seems as if Portugal, and others, are getting back to “structured finance technology” with the use of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) to help themselves climb their way out of the current crisis in the sovereign debt market.

What else?

Did I hear someone say that issues of mortgage-backed commercial real estate securities are back? They are, and in a fairly big way. (See http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/commercial-real-estate-breathes-life-into-a-moribund-market/?ref=business.) Morgan Stanley and Bank of America have recently completed a $1.55 billion deal while others have sold roughly $5 billion in mortgage-backed securities so far this year. And, more is on the way.

The quote I like…from Brian Lancaster, as securitization specialist at the Royal Bank of Scotland…”Things have going from vicious to virtuous.”

It seems that car loans and collateralized loan obligations “are showing signs of life.”

And, the trading platforms built on the latest technology are beginning to fight for “territory.” GFI, a London interdealer broker, launched a swaps trading platform in advance of what is being done in the United States. (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e107d684-4369-11e0-8f0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FMM69iWr.) Whereas firms in the United States are having to wait on the Commodities Futures Trading Commission for the new rules and regulations forthcoming from the Dodd-Frank legislations, others are getting a head start on them.

Technology booms ahead…while the regulators scramble to catch up to 2008. The Financial Crisis Inquiry commission just released information that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency questioned several aspects of how Citigroup valued certain troubled securities way back in February 2008: seems as if “weaknesses were noted.” The question concerns whether or not Citigroup should have reported this information in its public documents. (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b673370-4399-11e0-b117-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FMM69iWr.)

My point is that we are still re-hashing what went on or what went wrong two or more years ago. The world has moved on since then. Information technology has moved on since then.

Note the headline in the New York Times: “For South Korea, Internet at Blazing Speeds is Still Not Fast Enough.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/technology/22iht-broadband22.html?scp=1&sq=for%20south%20korea,%20internet%20at%20blazing%20speeds%20is%20still%20not%20fast%20enough&st=cse) South Korea is seeking to have every home in the country connected with speeds of one gigabit per second. And, this is for homes.

One should also read about the changes that are coming to banking for individuals and families in places like India and Africa! This, while American banking is constrained by archaic restrictions that is causing it to lag behind much of the rest of the world in terms of customer delivery.

And, if all this is happening for the consumer, what is taking place in the biggest, most sophisticated financial institutions? Anyone for some science fiction? And, we are just worried about “flash trading”?

Regulation always lags behind the private sector. In the credit inflation of the last fifty years, the gap widened considerably. But, in re-fighting the last war will Congress and the regulators drive more business “off shore”?

The music has begun to play again. Credit inflation is underway. Further financial innovation is right on its heals. The economic recovery is underway…but, I fear, finance is going to go its own way again.

The Music Has Begun Again, Start Dancing?

John Maynard Keynes is remembered for many quotes and one of the most memorable ones is his claim that “In the long run we are all dead.” Keynes wrote this remark to criticize the belief that inflation would acceptably control itself without government intervention. That is, he argued that the theoretically determined equilibrium of an economy was not a good guide to the future in a very volatile economic situation.

The statement has been used, however, as an excuse for choosing the economic policy of a government based short run outcomes. The most prominent short run outcome sought over the past fifty years has been the maintenance of high levels of employment…or, low levels of unemployment.

The problem is that fifty years of government stimulus, basically credit inflation, aimed at achieving low levels of unemployment have created a cumulative build up in debt and a general attitude toward debt that perpetuates a desire for “more-of-the-same.”

And, over this past fifty years, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 85%; the under-employed in the country are in excess of 20% of the working force; and the income distribution has become dramatically skewed toward higher income recipients.

Not surprisingly, the economic and financial crisis of the past few years has been met with calls for more fiscal stimulus and wide-open monetary policy. The result: yearly federal government budget deficits of over $1.5 trillion with an estimated cumulative deficit over the next ten years in excess of $15 trillion. In terms of monetary policy, excess reserves in the banking system have reached $1.2 trillion. All this, of course, to get the economy going again.

Here, however, is where moral hazard enters the picture. The behavior patterns of finance people, developed over the last fifty years, “kicks in” once people see that the same old spending habits of the government are still in place.

I call your attention to the opinion piece by John Plender in the Financial Times this morning, “Bad Habits of Credit Bubble Make Worrying Comeback.” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26d644be-3ea8-11e0-834e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EmwjGnnL)

Mr. Plender begins: “Here we go again. The start of the year in debt markets has been marked by record low yields on junk bonds, declining underwriting standards and a return of the more dangerous innovations of yesteryear such as payment-in-kind toggles which allow borrowers to issue more debt to pay the interest bill. Even covenant-life loans, where normal borrowing conditions are shelved, have made a comeback in the leveraged buyout market and elsewhere, at a time when hapless small and medium sized firms are hard pressed to find credit.

A surplus of savings over investment is thus building up in the system and the US is once again accommodating the savings gluttons with an ongoing commitment to loose policy…No surprise, then, that the search for yield is back in evidence. With Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke keeping policy interest rates at rock bottom, investors are being driven into riskier assets such as junk bonds and leveraged loans.”

