"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby anothershamus » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:22 am

This dude is serious! I hope he is wrong but YIKES!

Via zerohedge.com
Guest Post: Alert: Nuclear (And Economic) Meltdown In Progress
Submitted by Chris Martenson
Important note:

It is with a heavy heart that I am now issuing the highest level alert to my readers than I have to date. The threshold for an alert is one or more world events that personally cause me to take action.

I'm making this alert publicly available less than 36 hours after releasing it to my enrolled subscribers given its importance and the speed at which events are accelerating.

The substance of this alert centers on the unknown aftershocks that may result from the world's third largest economy, Japan, rapidly shifting from an exporter of funding to a consumer of it. In situations like these, we are by definition operating with incomplete and often confusing information, and events are developing more rapidly than they can be fully analyzed and internalized. We regret in advance any mistakes that we might make due to making calls and decisions in this highly fluid environment.
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:35 am

Bloomberg piece which, among other things, notes that the top 10 banks how 77 percent of all US bank assets here lately, compared with a much tamer 55% back in '02.

Too Big To Fail?
Bloomberg Government’s Cady North uncovers that the biggest banks are even bigger post financial collapse, TARP, and implementation of Dodd-Frank law.

The banks originally deemed “too big to fail” when Congress passed TARP have only gotten bigger in the last few years, and are expected to get even bigger in the years to come.

According to data compiled by Bloomberg Government, “the largest banks have grown larger since the financial crisis, and the number of ‘too big to fail banks’ will increase by 40 percent over the next 15 years.”


Today, the top 10 banks hold 77 percent of all U.S. bank assets, compared with 55 percent of the total assets in 2002.

Furthermore, the Bloomberg Government study (subscription required) reports that assuming current growth in the financial sector, each year more banks will be designated as risky under the Dodd-Frank law. As of December 2010, there were 35 banks with $50 billion or more in total assets; that number could increase to 48 within 15 years.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:06 pm

that number could increase to 48 within 15 years.


Optimist.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby stefano » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:46 am

On how gutted Ireland's banks (and consequently economy) are. Excerpts, my bold.

The unbelievable truth about Ireland and its banks
Robert Peston

Ireland's central bank and new government will confirm on Thursday that the hole in the country's banks is even wider, deeper and darker than seemed to be the case last November, when those bust banks forced the country to go with a begging bowl to the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for 67.5bn euros (£59bn) of rescue loans.

Regulators at the Irish central bank have conducted a review of how much extra capital - as a buffer against future losses - is required by Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Bank, EBS and Irish Life and Permanent.

Unless something unexpected happens in the next 24 hours, the total amount of additional capital that will need to be injected into these banks will be a bit less than 35bn euros - including 8bn euros that was supposed to be injected into them at the end of February, but was postponed because of Ireland's political turmoil.

Anyway, let's assume that the total amount extra that these banks need is circa 30bn euros. That would take the total quantity of state investment in Ireland banks to a breathtaking 75bn euros (actually a tiny bit more than that).

That is an almost unbelievably large number. When I think about it, I have a small panic attack - because it represents 45% of Ireland's GDP and 55% of its GNP.
[...]
To prevent Irish banks toppling over one after another, the European Central Bank has lent 117bn euros to them and the Central Bank of Ireland has lent them a further 71bn euros. So that's 188bn euros of loans from the eurozone's taxpayers to Ireland's banks - which makes the 67.5bn euros lent directly by the eurozone and IMF to the Irish government look like peanuts.

And a further 20bn euros of bank bonds - another form of bank debt - is still guaranteed by the Irish state through the Eligible Guarantee Scheme.

So that is 208bn euros of taxpayer loans to Ireland's banks - equivalent to a remarkable 154% of GDP.
[...]
So some of the guilty parties, namely the wholesale creditors of Ireland's banks - including banks and investors in Germany, France, Spain and the UK - have got away without taking their share of losses. All those losses have fallen on Ireland's citizens, who are not blameless for the mess (they didn't have to borrow too much) but aren't the only ones at fault.

And for the Irish people, there is a second source of possible injustice. The money they've been lent by the IMF and eurozone carries an interest rate of 5.8% on average - which is significantly greater than Ireland's economy and tax revenues can grow right now, and therefore forces Ireland into a potentially never-ending vicious cycle of public spending cuts and low growth.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby 2012 Countdown » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:51 pm

Image

Uncle Sam heading closer to a fresh financial meltdown
The National Times
April 5, 2011

The man who brought us the global financial crisis, Alan Greenspan, has spoken out on how to fix the system. Of all the advice he might give, he has given the most unexpected. In essence, he has said: "Don't even try."

In one of the most remarkable statements of our time, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve has argued that it is inherently impossible to usefully regulate a modern financial system, telling us to relax because "the global invisible hand" of the free market has created a stable economy over the longer run.

Greenspan went further. In an opinion piece in London's Financial Times, he suggested that an ever-growing and unmanageably complex financial system might even be "a necessary condition of growth".Incredulous, the US congressman who has led the regulatory reform effort, Barney Frank, responded that while many had suggested ways of improving regulations, "until last week no one had seriously suggested that we should have done nothing in response to the financial crisis".

Frank reminded Greenspan of the cost of his failures: "His rosy view overlooks a monumental crisis that threatened the foundations of the American economy, led to soaring unemployment, a continuing foreclosure crisis and weakened economies in the US and Europe."

It is breathtaking audacity that the chief arsonist should scold the fire brigade, saying: "Put away your hoses and enjoy the fire". Even more so because there was a day in late 2008 when he did seem remorseful, accepting that he might have made an ideological error in refusing to adequately regulate banks: "Yes, I've found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact."

Greenspan seems to have made a full recovery from his distress. A highly intelligent man, he knows that his system broke. He knows that it can be fixed. He knows that it's entirely possible to have a free-market financial system that does not suffer inevitable and catastrophic collapse. Australia and Canada are living, growing proof.

So why is Greenspan opposed, as a matter of principle, to any attempt at reform? Four possibilities come to mind. First, he is senile. But although he is 85, his statements were not the product of a wandering mind. Second, he is in the thrall of the big banks that oppose change. But while he has been taking handsome speaking fees from them in recent years, he has never been interested in money, selling his profitable Wall Street business to work at the Fed on a relative pittance.

Third, he is a blind ideologue who will not concede that any regulation could be good regulation. This is entirely possible. But he knows full well the terrible damage he inflicted on his country.

Or fourth, he is not a fool but a fox, playing a double game.

Greenspan's view is so absurd that it tempts us to wonder. In 10 days we will see the premiere of a movie of the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged. This cult 1957 novel is a warning against government intervention, a sermon on the virtues of laissez faire, and a reminder that Alan Greenspan was once a close acolyte of Rand and her Objectivist movement. Her 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal included an essay by Greenspan on the virtue of the gold standard.

The young Greenspan advocated a return to a system where a government could only issue currency backed by a physical hard asset - gold. He wrote that "gold and economic freedom are inseparable". He derided the current system of fiat money, where a dollar is backed by nothing more than a government promise to honour its debts, as "paper reserves".

In Atlas Shrugged, the libertarian heroes smoke cigarettes branded with little gold-coloured dollar signs. It's unsubtle. The cigarette represents freedom of choice over government regulation; the dollar sign is a campaign message for economic freedom in the form of a gold standard.

It has often been observed that it was ironic that Greenspan, a leading critic of the paper money system, went on to become its chief, his signature appearing on every dollar bill.

But maybe it wasn't historical irony. What if Greenspan never did change his view, instead covertly dedicating his life to destroying the system he so despised? Could it be that he remained a secret agent of Ayn Rand all these years?

If so, he certainly wouldn't want to see any changes now. Because the US today is in the process of repeating Greenspan's essential error.

It wasn't just that Greenspan failed to properly regulate banks. His deeper underlying error was in the sheer volume of money he allowed to be created in the first place. He held interest rates so low for so long that cheap money flooded into house prices, and created a bubble that burst.

And the current chief of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, is doing it again. Official interest rates are at zero. Not content to make money free, the Fed is also forcing more money into the system with its program of "quantitative easing".

Once again, cheap money from the Fed is creating bubbles, this time in global commodity and food prices.

A dissenting voice inside the Fed spoke out last week. The president of the one of its 12 regional banks, Thomas Hoenig of the Kansas City Fed, approaching retirement and apparently feeling liberated to speak his mind, said: "Once again, there are signs that the world is building new economic imbalances and inflationary impulses. The longer policy remains as it is, the greater the likelihood these pressures will build and ultimately undermine world growth."

The crisis of 2008 will be only the precursor of the next and bigger crisis if the Fed continues as it is. Greenspan today seems to be quietly cheering: "Bring it on."

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 1cyil.html
George Carlin ~ "Its called 'The American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
User avatar
2012 Countdown
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:10 pm

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag!!!

Thanks to 23 and SLAD, video + pics of
The March 26th activity in London.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31564









Image





seemslikeadream wrote:^^^^^^ :D

Image
Image
Image

Image
Image
Image

Image
Image
Image


Yeah, man.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:18 pm

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag, II
(Whole bunch of new posts starting Apr 4 with viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=393514#p393509)

Joseph Stiglitz sees
American Intifada Coming?

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?printable=true&currentPage=all

Inequality
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz•Illustration by Stephen Doyle

May 2011


Image
THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”


It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Keywords
Society, Wealth, Inequality, Joseph E. Stiglitz

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:21 pm

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag, III
(Whole bunch of new posts starting Apr 4 with viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=393514#p393509)

The Attack On Elizabeth Warren

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/ex-goldman-banker-smear-elizabeth-warren_n_837185.html?view=print

Zach Carter
HuffPost Reporting
zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com

Ex-Goldman Banker Behind WSJ 'Smear Campaign' Against Elizabeth Warren


First Posted: 03/17/11 07:29 PM Updated: 03/18/11 03:29 PM


WASHINGTON -- A Wall Street Journal editorial writer who has been closely involved with the paper's recent attacks on Elizabeth Warren is a former Goldman Sachs banker. The same editorial writer, Mary Kissel, is readying another piece critical of Warren and the new consumer agency, according to a source familiar with the coming article.

Like most major newspapers, the Journal does not disclose the authors of its editorials. Kissel recently appeared on the John Batchelor radio show as a representative of the Journal's editorial board to discuss Warren, and repeated the main arguments used in the editorials.

The editorials paint both Warren and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an immensely powerful, unaccountable organization. The nascent agency is assuming the consumer protection duties currently exercised by regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The author, Mary Kissel, worked for Goldman between 1999 and 2002 as a fixed income research and capital markets specialist.

Kissel is listed on the Journal's website as a member of the editorial staff and her bio includes her time at Goldman Sachs and notes that she worked for the company in both New York and London.

On Wednesay, Warren testified before a House subcomittee, providing 34 pages of written answers while submitting to two-and-a-half hours of aggressive questioning from congressional Republicans, who deployed talking points similar to those used in the recent Journal editorials.

"There has definitely been an uptick in attacks on her and on the agency over the past few weeks, it's hard to imagine it hasn't been well-coordinated by somebody," said a source close to Warren. "The smear campaign by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board this week includes the most unfactual and outrageous hit pieces on her yet. If it's true that the author of the editorials and Goldman Sachs coordinated on them, they should both be exposed and called to account."

The headline of Thursday's Journal editorial is "President Warren's Empire," which goes on to say, "The consumer bureau is essentially a bureaucratic rogue. We'd like to see Congress kill the agency entirely. But at the very least Congress should remove it from the Fed, make it part of the Treasury and subject it to annual appropriations."

Bank regulators are not subject to the Congressional appropriations process, because the budgeting game allows banks to lobby against the funding of their own regulator. The only financial regulator subject to this process was the agency charged with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the housing bubble, which proved unable to rein in risk-taking at the mortgage giants as they poured lobbying cash into Congress.

In a recent interview, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) acknowledged that the House GOP's efforts to curtail funding for the CFPB were essentially an effort to prevent the agency from conducting consumer protection regulation.

On Wednesday, the Journal accused Warren and the CFPB of "extorting billions of dollars from private mortgage servicers" in the agency's role as an advisor in negotiations to settle allegations of widespread fraud in the foreclosure process. The editorial also argues that "Ms. Warren is already using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to tell banks how and to whom to lend money."

The foreclosure process is in disarray, and even Republican state Attorneys General say that banks have broken the law with improper foreclosures. Consumer advocates have accused banks of levying heavy, improper fees against borrowers, driving them into foreclosure, while other borrowers have been foreclosed on without missing any mortgage payments. Banks have also physically broken into the homes of borrowers in order to pursue foreclosures.

Warren has publicly criticized Goldman in testimony before Congress and during on-air interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg. When Warren chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, she told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during a hearing that Goldman had not provided her panel with key documents pertaining to the bailout of AIG, from which Goldman reaped over $11 billion. She also said that the Wall Street giant should be investigated for wrongdoing pertaining to the sale of mortgage derivatives during the housing bubble. Goldman eventually settled with the SEC for $550 million over allegations that it defrauded investors.

Kissel declined to comment for this article, and the Journal did not respond to an email requesting comment. Goldman Sachs did not return a call requesting comment.




Recent good ones from the
Usual Suspects at Counterpunch...


http://counterpunch.org/hallinan03172011.html

March 17, 2011
Greece is Not Alone
Europe's Austerity: A Grimm's Fairy Tale


By CONN HALLINAN

In the Greek town of Aphidal, people have stopped paying road fees. In Athens, bus and metro riders are refusing to cough up the price of a ticket. On Feb. 23, 250,000 Greek protesters jammed the streets outside the nation's parliament.

The Portuguese nominated the protest song "A Luta E' Alegria" (The Struggle is Joy) for the Eurovision song contest and, when judges ignored it, walked out in protest. They also put 300,000 people into the streets of the country's major cities on Mar. 12.

Liverpool bailed from a Conservative-Liberal scheme to supplement government funding with private funding when it found there wasn't any of either, and the British Toilet Association protested the closure of 1,000 public bathrooms across the country.

In ways big and small, Europeans from Greece to Portugal, from Britain to Bavaria are registering their growing anger with the relentless assault inflicted by government-imposed austerity programs.

Wages, working conditions and pensions that unions successfully fought for over the past half century are threatened by the collapse of banking systems caught up in a decade-long orgy of speculation that the average European neither took part in, nor profited from. Even the so-called "well off" workers of Bavaria, Germany's industrial juggernaut, have seen their wages, adjusted for inflation, fall 4.5 percent over the past 10 years.

The narrative emanating from EU headquarters in Brussels is that high wages, early retirement, generous benefits, and a "lack of competition" has led to the current crisis that has several countries on the verge of bankruptcy, including Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Now, claim the "virtuous countries"—Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland—it is time for these spendthrift wastrels to pay the piper or, as German Chancellor Andrea Merkel says, "do their homework."


Does it sound fucking familiar?! Everyone saw and remembers what really happened when capitalism crashed. And this is what they want to sell now?

It is an interesting story, a sort of Grimm's fairly tale for the 21st century, but it bears about as much resemblance to the cause of the crisis as Cinderella's fairy godmother does to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

While each country has its own particular conditions, there is a common thread that underlines the current crisis. Starting early in the decade, banks and financial houses flooded real estate markets with money, fueling a speculation explosion that inflated an enormous bubble. In climate and culture, Spain and Ireland may be very different places, but housing prices rocketed 500 percent in both countries.

The money was virtually free, with low interest rates on the bank side, and cozy tax deals cut between speculators and politicians on the other. That kept the cash within a small circle of investors. While Bavarian workers were watching their pay fall, German banks were taking in record profits and shoveling yet more capital into the real estate bubbles in Ireland and Spain. The level of debt eventually approached the grotesque. Ireland's bank debts, if translated into dollars, would be the equal of $10 trillion.

The Wall Street implosion in 2008 sent shock waves around the world and popped bubbles all over Europe. While nations on the periphery of the European Union (EU) tanked first—Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Romania, Hungry, and Greece, economies at the heart of the EU—Britain, Spain, Italy, and Portugal—were also shaken. According to the Financial Times (FT), total claims by European banks on the Greek, Irish, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese debts alone are $2.4 trillion.

The European Union's (EU) cure for the crisis is a formula with a long and troubled history, and one that has sowed several decades of falling living standards and frozen economies when it was applied to Latin America some 30 years ago. In simple terms, it is austerity, austerity and more austerity until the bank debts are paid off.

There are similarities between the current European crisis and the 1981 Latin American debt crisis. "In both cases debts were issued in a currency over which borrowing countries had no control," says the FT's John Rathbone. For Latin America it was the dollar, for Europe the Euro. Secondly, there was first a period of easy credit, followed by a worldwide recession.

Bailouts were tied to the so-called "Washington Consensus" that demanded privatization, massive cuts in social services, wage reductions, and government austerity. The results were disastrous. As public health programs were eviscerated, diseases like cholera reappeared. As education budgets were slashed, illiteracy increased. And as public works projects vanished, joblessness went up and wages went down.

"It took several years to realize that deflating wages and shrinking economies were inconsistent with being able to fully pay off debts," notes Rathbone. And yet the "virtuous" EU countries are applying almost exactly the same formula to the current debt crisis in Europe.

For instance, the EU and the IMF agreed to bail out Ireland's banks for $114 billion, but only if the Irish cut $4 billion over the next four years, raised payroll taxes 41 percent, cut old age pensions, increased the retirement age, slashed social spending, and privatized many public services. When Ireland recently asked for a reduction in the onerous interest rate for this bailout, the EU agreed to lower it 1 percent and spread out the payments, but only on the condition of yet more austerity measures and an increase in Ireland's corporate tax rate. The newly elected Fine Gael/Labor government refused.

To pay back its own $152 billion bailout, however, the Greek government took the deal. But the price is more austerity and an agreement to sell off almost $70 billion in government properties, including some islands and many of the Olympic games sites.

But the "deal" will hardly repay the debt. Unemployment in Greece is 15 percent, and as high as 35 percent among the young. Wages have fallen 20 percent, pensions have been cut, and rates for public services hiked. Growth is expected to fall 3.4 percent this year, which means that Greece's debt burden is projected to increase from 127 percent of GDP to 160 percent of GDP by 2013. "Your debt will continue to increase as long as your growth rate is below the interest rate you are paying," economist Peter Westaway told the New York Times.

Austerity measures in Portugal and Spain have also cut deeply into the average person's income and made life measurably harder. In Spain, more than one in five workers are unemployed, and consumer spending is sharply off, dropping by a third this past holiday season. Portugal is actually in worse shape. It has one of the slowest economic growth rates in Europe, a dead-in-the-water export industry, and a youth unemployment rate of over 30 percent.

In Britain, the Conservative-Liberal government has cut almost $130 billion from the budget and lobbied for what it calls the "Big Society." The latter is similar to George H.W. Bush's "thousand points of light" and envisions a world in which private industry and volunteerism replaces government-funded programs. The actual result has been the closure of libraries, senior centers, public pools, youth programs, and public toilets. The cutbacks have been most deeply felt in poorer areas of the country—those that traditionally vote Labor, as cynics are wont to point out—but they have also taken a bite out of the Conservative Party's heartland, the Midlands.

Conservative voters have organized demonstrations to save libraries in staid communities like Charlbury and to protest turning public woodlands over to private developers. According to retired financial officer Barbara Allison, there are 54 local voluntary organizations that run programs like meals on wheels in Charlbury. "We're already devoting an awful lot of our time to charity and volunteers," she told the FT. "Am I not doing enough? Is [Conservative Prime Minister] David Cameron going to volunteer?" In any case, as Labor Party leader Ed Milliband points out, how does Cameron expect people "to volunteer at the local library when it is being shut down?"

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner strongly endorsed the Cameron program last month and said that he "did not see much risk" that the cutbacks would impede growth. But even the IMF warns that the formula of treating debt as the central problem in the middle of an economic recession has drawbacks. This past October an IMF study concluded "the idea that fiscal austerity stimulates economic activity in the short term finds little support in the data."

But a massive program of privatization does mean enormous windfall profits for private investors and the banks and financial institutions that finance the purchase of everything from soccer fields to national parks. Those profits, in turn, fuel political machines that use money and media to dominate the narrative that greedy pensioners, lay-about teachers, and free loaders are the problem. And austerity is the solution.

But increasingly people are not buying the message, and from Athens to Wisconsin they are taking their reservations to the streets. The crowd in Charlbury was a modest 200, and the tone polite. In Athens the demonstration drew 250,000 and people chanted "Kleftes," or "thieves." But the message in both places is much the same: we have had enough.

A bus driver in Athens told Australian journalist Kia Mistiles that his wages had been cut from 1800 Euros ($2500) a month to 1200 Euros ($1660). "There are more cuts coming into effect in the next three months, that's why the protests are heating up. I am worried that my wages will be cut to 800 Euros ($1110) a month, and if that happens I don't know how I will survive."

But he has a plan. "The situation is reaching a climax," he told Mistiles, "because working people know that the austerity measures go too far, and with the final rollout, they can't survive. So there is nothing to do but protest," adding, "You wait until next summer. The situation in Greece will explode."

It is unlikely that Greece will be alone.



http://counterpunch.org/baker03312011.html

March 31, 2011
The Banksters' Latest Scheme
The Debit Card No Brainer


By DEAN BAKER

Would you like to increase the sales tax in order to pay the banks another $12 billion a year in profits? That is the issue that is being debated in Washington these days.

In case you missed it, this is because the issue is usually not discussed in these terms. The immediate issue is the fee that credit card companies are allowed to charge on debit card transactions.

We have two credit companies, Visa and MasterCard, who comprise almost the entire market. This gives them substantial bargaining. Few retailers could stay in business if they did not accept both cards.

Visa and MasterCard have taken advantage of their position to mark-up their fees far above their costs. This is true with both their debit and their credit cards, but the issue is much simpler with a debit card.

While a credit card carries some risk because some of the debt incurred will not be paid, a debit card is paid off in full with an electronic fund transfer at the time of the purchase. The credit card company only carries the risk of errors in payment or fraud.

While these costs are quite small, the credit companies take advantage of their bargaining power to charge debit cards fees in the range of 1-2 percent of the sale price. They share this money with the banks that are part of their networks.

This fee is in effect a sales tax. Since the credit companies generally do not allow retailers to offer cash discounts, they must mark up the sales price for all customers by enough to cover the cost of the fee.

This seems especially unfair to the cash customers, since they must pay a higher price for the items they buy even though they are not getting the convenience of paying with a debit or credit card. Those paying in cash also tend to be poorer than customers with debit or credit cards, which means that this is a transfer from low- and moderate-income customers to the banks.

This is where financial reform comes in. One of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill passed last year instructed the Federal Reserve Board to determine the actual cost of carrying through a debit card transfer and to regulate fees accordingly. The Fed determined that a fee of 10-12 cents per transaction should be sufficient to cover the industry's costs and provide a normal profit. The Fed plans to limit the amount that the credit card companies can charge retailers to this level.

This would save retailers approximately $12 billion a year, at the expense of the credit card companies and the banks that are part of their networks. The prospect of losing $12 billion in annual profits has sent the industry lobbyists into high gear. They have developed a range of bad things that will happen if the regulated fee structure takes effect and also argued that big retailers would be the only ones benefiting.

On the list of bad things that will happen, the banks are claiming that they will deny debit cards to many people who now have them and start charging for services like maintaining checking accounts. While banks may cut back some services in response to this loss of profits, if we want to see these services subsidized, it would make more sense to subsidize them directly then to allow banks to effectively impose a sales tax for this purpose.

The argument that retailers will just pocket the savings – instead of passing it on to consumers – is laughable since it comes from people who were big advocates of recent U.S. trade agreements. Their argument in that context is that lower cost imports from Mexico, China, and other developing countries will mean lower prices for consumers.

It can't be the case that competition forces retailers to pass on savings on imported goods but not savings on bank fees. In reality, the savings will not be immediately and fully passed on to consumers, but it likely that most of it will be passed over time, just as has been the case with lower-priced imported goods.

The credit card industry and the banks really don't have a case here; they are just hoping that they can rely on their enormous political power to overturn this part of the financial reform bill. If they succeed then the bill will have even less impact that even the skeptics expected.

The industry is already aggressively working to weaken all the important provisions of the bill. There are more and more exceptions being invented to the Volcker rule that limited the ability of government-insured banks to engage in speculative trading. The industry is also trying to expand the list of exemptions from rules requiring derivatives to be traded through clearinghouses. And, it is rebelling against the requirement that financial institutions maintain a plan for their own resolution.

In these cases and others the industry will raise it certainly has a better argument than it does on debit card fees. Brushing away their rationalizations, their argument here is that they want larger profits and they have political power to get them. That may turn out to be true.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian.



http://counterpunch.org/hudson03312011.html

March 31, 2011
No Flaw in His Model ... Old Time Religion Was Right After All
Now Greenspan Wants to Take It All Back


By MICHAEL HUDSON

It all seems so long ago! On October 23, 2008, Alan Greenspan issued a mea culpa for his deregulatory policy as Federal Reserve Chairman. “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”

For a moment he seemed to be rethinking his lifelong assumption that the financial sector would seek to protect its reputation by behaving so honestly that its customers would gain from dealing with it. For years he had claimed that regulation was not needed because bankers would seek to protect their reputations and their “counter-parties” would look to their own interest.

“Were you wrong?” Congressman Henry Waxman prompted him to elaborate.

“Partially,” the Maestro replied. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms.” However, he admitted, “I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. I had been going for 40 years with considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

But the past two or three years have evidently given Greenspan enough time for a re-think. In yesterday’s Financial Times (March 30, 2011) he returns to his old well-paying job, proselytizing for deregulation. His op-ed, “Dodd-Frank fails to meet test of our times,” is a Mea Culpa The Sequel to his co-religionists for his 2008 apostate Mea Culpa. “The US regulatory agencies will in the coming months be bedevilled by unanticipated adverse outcomes,” he warns, “as they translate the Dodd-Frank Act’s broad set of principles into a couple of hundred detailed regulations.” The Act “may create … regulatory-induced market distortion,” because neither lawmakers nor “most regulators” understand how “complex” the financial system is.

But if Wall Street’s collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other derivatives are too complex for regulators to understand, they must be too complex for buyers and other counterparties to evaluate. This would seem to negate a key logical assumption of free market theory. Without “full knowledge of the market,” and of the consequences of one’s action, one cannot make an informed choice. So on logical grounds, regulators would seem to be following orthodox free market theory in rejecting derivatives and other such “complex” products.

Not so in Greenspan’s world. He does not acknowledge that Wall Street has been so adept at translating its wealth into political power that it only approves regulators who do not understand complexity. That is a precondition for deregulators such as Greenspan.

It all depends on what the word “complex” means. His argument sounds like priests or nuns answering a parochial school pupil’s question about how God can let so many bad things happen here on earth by simply saying, “God is too large for you to understand. Just believe.” Greenspan claims that nobody has sufficient skills to be “entrusted with forecasting, and presumably preventing, all undesirable repercussions that might happen to a market when its regulatory conditions are importantly altered.” Just look at the Bush Administration’s happy-face appointees at the FDIC and IMF who expressed faith that risks were declining in 2007-08. “Regulators were caught ‘flat-footed’ by a breakdown we had erroneously thought was more than adequately reserved against.”

When Greenspan says “we,” he means the useful idiots that Wall Street insists on, while blackballing whomever is not a suitably true believer in the deregulatory kool-aid being doled out by Greenspan’s co-religionists on behalf of their financial god too complex for mortals to know. “The problem is that regulators, and for that matter everyone else, can never get more than a glimpse at the internal workings of the simplest of modern financial systems.” But the “regulators who never got more than glimpse” were headed by Bubblemeister Greenspan himself. He bears his failure to “more than glimpse” like a badge of honor.

So it seems that only the bankers know what they’re selling, not their customers or the regulators. But you must trust Wall Street to do the right thing. If bankers do not make money for their customers, they will lose their trust. Why would bankers and financial institutions act in such a way as to profiteer at their customers’ expense (and that of the overall economy for that matter)?

The reason, of course, is that the financial sector notoriously lives in the short run. Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, WaMu, Bear Stearns, A.I.G. et al. gave their managers enormous salaries and even more enormous bonuses to turn themselves into a new power elite, creating fortunes that will endow their heirs for a century.

Someone is winning from all this complexity. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has just published statistics showing that the wealthiest 1 per cent of America’s population doubled its share of wealth over the decade ending in 2007, when the bubble reached its peak. No doubt this polarization has widened as the economy shrinks under the weight of its debt overhead. But with regard to criticisms of the fact that bankers have used TARP and other bailout money simply to maintain “the outsized (to some, egregious) bankers’ pay packages,” Greenspan points out that “small differences in the skill level of senior bankers tend to translate into large differences in the bank’s bottom line.” Skill is expensive, and they are only being paid for their talents and expertise.

What amazes me about mismanagers like Countrywide’s chairman Mozilo and his counterparts is that when the S.E.C., F.B.I. and state attorneys general open a investigation to see whether to charge them with criminal felonies, they all insist that they were out of the loop, had no idea of what was going on, and profess to be “shocked, shocked, to find out that there’s gambling going on in this place.”

If they are so unknowledgeable to be even more stupid than the regulators and economist who warned about what was happening, how can they insist that they are worth whatever they can grab? For that matter, how did they manage to swap jail terms for getting to keep their tens of millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses? This is the real question that “free market” economists should be asking. Most Wall Street firms have paid substantial settlements, and Mozilo recently paid the Securities and Exchange Commission $67.5 million to avoid going to trial for civil fraud and insider dealing.

