Note the US was back on gold internationally after Bretton Woods:

The Bretton Woods Conference took place in July 1944, but did not become operative until 1959, when all the European currencies became convertible. Under this system, the IMF and the IBRD were established. The IMF was developed as a permanent international body. The summary of agreements states, “The nations should consult and agree on international monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlaw practices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they should assist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties.” Wikipedia

So Ruml’s analysis didn’t apply until after 1971 when the US finally dropped convertibility.

Might be why Ruml’s points didn’t gain any traction back then.

Good chart- shows how far the euro zone debt is out of bounds for their currency arrangements:

Sovereigns vs States

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
Hi Warren,

I must admit that your writing and thoughts have had a significant impact upon me. Interestingly—at least from where I sit—your Soft Currency Economics paper, which I have now read 5 or 6 times, has provided me with an odd peace of mind…not sure if that is a GOOD thing or not. :)

thanks!

KNOWING that—so long as trust and confidence in our fiat system remains—we are always able to mitigate, at least in some manner, the impact of global financial crises through the changing of numbers ‘upward’ in the accounts of men and of institutions, is somewhat akin, I’d imagine, to an alcoholic knowing that, no matter what, an endless supply of Johnny Walker Black always exists in his basement stash.

Actually, as long as we can enforce tax collections the currency will have value.

Problem is the currency can’t be eaten or drunk, so if the crops fail it won’t help much.
All we can insure is enough currency to pay people to work, not enough things to buy

OK, so maybe the analogy is a tad morose…but hence my funny feeling about my peace of mind.

So, my question of the week revolves around the U.S.’s apparent choice to monetize (again, if you will) the IMF coffers. I point to the following from Zerohedge:

“…As we reported a few days ago, the IMF massively expanded its last resort bailout facility (NAB) by half a trillion dollars, in which the US was given the lead role in bailing out every country that has recourse to IMF funding.

We buy SDR’s with dollars which the IMF then loans, so yes.

Yesterday, Ron Paul grilled Bernanke precisely on the nature of the expansion of the US role to the NAB: “The IMF has announced that they are going to open up the NAB which coincides with the crisis in Greece and Europe and how they are going to bailed out. The irony of this promise is that in the new arrangement Greece is going to put in $2.5 billion in. I think only a fiat monetary system worldwide can come up and have Greece help bail out Greece and be prepared to bail out even other countries.

Greece needs euros, so the IMF will sell SDR’s to the euro nations to fund Greece, not the US.

SDR’s are only bought with local currency.

But we are going from $10 to $105 billion… We are committing $105 billion to bailing out the various countries of the world, this does two thing I want to get your comments on one why does it coincide with Greece,

Coincidental.

what are they anticipating, why do they need $560 billion, do we have a lot more trouble, and when it comes to that time when we have to make this commitment, who pays for this, where does it come from?

Seems they anticipate more nations will be borrowing dollars from the IMF?

We buy them by crediting the IMF’s account at the Fed. If and when the IMF lends dollars we move those dollars from the IMF’s account to the account at the Fed for the borrowing nation.

Will this all come out of the printing press once again, as we are expected to bail out the world?

Short answer, yes. long answer above.

Are you in favor of this increase in the IMF funding and our additional commitment to $105 billion?”

No.

Bernanke, of course, washes his hands of any imminent dollar devaluation – it is all someone else’s responsibility to bail out life, the universe and everything else. Bernanke pushes on “I think in general having the IMF available to try to avoid crises is a good idea.”

2 problems. First the borrowers would probably be better off using local currency solutions rather than dollars, and second the IMF terms and conditions can and often do make things worse for the borrower.

Yet Paul pushes on “Where will this money come from? We are bankrupt too.” Indeed we are, but nobody cares – that is simply some other poor shumck’s problem…”

He’s flat out wrong about the US being bankrupt but that’s another story.

best,
warren

Warren, this strikes me as problematic. YES, we can add zeros to the end of accounts and thus ‘create’ more liquidity in the global economy. HOWEVER, at what point does the world choose not to believe that those numbers in those accounts have true value?