Has the “music” started up once more so that people must start dancing again? Someone call “Chuck” Prince, former chairman of Citigroup, to get his “take” on the timing.

Fifty year policies are not just present in the economic policies of government. They exist elsewhere as well. Check out the Tom Friedman’s column “If Not Now, When?” in the New York Times this morning. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23friedman.html?hp)

Here Friedman discusses energy policy: “For the last 50 years, America (and Europe and Asia) have treated the Middle East as if it were just a collection of big gas stations: Saudi station, Iran station, Kuwait station, Bahrain station, Egypt station, Libya station, Iraq station, United Arab Emirates station, etc. Our message to the region has been very consistent: ‘Guys (it was only guys we spoke with), here’s the deal. Keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, don’t bother the Israelis too much and, as far as we’re concerned, you can do whatever you want out back. You can deprive your people of whatever civil rights you like. You can engage in however much corruption you like. You can preach whatever intolerance from your mosques that you like. You can print whatever conspiracy theories about us in your newspapers that you like. You can keep your women as illiterate as you like. You can create whatever vast welfare-state economies, without any innovative capacity, that you like. You can undereducate your youth as much as you like. Just keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, don’t hassle the Jews too much — and you can do whatever you want out back.’”

Fifty years is a long time. The buildup of fifty years of economic policies and energy policies can result in a lot of excess baggage hanging around that must be dealt with. A fifty-year build up not only requires a major re-structuring of nations and economies, it also requires a huge shift in the mindset of many, many people.

You want the deficit to come down in the short run and monetary policy to be reversed because it is potentially inflationary? It just ain’t going to happen in the near term.
You want an energy policy that is going to immediately get us off of oil so that we can stop subsidizing dictators and autocrats in the Middle East? It just ain’t going to happen in the near term.

And, so on and so on…

What seems to be missing is the leadership to change our mindset and develop a new paradigm that will set us on a pathway to re-structure our economy and our lives. I don’t think we want to dance the same old dance we have been doing for the past fifty years. Yet, it seems as if we have no choice but to start dancing again because the bank has begun to play the music once more.

The leadership just does not seem to be here, either in America, or in Europe, or in Asia. And, no one is strong enough to want to inflict on people the consequences of ‘getting the house in order again.’ I guess one can say, in line with the earlier comments of the mayor-elect of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, that the leadership in the United States (and in Europe and in Asia) has “”let a crisis go to waste!”

The question that is still unanswered is “Has Keynes’ long-run arrived yet or do we still have to wait for it?” If it has not arrived yet, then it is still to come. Payment will be collected sometime. However, if this ‘long-run’ is still to come then my advice to those that work in financial institutions or in the financial markets is…start dancing again if you haven’t already started for the music has begun once again.

Liqudity Traps are For Real

When I was studying economics, the idea that an economy might face a “liquidity trap” seemed absurd. Basically, the concept of the liquidity trap was that the monetary authorities could not “push on a string”. In other words, the liquidity trap represented a time when the central bank could inject a large amount of reserves into the banking system and people (and businesses) would prefer to hold more money than to hold debt. Thus, funds could not get into the bond market which would mean that businesses would not invest in inventories, plant, or, equipment, and the economy would stay mired at a low rate of activity.

This was why deficit spending on the part of the government was necessary, at least for those following the Keynesian dogma, because it was the only way to increase aggregate demand and re-charge economic activity.

Well, we are in a liquidity trap. The Federal Reserve has injected more than $1.0 trillion of excess reserves into the banking system and has kept short-term interest rates close to zero. And, commercial banks have not lent these excess reserves so they continue to rest on the balance sheets of the banking system. The question is, what needs to be done next?

Furthermore, the government has tried deficit spending to spur on the economy, but this effort seems to have had a less-than-dramatic impact on the economic recovery now seemingly underway. Keynesian dogmatists argue vociferously that the problem is that the government has not spent enough…that the Obama administration has been too timid.

But, this approach to the concept of liquidity traps hinges upon the assumption that the crucial economic relationship is found on the asset side of the balance sheet, on the division of assets between holding money or holding bonds. The analysis completely ignores the liability side of the balance sheet. Nothing is said about the amount of leverage the economic unit has built into its balance sheet. Hence, the issue of whether or not an economic unit has “too much” debt doesn’t even enter the picture. And, this is the problem.

There is an article in the Financial Times this morning that I believe does a good job in addressing this issue. The article is “Leverage Crises are Nature’s Way of Telling Us to Slow Down” by Jamil Baz, Chief Investment Strategist for GLG Partners (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/580fa460-8e8d-11df-964e-00144feab49a.html).

Baz argues that the near-collapse of the world financial system followed by a deep recession was “a crisis of leverage.” The ratio of total debt to gross domestic product in the United States reached 350 percent in 2007. Whereas nations could perhaps maintain a level of 200 percent and still achieve healthy economic growth, the 350 percent figure that remains in the United States (and that also exists at higher levels in many of the leading developed countries) cannot be sustained.