So in all this mess that has led to a $13 trillion government bailout, only Martha Stewart became an insider jailbird. For Wall Street, paying a civil fine “without acknowledging wrongdoing” blocks victims from recovering civil damages in the event that they try to sue to get their money back. Evidently the Obama Administration believes that to make the banks pay would simply require yet further bailouts of “taxpayer money.” So by refraining from prosecuting, Geithner at the Treasury and other regulators can claim to be saving taxpayers – by permitting the large banks to have grown 20 per cent larger today than they were when the bailouts began!

But Greenspan argues that the economy would be even poorer under financial regulation. “One of the [Dodd-Frank] law’s provisions,” he criticizes, “made credit-rating organizations legally liable for their opinions about risks.” But to avoid killing business with such regulation, “the Securities and Exchange Commission in effect suspended the need for a credit rating.” To make the ratings agencies responsible for the tens of billions of dollars lost as a result of their pasting AAA ratings on junk mortgages would cut down their business.

It is as if fraud is simply part of the free market. In this respect, I find his Financial Times article even more damning than his October 2008 Congressional testimony.

To show how thoroughly he has been cured from his temporary apostasy from free market religion, Greenspan belittles the fact that: “In December, the Federal Reserve … proposed to reduce banks’ share of debit card fees associated with retail transactions, leading many lenders to contend they would no longer be able to afford to issue debit cards.”

Can there be a better logic to promote the “public option” and have the Treasury issue credit cards as well as debt cards? The rake-off charged by banks from sellers and buyers alike (not to mention late fees that yield the card companies even more than their interest charges these days) has been a major factor eating into retail profits and personal incomes.

The banks are arguing, in effect: “If we can’t earn back enough profits to cover the losses we’ve made on our junk loans, we’ll organize our own lockout of customers – to force you to pay whatever we demand to cover our costs, pay our salaries and bonuses.”

So why not let the government say, “OK, we’ll provide a public-option alternative. And if this works, we’ll use it as a model for our public health insurance option.”

Greenspan responds that if banks are regulated to reduce the risk they pose to the economy, they may simply pack up and take their dealings to London: “concerns are growing that without immediate exemption from Dodd-Frank, a significant proportion of the foreign exchange derivatives market would leave the US.” My own response is to say fine, let them leave. Let Britain’s Serious Fraud Office and bank regulators pick up the pieces from their next opaque gamble “too complex” to understand.


Most slippery in Greenspan’s op-ed is his attempt to divert attention away from the instability that financial deregulation has caused – the vast polarization of wealth, the enormous mushrooming of debt beyond the ability to pay, the massive impoverishment of the economy as a result of its debt overhead, as if all this were stability? Don’t look there, he says; look at how “the global ‘invisible hand’ has created relatively stable exchange rates, interest rates, prices, and wage rates.” But real estate prices have not been stable – they have been inflated with debt, and then crashed the net worth of hapless borrowers. Commodity prices are not stable, especially not that of Greenspan’s beloved gold bullion.

Nevertheless, Greenspan concludes, there can be no such thing as a science of regulation. “Financial market behavior is subject to so wide a variety of ‘explanations,’ especially in contrast to the physical sciences where cause and effect is much more soundly grounded.” But what sets the physical sciences apart from junk economics is the fact that it is not directly self-interested. There are no huge financial rewards for having a blind spot (except of course for scientists denying that nuclear power might be dangerous or deep-water oil drilling a risky proposition). There is method in the madness of today’s free market orthodoxy opting for GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) financial models that sing along with maestro Greenspan that Wall Street wealth will all trickle down.

“Is the answer to complex modern-day finance that we return to the simpler banking practices of a half century ago?” he asks rhetorically “By “simpler” banking practices of days of yore, he really means more honest practices, subject to knowledgeable public regulation. It was a world where banks held onto the mortgages they made rather than flipping them to third parties without any responsibility for truth in lending – or in selling, for that matter. “That may not be possible if we wish to maintain today’s levels of productivity and standards of living.”

“In moving forward with regulatory repair, we may have to address the as yet unproved tie between the degree of financial complexity and higher standards of living,” Greenspan suggests. But his response is that wealth at the top is the price to be paid for rising living standards. But they are not rising – they are falling! Bankers have not turned out to be job creators. They are debt creators, and debt deflation is what is pushing the economy into depression, raising unemployment and driving housing prices further and further down.

So it sounds like Greenspan today would do just what he did years ago, and reject the warning by Fed governor Ed Gramlich urging the Fed to regulate the soaring financial fraud. His mantra is still that the invisible hand is too complex to regulate.

For further commentary on his remarkable “I take it all back” op-ed, I recommend the excellent column of Yves Smith, “OMG, Greenspan Claims Financial Rent Seeking Promotes Prosperity!” Naked Capitalism, March 30, 2011.


Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) and Trade, Development and Foreign Debt: A History of Theories of Polarization v. Convergence in the World Economy. He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com




http://counterpunch.org/hudson03112011.html

Weekend Edition
March 11 - 13, 2011

The Plan to Steal Everything and Sell the People into Slavery
Wisconsin Death Trip


By MICHAEL HUDSON and JEFFREY SOMMERS

On Wednesday evening, in a veritable Night of the Long Knives, Wisconsin's integrity was brutally murdered on the floor of the state Capitol in Madison. On 9 March, integrity and trust built up over a century was obliterated as Wisconsin state senators quickly reversed course and cleaved its budget "repair bill" in half. Financial items require a quorum, thus, collective bargaining was split off from the budget repair bill and voted on separately so as to permit its being voted on now. Even so, this still broke the state's open meeting law requiring 24 hours' notice to ensure transparency. Instead, the Wisconsin senate Republicans pulled out this new legislation without advance notice and began voting, leaving only a stunned Democratic legislator, Peter Barca, to read the open meeting law out loud to prevent the senators from voting. The senate voted over his objections anyway.

The Wisconsin brand has always centered on integrity. This was really about the only distinctive comparative advantage the state could lay claim to. Now, it is gone. With collective bargaining abolished, huge issues remain beyond labor. The privatization of public assets is now on the agenda, with the yet-to-be-voted-on budget repair bill.

Wisconsin is a state that invented Progressive Era Republican rule in the 19th and early 20th centuries under such progressive populists as Robert LaFollette. Under their tenure, rent-seeking from the public domain and similar insider corruption were checked by a strong public sector anchored in integrity. The state's long history of reforms nurtured a prosperous middle class and made it a model of clean government, solid infrastructure, trade unionism and high value-added industry managed by socialists and the LaFollette Progressives.

Fast-forward to Scott Walker today. Representing a new breed apart from Wisconsin's earlier Republicans, he is seeking to re-birth the asset-grabbing Gilded Age. A plague of rent-seekers is seeking quick gains by privatizng the public sector and erecting tollbooths to charge access fees to roads, power plants and other basic infrastructure.

Economics textbooks, along with Fox News and shout radio commentators, spread the myth that fortunes are gained productively by investing in capital equipment and employing labor to produce goods and services that people want to buy. This may be how economies prosper, but it is not how fortunes are most easily made. One need only to turn to the 19th-century novelists such as Balzac to be reminded that behind every family fortune lies a great theft, often long-forgotten or even undiscovered.

But who is one to steal from? Most wealth in history has been acquired either by armed conquest of the land, or by political insider dealing, such as the great US railroad land giveaways of the mid 19th century. The great American fortunes have been founded by prying land, public enterprises and monopoly rights from the public domain, because that's where the assets are to take.

Throughout history the world's most successful economies have been those that have kept this kind of primitive accumulation in check. The US economy today is faltering largely because its past barriers against rent-seeking are being breached.

Nowhere is this more disturbingly on display than in Wisconsin. Today, Milwaukee – Wisconsin's largest city, and once the richest in America – is ranked among the four poorest large cities in the United States. Wisconsin is just the most recent case in this great heist. The US government itself and its regulatory agencies effectively are being privatized as the "final stage" of neoliberal economic doctrine.

A peek into Governor Walker's so-called "budget repair bill" reveals a shop of horrors that is just the opposite of actually repairing the budget. Among the items listed in the bill until Wednesday night were selloffs of state power generation facilities – in no-bid contracts notoriously prone to insider dealing.

The 37 facilities he wants to sell off that produce heating and cooling at low cost to the state's universities and prisons. Walker's budget repair bill would have unloaded them at a low price, presumably to campaign contributors such as Koch Industries – and then stick the bill for producing this power at higher rates to Wisconsin taxpayers in perpetuity. (And this is all being sold as a "taxpayer relief" plan!) Invariably, this will make its way into new legislation once attention is diverted from the current controversy.

The budget bill also plans to tear down the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS). This is not New Jersey, where a succession of corrupt governments have underfunded (read: stolen) the state pension system in order to shift resources to pay for budget shortfalls in general revenues caused by tax breaks for the rich. The WRS is one of the nation's most stable, well-funded and best-managed pension systems. Although Wisconsin is not a big state, the WRS has amassed $75bn in reserves, and pays out handsome pensions to its public retirees, without needing new public subsidy. The Walker bill has language providing for tearing down this system, raiding its assets to pay for further tax cuts for the rich (especially property owners), and then throwing Wall Street a meaty bone as public employees would be shifted to 401k plans handled by money managers on commission.

In a separate proposal, Governor Walker would start privatizing the University of Wisconsin's two flagship doctorate-granting campuses. Ironically, the land grant universities – of which Wisconsin has long been among the best – were created by protectionist 19th-century Republicans as an alternative approach to British free-market doctrine, which dominated the prestigious and largely anglophile Ivy League universities. These universities, like their German counterparts, taught a new economic policy of state management and public enterprise that formed the basis for subsequent US and German development.

Walker would kill off this tradition, and return intellectual production to the highest bidder.

Other proposals suggest selling off Wisconsin's public northwoods lands with their cornucopia of mineral and timber wealth. And much more is said to be in the works.

So Walker's war is not only against the Democrats and labour, it is against Wisconsin's Progressive Era institutions. His policy threatens to pauperize the state and deal a coup de grace to Progressive Era institutions and impoverish the state's middle class. Contra John Maynard Keynes's gentle suggestion of "euthanasia of the rentier", it is the middle class that is being euthanized – throughout North America and Europe.

Michael Hudson is professor of Economics at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) and chief economic advisor to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. He has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). He is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002). He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com.

Jeffrey Sommers is a professor at Raritan Valley College, NJ, visiting professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, former Fulbrighter to Latvia, and fellow at Boris Kagarlitsky’s Institute for Global Studies in Moscow. He can be reached at jsommers@sseriga.edu.lv.



Speaking of Kagarlitsky, a hell of a writer. Also an original 9/11 skeptic who, however, never talked about it again.



http://counterpunch.org/baker03162011.html

March 16, 2011
Time for a Structural Adjustment of the Central Bankers
Signs of Intelligent Life at the IMF?


By DEAN BAKER


The International Monetary Fund (IMF) held a conference last week devoted to re-examining macroeconomics in the wake of the economic crisis. This conference was evidence of a Glasnost that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. One of the organizers and speakers was Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, a man who had previously been persona non grata at the IMF after he had trashed the institution in a piece in the New Republic back in 2000.

In addition to Stiglitz, the conference included several speakers who were quite critical of the economic policies pushed by the IMF in recent years. Given the format and the large number of speakers, there was limited opportunity for back and forth in these sessions. However, at least the important questions were being asked.

In spite of the increased openness of the discussion at the IMF it is not clear that its policies have undergone a similar adjustment. In particular, it openly touts the route of "internal devaluation" for countries that have fixed the value of their currency to other currencies or don't have their own currency.

This is an incredibly painful process. The idea is that a country that has high unit labor costs relative to its trading partners will get its costs in line by lowering wages. The way that they lower their wages is to force workers to take pay cuts under the pressure of high rates of unemployment.

Latvia is currently the poster child for internal devaluation. Its unemployment rate is 18 percent. The IMF path would have other countries with serious competitiveness problems such as Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal go the same path.

The alternative would be to promote a somewhat higher rate of inflation in the surplus countries, most importantly Germany. Higher inflation in the surplus countries would allow the deficit countries to regain competitiveness simply by having their wages rise less rapidly than the inflation rate in the surplus countries. This could be accomplished without the double-digit unemployment rates that these countries are now enduring.


Luckily there's the hyperinflation scare brigade out to render such an idea unthinkable.

This route is consistent with the path suggested by Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, in a paper he wrote last year. A higher inflation rate would also have the benefit of eroding the real value of the debt for both heavily indebted countries and heavily indebted homeowners. This would allow these economies to get back on a normal growth path more quickly.

Remarkably, IMF policy still doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that somewhat higher rates of inflation might actually be the best path under some circumstances. Many of the speakers seemed to still believe that the policy of inflation targeting, in which central banks target a 2.0 percent inflation to the exclusion of all other concerns, is the best route to pursue. This certainly seems to be the practice at the European Central Bank, as well as at many other central banks around the world.

This should have populations everywhere rising up with their pitchforks. Inflation targeting has led to an enormous economic and human disaster, likely costing the world more than $10 trillion in lost output and leaving tens of millions of people unemployed. If this experience is not enough to discredit a policy, it is difficult to imagine any possible set of events in the world that could lead the inflation targeters to change their minds.

In this respect the arguments set out in the IMF conference should be useful for political purposes even if they have little immediate effect on the conduct of central banks or the policy prescriptions of the IMF. The fact that many of the world's most prominent economists, including even the chief economist at the IMF itself, can make policy prescriptions that are essentially ignored by those conducting policy, provides more evidence that policy is not being guided by neutral individuals seeking the best outcome.

This is yet another piece of evidence that the central bankers and others directing policy place the interests of the financial sector at the center of their concern. For the financial industry, a modest rise in the inflation rate would genuinely be bad news, reducing the value of their assets and the real value of their interest income.

In order to ensure that the major banks of the world do not have to deal with this situation, the central banks are prepared to force tens of millions of people to remain out of work. If we had real democracies, the central bankers who couldn't do their job would be the ones out of work right now.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.

This column was originally published by The Guardian.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:08 am

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag, IV
(Whole bunch of new posts starting above, Apr 4, with viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=393514#p393509)

GENERAL ELECTRIC FUCKERS

http://wonkette.com/441386/g-e-so-good-at-evading-corporate-taxes-that-irs-owes-g-e-3-2-billion#more-441386

THE HYDRA HEAD

G.E. So Good At Evading Corporate Taxes That IRS Owes G.E. $3.2 Billion

by Ken Layne

1:45 pm March 25, 2011



This is going to get repetitive, we’re afraid, but every aspect of the “financial crisis” in the United States is due to corporations not paying taxes and the very richest .01% individuals not paying taxes. That’s it, that’s the whole thing — your crumbling schools, your sinkhole highways, your abandoned state parks, the laid-off city maintenance worker who leaps to his death in Costa Mesa after half the town’s workforce is replaced by hourly contractors and the mayor hires a $12,000-a-month P.R. manager, everything. General Electric, America’s largest corporation and the second-biggest company on Earth, simply does not pay any taxes at all. You try that!

Until the exciting Comcast/NBC deal, G.E. informed the American people of the business and political news through CNBC’s portfolio of channels and the NBC/MSNBC news/commentary operations while keeping poor people sedated with American Movie Classics and Telemundo and “Must See Teevee” and the Sci-Fi channel and another couple of hundred media channels on every kind of screen, but the company did not announce its massive success in evading all taxes. Instead, the New York Times showed an incredibly rare bit of spine today by publishing a dull numbers story that is possibly the most enraging thing you’ll ever read:

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E.


With a massive internal tax-evasion department headed by a former Treasury official and staffed with former IRS agents, G.E. is simply the best at what has become common practice for the monstrous mega-corporations that control every aspect of policy and “politics.” A half century ago, corporations paid 30% of America’s total taxes. Now it’s down to 6.6%.

And still, they whine ceaselessly about how they can barely afford to do business in America, what with the crushing burden of 6.6% taxes. [New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp]



"60 MINUTES" DISCOVERS MORTGAGE SCAMS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/01/60minutes/main20049646.shtml

April 1, 2011
Mortgage paperwork mess: Next housing shock?

Scott Pelley reports how problems with mortgage documents are prompting lawsuits and could slow down the weak housing market



As more and more Americans face mortgage foreclosure, banks' crucial ownership documents for the properties are often unclear and are sometimes even bogus, a condition that's causing lawsuits and hampering an already weak housing market. Scott Pelley reports.


Florida residents AJ and Brenda Boyd spent more than a year trying to renegotiate their mortgage and save their home. At the last moment, questions about who owns their mortgage saved them from eviction.

Video
Extra: "Save the Dream" events

Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America talks to Scott Pelley about his "Save the Dream" events and how foreclosures are causing a crisis in America.

(CBS News) If there was a question about whether we're headed for a second housing shock, that was settled last week with news that home prices have fallen a sixth consecutive month. Values are nearly back to levels of the Great Recession. One thing weighing on the economy is the huge number of foreclosed houses.


Many are stuck on the market for a reason you wouldn't expect: banks can't find the ownership documents.


Who really owns your mortgage?
Scott Pelley explains a bizarre aftershock of the U.S. financial collapse: An epidemic of forged and missing mortgage documents.


It's bizarre but, it turns out, Wall Street cut corners when it created those mortgage-backed investments that triggered the financial collapse. Now that banks want to evict people, they're unwinding these exotic investments to find, that often, the legal documents behind the mortgages aren't there. Caught in a jam of their own making, some companies appear to be resorting to forgery and phony paperwork to throw people - down on their luck - out of their homes.


In the 1930s we had breadlines; venture out before dawn in America today and you'll find mortgage lines. This past January in Los Angeles, 37,000 homeowners facing foreclosure showed up to an event to beg their bank for lower payments on their mortgage. Some people even slept on the sidewalk to get in line.


So many in the country are desperate now that they have to meet in convention centers coast to coast.


In February in Miami, 12,000 people showed up to a similar event. The line went down the block and doubled back twice.


Dale DeFreitas lost her job and now fears her home is next. "It's very emotional because I just think about it. I don't wanna lose my home. I really don't," she told "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley.


"It's your American dream," he remarked.


"It was. And still is," she replied.


These convention center events are put on by the non-profit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, which helps people figure what they can afford, and then walks them across the hall to bank representatives to ask for lower payments. More than half will get their mortgages adjusted, but the rest discover that they just can't keep their home.


For many that's when the real surprise comes in: these same banks have fouled up all of their own paperwork to a historic degree.


"In my mind this is an absolute, intentional fraud," Lynn Szymoniak, who is fighting foreclosure, told Pelley.


While trying to save her house, she discovered something we did not know: back when Wall Street was using algorithms and computers to engineer those disastrous mortgage-backed securities, it appears they didn't want old fashioned paperwork slowing down the profits.


"This was back when it was a white hot fevered pitch to move as many of these as possible," Pelley remarked.


"Exactly. When you could make a whole lotta money through securitization. And every other aspect of it could be done electronically, you know, key strokes. This was the only piece where somebody was supposed to actually go get documents, transfer the documents from one entity to the other. And it looks very much like they just eliminated that stuff all together," Szymoniak said.


Szymoniak's mortgage had been bundled with thousands of others into one of those Wall Street securities traded from investor to investor. When the bank took her to court, it first said it had lost her documents, including the critical assignment of mortgage which transfers ownership. But then, there was a courthouse surprise.


"They found all of your paperwork more than a year after they initially said that they had lost it?" Pelley asked.


"Yes," she replied.


Asked if that seemed suspicious to her, Szymoniak said, "Yes, absolutely. What do you imagine? It fell behind the file cabinet? Where was all of this? 'We had it, we own it, we lost it.' And then more recently, everyone is coming in saying, 'Hey we found it. Isn't that wonderful?'"


But what the bank may not have known is that Szymoniak is a lawyer and fraud investigator with a specialty in forged documents. She has trained FBI agents.


She told Pelley she asked for copies of those documents.


Asked what she found, Szymoniak told Pelley, "When I looked at the assignment of my mortgage, and this is the assignment: it looked that even the date they put in, which was 10/17/08, was several months after they sued me for foreclosure. So, what they were saying to the court was, 'We sued her in July of 2008 and we acquired this mortgage in October of 2008.' It made absolutely no sense."


Curious, she used her legal training to go online and research 10,000 mortgages.


"I often, because of my training, look for patterns. And then I began to find the strange signatures," she explained.


One of the strangest signatures belonged to the bank vice president who had signed Szymoniak's newly discovered mortgage documents. The name is Linda Green. But, on thousands of other mortgages, the style of Green's signature changed a lot.


And, even more remarkable, Szymoniak found Green was vice president of 20 banks - all at the same time.


Where did all those documents come from? We went searching for "the" Linda Green and found her in rural Georgia. She told us she has never been a bank vice president.


In 2003, she was a shipping clerk for auto parts when her grandson told her about a job at a company called Docx. The company, that was once housed in Alpharetta, Ga., was a sweatshop for forged mortgage documents.


"They were sitting in a room signing their name as fast as they possibly could to any kind of nonsense document that was put in front of them," Szymoniak said.


Docx, and companies like it, were recreating missing mortgage assignments for the banks and providing the legally required signatures of bank vice presidents and notaries. Linda Green says she was named a bank vice president by Docx because her name was short and easy to spell. As demand exploded, Docx needed more Linda Greens.


"So you're Linda Green?" Pelley asked Chris Pendley.


"Yeah, can't you tell?" Pendley, who is a man, replied.


Pendley worked at Docx at the same time and signed as Linda Green.


"When you came in to Docx on your first day, what did they tell you your job was gonna be?" Pelley asked.


"They told me that I was gonna be signing documents for using someone else's name," Pendley remembered.


"Did you think there was something strange about that in the beginning?" Pelley asked.


"Yeah, it seemed a little strange. But they told us and they repeatedly told us that everything was above board and it was legal," Pendley said.


Pendley told Pelley he had no previous experience in banking, in legal documents, and that there were no requirements for the job.


"You had to be able to hold a pen?" Pelley remarked.


"Hold a pen," he agreed.


Asked if he understood what these documents were, Pendley said, "Not really."


"But you were signing these documents as if you were an officer of the bank?" Pelley pointed out.


"Correct," Pendley said.


"How many banks were you vice president of in a given day?" Pelley asked.


"I would guess somewhere around five to six," Pendley said.


He was paid $10 an hour for this job.


Pendley showed us how he signed mortgage documents as "Linda Green." He told us Docx employees had to sign at least 350 an hour. Pendley estimates that he alone did 4,000 a day.


Shawanna Crite worked at Docx and was also a "Linda Green." She says she both signed and notarized the mortgage documents.


Asked what the role of the notary was, Crite said, "We were to make sure that everyone on the document was who they said they were and notarize the documents."


"But the people who were signing the documents weren't who they said they were," Pelley pointed out. "So if Chris Pendley was signing for Linda Green, you'd notarize that document."


"Yes," Crite said.


She told Pelley she was told that was okay.


"What do you know now?" Pelley asked.


"That it wasn't right," Crite said.


The real Linda Green didn't want to be interviewed. But she said that some of the bank vice presidents at Docx were high school kids. Their signatures were entered into evidence in untold thousands of foreclosure suits that sent families packing.

"It was a common practice in the last few years to flood the courts with these documents," Lynn Szymoniak told Pelley.


A look at some of the junk the courts were flooded with shows that sometimes the document mill didn't even bother to fill in the names of the supposed owners.


To them, it seemed like a joke.


"Instead of the name of the bank here that was acquiring the loan, this one says, 'Bogus Assignee for intervening assignments.' That's who acquired the loan," Szymoniak pointed out.


"This was an actual document that was in litigation?" Pelley asked, looking at the document.


"Yes," she said. "And what corporation assigned this loan? A corporation identified as 'A Bad Bene.' Excuse me? When I saw that I was just absolutely amazed."


"What does that mean, 'A Bad Bene'?" Pelley asked.


"It could possibly mean a bad beneficiary. I have no idea what it meant. Here's Linda Green. And this time, instead of being a Vice President of American Home Mortgage Servicing, she's Vice President of A Bad Beanie," Szymoniak said.


Szymoniak says that the banks whose paperwork was handled by the Docx forgery mill include Wells Fargo, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Citibank, U.S. Bank and Bank of America. We contacted all of them. Each said it farmed out its mortgage servicing work to other companies and it was those mortgage servicing firms that hired Docx.


Docx was owned by a company called LPS, a $2 billion firm that calls itself the nation's leading provider of mortgage processing services. LPS told us that when it found out about the phony signatures in 2009, it shut Docx down. The FBI and several states are investigating.


There were a million foreclosures last year. And there will be another million this year - those lawsuits are forcing open those bundled, mortgage-backed securities that Wall Street cooked up in the mid 2000s, and exposing a lack of ownership documents all across the country.


"It's astonishing to me that this had become as pervasive as a problem that it is," Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) told Pelley.


"It got sloppy," he remarked.


"It got very sloppy," she agreed.


As FDIC chairman, Bair is one of the government's top banking regulators.


"You just described it as pervasive," Pelley pointed out.


"Yeah. It is pervasive. It absolutely is pervasive. It was just a matter of cutting corners, not spending enough money and not having quality controls," she said.


Incompetent banking, back then, is causing foreclosure ghettos today. Although banks say courts have been accepting their paperwork, now that's changing as desperate homeowners countersue banks over the document fiasco. This leaves houses unsold indefinitely, undermining the recovery.


"I am very worried about if this starts getting out of hand the kind of impact it will have," Bair said.


"These are lawsuits by homeowners who are being foreclosed upon," Pelley remarked.


"Or have, are in the process, or have already been foreclosed on," she said.


"Saying, prove it?" Pelley asked. "Prove that you own this."


"Exactly," Bair said.


"How big an issue is that gonna be? There are 30,000 today," Pelley asked.


"I think this litigation could easily get out of control. And we would like to get ahead of it. We're already feeling like we're falling behind it," Bair said.


Chairman Bair thinks rotten mortgage documents are so threatening to the economy that the government should force banks to pay into a massive fund.


"You think there needs to be a cleanup fund like for a natural disaster?" Pelley asked.


"I do. Yes, somewhat like that. Yes, this is yes this is one of human-making, but yes," Bair said.


"You don't want to give an exact dollar amount for this cleanup fund, but what are we talking about. Is it billions?" Pelley asked.


"Yes. I would assume it would be billions. Yes," she replied.


Bair's proposed cleanup fund would pay homeowners to accept a bank's ownership claim without a lawsuit. She says this could be cheaper for banks than trying to recreate the missing documents legitimately - not through document mills.


"I think eventually the bank could prove who owned it. But it would take, it would take a lot of time and expense," Bair said.


"You know none of the major banks were willing to sit down with us and talk to us about this. Not even the American Bankers Association," Pelley pointed out.


"I'm sorry to hear that," Bair said.


Asked why she thinks that is, Bair told Pelley, "They're feeling very defensive now. And so I can only assume that is the reason that they declined."


Banks are defensive because all 50 state attorneys general want to punish them: the states are seeking about $20 billion in damages for what they say is the irresponsible, perhaps criminal way, that some mortgage companies handled what is, for most folks, the most important investment of their lives.




Produced by Robert Anderson and Daniel Ruetenik
Last edited by JackRiddler on Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:20 am

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag, V
(Whole bunch of new posts starting Apr 4 with viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=393514#p393509)

More than a year later come new stories on the thread about how
Wachovia Laundered Money for Mexican Cartels
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28700


How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
Ed Vulliamy, The Observer, Sunday 3 April 2011

On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.

During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.

The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

...

Antonio Maria Costa, who was executive director of the UN's office on drugs and crime from May 2002 to August 2010, charts the history of the contamination of the global banking industry by drug and criminal money since his first initiatives to try to curb it from the European commission during the 1990s. "The connection between organised crime and financial institutions started in the late 1970s, early 1980s," he says, "when the mafia became globalised."

Until then, criminal money had circulated largely in cash, with the authorities making the occasional, spectacular "sting" or haul. During Costa's time as director for economics and finance at the EC in Brussels, from 1987, inroads were made against penetration of banks by criminal laundering, and "criminal money started moving back to cash, out of the financial institutions and banks. Then two things happened: the financial crisis in Russia, after the emergence of the Russian mafia, and the crises of 2003 and 2007-08.

"With these crises," says Costa, "the banking sector was short of liquidity, the banks exposed themselves to the criminal syndicates, who had cash in hand."

...

"These are the proceeds of murder and misery in Mexico, and of drugs sold around the world," [Martin Woods] says. "All the law enforcement people wanted to see this come to trial. But no one goes to jail. "What does the settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing – it doesn't make the job of law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where's the risk? There is none.

"Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican people? It's simple: if you don't see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico, you're missing the point."

SNIP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... drug-gangs




beeline wrote:philly.com is all over this today too, a year later:


Monday, April 4, 2011
How Wachovia Bank helped Mexico's killer drug mobs

The shameful story of the former Wachovia Bank's support for murderous Mexican drug traffickers, and its slap-on-the-wrist punishment by US regulators, has been told before, but Britain's Guardian newspaper tells it well, and in detail. Excerpt:

"On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in... Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m.

"But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.

"During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo," and the dominant bank in Philadelphia and other East Coast cities.


"Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

"Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court... The bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

"'Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,' said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009."



Let's repost the original story from Bloomberg -- not Mad Cow Morning News!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-2 ... -deal.html

Wachovia laundered money for Mexican cartels

June 29, 2010


Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.

They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.

The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.

This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers -- including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.

The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years.

‘Blatant Disregard’

Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product.

“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.

Since 2006, more than 22,000 people have been killed in drug-related battles that have raged mostly along the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border that Mexico shares with the U.S. In the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, 700 people had been murdered this year as of mid- June. Six Juarez police officers were slaughtered by automatic weapons fire in a midday ambush in April.

Rondolfo Torre, the leading candidate for governor in the Mexican border state of Tamaulipas, was gunned down yesterday, less than a week before elections in which violence related to drug trafficking was a central issue.