As long as we enforce dollar taxes the dollar will have value.

warren

With this vote along party lines Dems will look very bad if they don’t win it.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM, wrote:
>   
>   the vote was close but I’m not sure it changes much. However the political angle
>   in light of the Administration’s efforts at financial reform cannot be avoided.
>   Government leverage vs. bank leverage…
>   

SEC Said to Vote 3-2 to Sue Goldman Sachs Over CDO Disclosures

By Jesse Westbrook

April 19 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement
case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people
with knowledge of the vote.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis
Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case, said the people,
who declined to be identified because the vote wasn’t public.
Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted
against suing, the person said.

The SEC on April 16 accused Goldman Sachs, the most
profitable company in Wall Street history, of creating and
selling collateralized debt obligations in 2007 tied to subprime
mortgages without disclosing that hedge fund Paulson & Co.
helped pick the underlying securities. Goldman Sachs also didn’t
disclose to investors that Paulson was betting against the
securities, the SEC said.

SEC spokesmen John Nester and Myron Marlin didn’t
immediately return a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.

Looks to me like It’s going to come down to very fine points of law, and take a very long time:

Goldman Response

Background

Fiscal sustainability is very much in the News these days because of the activities of the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The Peterson Foundation’s very vigorous efforts to present a point of view on fiscal sustainability that reinforces and expands the outlook of the National Commission’s statement of purpose, The Washington Post’s continuing expression of the deficit hawkism point of view, and CNN’s “news alliance” with The Peterson Foundation. All this and more is part of a steamroller being formed to ensure that only one point of view on fiscal sustainability, namely a neo-liberal point of view dominates the landscape of public discussion.

When that sort of thing happens, as it did in the health care debate, the people suffer, because any policy, based on an alternative framing of the fiscal sustainability problem, is immediately off the table of policy consideration because it is outside the frame of “legitimate debate.” Let’s not let that happen with fiscal sustainability. Let’s keep a number of frames under consideration, so that we can consider all fiscal sustainability policies that might work. The test we use to determine whether a policy will work needs to be an evaluation of its consequences; not an evaluation of whether it’s outside a dominant frame of ideology. Read the rest of this entry »

More from Beardsley Ruml:

Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete

Warren’s article on Huffington Post, please comment there!

Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM, John wrote:
>   
>   Warren, I can’t tell from this article if the European Central Bank is
>   issuing new currency in exchange for national government bonds or not?
>   

This in fact is a very good article.

Yes, the ECB is funding its banks, and yes, they do accept the securities of the member nations as collateral.

However that funding is full recourse. If the bonds default the banks that own the securities take the loss.

The reason a bank funds its securities and other assets at the Central Bank is price. Banks fund themselves where they
are charged the lowest rates. And the Central Bank, the ECB in this case, sets the interbank lending rate by offering funds at its
target interest rate, as well as by paying something near it’s target rate on excess funds in the banking system. That is, through its various ‘intervention mechanisms’ the ECB effectively provides a bid and an offer for interbank funds.

In the banking system, however, loans ‘create’ deposits as a matter of accounting, so the total ‘available funds’ are always equal to the total funding needs of the banking system, plus or minus what are called ‘operating factors’ which are relatively small. These include changes in cash in circulation, uncleared checks, changes in various gov. account balances, etc.

This all means the banking system as a whole needs little if any net funding from the ECB. However, any one bank might need substantial funding from the ECB should other banks be keeping excess funds at the ECB. So what is happening is that banks who are having difficulty funding themselves at competitive rates immediately use the ECB for funding by posting ‘acceptable collateral’ to fund at that lower rate.

One reason a bank can’t get ‘competitive funding’ in the market place is its inability to attract depositors, generally due to risk perceptions. While bank deposits are insured, they are insured only by the national govts, which means Greek bank deposits are insured by Greece. So as Greek and other national govt. solvency comes into question, depositors tend to avoid those institutions, which drives them to fund at the ECB. (actually via their national cb’s who have accounts at the ECB, which is functionally the same as funding at the ECB)

As with most of today’s banking systems, liabilities are generally available in virtually unlimited quantities, and therefore regulation falls entirely on bank assets and capital considerations. As long as national govt securities are considered ‘qualifying assets’ and banks are allowed to secure funding via insured deposits of one form or another and the return on equity is competitive there is no numerical limit to how much the banking system can finance.