The consequence is that at some time in the future the United States and other developed countries are going to have to deleverage. But, deleveraging is going to be costly in terms of future economic growth. We, in essence, have to pay for the past sins we have committed in building up such an enormous debt structure.

Baz presents “three hard realities we need to bear in mind” that result from having too much leverage. These hard realities are:

• When you are bankrupt, you either have to default on your debts or you save so you can repay your debts;
• Policy choices under such circumstances are not appetizing with one school of thought advising taking morphine now followed by cold turkey later and the other school proposing cold turkey now;
• If you are a politician, you may be under the illusion that you are in charge whereas the real decision-maker is the bond market.

He concludes: “maybe leverage crises are nature’s way of telling us to slow down. Policymakers can ignore this message at their own peril. In their anxiousness to avoid past mistakes, they run the risk of an even bigger mistake: fighting leverage with still more leverage, a strategy that might suitably be dubbed “gambling for resurrection”.

The liquidity trap now being faced by policy makers comes from the liability side of the balance sheet. People and businesses are faced with the choice of either going bankrupt or increasing their savings so as to repay their debts. As Baz says, “This is neither ideology nor economics, simply arithmetics.”

But, it does mean that commercial banks may not want to lend and people and businesses, in aggregate, may not want to borrow. Pushing on a string in this case has little or nothing to do with the asset side of balance sheets and everything to do with the liability side of balance sheets. The Federal Reserve cannot force the commercial banks to lend or people to borrow.

The liquidity trap looked at in this way is real and has been operating for more than a year.

The problem is that if you consider the liquidity trap in this way you can clearly see the dilemma presented by Baz in terms of the policy choices that are currently available. This is why one could argue that it took so long for the Great Depression to end. People and businesses had to work off their debts…they had to go “cold turkey” for a while. In this sense, the economists Irving Fisher and Joseph Schumpeter were closer to understanding the economic situation that existed in the 1930s than was Keynes!

If Baz is correct then the choices are pain now versus more pain in the future. The problems associated with the increased leveraging of the economy cannot be put off forever. Debt must eventually be paid down!

Unfortunately, Debt Must Be Repaid

Fitch Ratings Ltd. is releasing a report today that points up the problems of having too much debt. Restructuring the debt of a person or a family (or a business), even when government programs help to formalize and regularize loan modifications, is not a “magic wand” that resolves the issue of debt overload.

Using data from the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, Fitch reports that “the redefault rate within a year”, of the loans that are modified, “is likely to be 65% to 75%”. This information comes from the Wall Street Journal article, “High Default Rate Seen for Modified Mortgages,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703280004575308992258809442.html?KEYWORDS=james+hagerty. “Almost all of those who got loan modifications have already defaulted once.”

The failure rate is likely to be high because “most of these borrowers were mired in credit-card debt, car loans and other obligations.” That is, when a person or family (or business) goes into debt they go into debt “across the board” and do not just limit themselves to one kind of debt or one type of lender.

And, the Treasury Department says, that those given loan modifications under this program have a “median ratio of total debt payments to pretax income” that is around 64%. “That often means little money is left over for food, clothing or such emergency expenses as medical care and car repairs.”

The good news is that the results of the program indicate that around one-third of the loan modifications make it through the first year. This is looked on as “good” by the Treasury Department and by a Fitch representative.

This is the reality of debt creation during a period that can be referred to as a period of credit inflation. At times like these, more and more people, families, businesses, and governments take on more and more debt until it gets to the point that the debt loads become unsustainable in some sectors of the economy.

Thus, to the first point, people and families take on mortgages, as well as “credit-card debt, car loans and other obligations” until, the second point, their “ratio of total debt payments to pretax income” becomes too large. Then, any increase in total debt payments, like a re-setting of the interest rate on a mortgage, or a reduction in pretax income, due to being laid off a job, puts the borrower into a situation in which debt payments cannot be made. Defaults occur, and a foreclosure…followed by a bankruptcy…may follow.

The “macro” government response is to provide fiscal and monetary stimulus to make sure people stay employed and to inflate incomes so that debt loads (debt payments relative to pretax income) decline. This is the Keynesian prescription!

The problem with this solution is that in a period of credit inflation, as incomes and prices continue to increase, debt loads continue to increase. If the government buys people out of their debt burdens by fiscal stimulus and monetary inflation, people (and families and businesses) don’t adjust their behavior to become more financially prudent. They just keep on, keeping on. This is another case of moral hazard.

Even worse, given the belief that government will continue to “bail out” those who have taken on too much debt, we find that those that have taken on too much debt generally go even further into debt. Take a look at what has happened over the last fifty years of credit inflation and this type of behavior is observed everywhere.

The Keynesian prescription of fiscal and monetary stimulus to keep unemployment low and debt burdens manageable only exacerbates the problem over time. That is, governmental efforts to sustain prosperity over time just postpone the consequences of dealing with the debt loads that are built up during these time periods.