45,000 Troops

Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed to crush the drug cartels when he took office in December 2006, and he’s since deployed 45,000 troops to fight the cartels. They’ve had little success.

Among the dead are police, soldiers, journalists and ordinary citizens. The U.S. has pledged Mexico $1.1 billion in the past two years to aid in the fight against narcotics cartels.

In May, President Barack Obama said he’d send 1,200 National Guard troops, adding to the 17,400 agents on the U.S. side of the border to help stem drug traffic and illegal immigration.

Behind the carnage in Mexico is an industry that supplies hundreds of tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines to Americans. The cartels have built a network of dealers in 231 U.S. cities from coast to coast, taking in about $39 billion in sales annually, according to the Justice Department.

‘You’re Missing the Point’

Twenty million people in the U.S. regularly use illegal drugs, spurring street crime and wrecking families. Narcotics cost the U.S. economy $215 billion a year -- enough to cover health care for 30.9 million Americans -- in overburdened courts, prisons and hospitals and lost productivity, the department says.

“It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy,” says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia’s branch network.

“If you don’t see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 22,000 people killed in Mexico, you’re missing the point,” Woods says.

Cleansing Dirty Cash

Wachovia is just one of the U.S. and European banks that have been used for drug money laundering. For the past two decades, Latin American drug traffickers have gone to U.S. banks to cleanse their dirty cash, says Paul Campo, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s financial crimes unit.

Miami-based American Express Bank International paid fines in both 1994 and 2007 after admitting it had failed to spot and report drug dealers laundering money through its accounts. Drug traffickers used accounts at Bank of America in Oklahoma City to buy three planes that carried 10 tons of cocaine, according to Mexican court filings.

Federal agents caught people who work for Mexican cartels depositing illicit funds in Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, Chicago and Brownsville, Texas, from 2002 to 2009. Mexican drug dealers used shell companies to open accounts at London-based HSBC Holdings Plc, Europe’s biggest bank by assets, an investigation by the Mexican Finance Ministry found.

Following Rules

Those two banks weren’t accused of wrongdoing. Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton and HSBC spokesman Roy Caple say laws bar them from discussing specific clients. They say their banks strictly follow the government rules.

“Bank of America takes its anti-money-laundering responsibilities very seriously,” Norton says.

A Mexican judge on Jan. 22 accused the owners of six centros cambiarios, or money changers, in Culiacan and Tijuana of laundering drug funds through their accounts at the Mexican units of Banco Santander SA, Citigroup Inc. and HSBC, according to court documents filed in the case.

The money changers are in jail while being tried. Citigroup, HSBC and Santander, which is the largest Spanish bank by assets, weren’t accused of any wrongdoing. The three banks say Mexican law bars them from commenting on the case, adding that they each carefully enforce anti-money-laundering programs.

HSBC has stopped accepting dollar deposits in Mexico, and Citigroup no longer allows noncustomers to change dollars there. Citigroup detected suspicious activity in the Tijuana accounts, reported it to regulators and closed the accounts, Citigroup spokesman Paulo Carreno says.

Criminal Empires

On June 15, the Mexican Finance Ministry announced it would set limits for banks on cash deposits in dollars.

Mexico’s drug cartels have become multinational criminal enterprises.

Some of the gangs have delved into other illegal activities such as gunrunning, kidnapping and smuggling people across the border, as well as into seemingly legitimate areas such as trucking, travel services and air cargo transport, according to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center.

These criminal empires have no choice but to use the global banking system to finance their businesses, Mexican Senator Felipe Gonzalez says.

“With so much cash, the only way to move this money is through the banks,” says Gonzalez, who represents a central Mexican state and chairs the senate public safety committee.

Gonzalez, a member of Calderon’s National Action Party, carries a .38 revolver for personal protection.

“I know this won’t stop the narcos when they come through that door with machine guns,” he says, pointing to the entrance to his office. “But at least I’ll take one with me.”

Subprime Losses

No bank has been more closely connected with Mexican money laundering than Wachovia. Founded in 1879, Wachovia became the largest bank by assets in the southeastern U.S. by 1900. After the Great Depression, some people in North Carolina called the bank “Walk-Over-Ya” because it had foreclosed on farms in the region.

By 2008, Wachovia was the sixth-largest U.S. lender, and it faced $26 billion in losses from subprime mortgage loans. That cost Wachovia Chief Executive Officer Kennedy Thompson his job in June 2008.

Six months later, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which dates from 1852, bought Wachovia for $12.7 billion, creating the largest network of bank branches in the U.S. Thompson, who now works for private-equity firm Aquiline Capital Partners LLC in New York, declined to comment.

As Wachovia’s balance sheet was bleeding, its legal woes were mounting. In the three years leading up to Wachovia’s agreement with the Justice Department, grand juries served the bank with 6,700 subpoenas requesting information.

Not Quick Enough

The bank didn’t react quickly enough to the prosecutors’ requests and failed to hire enough investigators, the U.S. Treasury Department said in March. After a 22-month investigation, the Justice Department on March 12 charged Wachovia with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to run an effective anti-money-laundering program.

Five days later, Wells Fargo promised in a Miami federal courtroom to revamp its detection systems. Wachovia’s new owner paid $160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009.

If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge, the U.S. government will, according to the agreement, drop all charges against the bank in March 2011.

Wells Fargo regrets that some of Wachovia’s former anti- money-laundering efforts fell short, spokeswoman Mary Eshet says. Wells Fargo has invested $42 million in the past three years to improve its anti-money-laundering program and has been working with regulators, she says.

‘Significantly Upgraded’

“We have substantially increased the caliber and number of staff in our international investigations group, and we also significantly upgraded the monitoring software,” Eshet says. The agreement bars the bank from contesting or contradicting the facts in its admission.

The bank declined to answer specific questions, including how much it made by handling $378.4 billion -- including $4 billion of cash-from Mexican exchange companies.

The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report all cash transactions above $10,000 to regulators and to tell the government about other suspected money-laundering activity. Big banks employ hundreds of investigators and spend millions of dollars on software programs to scour accounts.

No big U.S. bank -- Wells Fargo included -- has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.

‘No Capacity to Regulate’

Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory.

Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets, says Jack Blum, a U.S. Senate investigator for 14 years and a consultant to international banks and brokerage firms on money laundering.

The theory is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for big banks, Blum says.

“There’s no capacity to regulate or punish them because they’re too big to be threatened with failure,” Blum says. “They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they’re caught.”

Wachovia’s run-in with federal prosecutors hasn’t troubled investors. Wells Fargo’s stock traded at $30.86 on March 24, up 1 percent in the week after the March 17 agreement was announced.

Moving money is central to the drug trade -- from the cash that people tape to their bodies as they cross the U.S.-Mexican border to the $100,000 wire transfers they send from Mexican exchange houses to big U.S. banks.

‘Doesn’t Stop Anyone’

In Tijuana, 15 miles south of San Diego, Gustavo Rojas has lived for a quarter of a century in a shack in the shadow of the 10-foot-high (3-meter-high) steel border fence that separates the U.S. and Mexico there. He points to holes burrowed under the barrier.

“They go across with drugs and come back with cash,” Rojas, 75, says. “This fence doesn’t stop anyone.”

Drug money moves back and forth across the border in an endless cycle. In the U.S., couriers take the cash from drug sales to Mexico -- as much as $29 billion a year, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That would be about 319 tons of $100 bills.

They hide it in cars and trucks to smuggle into Mexico. There, cartels pay people to deposit some of the cash into Mexican banks and branches of international banks. The narcos launder much of what’s left through money changers.

The Money Changers

Anyone who has been to Mexico is familiar with these street-corner money changers; Mexican regulators say there are at least 3,000 of them from Tijuana to Cancun, usually displaying large signs advertising the day’s dollar-peso exchange rate.

Mexican banks are regulated by the National Banking and Securities Commission, which has an anti-money-laundering unit; the money changers are policed by Mexico’s Tax Service Administration, which has no such unit.

By law, the money changers have to demand identification from anyone exchanging more than $500. They also have to report transactions higher than $5,000 to regulators.

The cartels get around these requirements by employing legions of individuals -- including relatives, maids and gardeners -- to convert small amounts of dollars into pesos or to make deposits in local banks. After that, cartels wire the money to a multinational bank.

The Smurfs

The people making the small money exchanges are known as Smurfs, after the cartoon characters.

“They can use an army of people like Smurfs and go through $1 million before lunchtime,” says Jerry Robinette, who oversees U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations along the border in east Texas.

The U.S. Treasury has been warning banks about big Mexican- currency-exchange firms laundering drug money since 1996. By 2004, many U.S. banks had closed their accounts with these companies, which are known as casas de cambio.

Wachovia ignored warnings by regulators and police, according to the deferred-prosecution agreement.

“As early as 2004, Wachovia understood the risk,” the bank admitted in court. “Despite these warnings, Wachovia remained in the business.”

One customer that Wachovia took on in 2004 was Casa de Cambio Puebla SA, a Puebla, Mexico-based currency-exchange company. Pedro Alatorre, who ran a Puebla branch in Mexico City, had created front companies for cartels, according to a pending Mexican criminal case against him.

Federal Indictment

A federal grand jury in Miami indicted Puebla, Alatorre and three other executives in February 2008 for drug trafficking and money laundering. In May 2008, the Justice Department sought extradition of the suspects, saying they used shell firms to launder $720 million through U.S. banks.

Alatorre has been in a Mexican jail for 2 1/2 years. He denies any wrongdoing, his lawyer Mauricio Moreno says. Alatorre has made no court-filed responses in the U.S.

During the period in which Wachovia admitted to moving money out of Mexico for Puebla, couriers carrying clear plastic bags stuffed with cash went to the branch Alatorre ran at the Mexico City airport, according to surveillance reports by Mexican police.

Alatorre opened accounts at HSBC on behalf of front companies, Mexican investigators found.

Puebla executives used the stolen identities of 74 people to launder money through Wachovia accounts, Mexican prosecutors say in court-filed reports.

‘Never Reported’

“Wachovia handled all the transfers, and they never reported any as suspicious,” says Jose Luis Marmolejo, a former head of the Mexican attorney general’s financial crimes unit who is now in private practice.

In November 2005 and January 2006, Wachovia transferred a total of $300,000 from Puebla to a Bank of America account in Oklahoma City, according to information in the Alatorre cases in the U.S. and Mexico.

Drug smugglers used the funds to buy the DC-9 through Oklahoma City aircraft broker U.S. Aircraft Titles Inc., according to financial records cited in the Mexican criminal case. U.S. Aircraft Titles President Sue White declined to comment.

On April 5, 2006, a pilot flew the plane from St. Petersburg, Florida, to Caracas to pick up the cocaine, according to the DEA. Five days later, troops seized the plane in Ciudad del Carmen and burned the drugs at a nearby army base.

‘Wachovia Knew’

“I am sure Wachovia knew what was going on,” says Marmolejo, who oversaw the criminal investigation into Wachovia’s customers. “It went on too long and they made too much money not to have known.”

At Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in London, Woods and his colleague Jim DeFazio, in Charlotte, say they suspected that drug dealers were using the bank to move funds.

Woods, a former Scotland Yard investigator, spotted illegible signatures and other suspicious markings on traveler’s checks from Mexican exchange companies, he said in a September 2008 letter to the U.K. Financial Services Authority. He sent copies of the letter to the DEA and Treasury Department in the U.S.

Woods, 45, says his bosses instructed him to keep quiet and tried to have him fired, according to his letter to the FSA. In one meeting, a bank official insisted Woods shouldn’t have filed suspicious activity reports to the government, as both U.S. and U.K. laws require.

‘I Was Shocked’

“I was shocked by the content and outcome of the meeting and genuinely traumatized,” Woods wrote.

In the U.S., DeFazio, who had been a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent for 21 years, says he told bank executives in 2005 that the DEA was probing the transfers through Wachovia to buy the planes.

Bank executives spurned recommendations to close suspicious accounts, DeFazio, 63, says.

“I think they looked at the money and said, ‘The hell with it. We’re going to bring it in, and look at all the money we’ll make,’” DeFazio says.

DeFazio retired in 2008.

“I didn’t want anything from them,” he says. “I just wanted to get out.”

Woods, who resigned from Wachovia in May 2009, now advises banks on how to combat money laundering. He declined to discuss details of Wachovia’s actions.

U.S. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan told Woods in a March 19 letter his efforts had helped the U.S. build its case against Wachovia.

‘Great Courage’

“You demonstrated great courage and integrity by speaking up when you saw problems,” Dugan wrote.

It was the Puebla investigation that led U.S. authorities to the broader probe of Wachovia. On May 16, 2007, DEA agents conducted a raid of Wachovia’s international banking offices in Miami. They had a court order to seize Puebla’s accounts.

U.S. prosecutors and investigators then scrutinized the bank’s dealings with Mexican-currency-exchange firms. That led to the March deferred-prosecution agreement.

With Puebla’s Wachovia accounts seized, Alatorre and his partners shifted their laundering scheme to HSBC, according to financial documents cited in the Mexican criminal case against Alatorre.

In the three weeks after the DEA raided Wachovia, two of Alatorre’s front companies, Grupo ETPB SA and Grupo Rahero SC, made 12 cash deposits totaling $1 million at an HSBC Mexican branch, Mexican investigators found.

Another Drug Plane

The funds financed a Beechcraft King Air 200 plane that police seized on Dec. 29, 2007, in Cuernavaca, 50 miles south of Mexico City, according to information in the case against Alatorre.

For years, federal authorities watched as the wife and daughter of Oscar Oropeza, a drug smuggler working for the Matamoros-based Gulf Cartel, deposited stacks of cash at a Bank of America branch on Boca Chica Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, less than 3 miles from the border.

Investigator Robinette sits in his pickup truck across the street from that branch. It’s a one-story, tan stucco building next to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. Robinette discusses the Oropeza case with Tom Salazar, an agent who investigated the family.

“Everybody in there knew who they were -- the tellers, everyone,” Salazar says. “The bank never came to us, though.”

New Meaning

The Oropeza case gives a new, literal meaning to the term money laundering. Oropeza’s wife, Tina Marie, and daughter Paulina Marie deposited stashes of $20 bills several times a day into Bank of America accounts, Salazar says. Bank employees got to know the Oropezas by the smell of their money.

“I asked the tellers what they were talking about, and they said the money had this sweet smell like Bounce, those sheets you throw into the dryer,” Salazar says. “They told me that when they opened the vault, the smell of Bounce just poured out.”

Oropeza, 48, was arrested 820 miles from Brownsville. On May 31, 2007, police in Saraland, Alabama, stopped him on a traffic violation. Checking his record, they learned of the investigation in Texas.

They searched the van and discovered 84 kilograms (185 pounds) of cocaine hidden under a false floor. That allowed federal agents to freeze Oropeza’s bank accounts and search his marble-floored home in Brownsville, Robinette says. Inside, investigators found a supply of Bounce alongside the clothes dryer.

Guilty Pleas

All three Oropezas pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Brownsville to drug and money-laundering charges in March and April 2008. Oscar Oropeza was sentenced to 15 years in prison; his wife was ordered to serve 10 months and his daughter got 6 months.

Bank of America’s Norton says, “We not only fulfilled our regulatory obligation, but we proactively worked with law enforcement on these matters.”

Prosecutors have tried to halt money laundering at American Express Bank International twice. In 1994, the bank, then a subsidiary of New York-based American Express Co., pledged not to allow money laundering again after two employees were convicted in a criminal case involving drug trafficker Juan Garcia Abrego.

In 1994, the bank paid $14 million to settle. Five years later, drug money again flowed through American Express Bank. Between 1999 and 2004, the bank failed to stop clients from laundering $55 million of narcotics funds, the bank admitted in a deferred-prosecution agreement in August 2007.

Western Union

It paid $65 million to the U.S. and promised not to break the law again. The government dismissed the criminal charge a year later. American Express sold the bank to London-based Standard Chartered PLC in February 2008 for $823 million.

Banks aren’t the only financial institutions that have turned a blind eye to drug cartels in moving illicit funds. Western Union Co., the world’s largest money transfer firm, agreed to pay $94 million in February 2010 to settle civil and criminal investigations by the Arizona attorney general’s office.

Undercover state police posing as drug dealers bribed Western Union employees to illegally transfer money, says Cameron Holmes, an assistant attorney general.

“Their allegiance was to the smugglers,” Holmes says. “What they thought about during work was ‘How may I please my highest- spending customers the most?’”

Smudged Fingerprints

Workers in more than 20 Western Union offices allowed the customers to use multiple names, pass fictitious identifications and smudge their fingerprints on documents, investigators say in court records.

“In all the time we did undercover operations, we never once had a bribe turned down,” says Holmes, citing court affidavits.

Western Union has made significant improvements, it complies with anti-money-laundering laws and works closely with regulators and police, spokesman Tom Fitzgerald says.

For four years, Mexican authorities have been fighting a losing battle against the cartels. The police are often two steps behind the criminals. Near the southeastern corner of Texas, in Matamoros, more than 50 combat troops surround a police station.

Officers take two suspected drug traffickers inside for questioning. Nearby, two young men wearing white T-shirts and baggy pants watch and whisper into radios. These are los halcones (the falcons), whose job is to let the cartel bosses know what the police are doing.

‘Only Way’

While the police are outmaneuvered and outgunned, ordinary Mexicans live in fear. Rojas, the man who lives in the Tijuana slum near the border fence, recalls cowering in his home as smugglers shot it out with the police.

“The only way to survive is to stay out of the way and hope the violence, the bullets, don’t come for you,” Rojas says.

To make their criminal enterprises work, the drug cartels of Mexico need to move billions of dollars across borders. That’s how they finance the purchase of drugs, planes, weapons and safe houses, Senator Gonzalez says.

“They are multinational businesses, after all,” says Gonzalez, as he slowly loads his revolver at his desk in his Mexico City office. “And they cannot work without a bank.”


/
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:28 am

.

Catch-up Grab-Bag, VI
(Whole bunch of new posts starting Apr 4 with viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=393514#p393509)

And now I'm actually going to assimilate highlights from...

The Goddamn Hyperinflation Thread
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=31642

Beware! Following Post Is 42 Pages In Word -- Scroll For Your Life!


Nordic wrote:http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/12-warning-signs-of-us-hyperinflation.html



12 Warning Signs of U.S. Hyperinflation

National Inflation Association

One of the most frequently asked questions we receive at the National Inflation Association (NIA) is what warning signs will there be when hyperinflation is imminent. In our opinion, the majority of the warning signs that hyperinflation is imminent are already here today, but most Americans are failing to properly recognize them. NIA believes that there is a serious risk of hyperinflation breaking out as soon as the second half of this calendar year and that hyperinflation is almost guaranteed to occur by the end of this decade.

In our estimation, the most likely time frame for a full-fledged outbreak of hyperinflation is between the years 2013 and 2015. Americans who wait until 2013 to prepare, will most likely see the majority of their purchasing power wiped out. It is essential that all Americans begin preparing for hyperinflation immediately.

Here are NIA's top 12 warning signs that hyperinflation is about to occur:

1) The Federal Reserve is Buying 70% of U.S. Treasuries. The Federal Reserve has been buying 70% of all new U.S. treasury debt. Up until this year, the U.S. has been successful at exporting most of its inflation to the rest of the world, which is hoarding huge amounts of U.S. dollar reserves due to the U.S. dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. In recent months, foreign central bank purchases of U.S. treasuries have declined from 50% down to 30%, and Federal Reserve purchases have increased from 10% up to 70%. This means U.S. government deficit spending is now directly leading to U.S. inflation that will destroy the standard of living for all Americans.

2) The Private Sector Has Stopped Purchasing U.S. Treasuries. The U.S. private sector was previously a buyer of 30% of U.S. government bonds sold. Today, the U.S. private sector has stopped buying U.S. treasuries and is dumping government debt. The Pimco Total Return Fund was recently the single largest private sector owner of U.S. government bonds, but has just reduced its U.S. treasury holdings down to zero. Although during the financial panic of 2008, investors purchased government bonds as a safe haven, during all future panics we believe precious metals will be the new safe haven.

3) China Moving Away from U.S. Dollar as Reserve Currency. The U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency because it was backed by gold and the U.S. had the world's largest manufacturing base. Today, the U.S. dollar is no longer backed by gold and China has the world's largest manufacturing base. There is no reason for the world to continue to transact products and commodities in U.S. dollars, when most of everything the world consumes is now produced in China. China has been taking steps to position the yuan to be the world's new reserve currency.

The People's Bank of China stated earlier this month, in a story that went largely unreported by the mainstream media, that it would respond to overseas demand for the yuan to be used as a reserve currency and allow the yuan to flow back into China more easily. China hopes to allow all exporters and importers to settle their cross border transactions in yuan by the end of 2011, as part of their plan to increase the yuan's international role. NIA believes if China really wants to become the world's next superpower and see to it that the U.S. simultaneously becomes the world's next Zimbabwe, all China needs to do is use their $1.15 trillion in U.S. dollar reserves to accumulate gold and use that gold to back the yuan.

4) Japan to Begin Dumping U.S. Treasuries. Japan is the second largest holder of U.S. treasury securities with $885.9 billion in U.S. dollar reserves. Although China has reduced their U.S. treasury holdings for three straight months, Japan has increased their U.S. treasury holdings seven months in a row. Japan is the country that has been the most consistent at buying our debt for the past year, but that is about the change. Japan is likely going to have to spend $300 billion over the next year to rebuild parts of their country that were destroyed by the recent earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster, and NIA believes their U.S. dollar reserves will be the most likely source of this funding. This will come at the worst possible time for the U.S., which needs Japan to increase their purchases of U.S. treasuries in order to fund our record budget deficits.

5) The Fed Funds Rate Remains Near Zero. The Federal Reserve has held the Fed Funds Rate at 0.00-0.25% since December 16th, 2008, a period of over 27 months. This is unprecedented and NIA believes the world is now flooded with excess liquidity of U.S. dollars.

When the nuclear reactors in Japan began overheating two weeks ago after their cooling systems failed due to a lack of electricity, TEPCO was forced to open relief valves to release radioactive steam into the air in order to avoid an explosion. The U.S. stock market is currently acting as a relief valve for all of the excess liquidity of U.S. dollars. The U.S. economy for all intents and purposes should currently be in a massive and extremely steep recession, but because of the Fed's money printing, stock prices are rising because people don't know what else to do with their dollars.

NIA believes gold, and especially silver, are much better hedges against inflation than U.S. equities, which is why for the past couple of years we have been predicting large declines in both the Dow/Gold and Gold/Silver ratios. These two ratios have been in free fall exactly like NIA projected.

The Dow/Gold ratio is the single most important chart all investors need to closely follow, but way too few actually do. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) itself is meaningless because it averages together the dollar based movements of 30 U.S. stocks. With just the DJIA, it is impossible to determine whether stocks are rising due to improving fundamentals and real growing investor demand, or if prices are rising simply because the money supply is expanding.

The Dow/Gold ratio illustrates the cyclical nature of the battle between paper assets like stocks and real hard assets like gold. The Dow/Gold ratio trends upward when an economy sees real economic growth and begins to trend downward when the growth phase ends and everybody becomes concerned about preserving wealth. With interest rates at 0%, the U.S. economy is on life support and wealth preservation is the focus of most investors. NIA believes the Dow/Gold ratio will decline to 1 before the hyperinflationary crisis is over and until the Dow/Gold ratio does decline to 1, investors should keep buying precious metals.

6) Year-Over-Year CPI Growth Has Increased 92% in Three Months. In November of 2010, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS)'s consumer price index (CPI) grew by 1.1% over November of 2009. In February of 2011, the BLS's CPI grew by 2.11% over February of 2010, above the Fed's informal inflation target of 1.5% to 2%. An increase in year-over-year CPI growth from 1.1% in November of last year to 2.11% in February of this year means that the CPI's growth rate increased by approximately 92% over a period of just three months. Imagine if the year-over-year CPI growth rate continues to increase by 92% every three months. In 9 to 12 months from now we could be looking at a price inflation rate of over 15%. Even if the BLS manages to artificially hold the CPI down around 5% or 6%, NIA believes the real rate of price inflation will still rise into the double-digits within the next year.

7) Mainstream Media Denying Fed's Target Passed. You would think that year-over-year CPI growth rising from 1.1% to 2.11% over a period of three months for an increase of 92% would generate a lot of media attention, especially considering that it has now surpassed the Fed's informal inflation target of 1.5% to 2%. Instead of acknowledging that inflation is beginning to spiral out of control and encouraging Americans to prepare for hyperinflation like NIA has been doing for years, the media decided to conveniently change the way it defines the Fed's informal target.

The media is now claiming that the Fed's informal inflation target of 1.5% to 2% is based off of year-over-year changes in the BLS's core-CPI figures. Core-CPI, as most of you already know, is a meaningless number that excludes food and energy prices. Its sole purpose is to be used to mislead the public in situations like this. We guarantee that if core-CPI had just surpassed 2% and the normal CPI was still below 2%, the media would be focusing on the normal CPI number, claiming that it remains below the Fed's target and therefore inflation is low and not a problem.

The fact of the matter is, food and energy are the two most important things Americans need to live and survive. If the BLS was going to exclude something from the CPI, you would think they would exclude goods that Americans don't consume on a daily basis. The BLS claims food and energy prices are excluded because they are most volatile. However, by excluding food and energy, core-CPI numbers are primarily driven by rents. Considering that we just came out of the largest Real Estate bubble in world history, there is a glut of homes available to rent on the market. NIA has been saying for years that being a landlord will be the worst business to be in during hyperinflation, because it will be impossible for landlords to increase rents at the same rate as overall price inflation. Food and energy prices will always increase at a much faster rate than rents.

8) Record U.S. Budget Deficit in February of $222.5 Billion. The U.S. government just reported a record budget deficit for the month of February of $222.5 billion. February's budget deficit was more than the entire fiscal year of 2007. In fact, February's deficit on an annualized basis was $2.67 trillion. NIA believes this is just a preview of future annual budget deficits, and we will see annual budget deficits surpass $2.67 trillion within the next several years.

9) High Budget Deficit as Percentage of Expenditures. The projected U.S. budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 of $1.645 trillion is 43% of total projected government expenditures in 2011 of $3.819 trillion. That is almost exactly the same level of Brazil's budget deficit as a percentage of expenditures right before they experienced hyperinflation in 1993 and it is higher than Bolivia's budget deficit as a percentage of expenditures right before they experienced hyperinflation in 1985. The only way a country can survive with such a large deficit as a percentage of expenditures and not have hyperinflation, is if foreigners are lending enough money to pay for the bulk of their deficit spending. Hyperinflation broke out in Brazil and Bolivia when foreigners stopped lending and central banks began monetizing the bulk of their deficit spending, and that is exactly what is taking place today in the U.S.

10) Obama Lies About Foreign Policy. President Obama campaigned as an anti-war President who would get our troops out of Iraq. NIA believes that many Libertarian voters actually voted for Obama in 2008 over John McCain because they felt Obama was more likely to end our wars that are adding greatly to our budget deficits and making the U.S. a lot less safe as a result. Obama may have reduced troop levels in Iraq, but he increased troops levels in Afghanistan, and is now sending troops into Libya for no reason.

The U.S. is now beginning to occupy Libya, when Libya didn't do anything to the U.S. and they are no threat to the U.S. Obama has increased our overall overseas troop levels since becoming President and the U.S. is now spending $1 trillion annually on military expenses, which includes the costs to maintain over 700 military bases in 135 countries around the world. There is no way that we can continue on with our overseas military presence without seeing hyperinflation.

11) Obama Changes Definition of Balanced Budget. In the White House's budget projections for the next 10 years, they don't project that the U.S. will ever come close to achieving a real balanced budget. In fact, after projecting declining budget deficits up until the year 2015 (NIA believes we are unlikely to see any major dip in our budget deficits due to rising interest payments on our national debt), the White House projects our budget deficits to begin increasing again up until the year 2021. Obama recently signed an executive order to create the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform", with a mission to "propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015". Obama is redefining a balanced budget to exclude interest payments on our national debt, because he knows interest payments are about to explode and it will be impossible to trul y balance the budget.

12) U.S. Faces Largest Ever Interest Payment Increases. With U.S. inflation beginning to spiral out of control, NIA believes it is 100% guaranteed that we will soon see a large spike in long-term bond yields. Not only that, but within the next couple of years, NIA believes the Federal Reserve will be forced to raise the Fed Funds Rate in a last-ditch effort to prevent hyperinflation. When both short and long-term interest rates start to rise, so will the interest payments on our national debt. With the public portion of our national debt now exceeding $10 trillion, we could see interest payments on our debt reach $500 billion within the next year or two, and over $1 trillion somewhere around mid-decade. When interest payments reach $1 trillion, they will likely be around 30% to 40% of government tax receipts, up from interest payments being only 9% of tax receipts today. No country has ever seen interest payments on their debt reach 40% of tax receipts without hyperinflation occurring in the years to come.




compared2what? wrote:The National Inflation Association is a patriot-network-promoting, Glenn-Beck-official seal-of-approval scam. There are no immanent signs of hyper-inflation, they just want you to buy worthless gold and silver coins, consent to the gutting of social security, and generally be terrified. More complaints show up for the other company run by NIA's founder (Gerard Adams, who runs a pump-and-dump penny-stock concern called Wall Street Grand, when not hyping hyper-inflation).

But here are a couple for the NIA that pretty much cover it:

[list]Economists say food crisis prediction from Beck's inflation expert is "crazy"


Economists tell Media Matters that they've "never heard" of the organization Glenn Beck has cited to fearmonger over a coming "food crisis," and mocked the group's conclusion that massive inflation in food prices is imminent.