So in that sense the EU is in fact financially supporting unlimited credit expansion of the national govts. They know this, but don’t like it, as the moral hazard issue is extreme. Left alone, it becomes a race to the bottom where the national govt with the most deficit spending ‘wins’ in real terms even as the value of the euro falls towards 0. When the national govts were making ‘good faith efforts’ to contain deficits, allowing counter cyclical increases through ‘automatic stabilizers’ and not proactive increases, it all held together. However what Greece and others appear to have done is ‘call the bluff’ with outsize and growing deficits and debt to gdp levels, threatening the start (continuation?) of this ‘race to the bottom’ if they are allowed to continue.

The question then becomes how to limit the banking system’s ability to finance unlimited national govt. deficit spending. Hence talk of Greek securities not being accepted at the ECB. Other limits include the threat of downgraded bonds forcing banks to write down their capital and threaten their solvency. And once the banking system reaches ‘hard limits’ to what they can fund a system that’s already/necessarily a form ‘ponzi’ faces a collapse.

The other problem is that when the euro was on the way up due to portfolio shifts out of the dollar, many of those buyers of euro had to own national govt paper, as their is nothing equiv. to US Treasury securities or JGB’s, for example. That helped fund the national govs at lower rates during that period. That portfolio shifting has largely come to an end, making national govt funding more problematic.

The weakening euro and rising oil prices raises the risk of ‘inflation’ flooding in through the import and export channels. With a weak economy and national govt credit worthiness particularly sensitive to rising interest rates, the ECB may find itself in a bind, as it will tend to favor rate hikes as prices firm, yet recognize rate hikes could cause a financial collapse. And should a govt like Greece be allowed to default the next realization could be that Greek depositors will take losses, and, therefore, the entire euro deposit insurance lose credibility, causing depositors to take their funds elsewhere. But where? To national govt. or corporate debt? The problem is there is nowhere to go but actual cash, which has been happening. Selling euro for dollars and other currencies is also happening, weakening the euro, but that doesn’t reduce the quantity of euro deposits, even as it drives the currency down, though the ‘value’ of total deposits does decrease as the currency falls.

It’s all getting very ugly as it all threatens the value of the euro. The only scenario that theoretically helps the value of the euro is a national govt default, which does eliminate the euro denominated financial assets of that nation, but of course can trigger a euro wide deflationary debt collapse. The ‘support’ scenarios all weaken the euro as they support the expansion of euro denominated financial assets, to the point of triggering the inflationary ‘race to the bottom’ of accelerating debt expansion.

Bottom line, it’s all an ‘unstable equilibrium’ as we used to say in engineering classes 40 years ago, that could accelerate in either direction. My proposal for annual ECB distributions to member nations on a per capita basis reverses those dynamics, but it’s not even a distant consideration.

Where are ‘market forces’ taking the euro? Low enough to increase net exports sufficiently to supply the needed net euro financial assets to the euro zone, which will come from a drop in net financial assets of the rest of world net importing from the euro zone. This, too, can be a long, ugly ride.

As a final note, the IMF gets its euros from the euro zone, so using the IMF changes nothing.

Comments welcome!

The Next Global Problem: Portugal

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

Peter Boone is chairman of the charity Effective Intervention and a research associate at the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. He is also a principal in Salute Capital Management Ltd. Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of 13 Bankers.

April 15 (NYT) — The bailout of Greece, while still not fully consummated, has brought an eerie calm in European financial markets.

It is, for sure, a huge bailout by historical standards. With the planned addition of International Monetary Fund money, the Greeks will receive 18 percent of their gross domestic product in one year at preferential interest rates. This equals 4,000 euros per person, and will be spent in roughly 11 months.

Despite this eye-popping sum, the bailout does nothing to resolve the many problems that persist. Indeed, it probably makes the euro zone a much more dangerous place for the next few years.

Next on the radar will be Portugal. This nation has largely missed the spotlight, if only because Greece spiraled downward. But both are economically on the verge of bankruptcy, and they each look far riskier than Argentina did back in 2001 when it succumbed to default.