Keynesian economic models, with the exception of the maverick Keynesians like Hy Minsky, don’t include the credit or debt aspects of economic activity. As a consequence, they ignore how people (and families and businesses) manage their balance sheets over time. In essence, these models ignore the very real fact that ultimately, debt must be repaid and cannot just increase without limit!

Over the past fifty years we have seen people and families and businesses and banks and governments take on more and more debt. Inflation has risen at an average compound rate of about 4% from 1961 through 2008 so that it has paid people to increase financial leverage, take on more risky assets, and finance long term assets with short term debt. And the federal government has underwritten this inflation by increasing its gross debt by around 7.7% per year for this period of time and the Federal Reserve has caused the base money in the economy to rise by 6.2% per year. The M2 money stock measure rose at a compound rate of 7.0% per year. All roughly in line with one another.

The Fitch report is presenting us with a picture of what happens when debt loads get “out-of-hand”…when there is just too much debt around.

The current response of the Federal government? Official federal government forecasts of the cumulative fiscal deficits for the next ten years runs around $9 to $10 trillion. Some of us believe that the deficits will run more in the neighborhood of $15 trillion. In terms of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve has placed $1.1 trillion in excess reserves in the commercial banking system. The leadership of the Federal Reserve expects us to believe that they will be able to reduce the amount of these excess reserves to more normal levels without the reserves being turned into loans that will expand the money stock measures by excessive amounts. (Just a reminder: excess reserves totaled less than $2 billion…note, billion and not trillion…in August 2008 before the big injection of reserves into the banking system took place.)

For one more time, the federal government is betting that by stimulating the economy and putting people back to work in the “legacy jobs” they were laid off from and by re-inflating prices and incomes that debt burdens will be reduced and we can get back to “spending as usual”. If the federal government is successful, the day in which debt loads are reduced will be postponed…once again!

However, the credit inflation causes other things to change. Over the last fifty years we have seen that in every employment cycle, fewer and fewer people are re-hired in the “legacy jobs” from which they were released. Under-employment, not just un-employment, rises and this puts more and more pressure on incomes. The ratio of debt payments to pretax incomes rise for these people. Right now, I estimate that roughly one out of every four or five potential works is under-employed, the highest level since the early 1950s.

Second, the steady inflation of the past fifty years has resulted in a larger proportion of the capital stock being un-productive. As a consequence, capacity utilization in industry has fallen to post-World War II lows. As we have seen in each business cycle during this last fifty years, less and less of this capacity is used in each recovery. This results in a drag on employment and income.

Eventually, debt must be repaid and debt loads must be reduced. The Fitch report highlights this problem. It is something that all of us should keep in mind in the upcoming months. If the situation with respect to under-employment and capacity utilization don’t change the debt loads will get even heavier.

Chermany?

Martin Wolf introduces this name, a combination of China and Germany (as opposed to “Chimerica”, a name invented by Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick), to discuss the economic policies of the two countries in his opinion piece, “China and Germany unite to impose global deflation.” (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd01f69e-3134-11df-8e6f-00144feabdc0.html.)
Wolf’s approach is not inconsistent with that of Paul Krugman, whose recent work was discussed in my Monday post “Why Should China Change?” (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/193689-why-should-china-change.) The only difference is that Wolf includes Germany in the discussion.

The basic premise is that China and Germany, “although very different from each other,” are pursuing economic policies that are very similar. Both have huge trade surpluses and massive surpluses of saving over investment. “Both believe that their customers should keep buying, but stop irresponsible borrowing.”

The Germans have “picked” on the European Union; the Chinese have “picked” on the United States.

In Wolf’s assessment, “the surplus countries are most unlikely to win.” The real loser, however, will be the world.

The problem with this analysis seems to be that all of the writers engaged in this discussion accept “the war” as only an economic war. A more correct assessment of the situation might lead one to conclude that what is going on is more political than just economic. What is going on is the shifting battle for relative national position in the world pecking order. The time is especially propitious for changing the political landscape as some countries are experiencing massive shifts in their economic strengths. And, the list is not just limited to China and Germany.

In the European frame of reference, the initial focus was on Greece, but economic problems abound for Spain, Portugal, Italy, and France. And, don’t forget the difficulties being faced by Ireland and England.

Economically, Germany is substantially better off than these countries and does not want to be made weak by giving these other countries a “free ride” to recovery. Why should Germany have to suffer economically because of the undisciplined budget policies of these other nations?

China, on the other hand, is smelling weakness, and, as a consequence, is seeing this as a way to improve its relative position of influence in the world. But, it is also pursuing this path in many different ways, establishing diplomatic relations with nations around the world, especially those that are wealthy in natural resources, buying companies all over the world, and gaining influence in the scientific and technological community. China’s influence is growing everywhere.

Others are on the move as well recognizing that the time is right for them to exert themselves in the world.