Last week, Beck repeatedly used his Fox News show to hype predictions from the "credible people" at the National Inflation Association (NIA) of a coming "food crisis." Beck cited NIA's forecast of huge increases in the cost of food staples, which Beck has said is a result of both the Federal Reserve's efforts at quantitative easing, and George Soros' supposed sinister plot to devalue the dollar for his own personal gain.

Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he's "never heard" of NIA, but told Media Matters their conclusions are ridiculous on their face: "Inflation is falling, not rising, this is crazy." Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute agreed, saying that he's "definitely never heard of them," but that based on their forecast, "no one would say they're a group you'd look to for serious analysis."

Likewise, Mark Thoma, professor of economics at the University of Oregon, who blogs at Economist's View, said, "I have never heard of this association and would not give it any credibility."
He added that "[c]redible economists concerned about inflation do not believe we will get anywhere near to hyperinflation."

According to its website, the NIA "is an organization that is dedicated to preparing Americans for hyperinflation and helping Americans not only survive, but prosper in the upcoming hyperinflationary crisis." The group is headed by Gerard Adams, who is also president of Wall Street Grand, a website that makes penny stock picks. NIA also makes stock picks.

Both NIA and Wall Street Grand push a wide variety of precious metals stocks. Thoma told Media Matters that NIA "seems to be designed to get people to invest in gold and silver by making them believe that hyperinflation is just around the corner," and speculated that there might be "a connection between the site and firms operating in gold and silver markets."

In a report published November 5, Adams responded to the Federal Reserve's announcement that it would be engaging in $600 billion in quantitative easing by saying that agricultural commodity prices would "go through the roof like nothing any American has ever experienced before." He predicted, for example, that a loaf of bread "would likely rise to around $23.05" and a bar of Hershey's milk chocolate would reach $15.50. Adams provides no explanation for how he reached those figures.

On Monday, Beck said that he had NIA "checked out six ways to Sunday" and "these are credible people." He then provided NIA's predictions for food costs, and commented, "Welcome to your future of monetizing the debt." Beck listed the same predicted costs on Wednesday, suggesting that the increases would be due to Soros' purported efforts to "devalue the dollar." On Thursday, he brought up the prices again, saying, "I don't know if any of this is true." He added: "We called several experts to verify, 'Do you think this is true?' They said, no, they don't think that's true because they just think that people won't have any money to be able to afford $77 coffee."

But according to Baker, the idea that these sorts of price increases are coming makes no sense. He says that the Fed's quantitative easing "is $600 billion in a $15 trillion economy with massive amounts of idle capacity. If you multiple it by 1000 then maybe you might get the sort of hyperinflation they are talking about." He added, "Will Martians land in NYC? Will newborn babies have gills? Do they have any evidence in the world to support this view?"

Baker also points out that "if any significant number of people believed this crap, they would be shorting long-term bonds and pushing U.S. interest rates up," which isn't happening.

Givens agreed that there's "no economic reason for a surge in food prices like they're talking about." Thoma similarly cited the NIA's use of the term "hyperinflation" as evidence that they are "trying to sell something rather than present any sort of objective, factual information."


As Media Matters has noted, Beck has repeatedly portrayed Soros' call for a "managed decline" of the dollar as a dangerous effort in which Soros "will gain profit and power and you will learn both." But economists like Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Mark Zandi have all touted the positive outcome of a weaker dollar.[/list]


There's also this video, the provenance of which I don't know and can't vouch for, but fwiw. the stuff on the NIA starts at about 1:36





compared2what? wrote:Also fwiw, Paul Krugman writes about the non-happening of hyper-inflation all the time on his blog, if anyone cares like examining it further. WRT the economy specifically, his track record has been absolutely perfect for, like, the last eight or nine years, as far as I can recall. Which is a shame, because he's been predicting direness for quite some time now. Nor hyperinflationary direness, but direness nevertheless.

Anyway. Here's a column by him on the same general theme as the stuff I just posted:

[list]The Big Inflation Scare

Suddenly it seems as if everyone is talking about inflation. Stern opinion pieces warn that hyperinflation is just around the corner. And markets may be heeding these warnings: Interest rates on long-term government bonds are up, with fear of future inflation one possible reason for the interest-rate spike.

But does the big inflation scare make any sense? Basically, no — with one caveat I’ll get to later. And I suspect that the scare is at least partly about politics rather than economics.

First things first. It’s important to realize that there’s no hint of inflationary pressures in the economy right now. Consumer prices are lower now than they were a year ago, and wage increases have stalled in the face of high unemployment. Deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger.

So if prices aren’t rising, why the inflation worries? Some claim that the Federal Reserve is printing lots of money, which must be inflationary, while others claim that budget deficits will eventually force the U.S. government to inflate away its debt.

The first story is just wrong. The second could be right, but isn’t.

Now, it’s true that the Fed has taken unprecedented actions lately. More specifically, it has been buying lots of debt both from the government and from the private sector, and paying for these purchases by crediting banks with extra reserves. And in ordinary times, this would be highly inflationary: banks, flush with reserves, would increase loans, which would drive up demand, which would push up prices.

But these aren’t ordinary times. Banks aren’t lending out their extra reserves. They’re just sitting on them — in effect, they’re sending the money right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t really printing money after all.

Still, don’t such actions have to be inflationary sooner or later? No. The Bank of Japan, faced with economic difficulties not too different from those we face today, purchased debt on a huge scale between 1997 and 2003. What happened to consumer prices? They fell.

All in all, much of the current inflation discussion calls to mind what happened during the early years of the Great Depression when many influential people were warning about inflation even as prices plunged. As the British economist Ralph Hawtrey wrote, “Fantastic fears of inflation were expressed. That was to cry, Fire, Fire in Noah’s Flood.” And he went on, “It is after depression and unemployment have subsided that inflation becomes dangerous.”

Is there a risk that we’ll have inflation after the economy recovers? That’s the claim of those who look at projections that federal debt may rise to more than 100 percent of G.D.P. and say that America will eventually have to inflate away that debt — that is, drive up prices so that the real value of the debt is reduced.

Such things have happened in the past. For example, France ultimately inflated away much of the debt it incurred while fighting World War I.

But more modern examples are lacking. Over the past two decades, Belgium, Canada and, of course, Japan have all gone through episodes when debt exceeded 100 percent of G.D.P. And the United States itself emerged from World War II with debt exceeding 120 percent of G.D.P. In none of these cases did governments resort to inflation to resolve their problems.

So is there any reason to think that inflation is coming? Some economists have argued for moderate inflation as a deliberate policy, as a way to encourage lending and reduce private debt burdens. I’m sympathetic to these arguments and made a similar case for Japan in the 1990s. But the case for inflation never made headway with Japanese policy makers then, and there’s no sign it’s getting traction with U.S. policy makers now.

All of this raises the question: If inflation isn’t a real risk, why all the claims that it is?

Well, as you may have noticed, economists sometimes disagree. And big disagreements are especially likely in weird times like the present, when many of the normal rules no longer apply.

But it’s hard to escape the sense that the current inflation fear-mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem with deficits caused by tax cuts but suddenly became fiscal scolds when the government started spending money to rescue the economy. And their goal seems to be to bully the Obama administration into abandoning those rescue efforts.

Needless to say, the president should not let himself be bullied. The economy is still in deep trouble and needs continuing help.

Yes, we have a long-run budget problem, and we need to start laying the groundwork for a long-run solution. But when it comes to inflation, the only thing we have to fear is inflation fear itself. [/list]



Nordic wrote:Interesting. But:

Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he's "never heard" of NIA, but told Media Matters their conclusions are ridiculous on their face: "Inflation is falling, not rising, this is crazy."


That's just a goddamn lie. Prices are going up everywhere, especially for the stuff that actually matters, like food and fuel.


compared2what? wrote:
Image

Very slightly, as they always do. Fuel prices might go hyper-up at some point, for the obvious reasons. But inflation has been stably low for a long time.

So I don't know who to believe, at least in the media.


That's a difficult call to make, I agree.

Unless Glenn Beck is the media figure in question, in which case: Don't believe him.

I do know what my own eyes tell me, however. The dollar is losing its status as the reserve currency, the Fed now owns more treasury debt than China, and there's no end in sight. The financial situation seems analogous to the Japan melt down situation.


I'm not sure which Japan meltdown situation you mean. But if you mean their "lost decade" recession, I'm pretty sure that they didn't have inflation.

What we have is high unemployment, probably imminent loss of publicly funded support services, income disparity, a stagnant manufacturing base, banks not lending and people not borrowing, the after-effects of the housing-market collapse that left people unprepared to face the afore-listed, and a bunch of other stuff.

No signs of inflation, though.




Nordic wrote:C2W, what are you SMOKING?

You're actually looking at the CPI for signs of inflation? Do you actually keep yourself informed about what's going on in the world?

I mean, c'mon.

Food prices have hit higher prices since the disastrous level of 2008.

I shouldn't even have to link this for you.

But here, just today:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wal-ma ... -inflation

You might want to get caught up on this subject.

Also, "worthless gold?" It's fiat currency that's worthless. Gold has always been money and always will be.



compared2what? wrote:I just checked the first ten gold and silver picks listed at the NIA site, then lost the post with all the painstakingly linked and quoted information in it.

But long story short:

* Seven of them (actually including Goldline, Glenn Beck's only remaining advertiser!; see link above) are super-hard-selling bullion coin dealers that are chasing people all over the internet from 1,001 domain names so that they can -- somewhat paradoxically -- tell them what a FABULOUS AND CAN'T-MISS investment bullion coins are, after which some of those people file bitter complaints with the FTC and/or the Better Business Bureau about all kinds of things.

* Two of them are exactly like the above, except that they have no outstanding complaints against them that showed up on a simple search.

* One of them's a silver mining company in Mexico, which actually looks like a good investment. However, they're destroying land that's belonged to indigenous peoples since (who knows when?), including its most sacred site.


Is that enough?

I certainly hope so.




vanlose kid wrote:
compared2what? wrote:...

I do actually keep myself informed about what's going on in the world. And I noted back around when Obama was elected that all the corporate oligarchs started shrieking about how we had to prepare for serious inflation, by which they meant:

"OMG, deficit spending must be cut for no very clear reason that we can explain! Get rid of social security!"

....


there's that. and this:

How Likely is QE-3?

(or, “Is That Your Retirement Account You’re Holding On To So Tightly? Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?” Said The Man From The Government)


So back in September 2008—in the throes of the Global Financial Crisis—the Federal Reserve under its chairman, Ben Bernanke, unleashed what was then known as “Quantitative Easing”.

They basically printed money out of thin air—about $1.25 trillion—and used it to purchase the so-called “toxic assets” from all the banks up and down Wall Street which were about to keel over dead. The reason they were about to keel over dead was because the “toxic assets”—mortgage backed securities and so on—were worth fractions of their nominal value. Very small fractions. All these banks were broke, because of their bad bets on these toxic assets. So in order to keep them from going broke—and thereby wrecking the world economy—the Fed payed 100 cents on the dollar for this crap.

In other words, the Fed saved Wall Street by printing money, and then giving it to them in exchange for bad paper.

Time passes, we move on.

Then, in November 2010, the Federal Reserve—still under Ben Bernanke—unleashed what is colloquially known as QE-2: The Fed announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of Treasury bonds over the next eight months.

The rationale was so as to stimulate lending. But really, it was so that the Federal government wouldn’t go broke. The Federal government deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.6 trillion—the national debt is beyond 100% of GDP, at about $14 trillion. The Federal government issues Treasury bonds in order to fund this deficit. Ergo, by way of QE-2, the Federal Reserve bought roughly 40% of the Federal government deficit for FY 2011. Add on other Treasury bond purchases by the Fed via QE-lite (the reinvestment of the excedents of the toxic assets on the Fed’s books), and the Federal Reserve is buying up half the deficit of the Federal government, as I discussed here in some detail.

In other words, the Fed saved Washington by printing up money, and then giving it to them in exchange for—well, not bad paper, but at least questionable paper.

So! . . . let’s see now . . . Fed money printing—check! Saving someone’s bacon (even though they shoulda known better)—check! Taking on dodgy paper—check!

Did it in 2008 for Wall Street, then did it again in 2010 for Washington.

But the key difference between these two events is, the banks didn’t have any more toxic assets, once they sold them all to the Fed.

But the Federal government will still have more Treasury bonds it will have to sell, once the Federal Reserve ends QE-2 this coming June.

The fiscal year 2012 deficit will be on an order of 10% of GDP—roughly $1.5 trillion. And 2013 and 2014? Around the same range.

Over at Zero Hedge, they are past masters at timing the funding needs of the Federal government. But we don’t need to go into the monthly figures of POMO purchases and Treasury auctions and all the rest of it. All due respect to Tyler and his wonderful team at ZH, all that is merely the mechanics of Federal Reserve monetization.

What we should look at is the simple, macro question: If the Fed ends QE-2 in June as they have said they will, who will take up the slack? Who will purchase between $75 and $100 billion worth of Treasury bonds at yields of 3.5% for the 10-year?

Is there someone?

Anyone?

The answer is, No one will take up the slack.

Who, Japan? They’ve got some well-known troubles of their own—they’re all about selling Treasuries and buying up yens, both now and for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese? They’ve been quietly exiting Treasuries for a couple of years now, and going into every commodity known to man.

Europe? Are you serious—Europe? Please don’t make me laugh that hard—it hurts.

The fact is, there is no one outside the United States that I can think of who would willingly buy Treasury bonds—not to the tune of +$75 billion a month.

Therefore, if no one outside the United States would willingly give money to Washington to fund the deficit, then someone inside the U.S. will have to step up.

The obvious-obvious-obvious solution to this mess is for the Federal government to stop spending its way to oblivion—but does anyone realistically see this happening?

Therefore, as Spock always sez, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

If foreign sources of funding will not cover the Federal government’s deficit after June 2011, and Washington will definitely not cut spending in any sort of realistic sense, then there really are only two—and only two—possibilities:

• The indefinite continuation of QE by the Federal Reserve.
• Or the requisitioning of private retirement accounts and pension funds.

Don’t dismiss the second possibility out of hand—think it over.

What pool of money is just sitting there, not doing much, while being legally barred from its owners? What pool of money is easily accessed, yet is large enough to fund the deficit?

The retirement accounts of the American people: Both individual private accounts, and pension funds.

After all, the total for all pension monies is roughly 100% of GDP (this includes Social Security). And the Federal government has already raided the “Social Security lock box”—that box is stuffed with Treasury IOU’s.


So the Federal government might well turn to the private sector for cash. The Federal government might conceivably claim that ongoing funding needs require that every single 401(k) and IRA divest from its portfolio of stocks and bonds, and be fully invested in Treasuries.

This could be accomplished very easily, from a practical standpoint—just inform banks, and have them turn over to the Federal government all your mutual funds and stocks you agonized over, and get long-term Treasury bonds of nominal equal value in exchange.

401(k)’s and IRA’s would be the first ones the Federal government would go after—for the obvious reason that union pension funds have the union’s political muscle. But individuals? They have no political machine. So they’re screwed.

Anyway, the language used for this maneuver by the Treasury department would make it difficult for a lot of (unaffected) people to get upset over the situation: The Treasury department wouldn’t call this process “retirement account confiscation”. They’d call it something innocuous, like “retirement asset swap”—or better yet, throw in some patriotic bullshit (indeed, the last refuge of the scoundrel) and call it “Americ-Aide Asset Swap”—or even better: Call it “Help America Retirement Treasury Bond Program”—otherwise known as HART-bonds. (Awww!!! Probably maudlin enough to get Geithner an appearance on fucking Oprah.)

There might be short-term political damage, but like losing your virginity or carrying out state-sponsored torture programs, it would be the necessary start for a slide that will never end. After this first “retirement asset swap” carried out on the 401(k)’s and IRA’s, the Treasury department would start doing more of this to ever-bigger pension funds, until eventually all retirement assets would be converted into Treasury bonds.

Hey, they did it in Argentina. And as Yves Smith always sez, America has become Argentina, but with nukes.

Now, this is one possibility, of the only two which I can see.

The other possibility, of course, is that the Federal Reserve will not end Quantitative Easing-2 come June. The Fed will extend the deficit monetization indefinitely. The Fed will be under the mistaken impression that this will somehow save the U.S. economy. (The best metaphor I’ve been able to come up with for this situation is, the Federal government is like a junkie who’s already OD’ed—and the Federal Reserve is trying to “save” him by shooting him up with even more heroin.)

So between these two possibilities—confiscating retirement accounts and forcing some sort of Treasury bond asset swap, or an endless continuation of QE—which is easier?

Obviously QE-three.

Therefore, that’s what I think is going to happen: QE money-printing as far as the eye can see.

Well, look on the bright side: At least you’ll get to keep your ever-shrinking retirement nest egg. Bully for you!

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/03 ... three.html


*




Nordic wrote: CPI and PPI figures are bogus. Everything the government tells you is bogus. Everything the media tells you is bogus.

SNIP

Furthermore, one of the reasons we're in unchartered territory is that there is a large international conspiracy afoot to remove the dollar as the world's exchange currency.

When this happens, and I'd say it's at least 67% probable, (and that's optimistic on behalf of the dollar, it's probably inevitable in reality, but I'll give the military and economic power of the U.S. the benefit of the doubt), the dollar will shrink like Donald Trump's cock on a cold day. It will almost disappear.

That will fit ANYBODY'S definition of "inflation"
.



compared2what? wrote:Get your head out of your box and think for yourself. Quit letting your prejudices against whoever -- "OMG these people are economists, who have their reputations as "Keynsian" or whatever label they've nurtured over the years who are gonna keep spouting their same old crap based on their same old crap, so you can't really listen to them because everything they say must be completely WRONG!" -- quit throwing the babies out with the bathwater and think for yourself. IT's what we're supposed to do here.

Don't hit me with vague predictions about future events in areas that you haven't researched more than casually, if at all and "oh, you noticed that my OP came from a demonstrably deceptive source with a long history of alarmist hype designed to rip people off and I don't like you to begin with, so that's why you're wrong."

Use facts, okay? Like I've been doing.

Thanks.

ON EDIT: added an end-quote tag, and might as well add that I'm asking you to share the factual basis for what you said in the two quotes above, as long as I'm at it.




justdrew wrote:any signs of our "trading partners" demanding payment for good in their own currency instead of dollars? Seems to me that would have to happen for the US to face "hyper" inflation?

Computerized transaction issues

Western Europe, North America and many parts of Asia and Australasia have economies that depend heavily on computerized transaction procession of money transfers. However, most nations that are subject to hyperinflation risk have not done assessments as to the ability of the electronic part of the finance system to remain intact under hyperinflation.

It is assumed (based upon IT practices for transnational processing that have evolved since the 1970s) that most money held by banks is not represented by 64 bit floating numbers. Under hyperinflation conditions most bank processing systems could fail due to overflow conditions



JackRiddler wrote:
selective panic monger gonzalo lira wrote:Therefore, as Spock always sez, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


Spock?!

With that he demonstrates at least to the geek faction that he's willing to pull anything out of his ass. Just in case any of them were going to fall for what follows...

gonzalo lira with my emphases added to highlight his reckless contempt for argument wrote:
So the Federal government might well turn to the private sector for cash. The Federal government might conceivably claim that ongoing funding needs require that every single 401(k) and IRA divest from its portfolio of stocks and bonds, and be fully invested in Treasuries.

This could be accomplished very easily, from a practical standpoint—just inform banks, and have them turn over to the Federal government all your mutual funds and stocks you agonized over, and get long-term Treasury bonds of nominal equal value in exchange.


If he was in some final death-spiral of crack abuse, he'd have an excuse for this bilge.

The US government as presently constituted (by which I mean: all power factions, Wall Street, the corporations, the MIC, the Democrats, the Republicans, and all of the money that runs both) is likelier to wage nuclear war for fun (chances: not quite zero) than to embark upon Lira's freely invented scenario (chances: in the negatives). They're likelier to give Manhattan back to the Indians, pay reparations for slavery, apologize for exaggerating Soviet power, or remove references to God from the laws and currency.

The revolution that would ever put such a measure on the table is not, at this time, conceivable.

Note I said he's selective panic monger. This is aimed entirely at conservative-minded aging folk who have private pensions and want those kids off their lawn (except the Mexican gardener). The only alternate universe in which such a measure would ever be "conceivable" to the US government is the Glenn Beck fantasy one where the NWO "socialists" out to seize cash and guns from the white people are already in power.

This is radical right-wing incitement.

401(k)’s and IRA’s would be the first ones the Federal government would go after—for the obvious reason that union pension funds have the union’s political muscle.


Fuck you. (Gonzalo Lira, that is.)

Do you see what kind of Nazi spirit this guy has? This is the kind who shoots you, puts his boot on your neck when you've fallen, and then, as he pushed down on your carotid, makes a speech about how dangerously powerful you are.

But individuals? They have no political machine. So they’re screwed.


Fuck you.

Anyway, the language used for this maneuver by the Treasury department would make it difficult for a lot of (unaffected) people to get upset over the situation:


And in a classic bit of sophistry, let's now continue as though his "conceivable" impossible scenario is already a done deal and paint some of the details.

The Treasury department wouldn’t call this process “retirement account confiscation”. They’d call it something innocuous, like “retirement asset swap”—or better yet, throw in some patriotic bullshit (indeed, the last refuge of the scoundrel) and call it “Americ-Aide Asset Swap”—or even better: Call it “Help America Retirement Treasury Bond Program”—otherwise known as HART-bonds. (Awww!!! Probably maudlin enough to get Geithner an appearance on fucking Oprah.)


Tell us about how Bill Ayers will be in charge of Obama Youth.

Plus, this guy pretends to be an opponent of the banksters. (Hm, would they have a problem with this idea of taking pension funds out of stock by government fiat? I wonder.) As he dishes it out typical banksterist propaganda about the evil government (the one that saved the banksters and is run by them).

Classic, pathological projection.

.




vanlose kid wrote:Jack, leaving questions of probability/conceivability aside, are you saying: it can't happen here?

what's more, Lira, whatever he may be, and he like most "financial bloggers/writers, Krugman included, does have a schtick, as far as i can recall doesn't make the distinction between banks and government that you attribute to him. as far as i can recall.

edit: which is not that far, i'll admit.

*




vanlose kid wrote:
Hyperinflation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or "out of control". While the real values of the specific economic items generally stay the same in terms of relatively stable foreign currencies, in hyperinflationary conditions the general price level within a specific economy increases rapidly as the functional or internal currency, as opposed to a foreign currency, loses its real value very quickly, normally at an accelerating rate.[1] Definitions used vary from one provided by the International Accounting Standards Board, which describes it as "a cumulative inflation rate over three years approaching 100% (26% per annum compounded for three years in a row)", to Cagan's (1956) "inflation exceeding 50% a month." [2] As a rule of thumb, normal monthly and annual low inflation and deflation are reported per month, while under hyperinflation the general price level could rise by 5 or 10% or even much more every day.

A vicious circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the ever increasing money printing cycle.

Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns, political or social upheavals, or aggressive bidding on currency exchanges...

Characteristics

In 1956, Phillip Cagan wrote The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation,[3] generally regarded as the first serious study of hyperinflation and its effects. In it, he defined hyperinflation as a monthly inflation rate of at least 50%. International Accounting Standard 1[4] requires a presentation currency. IAS 21[5] provides for translations of foreign currencies into the presentation currency. IAS 29[6] establishes special accounting rules for use in hyperinflationary environments, and lists four factors which can trigger application of these rules:

1. The general population prefers to keep its wealth in non-monetary assets or in a relatively stable foreign currency. Amounts of local currency held are immediately invested to maintain purchasing power.
2. The general population regards monetary amounts not in terms of the local currency but in terms of a relatively stable foreign currency. Prices may be quoted in that foreign currency.
3. Sales and purchases on credit take place at prices that are increased by an amount that will compensate for the expected loss of purchasing power during the credit period, even if the period is short.
4. Interest rates, wages and prices are linked to a price index and the cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%.

In its its Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1, the IASB has requested comment on a proposed categorization of an economy subject to severe hyperinflation as one in which the currency has both of the following characteristics: (a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with transactions and balances in the currency. (b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist.[7]

Root causes of hyperinflation

The main cause of hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money (including bank credit, deposits, and currency) that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services. This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money, accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money, similar to a bank run. This loss of confidence causes a rapid increase in velocity of spending which causes a corresponding rapid increase in prices. Once inflation has become established, sellers try to hedge against it by increasing prices. This leads to further waves of price increases.[8] Enactment of legal tender laws and price controls to prevent discounting the value of paper money relative to gold, silver, hard currency, or commodities, fail to force acceptance of the rapidly increasing money supply which lacks intrinsic value. If the entity responsible for increasing bank credit and/or printing currency promotes excessive money creation, with other factors contributing a reinforcing effect, hyperinflation usually continues. Often the body responsible for printing the currency cannot physically print paper currency faster than the rate at which it is devaluing, thus neutralizing their attempts to stimulate the economy.[9]

Hyperinflation is generally associated with paper money, which can easily be used to increase the money supply: add more zeros to the plates and print, or even stamp old notes with new numbers.[10] Historically, there have been numerous episodes of hyperinflation in various countries followed by a return to "hard money". Older economies would revert to hard currency and barter when the circulating medium became excessively devalued, generally following a "run" on the store of value.

Hyperinflation effectively wipes out the purchasing power of private and public savings, distorts the economy in favor of extreme consumption and hoarding of real assets, causes the monetary base, whether specie or hard currency, to flee the country, and makes the afflicted area anathema to investment. Hyperinflation is met with drastic remedies, such as imposing the shock therapy of slashing government expenditures or altering the currency basis. One form this may take is dollarization, the use of a foreign currency (not necessarily the U.S. dollar) as a national unit of currency. An example was dollarization in Ecuador, initiated in September 2000 in response to a 75% loss of value of the Ecuadorian sucre in early 2000.

The aftermath of hyperinflation is equally complex. As hyperinflation has always been a traumatic experience for the area which suffers it, the next policy regime almost always enacts policies to prevent its recurrence. Often this means making the central bank very aggressive about maintaining price stability, as was the case with the German Bundesbank or moving to some hard basis of currency such as a currency board. Many governments have enacted extremely stiff wage and price controls in the wake of hyperinflation but this does not prevent further inflating of the money supply by its central bank, and always leads to widespread shortages of consumer goods if the controls are rigidly enforced.

As it allows a government to devalue their spending and displace (or avoid) a tax increase, governments have sometimes resorted to excessively loose monetary policy to meet their expenses. Inflation is effectively a regressive consumption tax,[11] but less overt than levied taxes and therefore harder to understand by ordinary citizens. Inflation can obscure quantitative assessments of the true cost of living, as published price indices only look at data in retrospect, so may increase only months or years later. Monetary inflation can become hyperinflation if monetary authorities fail to fund increasing government expenses from taxes, government debt, cost cutting, or by other means, because either

* during the time between recording or levying taxable transactions and collecting the taxes due, the value of the taxes collected falls in real value to a small fraction of the original taxes receivable; or
* government debt issues fail to find buyers except at very deep discounts; or
* a combination of the above.


Theories of hyperinflation generally look for a relationship between seigniorage and the inflation tax. In both Cagan's model and the neo-classical models, a tipping point occurs when the increase in money supply or the drop in the monetary base makes it impossible for a government to improve its financial position. Thus when fiat money is printed, government obligations that are not denominated in money increase in cost by more than the value of the money created.

From this, it might be wondered why any rational government would engage in actions that cause or continue hyperinflation. One reason for such actions is that often the alternative to hyperinflation is either depression or military defeat. The root cause is a matter of more dispute. In both classical economics and monetarism, it is always the result of the monetary authority irresponsibly borrowing money to pay all its expenses. These models focus on the unrestrained seigniorage of the monetary authority, and the gains from the inflation tax. In Neoliberalism, hyperinflation is considered to be the result of a crisis of confidence. The monetary base of the country flees, producing widespread fear that individuals will not be able to convert local currency to some more transportable form, such as gold or an internationally recognized hard currency. This is a quantity theory of hyperinflation.[citation needed]

In neo-classical economic theory, hyperinflation is rooted in a deterioration of the monetary base, that is the confidence that there is a store of value which the currency will be able to command later. In this model, the perceived risk of holding currency rises dramatically, and sellers demand increasingly high premiums to accept the currency. This in turn leads to a greater fear that the currency will collapse, causing even higher premiums. One example of this is during periods of warfare, civil war, or intense internal conflict of other kinds: governments need to do whatever is necessary to continue fighting, since the alternative is defeat. Expenses cannot be cut significantly since the main outlay is armaments. Further, a civil war may make it difficult to raise taxes or to collect existing taxes. While in peacetime the deficit is financed by selling bonds, during a war it is typically difficult and expensive to borrow, especially if the war is going poorly for the government in question. The banking authorities, whether central or not, "monetize" the deficit, printing money to pay for the government's efforts to survive. The hyperinflation under the Chinese Nationalists from 1939-1945 is a classic example of a government printing money to pay civil war costs. By the end, currency was flown in over the Himalayas, and then old currency was flown out to be destroyed.

Hyperinflation is regarded as a complex phenomenon and one explanation may not be applicable to all cases. However, in both of these models, whether loss of confidence comes first, or central bank seigniorage, the other phase is ignited. In the case of rapid expansion of the money supply, prices rise rapidly in response to the increased supply of money relative to the supply of goods and services, and in the case of loss of confidence, the monetary authority responds to the risk premiums it has to pay by "running the printing presses."

Nevertheless the immense acceleration process that occurs during hyperinflation (such as during the German hyperinflation of 1922/23) still remains unclear and unpredictable. The transformation of an inflationary development into the hyperinflation has to be identified as a very complex phenomenon, which could be a further advanced research avenue of the complexity economics in conjunction with research areas like mass hysteria, bandwagon effect, social brain and mirror neurons.[12]

...