Portugal spent too much over the last several years, building its debt up to 78 percent of G.D.P. at the end of 2009 (compared with Greece’s 114 percent of G.D.P. and Argentina’s 62 percent of G.D.P. at default). The debt has been largely financed by foreigners, and as with Greece, the country has not paid interest outright, but instead refinances its interest payments each year by issuing new debt. By 2012 Portugal’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio should reach 108 percent of G.D.P. if the country meets its planned budget deficit targets. At some point financial markets will simply refuse to finance this Ponzi game.

The main problem that Portugal faces, like Greece, Ireland and Spain, is that it is stuck with a highly overvalued exchange rate when it is in need of far-reaching fiscal adjustment.

For example, just to keep its debt stock constant and pay annual interest on debt at an optimistic 5 percent interest rate, the country would need to run a primary surplus of 5.4 percent of G.D.P. by 2012. With a planned primary deficit of 5.2 percent of G.D.P. this year (i.e., a budget surplus, excluding interest payments), it needs roughly 10 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal tightening.

It is nearly impossible to do this in a fixed exchange-rate regime — i.e., the euro zone — without vast unemployment. The government can expect several years of high unemployment and tough politics, even if it is to extract itself from this mess.

Neither Greek nor Portuguese political leaders are prepared to make the needed cuts. The Greeks have announced minor budget changes, and are now holding out for their 45 billion euro package while implicitly threatening a messy default on the rest of Europe if they do not get what they want — and when they want it.

The Portuguese are not even discussing serious cuts. In their 2010 budget, they plan a budget deficit of 8.3 percent of G.D.P., roughly equal to the 2009 budget deficit (9.4 percent). They are waiting and hoping that they may grow out of this mess — but such growth could come only from an amazing global economic boom.

While these nations delay, the European Union with its bailout programs — assisted by Jean-Claude Trichet’s European Central Bank — provides financing. The governments issue bonds; European commercial banks buy them and then deposit these at the European Central Bank as collateral for freshly printed money. The bank has become the silent facilitator of profligate spending in the euro zone.

Last week the European Central Bank had a chance to dismantle this doom machine when the board of governors announced new rules for determining what debts could be used as collateral at the central bank.

Some anticipated the central bank might plan to tighten the rules gradually, thereby preventing the Greek government from issuing too many new bonds that could be financed at the bank. But the bank did not do that. In fact, the bank’s governors did the opposite: they made it even easier for Greece, Portugal and any other nation to borrow in 2011 and beyond. Indeed, under the new lax rules you need only to convince one rating agency (and we all know how easy that is) that your debt is not junk in order to get financing from the European Central Bank.

Today, despite the clear dangers and huge debts, all three rating agencies are surely scared to take the politically charged step of declaring that Greek debt is junk. They are similarly afraid to touch Portugal.

So what next for Portugal?

Pity the serious Portuguese politician who argues that fiscal probity calls for early belt-tightening. The European Union, the European Central Bank and the Greeks have all proven that the euro zone nations have no threshold for pain, and European Union money will be there for anyone who wants it. The Portuguese politicians can do nothing but wait for the situation to get worse, and then demand their bailout package, too. No doubt Greece will be back next year for more. And the nations that “foolishly” already started their austerity, such as Ireland and Italy, must surely be wondering whether they too should take the less austere path.

There seems to be no logic in the system, but perhaps there is a logical outcome.

Europe will eventually grow tired of bailing out its weaker countries. The Germans will probably pull that plug first. The longer we wait to see fiscal probity established, at the European Central Bank and the European Union, and within each nation, the more debt will be built up, and the more dangerous the situation will get.

When the plug is finally pulled, at least one nation will end up in a painful default; unfortunately, the way we are heading, the problems could be even more widespread.

“”The backstop package for Greece and the ECB’s climb-down on its collateral rules set a bad precedent for other euro area states and make it more likely that the euro area degenerates into a zone of fiscal profligacy, currency weakness, and higher inflationary pressures over time,” said Joachim Fels, head of research, in a note to clients.”"