The argument that is being raised by Wolf and Krugman is that the behavior of the Chinese and the Germans is detrimental to the economic recovery of the other western nations. Continuing along the path they are now following will prevent the United States and France and Spain and the UK and others from getting back on their feet and this will result in a collapse of world trade and, hence, the economic well-being of everyone.

But, that is solely the economic analysis. It does not include the political aspects of the situation.

There are very few times in world history when the position of the nations of the world can be substantially altered. The period from the 1910s through the 1940s was such a period. As we know, the United States moved into a position of dominance during that time, both economically and militarily.

At the present time, some countries are sensing another massive shift in world power. And the potential big players are China, India, Brazil, and Russia. Germany and Japan would like to be there. And, there are others: Canada, Iran, and Argentina.

Nations who have a longer-term time horizon and see the world in decades, like China and India, are not going to let this opportunity pass. They also do not see that the issue of change will be resolved in the next ten to twenty years. In the short run we, individuals, may all be dead, but the nations will live on.

And, this is precisely the problem. Over the past fifty to sixty years, the countries that are now experiencing the most problems focused on the short run and, as a consequence, created an economic environment built upon a lack of saving, debt creation and inflation.

It says a lot when some of the leading intellectuals of this philosophy, “Keynesians” like Oliver Blanchard, propose that the solution to the current difficulties is to create higher targets for inflation. (See “The Lure of Inflation’s Siren Song” by David Reilly: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703734504575125943325490212.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing. Included in this piece is the quote, “Inflation can achieve what no congress can, fast reductions in fiscal deficits," Christian Broda, head of international research at Barclays Capital.) My response to this is “Doesn’t Anyone Understand Inflation?” (which can be found at http://seekingalpha.com/article/188351-doesn-t-anyone-understand-inflation).

Now, we have Wolf and Krugman arguing that those that are in the stronger position economically should “bail out” those that acted imprudently in the past. And, here is where the concept of moral hazard comes into play. If the countries having problems right now do get “bailed out” by those that are economically stronger, why should they, once they have recovered from their economic difficulties, act in a disciplined manner in the future? As with other institutions that have been “bailed out”, there is little incentive to for them to act prudently going forward.

The “Keynesians” have had their day. We are living with their legacy. We cannot expect the Chinese or the Germans to give them another chance. We cannot expect the Chinese or the Germans to place the future that they see within their grasp in jeopardy in order to rescue those that have willingly become addicted to more and more debt in their lives.

The ethos of the 1950s and the 1960s may have dominated the last fifty years, but it is my guess that the 21st century will be determined by what takes place in the 2010s and 2020s. The complete lack of fiscal discipline in the United States over the last eight years or so may have accelerated this transition in ways that we do not yet understand. One of the problems in dealing with such changes going forward, however, will be a failure to recognize that certain changes have already occurred.

Why Should China Change?

Paul Krugman takes on China in his column this morning: “Taking on China”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1268654957-6LHafkNf0eW6a/enaOOFeQ. He begins, “Tensions are rising over Chinese economic policy, and rightly so” because it “has become a significant drag on global economic recovery.”

Why should China change direction at this time?

There was a time when the United States could do just about anything it wanted to. It was, by far, the strongest economy in the world. It had, by far, the most powerful army on the planet. It provided, by far, the best education anywhere. In essence, it could get away with about anything.

In fact, there are quite a few nations now in addition to China, such as Brazil, India, Russia, Canada to name a few, that can ask the same question, “Why should we change direction at this time?”

The gap has closed. There has been more and more talk about this diminishing gap. One of the more prominent books on the subject is by Fareed Zakaria titled “The Post-American World and another is by PIMCO’s Mohamed El-Erian’s “When Markets Collide.” The problem arises, not because the United States has been replaced at the top. No, the United States will remain the world’s number one power, economically and militarily, for many more years.

The problem is that the relative gap has changed putting the nations mentioned above relatively closer to the United States and this, consequently, gives them a stronger position is how things are played out. We see this in the shift to the G-20 rather than some other G-something. We see this in discussions around the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We see this in the growing influence of these other countries around the world.

The world has changed and we in the United States have not accepted the fact.

Why should China change direction at this time?

China is growing stronger and stronger. The United States, and most of the rest of the west, is in a weakened state. The United States, and most of the rest of the west, has gone through a very severe financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. The United States, and most of the rest of the west, is beginning to recover, although the pickup has been very weak up to the present point.

Krugman is arguing that those big bad Chinese are hurting us when we are weak, when we are least able to defend ourselves.

Well, we got ourselves into this situation. We, the United States, created an inflationary environment which resulted in the purchasing power of the dollar declining by about 85% over the past fifty years or so. We, the United States, produced an environment that fostered, even celebrated, the creation of debt. We, the United States saw the value of our currency in international markets decline steadily, with a few exceptions, over the past fifty years. The only respite experienced recently has been that the dollar and U. S. Treasury securities have become a haven for risk-averse investors throughout the world.

Now, the United States is suffering through the consequences of this lack of discipline and is pointing its finger at the big bully that is taking advantage of the situation.