Much attention on hyperinflation naturally centres on the effect on savers whose investment become worthless. Academic economists seem not to have devoted much study on the (positive) effect on debtors. Interest rate changes often cannot keep up with hyperinflation or even high inflation, certainly with contractually fixed interest rates. (For example, in the 1970s in the United Kingdom inflation reached 25% per annum, yet interest rates did not rise above 15% - and then only briefly - and many fixed interest rate loans existed). Contractually there is often no bar to a debtor clearing his long term debt with "hyperinflated-cash" nor could a lender simply somehow suspend the loan. "Early redemption penalties" were (and still are) often based on a penalty of x months of interest/payment; again no real bar to paying off what had been a large loan. In interwar Germany, for example, much private and corporate debt was effectively wiped out; certainly for those holding fixed interest rate loans.


Hyperinflation
by Michael K. Salemi

Inflation is a sustained increase in the aggregate price level. Hyperinflation is very high inflation. Although the threshold is arbitrary, economists generally reserve the term “hyperinflation” to describe episodes when the monthly inflation rate is greater than 50 percent. At a monthly rate of 50 percent, an item that cost $1 on January 1 would cost $130 on January 1 of the following year.

Hyperinflation is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon. The most widely studied hyperinflation occurred in Germany after World War I. The ratio of the German price index in November 1923 to the price index in August 1922—just fifteen months earlier—was 1.02 × 1010. This huge number amounts to a monthly inflation rate of 322 percent. On average, prices quadrupled each month during the sixteen months of hyperinflation.

While the German hyperinflation is better known, a much larger hyperinflation occurred in Hungary after World War II. Between August 1945 and July 1946 the general level of prices rose at the astounding rate of more than 19,000 percent per month, or 19 percent per day.

Even these very large numbers understate the rates of inflation experienced during the worst days of the hyperinflations. In October 1923, German prices rose at the rate of 41 percent per day. And in July 1946, Hungarian prices more than tripled each day.

What causes hyperinflations? No single shock, no matter how severe, can explain sustained, continuously rapid growth in prices. The world wars themselves did not cause the hyperinflations in Germany and Hungary. The destruction of resources during the wars can explain why prices in Germany and Hungary would be higher after the wars than before. But the wars themselves cannot explain why prices would continuously rise at rapid rates during hyperinflation periods.

Hyperinflations are caused by extremely rapid growth in the supply of “paper” money. They occur when the monetary and fiscal authorities of a nation regularly issue large quantities of money to pay for a large stream of government expenditures. In effect, inflation is a form of taxation in which the government gains at the expense of those who hold money while its value is declining. Hyperinflations are very large taxation schemes.

During the German hyperinflation the number of German marks in circulation increased by a factor of 7.32 × 109. In Hungary, the comparable increase in the money supply was 1.19 × 1025. These numbers are smaller than those given earlier for the growth in prices. What does it mean when prices increase more rapidly than the supply of money?

Economists use a concept called the “real quantity of money” to discuss what happens to people’s money-holding behavior when prices grow rapidly. The real quantity of money, sometimes called the “purchasing power of money,” is the ratio of the amount of money held to the price level. Imagine that the typical household consumes a certain bundle of goods. The real quantity of money measures the number of bundles a household could buy with the money it holds. In low-inflation periods, a household will maintain a high real money balance because it is convenient to do so. In high-inflation periods, a household will maintain a lower real money balance to avoid the inflation “tax.” They avoid the inflation tax by holding more of their wealth in the form of physical commodities. As they buy these commodities, prices rise higher and inflation increases. Figure 1 shows real money balances and inflation for Germany from the beginning of 1919 until April 1923. The graph indicates that Germans lowered real balances as inflation increased. The last months of the German hyperinflation are not pictured in the figure because the inflation rate was too high to preserve the scale of the graph.

Hyperinflations tend to be self-perpetuating. Suppose a government is committed to financing its expenditures by issuing money and begins by raising the money stock by 10 percent per month. Soon the rate of inflation will increase, say, to 10 percent per month. The government will observe that it can no longer buy as much with the money it is issuing and is likely to respond by raising money growth even further. The hyperinflation cycle has begun. During the hyperinflation there will be a continuing tug-of-war between the public and the government. The public is trying to spend the money it receives quickly in order to avoid the inflation tax; the government responds to higher inflation with even higher rates of money issue.

Most economists agree that inflation lowers economic welfare even when allowing for revenue from the inflation tax and the distortion that would be created by alternative taxes that raise the same revenue.1

Figure 1 During the German Hyperinflation, the Real Quantity of Money Fell as Inflation Increased
Image

How do hyperinflations end? The standard answer is that governments have to make a credible commitment to halting the rapid growth in the stock of money. Proponents of this view consider the end of the German hyperinflation to be a case in point. In late 1923, Germany undertook a monetary reform, creating a new unit of currency called the rentenmark. The German government promised that the new currency could be converted on demand into a bond having a certain value in gold. Proponents of the standard answer argue that the guarantee of convertibility is properly viewed as a promise to cease the rapid issue of money.

An alternative view held by some economists is that not just monetary reform, but also fiscal reform, is needed to end a hyperinflation. According to this view, a successful reform entails two believable commitments on the part of government. The first is a commitment to halt the rapid growth of paper money. The second is a commitment to bring the government’s budget into balance. This second commitment is necessary for a successful reform because it removes, or at least lessens, the incentive for the government to resort to inflationary taxation. If the government commits to balancing its budget, people can reasonably believe that money growth will not rise again to high levels in the near future. Thomas Sargent, a proponent of the second view, argues that the German reform of 1923 was successful because it created an independent central bank that could refuse to monetize the government deficit and because it included provisions for higher taxes and lower government expenditures. Another way to look at Sargent’s view is that hyperinflations end when people reasonably believe that the rate of money growth will fall to normal levels both now and in the future.

What effects do hyperinflations have? One effect with serious consequences is the reallocation of wealth. Hyperinflations transfer wealth from the general public, which holds money, to the government, which issues money. Hyperinflations also cause borrowers to gain at the expense of lenders when loan contracts are signed prior to the worst inflation. Businesses that hold stores of raw materials and commodities gain at the expense of the general public. In Germany, renters gained at the expense of property owners because rent ceilings did not keep pace with the general level of prices. Costantino Bresciani-Turroni argues that the hyperinflation destroyed the wealth of the stable classes in Germany and made it easier for the National Socialists (Nazis) to gain power.

Hyperinflation reduces an economy’s efficiency by driving people away from monetary transactions and toward barter. In a normal economy, using money in exchange is highly efficient. During hyperinflations people prefer to be paid in commodities in order to avoid the inflation tax. If they are paid in money, they spend that money as quickly as possible. In Germany, workers were paid twice per day and would shop at midday to avoid further depreciation of their earnings. Hyperinflation is a wasteful game of “hot potato” in which people use up valuable resources trying to avoid holding on to paper money.

Hyperinflations can lead to behavior that would be thought bizarre under normal conditions. Gerald Feldman’s book The Great Disorder shows a photo of a small firm transporting wages in a wheelbarrow because the number of banknotes required to pay workers grew very large during the hyperinflation (Feldman 1993, p. 680). Corbis, an Internet source of photos (http://www.corbis.com), shows an image of a German woman burning banknotes in her stove because doing so provided more heat than using them to buy other fuel would have done. Another image shows German children playing with blocks of banknotes in the street.

More-recent examples of very high inflation have occurred mostly in Latin America and former Eastern bloc nations. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay together experienced an average annual inflation rate of 121 percent between 1970 and 1987. In Bolivia, prices increased by 12,000 percent in 1985. In Peru, a near hyperinflation occurred in 1988 as prices rose by about 2,000 percent for the year, or by 30 percent per month. However, Thayer Watkins documents that the record hyperinflation of all time occurred in Yugoslavia between 1993 and 1994.2

The Latin American countries with high inflation also experienced a phenomenon called “dollarization,” the use of U.S. dollars in place of the domestic currency. As inflation rises, people come to believe that their own currency is not a good way to store value and they attempt to exchange their domestic money for dollars. In 1973, 90 percent of time deposits in Bolivia were denominated in Bolivian pesos. By 1985, the year of the Bolivian hyperinflation, more than 60 percent of time deposit balances were denominated in dollars.

What caused high inflation in Latin America? Many Latin American countries borrowed heavily during the 1970s and agreed to repay their debts in dollars. As interest rates rose, all of these countries found it increasingly difficult to meet their debt service obligations. The high-inflation countries were those that responded to these higher costs by printing money.

The Bolivian hyperinflation is a case in point. Eliana Cardoso explains that in 1982 Hernán Siles Suazo took power as head of a leftist coalition that wanted to satisfy demands for more government spending on domestic programs but faced growing debt service obligations and falling prices for its tin exports. The Bolivian government responded to this situation by printing money. Faced with a shortage of funds, it chose to raise revenue through the inflation tax instead of raising income taxes or reducing other government spending.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Hyperinflation.html


*




justdrew wrote:well, regarding the "how could it happens" factor. the wiki definition, etc, "large increase in the money supply" but the money supply is disconnected. The fed can make all the funny money they want, and so long as it never 'trickles down' into the real economy, and remains within the bullshit FIRE economy, it wouldn't have any 'real' effect. I suspect much of the truth about the "vast corporate profits and pay checks and bonus payments etc" is that the money/economy has been broken for over a decade, and it generates these huge sums of fake profit utterly unrelated to actual cash flows, so they have to keep that money segregated from reality, only occasionally able to cash out small amounts of it.

anyway, it's a theory :shrug:


(The bonuses are real money and the banksters spend it, otherwise they wouldn't even be in this game. The derivatives and balance sheets and QE gifts to balance sheets are mostly nominal money that would be unaffordable if cashed in. This will be developed below...)

vanlose kid wrote:apropos of Krugman, inflation, imperial-military spending:

Krugman, China and the role of finance.
November 22, 2010
By Michael Hudson

Here’s the quandary that the U.S. economy is in: The Fed’s quantitative easing policy– creating more liquidity so that banks can lend more – aims at helping the economy “borrow its way out of debt.” But banks are not lending more, for the simple reason that a third of U.S. real estate already is in negative equity, while small and medium-sized businesses (which have created most of the new jobs in America for the past few decades) have seen their preferred collateral (real estate and sales orders) shrink. How can banks be expected to lend more to re-inflate the economy’s asset prices while wages and consumer prices continue to drift down? The “real” economy as a whole therefore must shrink.

What has made the argument over Fed policy so important over the past week is a series of exchanges between Republicans and Democrats. The deteriorating situation prompted a group of Republican economists and political strategists to publish an open letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke criticizing the Fed’s policy of Quantitative Easing (QE2), flooding the economy with liquidity spilling over into foreign exchange markets to push the dollar’s exchange rate down. True enough, as far as this criticism goes. But it only scratches the surface.

Enter Paul Krugman, one of the most progressive defenders of Democratic Party policy. His New York Times op-eds usually rebut Republican advocacy for Wall Street and corporate interests. But he also indulges in China bashing. To “blame the foreigner” rather than the system is normally a right-wing response, yet Krugman blames China simply for trying to save itself from being victimized by the Wall Street policies he normally criticizes when labor is the prey. By blaming China, he not only lets the Federal Reserve Board and its Wall Street constituency off the hook, he blames virtually the entire world that confronted Obama’s financial nationalism with a united front in Seoul two weeks ago when he and his entourage received an almost unanimous slap in the face at the Group of 20 meetings.

Sadly, Krugman’s “Axis of Depression” column on Friday, November 19, showed the extent to which his preferred solutions do not go beyond merely marginalist tinkering. His op-ed endorsed the Fed’s attempt at quantitative easing to re-inflate the real estate bubble by flooding the markets with enough credit to lower interest rates. He credits the Fed with seeking to “create jobs,” not mainly to bail out banks that hold mortgages on properties in negative equity.

The reality is that re-inflating real estate prices will not make it easier for wage earners and homebuyers to make ends meet. Lowering interest rates will re-inflate real estate prices (“wealth creation” Alan-Greenspan style), raising the degree to which new homebuyers must go into debt to obtain housing. And the more debt service that is paid, the less is available to spend on goods and services (the “real” economy). Employment will shrink in a financial spiral of economic austerity.

Unfortunately, most economists are brainwashed with the trivializing formula MV=PT. The idea is that more money (M) increases “prices” (P) – presumably consumer prices and wages. (One can ignore velocity, “V,” which is merely a tautological residual.) “T” is “transactions,” for GDP, sometimes called “O” for Output.

Some 99.9 per cent of money and credit is not spent on consumer goods (the “T” in MV = PT). Every day more than an entire year’s GDP passes through the New York Clearing House and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for bank loans, stocks and bonds, packaged mortgages, derivatives and other financial assets and bets. So the effect of the Fed’s Quantitative Easing (monetary inflation) is to inflate asset prices, not consumer prices and other commodity prices.

This is the key dynamic of today’s finance capitalism. It loads down economies with debt – and when debt service exceeds the surplus out of which to pay it, the central bank tries to “inflate its way out of debt” by creating enough new credit (“money”) to make real estate, stocks and bonds worth more – enough for debtors to borrow the interest due. This is the deus ex machina, the external influx of credit enabling financialized economies to operate as Ponzi schemes. The dynamic is encouraged by taxing speculative (“capital”) gains at a lower rate than wages and profits. So why should investors finance tangible capital investment when they can ride the wave of asset-price inflation? The Bubble Economy turns into speculative “wealth creation.”

Can it work? How long will gullible investors bet on a pyramid scheme growing at an impossibly exponential rate, enjoying fictitious “wealth creation” as bankers load the economy down with debt? How long will people think that the economy is really growing when banks lend to an economy overseen by regulatory agencies staffed by ideological deregulators?

The bankers’ ideal is for the entire surplus over and above bare subsistence to be paid in the form of interest and fees – all disposable personal income, corporate cash flow and real estate rent. So when the Fed’s QE lowers mortgage interest rates, will this enable homeowners to pay less – or will it simply increase the capitalization rate of the existing rental value?

The Fed’s cover story is that QE benefits homebuyers by reducing the debt they must take on. But if this were true, their gain would be the banks’ loss – and the bankers are the Fed’s main constituency. To the Federal Reserve, the economic “problem” is that falling (that is, more affordable) housing prices are killing the balance sheets of banks. So the Fed’s real goal is to re-inflate the real estate bubble (while spurring a stock market bubble as well, if it can).

A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Andy Kessler (also published on Friday, Nov. 19, the date of Krugman’s op-ed in The New York Times) pointed this out – but also recognized that the Fed would create a public relations disaster if it came right out and explained that its motivation in QE2 was to reverse the fall in property prices. “ Bernanke would create a panic if he stated publicly that, if not for his magic dollar dust, real estate would fall off a cliff,” and admitted that bank balance sheets still suffer from “toxic real estate loans and derivatives.” But the degree to which reported bank solvency is largely fictitious is reflected in the fact that the stock market value for the Bank of America (which brought Countrywide Finance) is only half its reported book value, while that of Citibank is off by 20 per cent.

Foreclosure is of course bad for homeowners, but it is even worse for banks, because of the financial pyramid of credit erected on the past decade’s worth of junk mortgages. The problem with Krugman’s analysis is his assumption that QE – intended to re-inflate the real estate bubble – is good for employment and indeed even for a renewal of U.S. competitiveness, not its antithesis. By focusing on trade and labor, he implies that the dollar is weakening only because of the trade deficit, not because of military spending and capital flight. And he assumes that re-inflating the real estate bubble – the Fed’s explicit aim – will make U.S. exports more competitive rather than less so! Most seriously, he asserts in his November 19 column, “the core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive.”

This is not what I have been told in China and Germany. They simply want to avoid having instability disrupt their trade and domestic production, and to avoid having to take a loss on their international reserves held (mainly from inertia stemming from World Wars I and II when the United States increased its share of the world’s gold to 80 per cent by 1950). The U.S. Treasury would like U.S. banks and speculators to make an easy $500 billion at the expense of China’s central bank on slick speculative currency trading.

The Fed would like to see the U.S. economy revive by looting other economies.

It’s not going to happen. The plunging-dollar standard of international finance is being wound down as fast as other countries are able to replace the dollar with currency swaps among themselves, led by the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). South Africa has just joined these countries as a fifth member, and oil exporters from Nigeria to Venezuela and Iran are associating themselves in the attempt to make the international monetary system less unfair and less exploitative. Krugman’s fellow Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz has provided (seemingly ironically, also in a Wall Street Journal op-ed): “That money is supposed to reignite the American economy but instead goes around the world looking for economies that actually seem to be functioning well and wreaking havoc there.”

The Fed and Congress have told China to revalue its currency, the renminbi, upward by 20 per cent. This would oblige the Chinese government and its central bank to absorb a loss of half a trillion dollars – over $500 billion – on the $2.6 trillion of foreign reserves it has built up. These reserves are not merely from exports, much less exports to the United States. They are capital flight by U.S. money managers, Wall Street arbitragers, international speculators and others seeking to buy up Chinese assets. And they are the result of U.S. military spending in its bases in Asia and elsewhere – dollars that recipient countries turn around and spend in China.

Chinese authorities have tried to make it clear that what they object to is the U.S. policy of creating “electronic keyboard credit” at one quarter of a percent (0.25 per cent) to buy up higher yielding assets abroad (and nearly every foreign asset is higher yielding). The Group of 20 in Seoul Korea last week accused the United States of competitive currency depreciation and financial aggression, and countries stepped up attempts to shun the dollar and indeed, to avoid running trade and payments surpluses as such.

The bottom line is that there is no way that the United States can defend depreciation of the dollar on terms that oblige other countries to take a loss on their holdings. Investors throughout the world have lost faith in the dollar and other paper currencies, and are moving into gold or simply closing off their economies. Over the past year – ever since the BRIC meetings in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in summer 2009 – their response has been to avoid using the dollar, to protect themselves from aggressive U.S. capital flight seeking to raid their central banks, buy out their companies, raw materials and assets with “paper credit” and indeed to step up military spending.

Instead of supporting this attempt – a drive that has the positive consequence for world peace that it will limit U.S. military adventurism (much as the Vietnam War finally forced the dollar off gold in 1971), Krugman is using the crisis to attack China – as if its success is what is harming U.S. labor. Rather, it is U.S. post-industrial pro-financial policies that have inflated the real estate bubble, privatized health care without a public option (without even a bulk discount for U.S. Government drug purchases), let alone the failure to write down mortgages and other bank debts to the ability to pay.

Today’s China-bashing is much like the earlier attacks on Japan and other Asian countries in the late 1980s, demonizing successful economies for avoiding the predatory practices that have corroded American industry, “financializing” and post-industrializing the economy. The U.S. debt pyramiding that has occurred since 1980 has turned into a class war that has little economic justification. So blaming foreigners – for getting rich in the very same way that the United States has done ever since the North won the Civil War in 1865 – simply offers political cover for a status quo that is not working.

The two U.S. parties and their spokesmen find it easier to demonize policies that go beyond the merely marginal than to set about solving structural problems. So political discussion ends up by highlighting fairly insignificant policy differences. One would hardly realize that the problem facing U.S. industrial employment is that wage earners must earn enough to pay for the most expensive housing in the world (the FDIC is trying to limit mortgages to absorb just 32 per cent of the borrower’s budget), the most expensive medical care and Social Security in the world (12.4 per cent FICA withholding), high personal debt levels owed to banks and rapacious credit-card companies (about 15 per cent) and a tax shift off property and the higher wealth brackets onto labor income and consumer goods (another 15 per cent or so). The aim of bankers is to calculate just how much their customers can pay to the FIRE sector, defined as everything they make over and above basic subsistence costs and “non-discretionary” spending.

This is post-industrial suicide – and it is the road to debt peonage for American wage earners and consumers. China has created an economy that has managed – so far – to avoid financializing its firms. The government owns over half the equity in its commercial banks. According to its Ministry of Finance, assets of all state enterprises in 2008 totaled about $6 trillion (equal to 133 per cent of annual economic output.) The effect is that when loans are made to domestic enterprises – especially to partially or wholly owned by the government – the interest and financial returns accrues to the public sector, making it unnecessary to tax labor.

China understandably is trying to defend this system. Yet the Obama administration (echoed by Republican free marketers) has criticized it, especially for its public subsidy of solar energy investment to slow domestic pollution and global warming. Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal provided an almost comically hypocritical attack earlier last week, (Jason Dean, Andrew Browne and Shai Oster, “China’s ‘State Capitalism’ Sparks a Global Backlash,”) decrying China’s accelerated investment in solar power to free its economy (and its air quality) from oil imports and carbon emissions. “It leverages state control of the financial system to channel low-cost capital to domestic industries—and to resource-rich foreign nations whose oil and minerals China needs to maintain rapid growth.”

This policy prompted Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. trade representative under President Bill Clinton (who helped negotiate China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization) to complain that “powerful state-led economies like China and Russia … decide that ‘entire new industries should be created by the government,’ … it tilts the playing field against the private sector.” This is just what Japan did to promote its industrialization – by providing government credit intended to promote tangible capital investment, not extract financial rake-offs. “Vast swaths of industry still controlled by state companies and tightly restricted for foreigners,” complain the Wall Street Journal authors. “The government owns almost all major banks in China, its three major oil companies, its three telecom carriers and its major media firms.”

We are dealing with two quite different ideas of what the proper role of a financial system should be. Commercial banks in the West have created most credit for speculation and asset-price inflation over the last thirty years, not to fund capital formation and industry. The guiding idea of a public-sector bank is to promote long-term investment to raise productivity, output and employment. This is what has enabled China to succeed so rapidly while Western economies have let themselves be financialized. The Baltics, Iceland and now Ireland are examples of the disaster that financial neoliberals cause when given a free hand.

The moral is that China’s bank success – and its attempt to avert U.S. currency raiding and arbitrage speculation seeking to loot its foreign reserves – should be emulated, not accused as an act of economic warfare. This emulation is what the BRIC+ countries have announced as their goal. The Obama administration and European politicians certainly are making an obvious point in urging China to focus more on its own domestic market and accelerate the rise in its living standards. It is clear that markets in the United States and Europe are shrinking as debt deflation sets in.

China is not as economically self-sufficient in natural resources and water as the United States. This means that a sustained rise in its living standards will require spending much of the international savings it has built up. But at least it is on the right path. Can the same be said of America? Does it help to denounce China, or should we rather ask why its productivity, capital investment and living standards are rising while ours are declining?

Asking this question suggests the answer: China’s financial system is designed to promote a growing surplus, not siphon it off. A byproduct is to increase real estate and stock market prices – but this is a reflection of capital investment and progress, not a diversion of investment to fuel financial asset stripping as has occurred in the United States with increasingly arrogant greed over the past 30 years.

What Krugman and other economists advocating for wage earners and the economy at large should be concerned with is the danger of the Fed undertaking yet another back-door bailout for its Wall Street constituency. Kessler suggests that the Fed should do just this – to “move the toxic debt onto the balance sheets of the FDIC and the Fed, and re-float the banks with fresh capital to open on Monday morning.”

You can’t blame China for this!

http://michael-hudson.com/2010/11/krugm ... f-finance/


*


See also:
QE2: Krugman vs. Hudson Smackdown
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 5&p=367582



JackRiddler wrote:.

I'm not saying "it can't happen here." I'm saying the forced transfer of private pensions into public debt instruments obviously won't happen here, because the way things are here, they would choose nuclear war or an endless print or cut the non-murder part of the budget by a third or half (which is their dream), or default on parts of the debt (like Social Security, they'd love to do that) before they would ever, ever, ever question the all-holy sanctity of the rights of accumulated private property, around which the entire insanity revolves.

What do you think would have to happen before states would even move the pension funds they have control over (i.e., of the state employees) OUT of the fucking stock market and other Wall Street investments? That already would be a welcome revolution. They should have done that in 2007, obviously. They should have founded state banks to hold the pension fund investments. So whatever Lira experienced (he wasn't the only one in Argentina, was he?), his scenario is ridiculous and can only grow out of an extreme "libertarian" world-view.

As for hyperinflation, US creditors and the central banks of the world have made it clear that they will continue to float the dollar long as they can maintain their own consensus around that point. Too many of them are tied into that interest. They all need to keep printing their own debt. The dollar's value is no more illusory today than it ever was (since all money is illusion).

Given the denomination of US debt in US currency, hyperinflation would be a welcome development for all crushed by debt. Hyperinflations have happened in many countries, and almost all of them were able to reset and start over. Too bad about savers -- do you know anyone with money in the bank, or with a significant build-up in a retirement fund of any kind? Because I don't. I know people who owe, and owe, and owe, and I know that they are the overwhelming marjority.

However, it's because it would have benefits that it's going to be resisted. The rich want deflation. That's when they get to own more and more. Remember, contrary to the lies you may remember from high school, the German hyperinflation preceded the fat years of the Weimar Republic, and the deflation brought the Nazis. (Simplifistic, but thrown out here with good reason.)

Those who make the deficit or fears of hyperinflation into the issue while the bankster pigs who conducted the greatest global robbery of all history still run free and illegitimately control ultra-trillions in capital flows, and while the rich and their right-wing polit-commandos wage the most open class war in all American history -- they're bringing back child labor!!! -- are the enemies of life on earth. Including that of their own posterity. Fuck the deficit. Fight the class war.

.

EDIT: Heh, I'm going to leave "simplifistic" as is.



vanlose kid wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:.

...

Those who [1] make the deficit or fears of hyperinflation into the issue while [2] the bankster pigs who conducted the greatest global robbery of all history still run free and illegitimately control ultra-trillions in capital flows, and while the rich and their right-wing polit-commandos wage the most open class war in all American history -- they're bringing back child labor!!! -- are the enemies of life on earth. Including that of their own posterity. Fuck the deficit. Fight the class war.

.

EDIT: Heh, I'm going to leave "simplifistic" as is.


you write as if [1] and [2] are two distinct and entirely unrelated things. i don't see it that way.

i find that quite "simplifistic".

*




JackRiddler wrote:
vanlose kid wrote:you write as if [1] and [2] are two distinct and entirely unrelated things. i don't see it that way.


The size of the deficit and public debt is certainly in large part a product of the bankers' plunder, as we know. To therefore focus on the deficit as the biggest issue and on hyperinflation as the worst threat plays into the bankers' discourse. The real issue should be how to neutralize the TBTF Banks in their continued attack on the world -- to line up the perpetrators at the nearest (metaphorical) guillotine, seize their assets, end the bailouts, and cancel whatever public debt they purport to hold, reboot the currency if necessary and direct capital to the urgently needed conversions of the energy and transport systems (which also means recovery and those hotly coveted beloved "jobs").

These people are part of the class war that's robbing everyone of the rights to organize, assemble, petition, and expect to be paid for their labor, and seeks to restore the labor conditions of the 19th century. These people are the ones fighting a variety of wars to keep the machinery of overconsumption operating. It's their fucking deficit and given a choice between what they want, which is tantamount to the restoration of mass servitude, and the danger of hyperinflation, then I prefer the latter. Hyperinflations are a danger (not always) when the system melts down and are accompany processes that represent an opportunity for change. Deflation is the intended functioning of the system, the means by which the rich get richer and everyone else is broken.

What I object to is the idea that hyperinflation is what "they want." That's not their endgame. They have a lot of cash and hold a lot of debt and they like buying things for cheap, especially labor.

None of this is to say I welcome hyperinflation. I reject that deficits and the danger of hyperinflation and the precious savings of the 10 percent who have any net savings should be an overriding concern when the real game is to enslave the people. (I also reject the model that claims that money supply causes inflation. Inflation comes from demand or from commodity price rises. Hyperinflation is the some-time result from a global loss of confidence in the ability of a national economy to manage its debts as a whole, regardless of cause. Whether that will happen with the dollar is an open question because the key players worldwide consider it TBTF. At any rate, widespread debt jubilee is the right strategy for dealing with excessive debt, rather than printing money.)

anyway when i read pensions, i'm thinking union pension funds, workers pensions and savings (i.e. social security), etc., not the money the rich have overseas or their assets or whatever. i'm thinking Larry Summers "investing" other poeple's money.


Go back and read what Lira wrote. This was the part that got me the angriest! He was saying this wouldn't happen because the unions are so powerful, which is why "the government" would come after the poor "individual" investor, since they don't have a lobby, like the unions. Consider what's happening to the workers all over the country right now! That's radical right mythology.

.




gnosticheresy_2 wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:These people are part of the class war that's robbing everyone of the rights to organize, assemble, petition, and expect to be paid for their labor, and seeks to restore the labor conditions of the 19th century.


As an aside, what I sometimes find frustrating is the inability of some to see things for what they are, which is this. The oft repeated trope that "things are different now, class doesn't mean anything anymore" is just a fairy tale told by the very same people who benefit most from it's propagation: the class that's screwing everyone else right at this moment. The ownership class never went away, it expanded, went international and then spent the last few decades convincing the rest of us that it didn't exist so it could take back what it regards as rightfully theirs i.e. everything. I think that people get lead astray a bit by the secretive and illegal nature of things that get discussed on here, but it doesn't matter if you're rich through illegal arms dealing, profiting from your links to the intelligence-drugs nexus or simply because you walked into a CEO job by virtue of your family connections, you have an interest in making sure that nothing can threaten your position. And that means denuding workers of the rights and stopping them organising by any means necessary.




JackRiddler wrote:.

Shite, an economy really is enormously complicated and full of moving parts and unknown unknowns. There are countless players with different agendas, many with secret agendas. Agendas generally are crafted in blindness to other agendas, and then the thing-as-a-whole really does sometime go and do things no one expected. And, of course, there is the famous feedback or reflexivity, by which what people believe affects what happens. So we could all turn out to be full of shit in our predictions, or get them right solely by luck, and I know I've done both often enough, and should be humble. I shouldn't rant like above, or say anything about the subject at all, without also including these caveats. Now that I have, however, back to a basic truth: Most products of mainstream economics are simplistic faith assertions cloaked in complicated voodoo intoned to disguise naked class war. In this realm therefore "cui bono" is an often useful (if not inerrant) technique in understanding what's really been said.