I agree with the moral hazard theory, however I would counter by saying market is making it in practice impossible (even with backstops and colateral climbdown) for this endgame to occur given the cost/lack of funding it is offering to profligate states??

Yes, under current, limited thinking.

My proposal for the ECB to make an annual payment to each national gov. of 5% of total eurozone gdp on a per capita basis still looks to me as the only proposal that instantly repairs credit concerns and gets to all the problematic issues.

However there is no reason to not quadruple that original proposal to a 20% annual distribution.

Additionally, any nation not in compliance with ‘growth and stability’ requirements would risk losing its annual payment.

This would ensure that national debt to gdp ratios will fall for all member nations who comply with the rules.

It also means any nation who doesn’t comply with the rules risks losing its payment and will be ‘punished’ by markets
while nations in compliance getting their annual 20% payment will be secure in their ability to fund themselves.

Over time the 20% annual payment can be scaled down until it equals their self imposed rules for permissible annual deficits for the member nations as desired.

The 20% annual distribution does not foster increased government deficit spending, apart from removing the ramifications of default and risk of default. In contrast, it provides a powerful incentive to limit national govt deficits to desired levels.

This proposal dramatically strengthens the finances of the eurozone with incentives that are the reverse of what are called ‘moral hazard’ incentives.

This proposal is not yet even a consideration so until then anything short of a dramatic export boom where the rest of the world is willing to reduce its ‘savings’ of euro net financial assets by net spending on eurozone goods and services isn’t going to cut it.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:44 AM, wrote:
>   
>   Talked to an ECB guy about this proposal. He says ECB will NEVER agree. Says they can’t
>   by law do what you are proposing as he claims it is “monetising” the debt and will be
>   ”inflationary”.
>   

That’s what happens when no one in charge and no one in the medial understands actual monetary operations.

>   
>   Down we go!
>   

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

By Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan

April 14 (NYT) — Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”

The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care. But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largely anecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters.

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

“The only way they will stop the spending is to have a revolt on their hands,” Elwin Thrasher, a 66-year-old semiretired lawyer in Florida, said in an interview after the poll. “I’m sick and tired of them wasting money and doing what our founders never intended to be done with the federal government.”

They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public. About 6 in 10 say “America’s best years are behind us” when it comes to the availability of good jobs for American workers.

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5 through April 12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all adults and for Tea Party supporters.

Of the 18 percent of Americans who identified themselves as supporters, 20 percent, or 4 percent of the general public, said they had given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both. These activists were more likely than supporters generally to describe themselves as very conservative and had more negative views about the economy and Mr. Obama. They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit.

Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs.

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

Dee Close, a 47-year-old homemaker in Memphis, said she was worried about a “drift” in the country. “Over the last three or four years, I’ve realized how immense that drift has been away from what made this country great,” Ms. Close said.

Yet while the Tea Party supporters are more conservative than Republicans on some social issues, they do not want to focus on those issues: about 8 in 10 say that they are more concerned with economic issues, as is the general public.

When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

What I would add to his fine review is wherever Professor Davidson indicates ‘increased government spending’ I would add ‘and/or tax cuts depending one’s politics.

Published in the Summer 2010 issue of the JOURNAL OF POST KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS by Paul Davidson:

Making Dollars And Sense Of The United States Government Debt

Looks like it’s on and I’ll be there.
All invited to attend. Will get details later today and tomorrow.
Will be getting a press release out as well.

Fighting Back Against the Drive to Slash Entitlements

By Ian Welsh

April 14 — Back when I was at FDL I had a chat with the Peterson Foundation folks. They struck me as sincere, but off-balance. To the extent that Social Security is in deficit at all any problems are decades out (which they admitted), and while Medicare has issues, the simplest and easiest way to cut medical costs overall is single payer, something they won’t push. More to the point, somehow “entitlements” always get mentioned first, and not things like Defense spending.

But the folks at the Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In Conference have a broader point: that fiscal sustainability, according to Modern Monetary Theory, isn’t based on debt-to-gdp, or how much the private sector will lend. The government can spend a lot more if it needs to, and doing so is a good idea if it leads to full employment and gets economic growth going again. They are having a free counter-Fiscal Summit on April 28th, the same day as the Peterson foundation has its summit.