But, the big bully is pointing his finger back at the United States and even accusing the United States of not playing fair itself. (See “Chinese Leader Defends Currency and Policies”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/asia/15china.html?ref=world.) China is even playing international economics against the United States (see China Uses Rules on Global Trades to its Advantage”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/global/15yuan.html?hp.) and continues to acquire natural resources, companies, and trade ties throughout the world (see “CNOOC in $3bn Bridas deal”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9636dba-2f63-11df-9153-00144feabdc0.html.)

Imagine the nerve of these people!

In the end, the lack of fiscal discipline comes back to haunt one, whether it be a person, a family, a business, or a nation. On the upside, the ride can be great. However, once the bubble bursts, there are no good choices available to one. There is pain regardless of what one does.

Now, however, there are other players in the game and this lack of fiscal discipline can really hurt. The economy of the United States, and the rest of the west, is weak, budget deficits are projected to go on forever, and the dollar is expected to weaken again as international investors become less risk-averse. We need everyone to cooperate with us so that we can bail ourselves out of our past behavior.

Unfortunately, that is not how the world works. And, it is human nature to sense weakness in others. The United States, and the rest of the west, is in a weakened state right now. It will not always be so, but it is for the time being. Thus, others have an opportunity to increase their relative position within the world.

My guess is that China does not plan to overdo it for they have more to gain in the future if trade is more open than not. One piece of advice someone gave me several years ago about the Chinese has proven to be very perceptive. They said that whereas people in the West have very short time horizons, generally in the three to five year range or less, the Chinese have a much long perspective of history. They think in decades rather than years.

I believe that the Chinese know that they will be better off over the longer run if world trade is more open rather than more restricted. Hence, they will not go far so as to create a trade war that will be detrimental to achieving a more open world trade. China’s investments in natural resources and companies throughout the world underscore this bet.

However, the United States is in a weakened position. Thus, the Chinese can achieve more now by taking advantage of this weak position and still achieve the longer-term goal of more open trade. The United States is in no position to resist this and will not be in a position to resist this for some time. And, it would hurt us more to act aggressively at this time to introduce more trade protection than it would China. Hence, advantage China.

Quite a few other countries are also in a position of strength relative to the United States at this time. Brazil seems to be following a more and more independent line. India is acting more in tune with its own interests. Russia, except for its athletics, is also stepping out here and there. And, so on and so on.

It is interesting to see people from the school of economics that led the United States into the position it is in, like Krugman and Joe Stiglitz, begging for help from others in the world that are taking advantage of the weaknesses created by the application of the policies forthcoming from that school. The lack of discipline has consequences. Why should we expect or depend upon others to bail us out of the conditions that we ourselves have created? Why should China change

The "Next Greece" Again

The New York Times business section carries the headline, “Traders Turn Attention to the Next Greece”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/business/global/04bets.html?ref=business.

“Is Spain the next Greece? Or Italy? Or Portugal?”

Sounds vaguely similar to another article on the topic, my post of March 1, “Where is the Next Greece?”: http://seekingalpha.com/article/191242-where-is-the-next-greece. But, the subject is in the air these days.

The New York Times article wades into the issue of whether or not the “banks and hedge funds” should be doing what they are doing.

“Indeed, some banks and hedge funds have already begun to turn their attention to other indebted nations, particularly Portugal, Spain, Italy and, to a lesser degree, Ireland.” Aha, the PIIGS, of course without the G.

“The role of such traders has become increasingly controversial in Europe and the United States. The Justice Department’s antitrust division is now examining whether at least four hedge funds colluded on a bet against the euro last month.”

The same concern has been expressed over short sales.

Little concern was expressed about the debt policy of nations, states, municipalities, businesses and consumers when they were piling on massive amounts of debt to their balance sheets.

Of course, nations, and others, have good reasons for loading up with debt. It stimulates the economy and everyone wants prosperity and full employment. Well, don’t they?

Everyone wants businesses to prosper. Everyone wants everyone else to own their own home.

All good reasons for piling on debt.

But, when do “good intentions” spill over into “foolish behavior”?

And, in an environment where excessive amounts of credit are being pumped into the economy (thank you again Federal Reserve)n to spur on housing or some other “good”, shouldn’t it be expected that “extra-legal” means will be used to “get the credit out”.

But, when does serving “societal goals” become fraudulent and hurtful?

The problem in both cases is that there is a very blurry line between the “good” and the “bad”. On the upside, of course, emphasis is placed on the “good” being done, and the “bad” is alluded to but quickly dismissed. A common theme in such periods is that “Things are different now!”

On the other side, however, great pain takes place. One can certainly sympathize with those who live in Ireland, and Spain, and these other countries.

This, however, is just where “moral hazard” raises its ugly head. There is a downside to the excessive behavior of nations, states, and so on! There is pain on the other side of the pinnacle.
And, eventually the pain must be paid for. Bailing out those that used excessive amounts of debt just postpones the situation and usually leads people to behave just the way they did before the crisis. That is, the lesson learned is the one can behave badly and, if there is the threat of sufficient societal pain, little or no cost will be carried forward because of the previous un-disciplined behavior.