.




barracuda wrote:
vanlose kid wrote:"hyperinflation" is not a natural event, but a controlled crisis. [not something that happens, but something that is made to happen.


Maybe. But the mechanism itself is entirely organic, and dependant upon the dynamics of the subject population's trust in the ability of a currency to hold value. Per the wiki article:

Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns, political or social upheavals, or aggressive bidding on currency exchanges...


So the typical hyperinflationary consumer-side defense tactic is to convert any held currency to goods or services as quickly as possible, before that scrip can significantly devalue. This is the feedback loop which creates the phenomenon. Any person here who really thinks hyperinflation is looming ought to be emptying out any savings they might have to purchase goods while the currency still retains it's value.

Hyperinflation is a political crisis, in many ways more than it is an economic one, and highly delegitimising by its very nature.

vanlose kid wrote:and this is key, (and here i agree with c2w?) even the danger of hyperinflation alone ("dangers" in general) is a useful tool of control and robbery. apart from that "dangers" or "crises" can be managed and controlled and made use of. actual hyperinflation is yet another tool.


I'm trying to identify a historical example of hyperinflation used as a managed tool of the shadow elite, but I haven't yet found such an example. If it is can be controlled in such a manner, I would have to say that is a very dangerous move, for the difficulties of effective governance - i.e., control - are surely compounded in such an environment. This lack of control is due to the organic nature of the mechanics of hyperinflation on the actual street, and is one of the main reasons why it won't be allowed to happen, at least not lightly. No power wants their currency to disappear and be replaced by that of a foreign sovereignty, such as the end result in Zimbabwe.




vanlose kid wrote:
barracuda wrote:
vanlose kid wrote:^ ^ and i'd agree with you re historic examples. it would be like finding proof that 911 was an inside job. the victors write history.


But aren't the historical causes and effects of hyperinflation well known? I mean, you can point to any example, and the process by which the currencies failed is fairly straightforward, ranging from the piano dropped off the skyscraper to the straw-like incident which broke the camel's back. I'm not looking for the smoking gun to the ultrabanking conspiracy, just poking around, trying to spot a little cui bono.

I guess you could say the Allies benefited in the short run by the immediate concessions of the Treaty of Versailles, for example, but the resulting hyperinflation from the German financial obligations can't have brought a great deal of happiness to anyone. The outcome of such a violent ecnomic environment is a crap shoot in the long run.

And I have another question: is hyperinflation a purely modern phenomenon? I don't see many examples before the second half of the ninteenth century.


i'd say so yeah: they are well known. they're pretty much covered in the two articles i posted upthread as a sort of definition. but there's this: when i read those, i read mainly descriptions of what happened, and then various common business school "explanations" as to why or more importantly how and by whom.

here's a different take on the phenomenon (more in line with classical economics as expressed in Das Kapital if you will). it's an unorthodox answer to the question "what is hyperinfaltion?" (think Soros if you want a near contemporary example of how its done):

The Weimar Hyperinflation? Could it Happen Again?
by Ellen Brown
http://globalresearch.ca/. May 19. 2009

"It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared. The shelves in the grocery stores were empty. You could buy nothing with your paper money." - Harvard University law professor Friedrich Kessler on the Weimar Republic hyperinflation (1993 interview)

Some worried commentators are predicting a massive hyperinflation of the sort suffered by Weimar Germany in 1923, when a wheelbarrow full of paper money could barely buy a loaf of bread. An April 29 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner warned:
"With an unprecedented deficit that's approaching $2 trillion, [the President's 2010] budget proposal is a surefire prescription for hyperinflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing a spending spree that could very well turn America into the next Weimar Republic."1
In an investment newsletter called Money Morning on April 9, Martin Hutchinson pointed to disturbing parallels between current government monetary policy and Weimar Germany's, when 50% of government spending was being funded by seigniorage - merely printing money.2 However, there is something puzzling in his data. He indicates that the British government is already funding more of its budget by seigniorage than Weimar Germany did at the height of its massive hyperinflation; yet the pound is still holding its own, under circumstances said to have caused the complete destruction of the German mark. Something else must have been responsible for the mark's collapse besides mere money-printing to meet the government's budget, but what? And are we threatened by the same risk today? Let's take a closer look at the data.

History Repeats Itself - or Does It?
In his well-researched article, Hutchinson notes that Weimar Germany had been suffering from inflation ever since World War I; but it was in the two year period between 1921 and 1923 that the true "Weimar hyperinflation" occurred. By the time it had ended in November 1923, the mark was worth only one-trillionth of what it had been worth back in 1914. Hutchinson goes on:

"The current policy mix reflects those of Germany during the period between 1919 and 1923. The Weimar government was unwilling to raise taxes to fund post-war reconstruction and war-reparations payments, and so it ran large budget deficits. It kept interest rates far below inflation, expanding money supply rapidly and raising 50% of government spending through seigniorage (printing money and living off the profits from issuing it). . . .

"The really chilling parallel is that the United States, Britain and Japan have now taken to funding their budget deficits through seigniorage. In the United States, the Fed is buying $300 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds (T-bonds) over a six-month period, a rate of $600 billion per annum, 15% of federal spending of $4 trillion. In Britain, the Bank of England (BOE) is buying 75 billion pounds of gilts [the British equivalent of U.S. Treasury bonds] over three months. That's 300 billion pounds per annum, 65% of British government spending of 454 billion pounds. Thus, while the United States is approaching Weimar German policy (50% of spending) quite rapidly, Britain has already overtaken it!"

And that is where the data gets confusing. If Britain is already meeting a larger percentage of its budget deficit by seigniorage than Germany did at the height of its hyperinflation, why is the pound now worth about as much on foreign exchange markets as it was nine years ago, under circumstances said to have driven the mark to a trillionth of its former value in the same period, and most of this in only two years? Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar has actually gotten stronger relative to other currencies since the policy was begun last year of massive "quantitative easing" (today's euphemism for seigniorage).3 Central banks rather than governments are now doing the printing, but the effect on the money supply should be the same as in the government money-printing schemes of old. The government debt bought by the central banks is never actually paid off but is just rolled over from year to year; and once the new money is in the money supply, it stays there, diluting the value of the currency. So why haven't our currencies already collapsed to a trillionth of their former value, as happened in Weimar Germany? Indeed, if it were a simple question of supply and demand, a government would have to print a trillion times its earlier money supply to drop its currency by a factor of a trillion; and even the German government isn't charged with having done that. Something else must have been going on in the Weimar Republic, but what?

Schacht Lets the Cat Out of the Bag
Light is thrown on this mystery by the later writings of Hjalmar Schacht, the currency commissioner for the Weimar Republic. The facts are explored at length in The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga, who writes that in Schacht's 1967 book The Magic of Money, he "let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the 'accepted wisdom' the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation." What actually drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation, said Schacht, was speculation by foreign investors, who would bet on the mark's decreasing value by selling it short.

Short selling is a technique used by investors to try to profit from an asset's falling price. It involves borrowing the asset and selling it, with the understanding that the asset must later be bought back and returned to the original owner. The speculator is gambling that the price will have dropped in the meantime and he can pocket the difference. Short selling of the German mark was made possible because private banks made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created on demand and lent to investors, returning a profitable interest to the banks.

At first, the speculation was fed by the Reichsbank (the German central bank), which had recently been privatized. But when the Reichsbank could no longer keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.4


A Story with an Ironic Twist
If Schacht is to be believed, not only did the government not cause the hyperinflation but it was the government that got the situation under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money.
More interesting is a little-known sequel to this tale. What allowed Germany to get back on its feet in the 1930s was the very thing today's commentators are blaming for bringing it down in the 1920s - money issued by seigniorage by the government. Economist Henry C. K. Liu calls this form of financing "sovereign credit." He writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began."5

While Hitler clearly deserves the opprobrium heaped on him for his later atrocities, he was enormously popular with his own people, at least for a time. This was evidently because he rescued Germany from the throes of a worldwide depression - and he did it through a plan of public works paid for with currency generated by the government itself. Projects were first earmarked for funding, including flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange called Labor Treasury Certificates were then issued against this cost.

Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. The workers then spent the certificates on goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. These certificates were not actually debt-free but were issued as bonds, and the government paid interest on them to the bearers. But the certificates circulated as money and were renewable indefinitely, making them a de facto currency; and they avoided the need to borrow from international lenders or to pay off international debts.6 The Treasury Certificates did not trade on foreign currency markets, so they were beyond the reach of the currency speculators. They could not be sold short because there was no one to sell them to, so they retained their value.

Within two years, Germany's unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Although Germany's economic experiment was short-lived, it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.7

The Lessons of History: Not Always What They Seem
Germany's scheme for escaping its crippling debt and reinvigorating a moribund economy was clever, but it was not actually original with the Germans. The notion that a government could fund itself by printing and delivering paper receipts for goods and services received was first devised by the American colonists. Benjamin Franklin credited the remarkable growth and abundance in the colonies, at a time when English workers were suffering the impoverished conditions of the Industrial Revolution, to the colonists' unique system of government-issued money. In the nineteenth century, Senator Henry Clay called this the "American system," distinguishing it from the "British system" of privately-issued paper banknotes. After the American Revolution, the American system was replaced in the U.S. with banker-created money; but government-issued money was revived during the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln funded his government with U.S. Notes or "Greenbacks" issued by the Treasury.

The dramatic difference in the results of Germany's two money-printing experiments was a direct result of the uses to which the money was put. Price inflation results when "demand" (money) increases more than "supply" (goods and services), driving prices up; and in the experiment of the 1930s, new money was created for the purpose of funding productivity, so supply and demand increased together and prices remained stable. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." In the hyperinflationary disaster of 1923, on the other hand, money was printed merely to pay off speculators, causing demand to shoot up while supply remained fixed. The result was not just inflation but hyperinflation, since the speculation went wild, triggering rampant tulip-bubble-style mania and panic.

This was also true in Zimbabwe, a dramatic contemporary example of runaway inflation. The crisis dated back to 2001, when Zimbabwe defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Apparently, the IMF's intention was to punish the country for political policies of which it disapproved, including land reform measures that involved reclaiming the lands of wealthy landowners. Zimbabwe's credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign-exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country's credit rating.8 According to a statement by the Zimbabwe central bank, the hyperinflation was caused by speculators who manipulated the foreign-exchange market, charging exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of the Zimbabwe currency.

The government's real mistake, however, may have been in playing the IMF's game at all. Rather than using its national currency to buy foreign fiat money to pay foreign lenders, it could have followed the lead of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists and issued its own currency to pay for the production of goods and services for its own people. Inflation would then have been avoided, because supply would have kept up with demand; and the currency would have served the local economy rather than being siphoned off by speculators.

The Real Weimar Threat and How It Can Be Avoided
Is the United States, then, out of the hyperinflationary woods with its "quantitative easing" scheme? Maybe, maybe not. To the extent that the newly-created money will be used for real economic development and growth, funding by seigniorage is not likely to inflate prices, because supply and demand will rise together. Using quantitative easing to fund infrastructure and other productive projects, as in President Obama's stimulus package, could invigorate the economy as promised, producing the sort of abundance reported by Benjamin Franklin in America's flourishing early years.

There is, however, something else going on today that is disturbingly similar to what triggered the 1923 hyperinflation. As in Weimar Germany, money creation in the U.S. is now being undertaken by a privately-owned central bank, the Federal Reserve; and it is largely being done to settle speculative bets on the books of private banks, without producing anything of value to the economy. As gold investor James Sinclair warned nearly two years ago:

"[T]he real problem is a trembling $20 trillion mountain of over the counter credit and default derivatives. Think deeply about the Weimar Republic case study because every day it looks more and more like a repeat in cause and effect . . . ."9

The $12.9 billion in bailout funds funneled through AIG to pay Goldman Sachs for its highly speculative credit default swaps is just one egregious example.10 To the extent that the money generated by "quantitative easing" is being sucked into the black hole of paying off these speculative derivative bets, we could indeed be on the Weimar road and there is real cause for alarm. We have been led to believe that we must prop up a zombie Wall Street banking behemoth because without it we would have no credit system, but that is not true. There is another viable alternative, and it may prove to be our only viable alternative. We can beat Wall Street at its own game, by forming publicly-owned banks that issue the full faith and credit of the United States not for private speculative profit but as a public service, for the benefit of the United States and its people.11


Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com and http://www.ellenbrown.com.

Notes
1. "Examiner Editorial: Get Ready for Obama's Coming Hyperinflation," San Francisco Examiner, April 29, 2009.
2. Martin Hutchinson, "Is It 1932 - or 1923?", Money Morning (April 9, 2009).
3. See Monthly Average Graphs, x-rate.com.
4. Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money (Valatie, New York: American Monetary Institute, 2002), pages 590-600; S. Zarlenga, "Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation: A 'Private' Affair," Barnes Review (July-August 1999).
5. Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).
6. S. Zarlenga, op. cit.
7. Matt Koehl, "The Good Society?", Rense (January 13, 2005).
8. "Bags of Bricks: Zimbabweans Get New Money - for What It's Worth," The Economist (August 24, 2006); Thomas Homes, "IMF Contributes to Zimbabwe's Hyperinflation," http://www.newzimbabwe.com (March 5, 2006).
9. Jim Sinclair, "Fed Actions a Bandaid on a Gaping Economic Wound," reprinted in Go for Gold, September 18, 2007.
10. Eliot Spitzer, "The Real AIG Scandal, Continued! The Transfer of $12.9 Billion from AIG to Goldman Looks Fishier and Fishier," Slate (March 22, 2009).
11. See Ellen Brown, "Cash Starved States Need to Play the Banking Game," webofdebt.com/articles (March 2, 2009).


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks ... ation.html


somewhere upthread freemason9 said: deficits don't matter. that proposition is not true in a void.

its truth depends on a nest of other propositions. in other words the fact of whether a deficit matters depends among other things on who prints the money, how, at what price, and to what use it is put. that's what Ellen Brown lays out.

as for the question of whether hyperinflation is a modern phenomenon i'd say yes. its a characteristic of the capitalist system. you can thank the protestants.

*

ps: to clarify something. when i speak of "control" of the "economy" think of a casino. you run it. if you control everything and leave no room for chance you won't have customers. if you leave all to chance you won't have a casino. you want what's in the accounts of your customers. you let a few win once in a while so as to make it easier for you to rob the rest with their consent. that's "economics".

*

edit to add source link.

*




JackRiddler wrote:.

Ellen Brown's article argues for what I've been saying. She says the German hyperinflation was not primarily a strategy of the government, but a function of foreign speculation exploiting the insight that Germany could not repay its World War I debts. (Vultures!) Clearly, the devaluation of the currency by trillions was out of proportion to the amount printed or the seignoriage, as they called it. The issue was the inability to pay, and the resulting assumption of a political as well as economic crisis.

She doesn't mention that the Reichsbank (under Schacht) was able to reboot the currency after 1923 and the good years of Weimar followed. The disaster that led to the Nazis taking power came because of the Depression, in the years of deflation following 1930.

The foreign speculators who did the run on the Reichsmark in the early 1920s did it for gain. Their counterparts with regard to the dollar today would be BRIC, EU, London, Japan and lots of big banks and corporations that hold dollar reserves. They won't do such a thing unless they see gain. I expected they would as far back as 2004, influenced by the hyperinflationists of that time. I was wrong, the dollar's value underwent a correction but no collapse. The other powers don't want that yet, so it won't happen by plan. Yet. They are preparing or at least hedging for it with bilateral trade agreements in their own currencies. In the Wall Street thread, I have delineated a mechanism by which they could in fact convert their dollars into a new mechanism for settling trade balances amongst themselves. But if and when they do this, it will be primarily a political decision to end the period of American hegemony and empire.

vanlose, you give various examples of planned disasters that leave the rich richer each time. None of these were hyperinflations, however. The neoliberal strategists never worry much about unemployment, but they hate inflation. It's not a surprise to you, is it? I think it's clear by what mechanism deflation makes the rich richer, and why they like that. It's also clear why they love asset inflation, a.k.a. bubbles (you can make money on the pump and on the pop!), and why they also like commodity inflation, a.k.a. bubbles in derivatives. By what mechanism would currency hyperinflation make them richer? The most you've been able to offer is that they can use the threat of it to induce terror so that they can cut spending and commandeer more pools of collective capital (like Social Security or public pension funds). But how would the actual hyperinflation do that? The only claims I've seen have been from libertarians saying "the government" wants it to reduce its debt. But "the government" is in the hands of those who don't really care about its debt. They are happy to bankrupt it one day, long as they make out like bandits today.

.




Forgetting2 wrote:I seem to recall some quotes a while back that the derivatives market was over a quadrillion. If that were true, then QE1 and 2 would merely have bought a little time and then the total supply of money and credit would still be in for a huge contraction, suggesting serious deflation. Made sense to me at the time anyways...

BTW, thanks for the Michael Hudson, Vanlose. Used to look for his stuff religiously a couple years back.

Also, I tend to think of TBTB as not being in full control of such things as markets, rather using their understandings to manipulate and ride the wave. Disaster capitalism and so on, giving a nudge here and there as required. (Still kind of an Elliot Wave follower.)

Do you suppose those billionaire fuckers sucking the wealth of the planet have their own secret word for Kawabunga? (Mixed metaphor, I know. The poor man's way of cramming 2 ideas into one sentence.)

And as long as I'm throwing in 2 cents on a topic I'm vastly under-informed of, the housing market has to continue it's collapse, in some places more than others. Given all the factors how many can afford to buy one even now?


Link

Image




JackRiddler wrote:.

Love that chart! You know the $800 T in shadow derivatives at the top is 100 percent guess. These are the derivatives contracts between parties who haven't told anyone they've placed bets with each other. Could be higher or lower. Doesn't matter because it's all what some scumbags hope to get in case given contingencies happen. They're betting many times the values that could ever be covered if even a fraction of the contingencies were to be activated (which will happen as the housing market continues to contract). If enough of these contingencies are activated, those levels go poof. Almost none of that gets paid off. It's like if you and me made a billion dollar bet on the outcome of a football game, but we've got a thousand dollars collateral between the two of us. There will be an outcome to the game, but neither of us gets the prize. (Well, the NFL could always cancel the next season and delay armaggedon, ha ha.) We'll call on a government to print money to bail us out because we're TBTF, but that can't work very far. All the QEs together are a fart if the intent is to cover the derivatives. They'll try to seize the planet, but it's not enough. All the money and GDP output could be sucked upward (prompting upheavals and revolutions everywhere), the pyramid would still go poof. Real money and assets land in some bank's balance sheets, where they stay to ostensibly cover its bets. The result is to suck money out of the real economy in an effort to cover the bullshit bets and thus deflationary, then a devaluation of the derivative fantasy total, then an unpredictable collapse and eventually a revaluation of everything along more practical lines. (The bozo who presents the chart thinks it's an argument for buying gold before it hits one million dollars an ounce!) The higher up the inverse pyramid you go, the more you're in a sick realm of bankster fantasy.

.




anothershamus wrote:Okay, I have been a strong proponent for hyperinflation......until now! I just read this post:


From Rick Ackerman, (yes, via Zerohedge):

.......And yet, for the moment, it is understandable that the hyperinflation argument has been enjoying (if you’ll pardon that word) a bold resurgence – one that has caused even me, a hard-core deflationist who has been writing on the topic since the mid-1990s, to second-guess myself. After all, fuel and grocery prices are rising steeply, and Federal debt — $14.270 trillion and counting – has entered a vertical parabola. While this appears to buttress the hyperinflationists’ arguments, and although Peter Schiff’s scenario – hyperinflation triggered by all-out monetization of T-Bonds – remains plausible in theory, it became quite clear to me, lying awake Sunday morning before dawn, why deflation will prevail – will in all likelihood smother an incipient hyperinflation before it even gets off the launching pad.

Total Collapse in Mere Hours

Let me explain. To begin with, we cannot have a Weimar-style hyperinflation for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has read Adam Fergusson’s classic on the 1921-23 Weimar hyperinflation, When Money Dies. As Fergusson makes clear, this panic fed off a cash economy, not credit; and it required close collusion between the government and trade unions. In contrast, the U.S. economy is cashless and the unions are widely reviled. That said, let me cut to the chase: Hyperinflation occurs when people, fearing their money is about to become worthless, panic out of currency and into physical goods. This is highly unlikely to happen in the U.S. for several reasons, to wit: 1) Whereas Germany’s hyperinflation took several years to ramp up, today’s financial markets are primed for a catastrophic collapse that could conceivably run its course in a week, if not mere hours; 2) under the circumstances, there would be no shifting of financial assets into hard goods simply because any financial assets one holds at the time of the collapse would become worthless before one could sell them; and, 3) at that point, there would be insufficient currency available to drive a hyperinflation, since mattress money is likely to be scarce and because branch banks keep only about $25,000-$50,000 in cash on hand. All of which implies we will go straight to deflation without the emancipating, hyperinflationary interlude that some mortgage debtors might be hoping for.



Until now, I have been reluctant to air the simplistic argument, used by economists when they are at their most condescending, that inflation implies nothing more than an increase in the money supply. Although that’s a truism that we would not argue with, it holds little value for anyone attempting to predict how a drastic increase or decrease in the money supply might play out symptomatically. While the textbook theory of it could account for the gas-and-groceries inflation that QE1 and QE2 have produced so far, it fails to explain logically how we would go from grocery-store inflation to systemic and pervasive hyperinflation. To repeat: Hyperinflation would require the shifting of cash money into physical goods and assets. But other than mattress money and the relatively paltry sums of cash on hand at branch banks, there would be precious little cash to shift. And if the panicked money is assumed to come out of Treasurys and other paper assets, it begs the question of how much the paper assets will fetch on the day when there are no buyers other than the Federal Reserve?


Now after reading that, I see that the chance for hyperinflation is not at all sure. Because of the low percentage of real cash. I don't see deflation happening either. What will happen.......? I don't the hell know! And either does anyone else! We have never had this much electronic money, EVER!

This 'event' will be new and probably crazy, be ready for anything....It could come down by a really big solar flare that knocks out the banking electronics and renders all the electronic money void. If any of you have any ideas of what event will spur a crash or have a good hedge post away.


Phew.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby gnosticheresy_2 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:25 am

Portugal: 8.6% real interest rate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/pa ... _rate.html

Image
Paul Mason wrote:This graph shows what it costs the Portugese government to borrow money over 10 years: 8.6%.

I've just checked with my own bank and they're offering me 9.9% unsecured over 10 years so my "spread" over Portugal is 1.3 percentage points - much less than Portugal's spread over Germany.

I can't be bothered flagging it up on the actual graphic because I am glued to the BBC's Lambing Live, but the spike in May last year is the Greek bailout, the spike in December the Irish bailout and the current spike - it is a spike - means a bailout is as sure to follow as a little Swaledale lamb is sure to pop into Kate Humble's hands during live TX.

Right now it's nearly as risky to lend to a private individual as it is to the government of Portugal.

Meanwhile the IMF is said to be pushing for the d-word. Default. According to Der Speigel, it's privately advising Greece to restructure its debts, paying only a percentage of what its lenders owe. Greece's debts are now pushing 150% of GDP. Portugal's are projected to be 97% this year.

Will the moment of truth for EU strategy on sovereign debt happen before lambing season is over? Not sure.


that Der Speigal article he mentions

Time for a Haircut?
IMF Pressures Greece to Restructure Debt


http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 64,00.html

The International Monetary Fund has been pushing Athens behind the scenes to restructure its debt. The organization no longer believes that the current austerity measures and EU bailout will be enough to extract Greece from its fiscal mire.


The International Monetary Fund (IMF) doubts that current measures to rescue cash-strapped Greece will be successful and is now privately pushing the country to swiftly restructure its debts, SPIEGEL has learned. High-level representatives from the IMF pushed for a restructuring during recent discussions with delegates from European governments, according to information obtained by the magazine.

The demands represent a change of course for the IMF, which had previously opposed the idea of debt restructuring for Greece. The organization clearly no longer believes that the current measures will be enough to sort out the debt-stricken country's finances.
IMF representatives told the European delegates that it was necessary to reduce Athens' debt burden, which is currently equivalent to around 150 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Among the options that the IMF suggested are that holders of Greek debt could take a so-called haircut, maturities could be extended or interest rates on Greek sovereign debt could be reduced. All three alternatives would involve owners of Greek sovereign bonds giving up a portion of their returns.

Under the IMF plan, the Greek government is supposed to begin discussions with its creditors within the near future and inform them about the proposed debt restructuring. The IMF is currently reluctant to make its position public, however, out of fears that it could increase pressure on Portugal, which is already facing huge fiscal and political problems. Yields on Portuguese debt have soared in recent weeks as a result of concerns that Lisbon could be next in line for a European Union bailout after Greece and Ireland.

'No Chance'

On Saturday, the IMF denied the SPIEGEL report. "As we have said consistently, the IMF supports the Greek government's position of no debt restructuring and its determination to fully service its debt obligations," an IMF spokeswoman told the news agency Reuters. "Any reports claiming otherwise are wrong."
The Greek government and the European Commission also played down the news story. "There is absolutely no chance of a restructuring of the Greek debt," Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference in Italy on Saturday. European Commission spokesman Jens Mester also told the news agency that "all support measures are in place, and there is no reason now to start thinking of this possibility of restructuring Greece's debt."

Many market observers now feel that a Greek debt restructuring is just a matter of time, however. "As soon as the other countries are out of danger, the Greek government debt will have to be restructured," former European Central Bank chief economist Otmar Issing told SPIEGEL in a recent interview. "This can be done by cutting that debt or by extending the terms of the loans, but there is no getting around a debt restructuring, no matter how you calculate it."
User avatar
gnosticheresy_2
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:12 pm

"I want you to believe!" – Dick Fuld.

quote from the movie The Last Days of Lehman Brothers. watch/download at link.

http://www.zshare.net/video/653263971f8f6b0a/

also quoted in the movie:

"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

"For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.'" Rev. 18:2-3.


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:58 pm

.

The Goddamn Hyperinflation Thread, Continued
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 2&start=90

anothershamus wrote:I'm not thinking hyperinflation anymore specifically. It could happen, but I am showing how fast it happens. It's all good until it's not!

Image





JackRiddler wrote:.

global scale
permeation of borders
number of independent factors
interdependencies
number of autonomous actors
reflexivities
awareness of reflexivities
disinformation and misinformation
gas clouds of ideology
lack of functioning paradigms
speed - of everything
variety of forms
sizes and amounts
technologies
ecological crisis
energy crisis
disaster potentials
existence of single world discourse and news delivery
awareness of criminal behavior
revolutions and upheavals

- most have been before, but all are now unprecedented in quality and quantity. Most of the differences to prior cases can be measured in exponentials. Of course, humans are still pretty much the same, so there's a lot we can know if we're humble.

Let's get a leg up on the faking experts and start by admitting we usually can know what happened, and even why it happned, but are usually clueless about what's likely to come next. First step, we acknowledge our cluelessness daily, then go back to trying to figure it all out.

Frauds and delusions in a relatively limited sector were leveraged into total global risk. Finance crashed. Capitalism failed. Reactions followed. Crisis continues. Class war and desperate moves clash with hesitations and terrors, real and imagined. Everything's related. All is wrong. Simplistic analogies to half-digested historical cases do not apply. Ideological rules of thumb do not apply. Most of this universe is dark matter and energy, including to the powerful. Only morons and criminals know exactly what to do. New disasters assured, but which, and in what order? They may not follow any of the morphologies of crises familiar to us from history. We may have to invent new names for them, in the end.

Sermon over.

.




JackRiddler wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:
barracuda wrote:The Fed is pumping money into the economy by purchasing securities (debt). It can remove money by the opposite maneuver, selling back the debt and simply decommissioning the currency itself, through actual paper burning or account deletion.


Selling back trillions in debt to all those willing buyers?

.


Eventually, yes. At a loss.


I'm aware. It was a rhetorical question, more or less. One question is, how much of a loss? And what will that mean? One answer for paper that the banksters originated is that mark-to-market rules have been suspended, so don't worry your little heads and/or beautiful minds thinking about it. An answer for T-bills might be that, well, there will be some level of interest rates at which buyers magically appear. And that will be covered by taxpayers or outright creation. Long as everyone who has a say is happy, it works. Wile E. Coyote can remain suspended above the canyon, forever.

.

Can any of you photoshop whizzes whip up the X-Files poster with the "I Want to Believe" slogan, except it's not a photo of UFOs but a portrait of Bernanke?

.




Image
(Thanks to Nordic)



compared2what? wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:Question: So.. as has been established, what is needed in order for hyperinflation to occur is lots and lots of paper money floating around. And I think we also know that the Fed has run the printing press at warp speed for years now, buying back their debt themselves, etc. The theory goes that as long as other nations don't start cashing in and the US doesn't have to repatriate the money that is 'out there' that things will be fine. Am I right so far? (seriously, am I?)


Basically. But it kind of misplaces the emphasis to say that they've been running the printing press at warp speed buying back their own debt themselves, etc.

They've mostly been buying bad private debt and holding it in reserve precisely so that other nations (and/or domestic creditors) won't cash it in. For example: Mortgage-backed securities. They'll take a loss on those when they sell them, at some point down the road. But that's precisely because it's not a simple currency swap or currency injection. Somewhere at the end of that convoluted paper-trail, there are tangible assets (ie -- the mortgaged properties) which have a real market value that's a lot lower than what it was leveraged for on paper.