There’s going to be some interesting speakers and topics at the summit, so if you can make it to DC, it’ll probably be worth going:

– What Is Fiscal Sustainability? (Team Leader: Professor Bill Mitchell, Research Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the University of Newcastle, NSW Australia, and blogger at billyblog.)

– Are There Spending Constraints on Governments Sovereign in their Currency? (Team Leader: Stephanie Kelton, Assistant Professor of Macroeconomics, Finance, and Money and Banking, University of Missouri, Kansas City, and blogger at New Economics Perspectives)

– The Deficit, the Debt, the Debt-To-GDP ratio, the Grandchildren and
Government Economic Policy; (Team Leader: Warren Mosler, International Consulting Economist, Independent Candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut, and blogger at moslereconomics.com)

– Inflation and Hyper-inflation (Team Leader: Marshall Auerback, International Consulting Economist, blogger at New Deal 2.0 and New Economic Perspectives); and

– Policy Proposals for Fiscal Sustainability (Team leaders: L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics, University of Missouri, Kansas City, and Pavlina Tcherneva, Assistant Professor of Economics at Franklin and Marshall College, and bloggers at New Economic Perspectives)

Karim writes:

Looks like Goldilocks is officially here. 4% GDP gwth and 0% core inflation.

Agreed, remains a good market for stocks apart from looming shocks from Europe and elsewhere that could do a lot of damage.
Tax hikes can do damage but they are off in the future for now.

I describe 4% gdp as more L shaped than V shaped, but that’s just semantics. It’s modest growth that will very gradually bring down unemployment.

In the end, growth will be important to the Fed as it leads inflation. Look for Bernanke to continue to tweak extended period language today.

As suggested way back, lender fraud was a large part of the problem (rather than actual lending standards and/or Fed monetary policy)

Largely driven by counterproductive incentives.

It was also an inexcusable failure of regulation that allowed these types of incentives in the first place:

Memos Show Risky Lending at WaMu

By Sewell Chan

April 25 (NYT) — New documents released by a Senate panel show how entrenched Washington Mutual was in fraudulent and risky lending, and highlighted how its top executives received rewards as their institution was hurtling toward disaster.

The problems at WaMu, whose collapse was the largest in American banking history, were well known to company executives, excerpts of e-mail messages and other internal documents show.

The documents were released on Monday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which began an inquiry into the financial crisis in November 2008. The panel has summoned seven former WaMu executives to testify at a hearing on Tuesday, including the former chief executive Kerry K. Killinger.

The panel called WaMu illustrative of problems in the origination, sale and securitization of high-risk mortgages by any number of financial institutions from 2004 to 2008.

“Using a toxic mix of high-risk lending, lax controls and compensation policies which rewarded quantity over quality, Washington Mutual flooded the market with shoddy loans that went bad,” the panel’s chairman, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said.

Mr. Killinger was paid $103.2 million from 2003 to 2008. In WaMu’s final year of existence, he received $25.1 million, including a $15.3 million severance payment.

His pay was not the only compensation under scrutiny.

Loan officers received more money for originating higher-risk loans, and loan processors were rewarded for speed and volume, rather than quality, the Senate panel found. Loan officers and sales associates were paid even more if they overcharged borrowers through points or higher interest rates, or included stiff prepayment penalties in the loans they issued.

The pay structure created “temptation to advise the borrower on means and methods to game the system,” a WaMu internal memo from April 2008 found.

While the ECB might in theory want to hike rates to have a modestly positive real rate with inflation running north of 1%, supported by firming import prices/weaker euro, it also knows that driving up the cost of funds weakens the credit worthiness of all the member nations. (see the last sentence highlighted in yellow)

And, as the IMF gets all of its euros from the euro zone member nations, all the Greek assistance, including the IMF funding, ultimately comes from the euro nations themselves, reducing general credit worthiness.