The problem is that those in power get mad at the bankers and the hedge funds and try to prohibit them in some way from moving against those private or public organizations that are financially weak. But, in doing so they are taking away a tool that can be used to enforce discipline on those who have lived excessively. The same applies to short selling.

We have seen behavior like that exhibited by the “banks and hedge funds” in the past. The last time these predators were called “shadowy international bankers”, many of whom were pictured as living in Switzerland. In that time the “ bankers” attacked the currencies of profligate nations. France, under the leadership of François Mitterrand, is perhaps the best known example of such a situation. Mitterrand, the socialist, had to pull back from his grand plans and became a believer in fiscal discipline and an independent central bank. Similar cases are on record.

It is disconcerting to see the increased efforts to reduce or eliminate financial tools that help to bring discipline to the market place. If these investment vehicles get punished or face harsh controls and regulations then the world is so much the worse for it.

Yes, I agree, at this stage it looks like the strong are kicking the weak member of the party. But, in these cases we forget that many benefitted greatly on the upside, particularly the politicians that promoted goals and objectives that were underwritten by the undisciplined use of debt. And, the central banks were prodigal in underwriting this credit inflation.

And, now the piper is calling in the debt.

It is a rule of life: those in power that create a given situation are often the most vocal opponents of those that respond to the consequences of what the powerful have created. If you create an inflationary environment fueled by excessive credit expansion then, sooner or later, the price must be paid.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, England, and others are now facing the downside of so many years of “good intentions.” Let’s not just blame, or punish, the “bankers and hedge funds” for creating the situation we now face

Who is going to be the next Greece?

This seems to be the major question asked by most commentators in most media outlets. Is it going to be Spain? Japan? The U. K.? Italy? Portugal? Just who might it be?

Might it be California? Or New York? Or some major city?

Who are the hedge funds attacking this week? Where is the bailout going to come from? What about the IMF, what role is it going to play? And so on and so forth?

As far as the United States is concerned, thank goodness for all the attention being paid to the problems being experienced by these other countries, and states, and cities. At least others governmental units are getting the headlines about the debt problems going on in the world, and not the U. S. government.

And, the nice thing about the problems going on in the rest of the world is that investors still consider the dollar and dollar-denominated securities to be the least-risky of the lot. Flee to the dollar! Flee to U. S. Treasury securities!

Sometimes it is good to rank things on a relative basis. The person who receives a grade of D can save his own self-respect and place in the world when compared with the rest of the class who received a grade of D-. Doesn’t say much, however, about the whole class.

The United States dollar, a currency under attack until the financial crisis of 2008-2009, once again finds itself gaining strength as the financial condition of other countries come under attack and their currencies come under selling pressure.

The value of the United States dollar, which was once again under attack in the late summer and fall of 2009, has risen by more than 6% against major trading partners since the beginning of December as investors “flew to quality.” The United States dollar has done even better against the Euro as it has risen by about 18% versus the Euro over this same time period.

And, what are central banks doing under these circumstances?

They are still primarily operating under the umbrella of “quantitative easing.” That is, the central banks cannot drive interest rates any lower so they continue to provide reserves to their own banking systems in order to keep those banking systems afloat.

For the vultures circling over the scene it seems to be banquet time. The big banks, the big hedge funds, and others seem to be prospering in this environment of close to zero borrowing costs. These organizations are earning record profits! Not so, of course, for the small- to medium-sized financial institutions that are hanging on for their lives.

There are no good solutions! Every path out of this situation is full of difficulty and pain. And the strong get stronger and the weak, weaker.


The problem faced by politicians is that they must appear as if they are being active in the attempt to resolve the problems that their countries are now facing. Yet, to increase stimulus packages only exacerbates already stretched budget deficits. But, to cut spending, because revenues are down due to the weak economic conditions, only causes greater misery and social unrest. The fiscal conservatives attack those that push for more economic stimulus; the social liberals attack those that push for more budget restraint.

The central bankers worry about what will happen when interest rates begin to rise and asset values and business expectations start to fall again.

The world is in a tough spot when the basic question being asked becomes “who is going to fail next?”

It seems as if all these countries (states and cities) can do is attempt to reach a balance between improving the fiscal discipline being demanded by investors and voters and between the safety-nets that need to be created to cushion the difficulties being faced by many of the people within their domains.

With no “good” solutions available, governments must “muddle through” as best they can. There is no panacea.

The thing that should be avoided, but, in the distress of the moment, will, in all likelihood, not be avoided, is to create programs or solutions that will not be helpful once the crisis period is over. Politicians and others tend to “rush in” during “crisis” times and create programs, rules, regulations, or laws. (As Rahm Emanuel has stated, ““You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”) Once on the books, however, these programs, rules, regulations, and laws remain in practice for a lengthy period of time, and, over the longer-run, many fail to achieve the positive effects that was desired when implemented.