I don't have time to fact-check the figures right now, so please bear with me if they're wrong. But as I recall, they've also bought back about $600 billion in treasury bonds and other government (ie -- agency) debt. I might be wrong about this, but my understanding is that when the bonds mature, they'll lose the difference between the interest rate at time-of-issue and the interest rate at time-of-redemption.

The additional currency reserves were used to finance some (but not all) of that activity, the point of which was to inject some liquid capital into insolvent or close-to-insolvent financial institutions, in order to prevent them from collapsing and taking everybody's savings with them. Thus, it did not increase the amount of real currency in circulation in the part of the economy you and I occupy. Rather, it ensured that there would be some.

I'm not sure what impact it had on credit lines in the market for volume-trade-by-financial-institution purposes. But since that does not, in fact, trickle down, it almost doesn't matter [ON EDIT: except] for the purposes of this discussion.

It matters very much for the purposes of the discussion we're not having when we talk about inflation, though. Because that's the problem. The new normal is that the market economy goes off and does its thing, but our boats no longer really get lifted by its rising tides when they rise (to whatever extent they ever did, which is debatable). They just sit on cinder blocks in the yard outside our mobile homes, rotting. (I mean "our boats.")

Anyway. The added currency didn't enter general circulation. It wasn't really currency, if you get right down to it. It was credit. (Which fiat currency also is, but that doesn't mean that all credit issued by the Fed is currency.)

.. so .. the question is this: If the Fed can just print money out of nothing can't it also just burn money if floods of it come roaring back from other nations?


As above, they didn't really print money. They created credit. They'll take a loss on it eventually, at which point they can do all kinds of things to reduce inflationary impact, if any, although there's no guarantee that they will.

I guess my point is that there are more considerations than just the ones we're acknowledging. That's all.



Pazdispenser wrote:As usual, Im a week late and a dollar short (so to speak) coming to this thread.

c2w, I was quite taken aback (but, of course, that is probably because I have put you on such a high pedestal) that you would quote US govt statistics in making some points way back at the beginning of this thread. Long before I ever had cause to find Mr. Wells' musings to support an evolving worldview, I intuited that CPI was shite. Sure enough, the current formula (I like to call it "solve for 2.5%") doesnt include food or energy. In the mid naughts, real estate was removed. When home prices tanked, housing was reintroduced.

I was also taken aback that the discussion would veer so quickly into "Glenn Beck said it? It must be false". Do I really need to bring up the possibility that the likes of Mr Beck are so effective because they will wrap a nugget of truth (in this case, wrt the Fed) in huge gobs of dis/misinformation (or perhaps a sweet crunchy coating surrounding a turd; I digress)? Those that listen to him are utterly confused and ineffective; those that tune him out, lump the element of truth with all things crap. Mission Accomplished.

Then there was the "hell with the top 10%" eddy in the stream. People. There are less than one million people worldwide who are driving and benefiting from this ponzi scheme**. They are the "top .001%" (in the US alone [they are, of course, an even smaller % of the pop globally]) That .001% is more than happy to see the rest of us 99.999% bickering and blaming each other. How much energy must be wasted justifying a teacher's salary ffs?

More than anything though, I can tell you that I have been amazed by the certitude displayed by so many presenting their theories in this thread. As someone whose professional success depends on making heads or tails of this subject (with a gold coin c2w), the more I read (and it has been total immersion lately), the less grounded I feel in making an assessment. Like shamus, I had been leaning toward HI. My current perspective is that the global economic system is much like a rotary mechanism (think washing machine). When tightly bound, and operating within spec, everything spins in an efficient structured fashion. But imagine a washing machine tank and motor without its casing. Now imagine that machine with a load of sheets going out of balance. It is eventually going to fly off in one direction or another. Can you predict which way it will spin out?

After nine pages, the thread weaved its way henceforth:
JackRiddler wrote:.

global scale... !!!!SNIP!!!!

We may have to invent new names for them, in the end.

Sermon over.

.


Amen.

_____
** There are many more than 1M people currently benefiting from the system. I am referencing those that drive and thus ultimately benefit.




compared2what? wrote:
Pazdispenser wrote:As usual, Im a week late and a dollar short (so to speak) coming to this thread.

c2w, I was quite taken aback (but, of course, that is probably because I have put you on such a high pedestal) that you would quote US govt statistics in making some points way back at the beginning of this thread. Long before I ever had cause to find Mr. Wells' musings to support an evolving worldview, I intuited that CPI was shite. Sure enough, the current formula (I like to call it "solve for 2.5%") doesnt include food or energy. In the mid naughts, real estate was removed. When home prices tanked, housing was reintroduced.


I know that it's a limited and blunt instrument. But please, by all means, if there's some reason to think that the CPI and all the other indices that the Bureau of Labor and Statistics are entirely pure fabrications that don't represent anything real at all, please tell me what it is.

Because until somebody does that, I'm just going to have to continue to assume that:

(1) the CPI is a time series table of numbers put together by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics that more or less reflects the prices consumers pay for goods and services including food and energy, and that the government uses the all-items rate on that table (which includes food and energy) to calculate stuff like cost-of-living increases in SS benefits, civil-service wages, food stamp issues, and so forth.

(2) until 2000, the Fed used the all-items-less-food-and-energy rate to represent the "core inflation" rate (which excludes food and energy) from that table as the measure of inflation by which they set interest rates, on the apparently generally statistically sound grounds that food and energy prices are subject to volatile changes that have no predictive applicability or correlation to the prices of other goods and services -- as well as on the grounds that citizens, investors, cats, dogs, journalists and (in short) anyone who either needs or wants to know the month-to-month rates at which prices for food and energy are changing can easily discover it by going to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website, presumably. I mean, it's not like it's occult information.

(3) since 2000, the Fed has instead used the "core inflation" rate ( which still excludes food and energy) from the Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index to calculate the inflation rate to which interest rates are pegged. The PCEPI is a hybrid of the CPI and the Producer Price Index put together by the Bureau of Economic Analysis using some different type of statistical approach about which I can't tell you anything, that stuff is only comprehensible to me when I'm looking directly at a very simple explanation of it, immediately after which I forget it all.

(4) I don't know what you're talking about wrt to housing. Back in the '80s, they changed....You know what? I have no clue what you're referring to. Help! Help me! The CPI does include the cost of shelter. They calculate it in a way that assumes stability, since historically, it's been a stable household expenditure by and large. So the CPI right now doesn't reflect the collapse of the real estate market accurately. However, since real estate prices have gone down not up, I don't see how drawing attention to that particular problem would help anybody who was arguing that the CPI was shite because it underestimated inflation. So I didn't bring it up.

I was also taken aback that the discussion would veer so quickly into "Glenn Beck said it? It must be false". Do I really need to bring up the possibility that the likes of Mr Beck are so effective because they will wrap a nugget of truth (in this case, wrt the Fed) in huge gobs of dis/misinformation (or perhaps a sweet crunchy coating surrounding a turd; I digress)? Those that listen to him are utterly confused and ineffective; those that tune him out, lump the element of truth with all things crap. Mission Accomplished.


I was joking the one time I said that. My point was that the source of the information in the OP -- ie, the National Inflation Association -- was demonstrably engaged in making dishonest, deceptive and alarmist claims about the economy for the purpose of suckering investors.

For some reason, I thought people would want to know that. Silly me.

Then there was the "hell with the top 10%" eddy in the stream. People. There are less than one million people worldwide who are driving and benefiting from this ponzi scheme**. They are the "top .001%" (in the US alone [they are, of course, an even smaller % of the pop globally]) That .001% is more than happy to see the rest of us 99.999% bickering and blaming each other. How much energy must be wasted justifying a teacher's salary ffs?

More than anything though, I can tell you that I have been amazed by the certitude displayed by so many presenting their theories in this thread. As someone whose professional success depends on making heads or tails of this subject (with a gold coin c2w), the more I read (and it has been total immersion lately), the less grounded I feel in making an assessment. Like shamus, I had been leaning toward HI. My current perspective is that the global economic system is much like a rotary mechanism (think washing machine). When tightly bound, and operating within spec, everything spins in an efficient structured fashion. But imagine a washing machine tank and motor without its casing. Now imagine that machine with a load of sheets going out of balance. It is eventually going to fly off in one direction or another. Can you predict which way it will spin out?


No, I absolutely can't. If you're asking me. I mean, like I said, since the past is the only predictive model that there is and the only thing that's ever worked during analogous periods of the past has been massive government-financed jobs programs and assorted other investments in the future prosperity of the nation as a whole, I personally would like to see them financing some. As I understand it, that's the lowest-risk/highest-return move available.

But like I also said, things are horrendous and are going to be getting much, much worse, imo. Just not in any way that I can see that implicates inflation and/or hyperinflation right now. What specifically inclines you toward HI? I'd love to hear your case for it.




JackRiddler wrote:.

Given
- volatility in commodities and basic services (electricity and telephones be among those in modern life),
- extreme differences in how different people are forced to define "necessity" (health care costs being the obvious big ticket there, because they can differ so enormously among people and change so suddenly),
- extreme inequality in wealth and incomes,
- extreme differences in cost of living (from block to block in some places, thanks to rent/property values)
- and hidden income privileges of belonging or not to a set of overlapping groups (for example, the groups of those with expense accounts or company cars, or of those able or not to get a lower-interest loan for looking just right to the local banker),

CPI may be a weak and deceptive measure for understanding the thing we call "inflation" in the world. Did I say "may be"?

(As you consider the following, leave aside the present debate about HI vs. Def, okay? Because to show the inadequacy of CPI and also the political manipulation thereof, generally to lower it, does not mean automatically that one supports an HI thesis or the extremely bad politics usually associated with those who do.)

Personally, I see both a rationale and a problem in extracting the food and fuel measures as separate. There would also be a rationale to try to account for income by class, to devise different baskets of goods for measuring prices (poor folk inflation vs. rich folk inflation). A goods-basket is the basis for CPI and there's just no one goods-basket that you can say should be the sole basis, that makes sense for all the different income levels and classes in society.

The simple first conclusion we must draw is that one number just isn't going to tell you what you need to know, and yet one number is what everyone wants for convenience and what "the economy" needs to function. One number is what the politicians debate. One number seems to scientifically confirm or invalidate the strong feeling that people usually have about prices (usually, they feel that prices are going up, up, up no matter what the stickers say). There's actually no number more important than CPI because it is so closely causally related to the acknowledged king of all numbers ruling our world: GDP, with its massive impact on markets, investment flows and debates over policies and systems. Which is to say, raise the CPI and you lower the all-holy GDP growth. In fact, CPI (or equivalent in each nation) is the king of numbers for the IMF in its dealings with the countries in its clutches.

c2w? your discussion of CPI is not wrong but lacking. Start with the hedonic deflator -- a big issue in the 1990s that led at one point to the Bundesbank complaining about US growth stats and saying it was a nonsense technique for raising GDP. What's the hedonic deflator? I call it the Megabyte Bonus: It reduces inflation in certain sectors like economics [EDIT: gah, electronics] based on the supposed quality advance and thus value to the consumer. As though you were purchasing and consuming megabytes individually, instead of buying a computer. As much as one percent of GDP growth in 1990s was thanks to the hedonic deflator, which the Europeans didn't use, which means at times it accounted for most of the supposed difference between the "dynamic, high-growth" US economy and the "stagnant, socialist" economies of Europe.

That's just a start. The long and short is, no single-number measure of "inflation" can stand alone as an indicator in the same way as, say, straight-up income, which can be given in a fully fungible quantity and specified to-the-dollar on your tax return (assuming an honest filing and given that this is untrue once you get into the top 10% ranges). How many dollars a job pays can be compared directly to the job next door, whereas what goods one spends on and needs to spend on (i.e., the goods basket) cannot.

But John Williams is a lot better at this than I am.



http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023

Numbers racket
Why the economy is worse than we know


By Kevin P. Phillips

Kevin Phillips’s new book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, is published by Viking.


Almost four decades have passed since the United States scrapped its last currency ties to precious metals. Our copper and nickel coinage still retains some metallic value, but not nearly enough for the purpose of currency tampering—the historic temptation of inflation-plagued or otherwise wayward governments, including, at times, our own. Instead, since the 1960s, Washington has been forced to gull its citizens and creditors by debasing official statistics: the vital instruments with which the vigor and muscle of the American economy are measured. The effect, over the past twenty-five years, has been to create a false sense of economic achievement and rectitude, allowing us to maintain artificially low interest rates, massive government borrowing, and a dangerous reliance on mortgage and financial debt even as real economic growth has been slower than claimed. If Washington’s harping on weapons of mass destruction was essential to buoy public support for the invasion of Iraq, the use of deceptive statistics has played its own vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it actually is.

The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy—the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation; the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy’s overall growth; and the monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity. Not only do governments, businesses, and individuals use these yardsticks in their decision-making but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances—inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits. And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being “anchored” as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3–4 percent range). We might ponder as well who profits from a low-growth U.S. economy hidden under statistical camouflage. Might it be Washington politicos and affluent elites, anxious to mislead voters, coddle the financial markets, and tamp down expensive cost-of-living increases for wages and pensions?

Let me stipulate: the deception arose gradually, at no stage stemming from any concerted or cynical scheme. There was no grand conspiracy, just accumulating opportunisms. As we will see, the political blame for the slow, piecemeal distortion is bipartisan—both Democratic and Republican administrations had a hand in the abetting of political dishonesty, reckless debt, and a casino-like financial sector. To see how, we must revisit forty years of economic and statistical dissembling.

A short history of “pollyanna creep”

This apt phrase originated with John Williams, a California-based economic analyst and statistician who “shadows,” as he puts it, the official Washington numbers. In a 2006 interview, Williams noted that although few Americans ever see the fine print, the government “always footnotes the changes and provides all the fine detail. Nonetheless, some of the changes are nothing short of remarkable, and the pattern over time is what I call Pollyanna Creep.” Williams is one of the small group of economists and analysts who have paid any attention to the phenomenon. A few have pointed out the understatement of the Consumer Price Index—the billionaire bond manager Bill Gross has described it as an “haute con job,” and Bloomberg columnist John Wasik has dismissed it as “a testament to the art of spin.” In 2003, a University of Chicago economist named Austan Goolsbee (now a senior economic adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign) published an op-ed in the New York Times pointing out how the government had minimized the depth of the 2001–2002 U.S. recession, having “cooked the books” to misstate and minimize the unemployment numbers. Unfortunately, the critics have tended to train their axes on a single abuse, missing the broad forest of statistical misinformation that has grown up over the past four decades.

The story starts after the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, when high jobless numbers marred the image of Camelot-on-the-Potomac and the new administration appointed a committee to weigh changes. The result, implemented a few years later, was that out-of-work Americans who had stopped looking for jobs—even if this was because none could be found—were labeled “discouraged workers” and excluded from the ranks of the unemployed, where many, if not most, of them had been previously classified. Lyndon Johnson, for his part, was widely rumored to have personally scrutinized and sometimes tweaked Gross National Product numbers before their release; and by the 1969 fiscal year, Johnson had orchestrated a “unified budget” that combined Social Security with the rest of the federal outlays. This innovation allowed the surplus receipts in the former to mask the emerging deficit in the latter.

Richard Nixon, besides continuing the unified budget, developed his own taste for statistical improvement. He proposed—albeit unsuccessfully—that the Labor Department, which prepared both seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted unemployment numbers, should just publish whichever number was lower. In a more consequential move, he asked his second Federal Reserve chairman, Arthur Burns, to develop what became an ultimately famous division between “core” inflation and headline inflation. If the Consumer Price Index was calculated by tracking a bundle of prices, so-called core inflation would simply exclude, because of “volatility,” categories that happened to be troublesome: at that time, food and energy. Core inflation could be spotlighted when the headline number was embarrassing, as it was in 1973 and 1974. (The economic commentator Barry Ritholtz has joked that core inflation is better called “inflation ex-inflation”—i.e., inflation after the inflation has been excluded.)

In 1983, under the Reagan Administration, inflation was further finagled when the Bureau of Labor Statistics decided that housing, too, was overstating the Consumer Price Index; the BLS substituted an entirely different “Owner Equivalent Rent” measurement, based on what a homeowner might get for renting his or her house. This methodology, controversial at the time but still in place today, simply sidestepped what was happening in the real world of homeowner costs. Because low inflation encourages low interest rates, which in turn make it much easier to borrow money, the BLS’s decision no doubt encouraged, during the late 1980s, the large and often speculative expansion in private debt—much of which involved real estate, and some of which went spectacularly bad between 1989 and 1992 in the savings-and-loan, real estate, and junk-bond scandals. Also, on the unemployment front, as Austan Goolsbee pointed out in his New York Times op-ed, the Reagan Administration further trimmed the number by reclassifying members of the military as “employed” instead of outside the labor force.

The distortional inclinations of the next president, George H.W. Bush, came into focus in 1990, when Michael Boskin, the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, proposed to reorient U.S. economic statistics principally to reduce the measured rate of inflation. His stated grand ambition was to move the calculus away from old industrial-era methodologies toward the emerging services economy and the expanding retail and financial sectors. Skeptics, however, countered that the underlying goal, driven by worry over federal budget deficits, was to reduce the inflation rate in order to reduce federal payments—from interest on the national debt to cost-of-living outlays for government employees, retirees, and Social Security recipients.

It was left to the Clinton Administration to implement these convoluted CPI measurements, which were reiterated in 1996 through a commission headed by Boskin and promoted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Clintonites also extended the Pollyanna Creep of the nation’s employment figures. Although expunged from the ranks of the unemployed, discouraged workers had nevertheless been counted in the larger workforce. But in 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics redefined the workforce to include only that small percentage of the discouraged who had been seeking work for less than a year. The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally. Some now call them the “hidden unemployed.” For its last four years, the Clinton Administration also thinned the monthly household economic sampling by one sixth, from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities; the reduced sample (and a new adjustment formula) is believed to have reduced black unemployment estimates and eased worsening poverty figures.

Despite the present Bush Administration’s overall penchant for manipulating data (e.g., Iraq, climate change), it has yet to match its predecessor in economic revisions. In 2002, the administration did, however, for two months fail to publish the Mass Layoff Statistics report, because of its embarrassing nature after the 2001 recession had supposedly ended; it introduced, that same year, an “experimental” new CPI calculation (the C-CPI-U), which shaved another 0.3 percent off the official CPI; and since 2006 it has stopped publishing the M-3 money supply numbers, which captured rising inflationary impetus from bank credit activity. In 2005, Bush proposed, but Congress shunned, a new, narrower historical wage basis for calculating future retiree Social Security benefits.

By late last year, the Gallup Poll reported that public faith in the federal government had sunk below even post-Watergate levels. Whether statistical deceit played any direct role is unclear, but it does seem that citizens have got the right general idea. After forty years of manipulation, more than a few measurements of the U.S. economy have been distorted beyond recognition.
America’s “opacity” crisis

Last year, the word “opacity,” hitherto reserved for Scrabble games, became a mainstay of the financial press. A credit market panic had been triggered by something called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which in some cases were too complicated to be fathomed even by experts. The packagers and marketers of CDOs were forced to acknowledge that their hypertechnical securities were fraught with “opacity”—a convenient, ethically and legally judgment-free word for lack of honest labeling. And far from being rare, opacity is commonplace in contemporary finance. Intricacy has become a conduit for deception.

Exotic derivative instruments with alphabet-soup initials command notional values in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, but nobody knows what they are really worth. Some days, half of the trades on major stock exchanges come from so-called black boxes programmed with everything from binomial trees to algorithms; most federal securities regulators couldn’t explain them, much less monitor them.

Transparency is the hallmark of democracy, but we now find ourselves with economic statistics every bit as opaque—and as vulnerable to double- dealing—as a subprime CDO. Of the “big three” statistics, let us start with unemployment. Most of the people tired of looking for work, as mentioned above, are no longer counted in the workforce, though they do still show up in one of the auxiliary unemployment numbers. The BLS has six different regular jobless measurements—U-1, U-2, U-3 (the one routinely cited), U-4, U-5, and U-6. In January 2008, the U-4 to U-6 series produced unemployment numbers ranging from 5.2 percent to 9.0 percent, all above the “official” number. The series nearest to real-world conditions is, not surprisingly, the highest: U-6, which includes part-timers looking for full-time employment as well as other members of the “marginally attached,” a new catchall meaning those not looking for a job but who say they want one. Yet this does not even include the Americans who (as Austan Goolsbee puts it) have been “bought off the unemployment rolls” by government programs such as Social Security disability, whose recipients are classified as outside the labor force.

Second is the Gross Domestic Product, which in itself represents something of a fudge: federal economists used the Gross National Product until 1991, when rising U.S. international debt costs made the narrower GDP assessment more palatable. The GDP has been subject to many further fiddles, the most manipulatable of which are the adjustments made for the presumed starting up and ending of businesses (the “birth/death of businesses” equation) and the amounts that the Bureau of Economic Analysis “imputes” to nationwide personal income data (known as phantom income boosters, or imputations; for example, the imputed income from living in one’s own home, or the benefit one receives from a free checking account, or the value of employer-paid health- and life-insurance premiums). During 2007, believe it or not, imputed income accounted for some 15 percent of GDP. John Williams, the economic statistician, is briskly contemptuous of GDP numbers over the past quarter century. “Upward growth biases built into GDP modeling since the early 1980s have rendered this important series nearly worthless,” he wrote in 2004. “[T]he recessions of 1990/1991 and 2001 were much longer and deeper than currently reported [and] lesser downturns in 1986 and 1995 were missed completely.”

Nothing, however, can match the tortured evolution of the third key number, the somewhat misnamed Consumer Price Index. Government economists themselves admit that the revisions during the Clinton years worked to reduce the current inflation figures by more than a percentage point, but the overall distortion has been considerably more severe. Just the 1983 manipulation, which substituted “owner equivalent rent” for home-ownership costs, served to understate or reduce inflation during the recent housing boom by 3 to 4 percentage points. Moreover, since the 1990s, the CPI has been subjected to three other adjustments, all downward and all dubious: product substitution (if flank steak gets too expensive, people are assumed to shift to hamburger, but nobody is assumed to move up to filet mignon), geometric weighting (goods and services in which costs are rising most rapidly get a lower weighting for a presumed reduction in consumption), and, most bizarrely, hedonic adjustment, an unusual computation by which additional quality is attributed to a product or service.

The hedonic adjustment, in particular, is as hard to estimate as it is to take seriously. (That it was launched during the tenure of the Oval Office’s preeminent hedonist, William Jefferson Clinton, only adds to the absurdity.) No small part of the condemnation must lie in the timing. If quality improvements are to be counted, that count should have begun in the 1950s and 1960s, when such products and services as air-conditioning, air travel, and automatic transmissions—and these are just the A’s!—improved consumer satisfaction to a comparable or greater degree than have more recent innovations. That the change was made only in the late Nineties shrieks of politics and opportunism, not integrity of measurement. Most of the time, hedonic adjustment is used to reduce the effective cost of goods, which in turn reduces the stated rate of inflation. Reversing the theory, however, the declining quality of goods or services should adjust effective prices and thereby add to inflation, but that side of the equation generally goes missing. “All in all,” Williams points out, “if you were to peel back changes that were made in the CPI going back to the Carter years, you’d see that the CPI would now be 3.5 percent to 4 percent higher”—meaning that, because of lost CPI increases, Social Security checks would be 70 percent greater than they currently are.

Furthermore, when discussing price pressure, government officials invariably bring up “core” inflation, which excludes precisely the two categories—food and energy—now verging on another 1970s-style price surge. This year we have already seen major U.S. food and grocery companies, among them Kellogg and Kraft, report sharp declines in earnings caused by rising grain and dairy prices. Central banks from Europe to Japan worry that the biggest inflation jumps in ten to fifteen years could get in the way of reducing interest rates to cope with weakening economies. Even the U.S. Labor Department acknowledged that in January, the price of imported goods had increased 13.7 percent compared with a year earlier, the biggest surge since record-keeping began in 1982. From Maine to Australia, from Alaska to the Middle East, a hydra-headed inflation is on the loose, unleashed by the many years of rapid growth in the supply of money from the world’s central banks (not least the U.S. Federal Reserve), as well as by massive public and private debt creation.
The U.S. economy ex-distortion

The real numbers, to most economically minded Americans, would be a face full of cold water. Based on the criteria in place a quarter century ago, today’s U.S. unemployment rate is somewhere between 9 percent and 12 percent; the inflation rate is as high as 7 or even 10 percent; economic growth since the recession of 2001 has been mediocre, despite a huge surge in the wealth and incomes of the superrich, and we are falling back into recession. If what we have been sold in recent years has been delusional “Pollyanna Creep,” what we really need today is a picture of our economy ex-distortion. For what it would reveal is a nation in deep difficulty not just domestically but globally.

Undermeasurement of inflation, in particular, hangs over our heads like a guillotine. To acknowledge it would send interest rates climbing, and thereby would endanger the viability of the massive buildup of public and private debt (from less than $11 trillion in 1987 to $49 trillion last year) that props up the American economy. Moreover, the rising cost of pensions, benefits, borrowing, and interest payments—all indexed or related to inflation—could join with the cost of financial bailouts to overwhelm the federal budget. As inflation and interest rates have been kept artificially suppressed, the United States has been indentured to its volatile financial sector, with its predilection for leverage and risky buccaneering.

Arguably, the unraveling has already begun. As Robert Hardaway, a professor at the University of Denver, pointed out last September, the subprime lending crisis “can be directly traced back to the [1983] BLS decision to exclude the price of housing from the CPI. . . . With the illusion of low inflation inducing lenders to offer 6 percent loans, not only has speculation run rampant on the expectations of ever-rising home prices, but home buyers by the millions have been tricked into buying homes even though they only qualified for the teaser rates.” Were mainstream interest rates to jump into the 7 to 9 percent range—which could happen if inflation were to spur new concern—both Washington and Wall Street would be walking in quicksand. The make-believe economy of the past two decades, with its asset bubbles, massive borrowing, and rampant data distortion, would be in serious jeopardy. The U.S. dollar, off more than 40 percent against the euro since 2002, could slip down an even rockier slope.

The credit markets are fearful, and the financial markets are nervous. If gloom continues, our humbugged nation may truly regret losing sight of history, risk, and common sense.


SEE ALSO: Gross domestic product; Inflation (Finance); Political ethics; Prices; Standards; Statistical methods; -Statistics; Unemployment

© The Harper's Magazine Foundation. All rights reserved. · About Harper's · Contact Harper's · Advertising information
View our Classified Ads!


.




JackRiddler wrote:.

I'm coming to the conclusion that our terms are just fucked.

It's turning into two extremely different worlds out there, one for rich and one for everyone else. The money is in fewer and fewer hands (and not being invested so much as used to conjure notional quadrillions). That means the prices paid for the sum total of all things bought can keep falling. Meanwhile, everyone else lack the cash to purchase the increasingly expensive necessities in their lives. It doesn't make any sense to talk of inflation as a single measure (sorry c2w?, I don't feel your last post really addresses that problem) when the inequality creates separate worlds. Obviously food and fuel inflation is a lot more "core" to us than to Dick Fuld or Angelo Mozillo.

In short, we have inflation of various necessities for YOU in a deflationary economy. Sometimes some of these prices also go down; the situation is volatile. The key is that you don't have enough money and the prices for crap you need keep surprising you. Gas goes up two dollars, drops again by one. Insurance companies jack up the premiums, phone companies charge you one rate today and another tomorrow, etc. etc. And the prices on fruits? Forget about it.

In the past, the situation of inflation for YOU in the middle of an economic depression has been given terms like "stagflation," but that's kind of a vague compromise too.

If we need a simple term, I like class war because it tells you the WHY this flexible set of troubles is happening, and also the WHAT to do about it, which is to assemble in large crowds of all ages, sing and share food, march, take over spaces, don't move, camp out, withstand the cop assaults if any, and say very nice things to the army when it arrives. Among other measures.

At any rate, hyperinflation is still a clear enough concept, although the term is problematic because it sounds like "inflation." It's something else -- a total loss in confidence in currency (and by extension: the state, the system, everything) leading not to "rising prices" but a complete suspension of money-value and barter. And no one's shown empirically

a) that it must come as a result of the various QEs or bailouts (increased money supply, but where is that money?), independently of demand or supply in the real economy, or

b) that it's the master plan, unless the master plan of "The State" is to render itself irrelevant.

Or wait. Scratch all that. I'm selling gold. Delivery will come at peak price, so it's a great investment. Send me money.

.




Canadian_watcher wrote:I like that post Jack - I think it gets essentially to the heart of it. The news talks the talk of wealthy investors but the man on the street is increasingly completely separate from those rules.

If aliens are observing Earth, I think they must be laughing. Us trying to figure out a way to help ourselves out financially by trying to examine currencies would look kinda like the farmyard animals meeting to try and figure out how a mortgage lender might impact the quality of their slops.

"They" (big banksters, international crime families) just want complete power. The US is obviously problematic for them, beyond being their bully. Having the currency crisis looming out there (and seriously, we have to be able to admit that it is looming out there - at any time they could manufacture a reason to de-peg the dollar as the world reserve currency and poof, it's over) is a handy leveraging tool for keeping the mid level puppets in line - keep them sending out the troops, keep them buying and using new weaponry - keep them handing over what they've agreed to hand over.

We keep making the mistake of thinking that this somehow has something to do with what "they" want to see happen to John Q. Public. It doesn't - it absolutely doesn't. The mortgage lender doesn't care about the animals on the farm, much less what or how much they eat. The mortgage lender doesn't even care about the farmer. He cares about his investment and how he can get more investments. Sure, if he can use the animals or the farmer he will, but do his grand plans somehow include putting the screws to either of them? probably not, because that is so far from the point that it is laughable, really..