Highlights:

German Inflation Accelerated to Fastest in 16 Months in March
Trichet Says Greece Aid Plan Is ‘Positive’ Solution
Trichet’s Voice Is Drowned Out in Rescue Effort
German Economy to Grow 1.5% in 2010, 2011, BDB Bank Lobby Says
Nowotny Says ECB Didn’t Want Greek Fate in Rating Firm’s Hands
ECB sees worst-hit sectors make fast repairs
Merkel ‘Buckled’ on Greek Aid Terms, Lawmakers Say
French Parliament Can Clear Greek Aid in 1 Week, Lagarde Says
French Consumer Prices Gain 1.7%, Driven by Higher Energy Costs
ECB’s Ordonez Says EU Support for Greece Is Not a Subsidy
Italy GDP Lost 6.5% Due to Financial Crisis, Central Bank Says

Greece Aid Fails to Cut Downgrade Risk, Moody’s Says

By Mathew Brown

April 13 (Bloomberg) — Greece’s 45 billion-euro ($61 billion) international aid pledge, designed to help it tackle its debt crisis, has failed to remove the likelihood of a credit downgrade, Moody’s Investors Service said. The Mediterranean nation faces “significant execution risk,” in implementing a plan to reduce its budget deficit, Sarah Carlson, the Moody’s lead analyst for Greece, said in a telephone interview yesterday. Support from the EU was assumed before the April 11 agreement, she said. “More specificity of the nature of the EU assistance if it were necessary is helpful, if nothing else, for calming down the markets,” Carlson said. “The amount of money that a government spends on interest payments relative to the revenues that it takes in is a very important variable that we look at, and one of the things that affects that is the cost of borrowing.”

Hard to believe that with most every expansion of the last 20 years cut short by consumption tax increases, they keep coming up like this.

Highlights:

Keidanren: Hike Consumption Tax To At Least 10%
Power Output Up 7.5% In March
Corp Goods Prices Down 1.3% In March
March New Condo Offerings Surge 54.2% In Tokyo
BOJ Gov Shirakawa: Law Prohibits BOJ From Underwriting JGBs
Forex: Dollar Briefly Hits 2-Week Low in Mid-92 Yen in Tokyo
Stocks: End Lower On Pre-U.S. Earnings Selling, Yen Rise
Bonds: Up Despite Weak 30-Yr Sale As Equity Slump Sparks Demand

Sorry to see him leave.

He would have made a good Fed Chairman with his comprehensive understanding of monetary operations.

Hopefully he’s leaving to come back via an appointment that would put him on the FOMC.

Fed’s Madigan to Retire as Top Monetary Adviser

By Scott Lanman

April 12 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve said Brian Madigan, the top staff adviser on interest-rate policy and an architect of the emergency-lending programs during the financial crisis, will retire later this year.

Please comment:

We Can Have Low Priced Imports and Good Jobs for All Americans

We can have BOTH low priced imports AND good jobs for all Americans

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has urged US Treasury Secretary Geithner to take legal action to force China to let its currency appreciate. As stated by Blumenthal: “By stifling its currency, China is stifling our economy and stealing our jobs. Connecticut manufacturers have bled business and jobs over recent years because of China’s unconscionable currency manipulation and unfair market practices.”

The Attorney General is proposing to create jobs by lowering the value of the dollar vs. the yuan (China’s currency) to make China’s products a lot more expensive for US consumers, who are already struggling to survive. Those higher prices then cause us to instead buy products made elsewhere, which will presumably means more American products get produced and sold. The trade off is most likely to be a few more jobs in return for higher prices (also called inflation), and a lower standard of living from the higher prices.

Fortunately there is an alternative that allows the US consumer to enjoy the enormous benefits of low cost imports and also makes good jobs available for all Americans willing and able to work. That alternative is to keep Federal taxes low enough so Americans have enough take home pay to buy all the goods and services we can produce at full employment levels AND everything the world wants to sell to us. This in fact is exactly what happened in 2000 when unemployment was under 4%, while net imports were $380 billion. We had what most considered a ‘red hot’ labor market with jobs for all, as well as the benefit of consuming $380 billion more in imports than we exported, along with very low inflation and a high standard of living due in part to the low cost imports.

The reason we had such a good economy in 2000 was because private sector debt grew at a record 7% of GDP, supplying the spending power we needed to keep us fully employed and also able to buy all of those imports. But as soon as private sector debt expansion reached its limits and that source of spending power faded, the right Federal policy response would have been to cut Federal taxes to sustain American spending power. That wasn’t done until 2003- two long years after the recession had taken hold. The economy again improved, and unemployment came down even as imports increased. However, when private sector debt again collapsed in 2008, the Federal government again failed to cut taxes or increase spending to sustain the US consumer’s spending power. The stimulus package that was passed almost a year later in 2009 was far too small and spread out over too many years. Consequently, unemployment continued to rise, reaching an unthinkable high of 16.9% (people looking for full time work who can’t find it) in March 2010.

The problem is we are conducting Federal policy on the mistaken belief that the Federal government must get the dollars it spends through taxes, and what it doesn’t get from taxes it must borrow in the market place, and leave the debts for our children to pay back. It is this errant belief that has resulted in a policy of enormous, self imposed fiscal drag that has devastated our economy.

My three proposals for removing this drag on our economy are:

1. A full payroll tax (FICA) holiday for employees and employers. This increases the take home pay for people earning $50,000 a year by over $300 per month. It also cuts costs for businesses, which means lower prices as well as new investment.

2. A $500 per capita distribution to State governments with no strings attached. This means $1.75 billion of Federal revenue sharing to the State of Connecticut to help sustain essential public services and reduce debt.

3. An $8/hr national service job for anyone willing and able to work to facilitate the transition from unemployment to private sector employment as the pickup in sales from my first two proposals quickly translates into millions of new private sector jobs.

Because the right level of taxation to sustain full employment and price stability will vary over time, it’s the Federal government’s job to use taxation like a thermostat- lowering taxes when the economy is too cold, and considering tax increases only should the economy ‘over heat’ and get ‘too good’ (which is something I’ve never seen in my 40 years).

For policy makers to pursue this policy, they first need to understand what all insiders in the Fed (Federal Reserve Bank) have known for a very long time- the Federal government (not State and local government, corporations, and all of us) never actually has nor doesn’t have any US dollars. It taxes by simply changing numbers down in our bank accounts and doesn’t actually get anything, and it spends simply by changing numbers up in our bank accounts and doesn’t actually use anything up. As Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke explained in to Scott Pelley on ’60 minutes’ in May 2009:

(PELLEY) Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
(BERNANKE) It’s not tax money. The banks have– accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

Therefore, payroll tax cuts do NOT mean the Federal government will go broke and run out of money if it doesn’t cut Social Security and Medicare payments. As the Fed Chairman correctly explained, operationally, spending is not revenue constrained.

We know why the Federal government taxes- to regulate the economy- but what about Federal borrowing? As you might suspect, our well advertised dependence on foreigners to buy US Treasury securities to fund the Federal government is just another myth holding us back from realizing our economic potential.


Operationally, foreign governments have ‘checking accounts’ at the Fed called ‘reserve accounts,’ and US Treasury securities are nothing more than savings accounts at the same Fed. So when a nation like China sells things to us, we pay them with dollars that go into their checking account at the Fed. And when they buy US Treasury securities the Fed simply transfers their dollars from their Fed checking account to their Fed savings account. And paying back US Treasury securities is nothing more than transferring the balance in China’s savings account at the Fed to their checking account at the Fed. This is not a ‘burden’ for us nor will it be for our children and grand children. Nor is the US Treasury spending operationally constrained by whether China has their dollars in their checking account or their savings accounts. Any and all constraints on US government spending are necessarily self imposed. There can be no external constraints.


In conclusion, it is a failure to understand basic monetary operations and Fed reserve accounting that caused the Democratic Congress and Administration to cut Medicare in the latest health care law, and that same failure of understanding is now driving well intentioned Americans like Atty General Blumenthal to push China to revalue its currency. This weak dollar policy is a misguided effort to create jobs by causing import prices to go up for struggling US consumers to the point where we buy fewer Chinese products. The far better option is to cut taxes as I’ve proposed, to ensure we have enough take home pay to be able to buy all that we can produce domestically at full employment, plus whatever imports we want to buy from foreigners at the lowest possible prices, and return America to the economic prosperity we once enjoyed.