It is important for leaders, in my mind, to appear as if they are in control during times like these. In essence, all of these leaders are heading “turnaround” situations. These leaders must be pragmatic in practice. They must re-establish discipline in all that is done under their watch. They must not be the slaves of some ideology.

What these leaders do will not be pretty, but they need to be strong in order to bring people behind them. These leaders need to build support and trust. The worst thing that they can do is to look as if they are not in control for the vultures will jump on this appearance and dominate events.

What do the markets seem to be saying in response to the efforts of current leaders?

The headlines we are now reading in the newspapers and hearing on newscasts indicate that governmental leaders are not in control. It appears as if the future is being driven by hedge funds and others who are taking advantage of the feeble conditions in the various political units around the world. No one seems to be in charge and no one seems to be rising to the task!

Stein's Law

Perhaps the most profound bit of information appearing in the news this morning concerning the budget proposal of the Obama administration is the citation of Stein’s law by the economist James Galbraith in the New York Times article “Huge Deficits May Alter U. S. Politics and Global Power.” (See David Sanger, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02deficit.html?hp.)

Stein’s law (as familiarly presented) states that “If a trend cannot continue, it will stop.”

Galbraith also provides us with his own wisdom: “Forecasts 10 years out have no credibility.”

Now to the budget of the United States government!

What is the primary trend connected with the federal budget? Government expenditures will go up, and up, and up. Congress does not have the discipline to stop expenditures from increasing. Neither do presidential administrations.

But, what about the deficit?

There is only one way the deficit can or will be reduced: revenues coming into the government must increase. And, of course, they must increase at a faster pace than expenditures are growing.

This was the pattern in the Clinton administration years, 1993-2001. For this 8-year period, total receipts coming into the federal government rose 7.1% per year. (Note that for the 7-year period of 1993 -2000, the annual rate of increase was 8.4%.)

This contrasted with the compound growth rate of total federal government outlays which rose by 3.6% per year. Thus, the Clinton administration began in fiscal 1993 with a total deficit of $255 billion and recorded a surplus in fiscal year of 1998 of $69 billion, followed by surpluses of $126 billion, $236 billion, and $128 billion.

The major contributors to the growth rate in total receipts was Individual income taxes and Social insurance and retirement receipts. The compound growth rates of these items was 8.7% and 6.2%, respectively. Note that the compound growth rate for real GDP during this time period was 3.5%.

The figures for Bush 43 show a substantially different configuration. Total receipts of the federal government grew by only 3.6% per year during this administration. (Note that the compound growth rate for real GDP was 2.3% at this time.) The greatest growth in revenue came from corporate income taxes which grew every year by 10.5%

There was a surge during the Bush 43 years of total outlays which rose by 8.3% year-after-year. The biggest contributor to this was the outlay for national defense, and these expenditures rose, on average, by 10.2% every year. (Note that in the Clinton administration these outlays rose by less than 1% per year.)

It seems to me that the trend in outlays over the next few years will remain rather high. America is a nation at war! Defense outlays will continue to rise. The question is, how much? This is a unknown known. My guess here is that present estimates are low!

The big question relates to how much other expenditures will rise, expenditures related to health care, energy, global warming and others. The exact cost of this spending are anyone’s guess right now. These expenditures we can put in the category of known unknowns. Given the history of government it is impossible for me to believe that health care reform will not “cost us one dime” as stated by the President. We don’t really know when these other programs will be pushed and expanded, but they still remain on the “to-do” list of the President.

There are always “other” things, the unknown unknowns. You guess.

The trend in outlays is up, but the question is by how much? The mean of the Clinton and Bush 43 years is just about 6% per year!

Is there any way that revenues can come anywhere close to a 6% per year annual increase?

It was done in the Clinton years, but that was with an economy that was increasing, in real terms, at 3.5% compound rate. I just don’t see it over the next 5 to 10 years.

Raising taxes? Are you crazy!

Yes, the Bush 43 tax cuts will not be renewed, but, there will not be any other tax increases that will raise revenues substantially. Not with the unemployment figures captured in the current budget document.

So, what are we faced with?

Given the scenario I have just painted my guess for the sum of government deficits over the next 10 years is from $15-$18 trillion. This is substantially above the $8.5 trillion total presented in the current Obama budget documents.

If this scenario for the federal budget is anywhere close to reality then one could argue that it is the blue-print for an excessive credit inflation in the upcoming years that will be unlike anything we have seen in the past in the United States!

And, what is the good news?

To quote Galbraith, “Forecasts 10 years out have no credibility.”

Whew! You had me scared two paragraphs ago.

Any more good news?

Sure, to quote Herb Stein, “If a trend cannot continue, it will stop.”

The trend commented on above is the growth of total federal government outlays. It must stop! But, it will not stop if the United States is fighting at least two wars, fighting unemployment, fighting for health care reform, fighting for other “musts” on the Presidential “to-do” list, and taking care of those unknown, unknowns that always seem to pop-up.

“If a trend cannot continue, it will stop!”

What is going to make the trend in total federal government outlays stop?

I’ve got my ideas. You go ahead and write your own script!