/pessimistic abstract metaphor




JackRiddler wrote:.

C_w, thank you, but:

Canadian_watcher wrote:at any time they could manufacture a reason to de-peg the dollar as the world reserve currency and poof, it's over)


I see no reason to believe this, or to believe that this would work to their advantage. I see no mechanism by which the dollar can be easily dethroned (my own proposal above would involve a major BRIC-EU alliance), because too many big players are dependent on their dollar holdings, still. A sell-off would kill the sellers, so they don't want to do it, even if they wish they could. What you are describing, i.e., that part of the power elite could create a fear of hyperinflation as a means to keep everyone accepting austerity, works only as a threat. Once things go nuclear -- and hyperinflation is nuclear! -- they may be the ones who go poof.

Simply because there are "PTB" who manufacture or exploit crises as a means for implementing their own agendas, doesn't mean that every crisis is desirable to them, or controllable. It certainly doesn't mean that every crisis that appears was planned by them.

I don't know how many ways to say that hyperinflation is not what "they" want. It's possible, it may happen due to things "they" do, but it cannot be what most of "them" could ever desire, because it's the kind of chaos that could get them killed.

(Whereas HI is a favorite bogeyman for right-wingers who imagine they're radicals, like 23 and the goldbugs. Consider that PTB are not the only ones who can find a way to make hay out of fears of worst-case scenarios.)

.




JackRiddler wrote:
Forgetting2 wrote:I think there's a lot of people who see the US situation differentiated from the rest of the globe. What if a number of Euro countries go down the tubes first and the Euro collapses? Where then the US dolor?


The IMF is supposedly quietly recommending about a Greek default.

This is hardly going to sink Europe. As for the euro, it will get stronger if Greece, Portugal et al. drop out to save themselves.

This is hardly going to save Europe, or anywhere else. The depression has deeper causes, and the world has even bigger problems than the depression, like capitalism itself, imperialism and war, and the only true meltdown, which is ecological and irreversible.

But you must know exactly how this will, at first, play in the USA. Something like this:

USA! USA! USA!

We're back, bitches!!! The sun always shines on us!!! Fuck the Eurosocialist Fags!!!

Everyone else sucks worse than us! DOW at 36,000!!! You're an idiot if you're not BUYING!!!

Which should last all the way until the fall, or a sudden bank meltdown. (Hey, Julian, about that BoA hard drive...)

Of course, Greece could always set off that chain reaction, leading to the same result.

:evilgrin001:




JackRiddler wrote:
gnosticheresy_2 wrote:When the BRIC countries "dump" the dollar, who are they going to "dump" it to?


You know, they've thought of that. Otherwise the years since, say, the Iraq invasion might have looked very, very different.

I've also thought of it, but strangely BRIC and EU have yet to call me about the proposal I made in a post as an anonymous user name on some obscure message board, here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21495&p=367505#p367537

It was prompted by this:


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010 ... 599087.htm

Foreign and Military Affairs

China, Russia quit dollar
By Su Qiang and Li Xiaokun (China Daily)

Updated: 2010-11-24 08:02


Image
Premier Wen Jiabao shakes hands with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on a visit to St. Petersburg on Tuesday.ALEXEY DRUZHININ / AFP

St. Petersburg, Russia - China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday. Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.

"About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies," Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg. The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.

The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said. "That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries," he said.

Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation. The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.

SNIP




And this:


Much Ado About Nothing: China, Russia Drop Dollar In Bilateral Trade
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/much-a ... eral-trade

Somehow the China Daily story we pointed out yesterday morning that China and Russia are expanding their trading terms and will conduct all bilateral trade exclusively in local currencies, thus dropping the dollar as an intermediary, is only today starting to make the rounds. Alas, this story is nothing but more posturing for several reasons: Bloomberg notes: "China and Russia will drop the U.S. dollar for bilateral trade and use their own currencies for settlement, China Daily reported, citing Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin." Oddly enough this is an identical overture from June 2009: yet very little has happened in terms of actual dollar lock out since then. Note the following story from June 17, 2009: "The leaders of Russia and China agreed to expand use of the ruble and yuan in bilateral trade to lessen dependence on the U.S. dollar a day after they took part in the first summit of the so-called BRIC countries." And judging by the market's reaction, and the dollar resurgence overnight it appears that everyone has read through this as just posturing. Furthermore, keep in mind that Russia was not even a top 10 trading counterparty of China in 2010. If China does the same with any of its top 10 partners then there may be a reason to worry. For now, China is merely testing the waters, and has absolutely no intent on isolating the US, nor making its nearly $3 trillion US FX reserves lose a double digit percentage of their value overnight.




At which point I produced my non-historic, not quite earth-shaking proposal addressed to no one in particular:

JackRiddler wrote:No one wants to do this overnight if they can avoid it. Most "events" are markers or culminations of ongoing developments. I think this is a big signal. It goes beyond what they announced last year. The timing comes as the US crisis looks to intensify, after the G20 slap-down for US dollar policy, and with a round of economy-crushing austerity imminent in the new Congress. As to the volume of trade involved, may I remind that Russia is the number one oil producer, and China the future number one oil consumer? And oh look, they share the world's second-longest border. Obviously there is much room for growth between them. The news splash of two giants coming to a small agreement is significant in a context where more and more of these bilateral currency arrangements are announced.

As the US crisis manifests again, there is incentive to set up an anti-dollar, and it will be if the powers involved can understand their mutual interest and work it out politically. Here's a scenario: BRIC and EU can establish a weighted basket of their own currencies fixed relative to each other (or floating within ranges a la Bretton Woods) while floating freely against the US dollar and commodities. A transaction system would allow for trade accounts among participating nations to be settled via this "Dollar for International Trade." Those accumulating DITs could redeem them in any of the participating currencies. Once the oil producers agreed to also price in DITs (as they already do in euros or other currencies under bilateral agreements), it would be more solid than the dollar. To start it off, participants could convert half of their central bank and sovereign fund holdings of dollars into DITs and use these for trade amongst them. To do that, understand, they do not sell their dollar reserves, which would be like a war. Rather, it's a bookkeeping conversion: One-half of dollar holdings are redenominated as DITs and allowed to float against the US dollar. If the Chinese holdings of 3 trillion US dollars are converted to half dollars and half DITs, they are no longer endangered, because a fall in DIT is a rise in the dollar, and vice-versa. Rather, they have 1.5 trillion DITs to go invest and spend in BRIC and EU, which is already the majority of the world's economy.

That was a scenario, true, and a presidents' meeting of Russia and China is a ways away from an agreement between EU and all of BRIC. But crisis accelerates moves that otherwise take decades of planning. The elements for the above are actually all in place. What you're going to see regardless is more and more of these bilateral and regional agreements doing away with the middleman, or in this case, the middle currency.

As for this being bad, presumably meaning for the US: Whether "we" are headed in a downward spiral is up to us. It's up to us to reject the politics of fear, permanent war, austerity and concentration of all wealth in the fewest and most corrupt hands. A better future is among our choices - and among other things the end of the US dollar as world currency and, related to that, the end of US empire are vital elements of a better future for the American people, assuming that also involves a much larger transformation.

.





JackRiddler wrote:.

So there are a lot of people who think the dollar will melt down, or even that all currencies will melt down, and who are therefore buying PMs. And since there really is instability, big investors keep parts of their portfolios in PMs, the traditional hedge against apocalypse, whether or not that's rational. And where there's a pumpable market, speculators also jump in. So PM prices go through the roof. And then, as evidence of this imminent universal currency meltdown, some of the very same PM-buyers will point to... rising PM prices. And if you're not buying PMs, you're an idiot. Anything wrong with that? It's like the Nineties IT bubble, but without the burden of believing in the future.

.





Nordic wrote:jack, you're smarter than that, not sure why you're trying to pretend you aren't, to bullshit us? pm's aren't just another commodity, theyre considered money. real money. people aren't "buying" pm's, theyre converting funny money into real money. because they don't have faith in the fiat stuff.

and its not just speculators, investors, and the usual suspects, it's entire countries and governments doing this. nobody wants the funny money now. they want the real thing.

why is that? and is anyone addressing this? no. that's why it continues.

seriously, does anyone see any trend, anywhere, where anybody is taking charge and restoring any faith to the system? all i see are bandaids on a violently hemmoraging patient. not unlike the disaster in japan.




JackRiddler wrote:
I guess I'm not smarter than that then!

If central bank notes are "fiat," then gold is "fetish." Half of one, six dozen of the other. It's all about faith. Neither is exactly "real" and both can be "funny." Physical metal can and has been diluted or otherwise turned nominal by changes in the accepted weight unit. You can stamp a different denomination on the coin, and if people accept it, it's "real."

Nothing in natural law makes any money "real." All money is social contract. It's money because of a consensus to accept it as such. After their apocalypse happens, the PM-bugs may be surprised to find that there won't necessarily be a universal consensus to view their heavy coins as a medium of exchange. People may be more interested in bartering food, cigarettes, skilled labor, fuel, tools, water and other things they actually need. If you foresee a collapse to the point where the dollar-money is meaningless, by what magic do you imagine that silver becomes meaningful, or edible? And why do you think everyone else who didn't accumulate the shiny stuff in physical form is going to accept that the new ownership class happens to consist of whatever smart bozos did? Seriously. It's been a long time since the vast majority were under the spell of believing that PMs have a magic-money quality to them that nothing else can match. Furthermore, there's a reason why Uncle Karl called it the "money commodity" (MC). There were a lot of insights into money he didn't quite make, but that money itself is a commodity as well as a medium of exchange was obvious enough to him, and this was at a time when PMs were money. PMs are a commodity and they're rising in price because of demand.

The latter 19th century saw whole classes of people impoverished by the deflationary nature of PM money. The first modern populists in this country were calling for greenbacks! They understood that a gold mine shouldn't be the source of wealth and power in the world -- any more than a banking cartel should be today.

My stupidity perhaps is to keep thinking in the limited realm of the rational. Why the hell should possession of a metal make you rich, or allow you to call the shots? Why shouldn't we as a society be able to plan how money is distributed for the purpose of running the economy we need and want? For example, why shouldn't we be able to look at a sector that should grow, and stick money into that by fiat? It's all a game, and the sooner we can all learn a set of common civilized rules that empower us, the better. It won't be, "he who has the gold, wins."

Anyway, this thread's run its course for me, we've pretty much covered the angles and each of us has come out of it probably thinking exactly what we did when we came in, except (if it was worth it) slightly more confused. I'm going to be assimilating some more of it into the Wall Street thread (my "daily diary of the American dream," as the old Wall Street Journal slogan went) and hanging out there, and the gold swap can continue over here without me.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:43 pm

.

My farewell note to goldbug discussions for now.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31642&start=180

JackRiddler wrote:.

This is my last post on this thread for the next 11 days.

Nordic wrote:so, jack, why do you think gold and silver has been used as money for thousands of years and by various cultures of the world? was it just coincidence? accident?


Because of shared belief that it was money. Obviously. Especially strong among the ones who were in possession of the metal. Obviously. Not universal to all times, cultures, or situations. Because of social consensus often enforced by sword. As one of many other forms of exchange employed. All obviously.

Mostly in agrarian slave civilizations. Sorry. 90 percent of everyone worked a plot of land, traveled no further than a few miles in their lives, and consumed mainly stuff produced on the same plot of land. For those unlucky enough to be within the reach of an empire, tributes in wheat bundles kept the organized bandits of the nobility at bay, most years. Not all of them ever got to see one of the coins used as specie for transactions in the towns and castles.

Spartans sneered at gold because they were the first ones in their neighborhood to really get the hang of iron, which made them powerful. Worked for hundreds of years. Later they got overwhelmed by richer places that could buy power with gold. Those civilizations are now nice ruins to visit. Which was more real, gold or iron? Neither. Both. Depends.

I've added some color-coded commentary to your next passage:

the way you think the world should be is irrelavent to how it actually is. and for thousands of years gold and silver have been "real" money. money that can cross borders, won't rot in storage[also true of US dollars], is impossible to counterfeit[wrong] or simply manufacture,[why is this good? because you prefer mine-owners to bankers?] and can be readily melted down and cast into new shapes and sizes.[modern number-currencies are also very flexible] its certainly not just another commodity.


All of these reasons boil down to one: faith. Fiat or fetish? All money is money because you think it is (because these magic shiny qualities seem to make it so for you) and, more importantly, others are willing to accept it as exchange.

What's really fascinating here is that your "thousands of years" do not currently apply. Right this moment, gold is not money in almost any actual case. Gold trades are done by bookkeeping exchanges denominated in fiat currency. The gold stays in the same place after a trade, and may not be available to its current owner after the hyperinflation arrives (which will make you so very very right at last!).

So the PM-bugs go for the physical stuff. But physical PMs are not used as specie. Right now, they are not real money. Right now, real money are the fiat currencies. Right now, fiat is real and fetish is thousands of years of dead history.

In other words, you're storing something that isn't money today in the assumption that some set of unknowable contingencies will activate the conditions under which it turns into money tomorrow. As a medium of exchange, it's more real than the paper stuff only in your assumed future, not now.

It makes more sense if you're planning on selling the PM commodity once it reaches what you believe is its peak price in real money. Which is what a lot of people who have gone into the PMs hope to do, creating much of the demand that has raised prices.

An interesting feature of modernity is that its advent was still denied after several centuries in which no one lived as they had before and evidence of it was in everything from the dna to the shape of the earth. Your fetish of gold is based on the idea that it will be money after some future event, but you too know that it is not money right now. The thing that makes it money is yet to come.

In many of the wide range of possible post-collapse scenarios of our modern day varieties of apocalyptism, depending on how it plays out, joining a prayer group or the right cult and conditioning yourself to their mores and lingo and being part of whatever mutual exchange they set up may be more effective as a survival mechanism than storing physical gold. Because there is no way to tell what happens. Of course, because there is no way to tell what happens, people insist on having a certain answer to which they can cling and banish the horrible uncertainty. Fetish. Totem. Some accumulate gold as this thing that will help them after this thing that will happen. Others accumulate prayer-hours.

All wealth originates in nature. Labor and applied energy create use-value. Exchange value is adjusted by belief and struggle. In the long run, we are all dead.

.




barracuda wrote:There's nothing wrong with buying gold as an aspect of an investment portfolio, but you might as well buy GLD shares, or mining stocks.

At the moment, twenty dollars worth of gold weighs out to about 375 millgrams, which is 0.0132 ounces, or 13/1000ths of an ounce, which is roughly smaller than a mouse turd. Better stockpile digital scales while you're at it, because these amounts are tough to deal with on a daily basis.

Anyway, the very first thing that will happen in a gold-based economy is that the value of the gold will be redetermined according to acceptance between participants in exchanges. Expect to take a huge haircut on the trade value of your gold the first time you try to buy something with it. Very quickly, the value accorded will probably drop to five or ten percent or less of what you paid for it. During a Mad Max-type scenario, I'd say that very rapidly the worth of a gold coin will revert to about what a similar coin would purchase around 1850, at which time a twenty-dollar gold piece weighed 34 grams, or 1.2 ounces.




barracuda wrote:
Nordic wrote:Which means when TSHTF, everybody is gonna want to trade that in for the real thing, and the real thing won't be there. Oops!


When the shit hits the fan, you might as well have baked beans in a can. If one man has beans and you have gold, you're gonna starve, not the bean guy, because he won't be selling.

Again, in Mad Max-land, gold is not power. It's baggage. Very heavy baggage.

2012 Countdown wrote:(silver $40.91 as I type)


Awesome. In another year or so it might be back to the price it was in 1979 - $50.00/oz.




vanlose kid wrote:
Learning to Float
Yu Yongding
2011-03-29

Learning to Float

BEIJING – Despite shaky economic fundamentals, US government securities are usually regarded as a safe haven. Whenever a crisis erupts, the value of US Treasury bonds gets a boost. Indeed, US Treasuries were among the few assets that did not decline during the global financial crisis in 2008-2009.

But the safe-haven status of US government securities is an illusion. They are safe only in the sense that no one can stop the Federal Reserve from operating its printing presses at full speed.

The market value of Treasuries depends on a wide range of factors. Now it is essentially sustained by a Ponzi scheme, with the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing” keeping the price of Treasuries artificially high. But, at end of the day, no currency can defy the laws of economic gravity. The market price of Treasuries eventually will fall to levels dictated by US economic fundamentals.

For decades, China has been investing its vast savings abroad, waiting for greater efficiency in domestic investment allocation before starting to dissave. China usually holds US Treasuries to maturity and re-invests the principal and proceeds. What matters is not variations in the book value of these reserves, but rather their real value in terms of purchasing power when China decides to cash in.

We do not know what the People’s Bank of China (PBOC, the central bank) is doing at the moment in the bond market. What we do know is that China should have begun exiting gradually from US government securities long ago.

But, according to US Treasury data, China’s holdings of US government securities totaled $1.16 trillion at the end of 2010, accounting for roughly 60% of the overall increase in foreign official holdings of US government debt. China’s holdings of US Treasuries increased by $351 billion between June 2009 and June 2010 alone, the largest jump on record.

The accuracy of these data is debatable. But they seem to show that, despite sharper rhetoric in Sino-US relations, China has continued lending to the US in order to keep its export machine going and avoid booking large foreign-exchange losses.

It may be too late to do anything about China’s existing stock of US treasuries without causing a serious political and financial backlash. But China should at least stop increasing its holdings. Since 2009, China’s trade surplus has dropped significantly, which many in China hail as progress in rebalancing. Yet China's 2010 trade surplus was still $183 billion; its current-account surplus soared 25% from 2009, to $306.2 billion; and its balance-of-payments surplus last year totaled more than $470 billion – the bulk of which must have been invested in new holdings of foreign-exchange reserves.

Needless to say, these surpluses reflect a gross misallocation of resources. Above a certain limit, China’s stockpiles of US treasury bonds imply welfare losses, not to mention the capital losses that the country almost certainly will suffer.

Is China destined to see the value of its savings evaporate? Given the trade and current-account surpluses, the PBOC must intervene in currency markets, buying the dollar and selling renminbi, to prevent – or moderate – the appreciation of the renminbi exchange rate. But such interventions inevitably translate into more holdings of US government securities.

To stop this accumulation of foreign-exchange reserves, and thus minimize China’s welfare and capital losses, the simplest solution would be for the PBOC to call a halt to intervention. But this implies that China must allow the renminbi to float freely, and thus to appreciate. But nobody knows by how much. China’s official position is that the renminbi is not seriously undervalued. In that case, the government should not fear the end of intervention.

Indeed, some Chinese authorities also maintain that renminbi appreciation would have no significant impact on China’s trade balance because they believe that China’s trade surplus is a reflection of excess saving and hence has nothing to do with the exchange rate. If so, there would be no need for China to worry about even a large jump in the renminbi’s exchange rate.

The true risk lies in the possibility that the renminbi is significantly undervalued and that appreciation would have a major impact on China’s trade balance. In that case, China would have to accept an export slowdown and an increase in unemployment in order to avoid huge capital losses on its dollar reserves.

Currently, the government is trying to slow the GDP growth rate, and job shortages are emerging in coastal areas. With the fiscal position still strong, the government should be able to help enterprises and workers that suffer undue pain from the renminbi’s appreciation.

Moreover, while exchange-rate policy is not an instrument for dealing with China’s domestic inflation, renminbi appreciation would certainly help the government meet its goal of keeping the annual rate below 4% in 2011. Indeed, the increase in foreign-exchange reserves has been the single most important monetary source of inflation, as the PBOC has run into trouble sterilizing the inflows. The end of intervention in currency markets would allow the PBOC to shrug off the burden of sterilization and concentrate on fighting inflation.

Ending central-bank intervention in currency markets is a complex issue. The devil is in the details. But, under any circumstances, the economic and welfare costs of China’s slow pace in adjusting the renminbi’s exchange-rate are too high and will increase by the day. It is time for China to seriously consider allowing the renminbi to float freely, while reserving the right to intervene when it must, and tighten the management of cross-border capital flows (permissible under last November’s G-20 agreements).

Yu Yongding, currently President of the China Society of World Economics, is a former member of the monetary policy committee of the Peoples' Bank of China and former Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of World Economics and Politics.

//http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/yu6/English


*

Inflationary Angst
Harold James
2011-04-05

Inflationary Angst

PRINCETON – Can central banks contain inflation? We once thought they could. Over the past 20 years, central banks around the world, including the United States Federal Reserve, pursued price stability with remarkable success. But now, in the wake of the financial crisis, a tide of distrust is sweeping the world – including a new and widespread fear that central banks are incapable of controlling inflation.

In the US, the Tea Party has made a return to the gold standard a part of its platform, and Utah is debating making gold and silver coins legal tender. German inflation worries have pushed the government into a much harsher stance on debt relief in Europe. In China, fear of inflation is unleashing large-scale discontent.

Inflation fear was already present before the new challenges of 2011 raised questions about long-term energy prices. As pro-democracy protests shake Arab authoritarian regimes, the prospect of sustained conflict threatens a global economy still dependent on oil, while the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and nuclear accident raises doubts about the security of nuclear energy.

The main anchor of central banks’ monetary policy over the past 20 years was an inflation-targeting framework that developed from academic interpretation of the problems involved in targeting monetary aggregates. After successful experiments in smaller economies, New Zealand in 1990 and then Canada in 1991, and later in Sweden and the United Kingdom, the conviction developed that the new approach represented a superior way of dealing with the problem of inflationary expectations.

The really large currencies – the dollar, the euro, and the yen – were never managed explicitly or solely on this principle. But central banks in both Europe and the US thought that a 2% annual inflation rate would be a desirable target (for the Europeans a desirable maximum).

There was always a problem in this approach, namely that the general price level is an abstraction. It is a useful in a context of overall stability; but, especially during crises or in the aftermath of large shocks, there are sharp movements of relative prices.

At these moments, it is easiest to accommodate the movements by letting all prices rise, but to differing extents. Some econometric attempts have been made to identify long-term cycles in both inflation and monetary growth. The economist Luca Benati has identified such surges of underlying inflation in the last decades before World War I, the late 1930’s, the late 1960’s, and the 1970’s. He also has found evidence of a pick-up in long-term underlying inflation in the UK and the US since the early 2000’s.

The debate in the 1970’s – the period of the last general inflationary surge – has become relevant again. At that time, it was often argued that price spikes for petroleum or other commodities were somehow “extraneous” to the system, and not a reflection of the real basis of monetary policy in the industrial countries. Consequently, analyses of inflation left out food and energy prices. Today, the debate is over “core inflation,” which excludes food and energy prices because they are too volatile.

But the oil-price shocks that came after 1973 were in part also a response to the major industrial countries’ monetary policy in the later 1960’s and early 1970’s. The real price of oil seemed to be lagging behind, and oil producers’ dramatic actions in 1973 were part of an effort to correct that. Other commodity prices had risen rapidly in the early 1970’s, in direct response to monetary easing in the US and elsewhere. Shortages of natural gas increased fertilizer prices, pushing up food prices. That led to protests in many poorer countries, and to a political determination to extract additional gains from other commodity exports.

As in the 1970’s, there are more links than may at first appear between the apparently new problems of 2010-2011.
Food and energy prices are more likely to be affected by monetary policy. And they produce an economic basis for discontent – which played at least some part in triggering the protests of the “Arab Spring.”

Given that food and energy prices respond to monetary developments, and thus are not exogenous, the concept of “core inflation” obviously becomes problematic, to say the least. One consequence is that Fed officials now try to avoid it. Another way to approach it is to attempt to grasp changing consumer behavior analytically.

As a result, inflation is continually being redefined. In the UK, the consumer price index is being recalculated to include new products, such as electronic dating services. It is easy to suspect that this is not just a concession to changing social mores, but that it also reflects a desire to include as many declining prices as possible.

This is less radical than the method adopted by Argentina, where high levels of inflation are both a historical nightmare and a current challenge. There, the government, whose statistical agency puts annual inflation at 10%, is punishing private-sector economists who release much higher estimates – typically around 25% – with heavy fines. The finance minister claims that there is no “structural inflation.”

As the statistical manipulation that attends uncertainty increases, confidence is eroded. A better approach is to think of the longer-term story as being one of changes in relative prices, which are not well handled by a consumer price index.

That issue is especially acute in the wake of a generalized real-estate crisis. Until 2007, many people financed consumer purchases, whose prices were more or less stable, by borrowing against their houses, which were rapidly rising in value. Consumer goods therefore seemed to be getting cheaper.

Now, by contrast, food and gasoline prices are rising, owing to emerging markets’ ongoing boom, while house prices continue to plummet. It is when we worry about relative prices that we get most angry about monetary policy – and when central banks seem to offer no answer.

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence. His most recent book is The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle.

//http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/james52/English


*




vanlose kid wrote:just in from Bretton Woods, by way of ZH.

Soros Speaks
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/08/2011 17:31 -0400

Unlike the last time a bunch of men gathered at Bretton Woods to determine the monetary fate of the world and set the stage for globalization, this time around the prevailing activity was a casting call for the role of the new Emperor Palpatine. Yet despite that (or maybe because of) George Soros appeared in full Open Society regalia and spoke to Bloomberg TV about how importing foreign asset collateral (also known as exporting debt) through "globalization" is still the name of the game. And obviously while the Hungarian billionaire would not discuss the true purpose for his presence in Bretton Woods, he did have some words of caution for China bulls: "while the big banks under direct central control are in fact refusing to lend, there is a shadow banking system that is growing out of control. There is a real danger there of wage price inflation because prices have gone up, particularly real estate prices have gone up because there was a real estate boom." But to those concerned about the key issue at play, namely the future of the reserve monetary system, some could interpret the following statement by Soros, as a tacit agreement that the end of the dollar is fast approaching: "cautionary words for the dollar: "There's a big question whether the U.S. dollar should be the main reserve currency and in fact it no longer is because it maybe accounts for two-thirds of the monetary reserves. The euro is an alternative and there's a lot of diversification into other currencies and even more into commodities. Not only gold, but actually oil is now an asset class for investors. That has put some upward pressure on the commodities." Of course what actually is decided in B-W will be made clear over the next year or so, once the decision makers have already placed their bets accordingly and pull the rug from under the market.



On stimulus vs. austerity and whether U.S. debt impacts the world:

"If you have a growing economy, you can tolerate a higher level of debt. And if you have too much debt and you have a recession, you get into what they called debt check. This is the big issue. "

"I am afraid it is overshadowed by political considerations. You have a financial crisis in Europe. There is the pressure of Spain and Portugal and so on. But debt is a different problem. Those countries are part of the European bloc and they are not in a position to issue their own currency. We can issue our own currency. In fact, the dollar is quite strong. It is really a matter of political judgment. That is where you have different opinions.”

"There is very a strong push to tighten the budget as a way to reduce government spending. It's a resistance to any kind of tax increase and tightening, particularly the budget of the states. The [U.S.] states cannot issue their own currency. They are in a similar situation to Spain and Portugal. There is a danger that by pushing this too far, you could abort the very fragile economic recovery that you are currently enjoying and push the economy once again into a slowdown or a recession."

"I rather fear these political forces will push it into a recession. In my opinion, the country could actually absorb some more debt in order to get the economy going.”

On the ECB vs. the Fed - who is doing it right?:

"Two different directives govern the European Central bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve. In the case of Europe, it's a one-sided directive. Their only job is to prevent inflation, and in the case of the U.S., it is more balanced, to maintain employment and financial stability."

On whether the U.S. dollar is still a safe asset:

"There's a big question whether the U.S. dollar should be the main reserve currency and in fact it no longer is because it maybe accounts for two-thirds of the monetary reserves. The euro is an alternative and there's a lot of diversification into other currencies and even more into commodities. Not only gold, but actually oil is now an asset class for investors. That has put some upward pressure on the commodities."

On whether the sovereign debt crisis has diminished euro's chances of becoming a reserve currency:

"The euro is under a cloud, but that is exactly because there are some inflationary pressures from the price of commodities, particularly now oil and also food prices have risen. That is what has induced the European Central Bank to raise interest rates at a time which is, in my opinion, quite inappropriate…It is not appropriate in current circumstances when you have a number of countries that are suffering from too much debt and high interest rates that they have to pay."

On China's economy:

"China has really stimulated its economy full force very successfully and now it is trying to rein in the rate of growth, and is exercising very strong constraints on the banking system. But because of that constraint, and because of the big demand for money, a shadow banking system has arisen and is growing very rapidly. So while the big banks under direct central control are in fact refusing to lend, there is a shadow banking system that is growing out of control. There is a real danger there of wage price inflation because prices have gone up, particularly real estate prices have gone up because there was a real estate boom."

"Therefore, wage demands have risen, and we now have 20%, 30% wage increases. The Chinese government has made a mistake not allowing its currency to appreciate, which would have controlled the price of inflation. Instead of that, we now have this wage pressure, which is a little bit out of their control."

On the Chinese economic approach and whether they did something right:

"[The Chinese] were the major beneficiaries of globalization. They were the big winners in the financial crash because their economy was largely isolated because they have capital controls on their currency. They have a two-tiered currency system, whereas the rest of the world allows free movement for capital, and you had a runaway expansion of credit and leverage which then resulted in the financial crash, and China was largely immune. So, they benefited tremendously."

"Their system, which really stands in contrast to the international system, international capitalism with free movement of capital, and then there is a system where the state controls the economy. That system actually has performed significantly better than the international system. So now it is beginning to be imitated by others, but I think it is a tremendous mistake, because that was just one particular set of circumstances when it worked better. They had an advantage because they were the only ones that were controlling capital flows. So as a result, they not only control their own currency, they effectively controlled the world currency system. Now other countries, defensively, are beginning to follow them. For instance, Brazil just doubled the surcharge on capital inflows. That is not good for Brazil, and it is not good for the global economy."

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/soros-speaks


*
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests