Greek youth unemployment soars to 64.9pc

The EU is a failed state.

Greek youth unemployment soars to 64.9pc

By Szu Ping Chan

August 8 (Telegraph) — Repeated doses of austerity under international bailouts have almost tripled Greece’s jobless rate since its debt crisis began in 2009, weighing on an economy in its sixth year of recession.

Unemployment rose to 27.6pc in May from an upwardly revised 27pc in April, according to data from statistics agency ELSTAT. This is more than twice the average rate in the eurozone, which stood at 12.1pc in June, and is the highest reading since Greece’s statistics office began publishing monthly jobless data in 2006.

This means there are now almost 1.4m people out of work in Greece, and 3.3m people who are considered economically inactive.

Joblessness in the 15-to-24 age group jumped to 64.9pc, from 57.5pc in April.

Greek prime minister Antonis Samaras will hold talks with US President Barack Obama later on Thursday.

Mr Samaras is keen to secure US approval for stimulus policies for Greece’s recession-hit economy, in contrast to the austerity emphasis preferred by many of its European partners, most notably Germany.

In an interview with Greek newspaper Kathimerini, US vice president Joe Biden said America had “a stake” in Greece’s economic recovery and wanted the crisis-hit nation to stay in the eurozone.

“The administration has always taken the view that it’s overwhelmingly in our interest to have Greece remain a strong and vital part of the eurozone,” he said.

“We have a stake in Greece’s success,” Mr Biden added.

Fed’s Plosser

Here’s what we’re up against. The only thing between today’s economic catastrophe and unimaginable prosperity is the space between their ears, as we continue to lose the battle vs the demand leakages.

Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy: Restoring the Boundaries

By Charles I. Plosser, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Fiscal Imbalances

August 5 (Philadelphia Fed)&#8212 During the past several years, we have witnessed the ongoing saga of governments, both in Europe and in the U.S., struggling with large deficits and soaring public debt. For the most part, these challenges are self-inflicted. They are the result of governments choosing fiscal policies that they knew would be unsustainable in the long run. Financial market participants remain skeptical about whether the political process can come to grips with the problems.

So far, this skepticism appears to be wholly justified. Neither the European nor the American political process has developed credible and sustainable plans to finance public spending. Instead, politicians continue to engage in protracted debates over who will bear the burden of the substantial adjustments needed to put fiscal policies back on a sustainable path. In my view, these prolonged debates impede economic growth, in part, due to the uncertainty they impose on consumers and businesses. Moreover, the longer the delay in developing credible plans, the more costly it becomes for the respective economies.

Given the magnitude of the fiscal shortfalls, the way in which the political process restores fiscal discipline will have profound implications for years to come. Will there be higher taxes on investments by the private sector that risk reducing productive capacity and output in the future? Will there be higher taxes on labor that discourage work effort or hiring? Will there be cutbacks in government expenditures on defense or basic research that might force significant resource reallocations and affect a wide array of industry sectors? Will there be cutbacks on entitlements that could affect health care, social insurance, and other aspects of our safety net? Or will a viable fiscal plan combine various types of tax increases and spending cuts?

These are important questions that involve hard choices and trade-offs between efficiency and equity. Yet, until fiscal authorities choose a path, uncertainty encourages firms to defer hiring and investment decisions and complicates the financial planning of individuals and businesses. The longer it takes to reach a resolution on a credible, sustainable plan to reduce future deficits and limit the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product, or GDP, the more damage is done to the economy in the near term.

Some observers say cyclical factors and the magnitude of the recent global recession caused the current fiscal crisis. It is certainly true that the policy choices made by governments to deal with the financial crisis and ensuing recession have caused a significant deterioration in fiscal balances and debt levels in many countries. However, the underlying trends that are at the root of unsustainable fiscal deficits in many countries, including the U.S., have been in place and known for some time. In the U.S., for example, the major long-run drivers of the structural deficit at the federal level are entitlements such as health care and Social Security.[2]

Thus, even after cyclical effects play out, many countries will continue to have large structural budget deficits. In this sense, the financial crisis and recession have simply exacerbated the underlying problems and perhaps moved up the day of reckoning. In some cases, such as Greece, that day has come. In light of these realities, market participants have begun to question the solvency of governments and their ability to honor their sovereign debt obligations in the absence of deep structural reforms. In Europe, the doubts have greatly complicated the political problems as various countries debate the question of “who pays” for the anticipated bad debts of individual countries. Here, too, the protracted nature of the political debate creates uncertainty, which undermines economic growth and exacerbates the crisis.

Randy Wray’s response to NYT article

Warren Mosler & MMT: Deficit Lovers?

By L. Randall Wray

July 5 — Here’s a piece from yesterday’s NYTimes by Annie Lowrey: Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following.

While this is a mostly good piece on Warren, Lowrey gets enough of it wrong to call into question her ability as a reporter. Yes, Warren designed and built a yacht, and he designed and built great race cars (even if his first model was called one of the fifty worst cars ever–for its unorthodox looks, not for its performance). It is also true that Modern Money Theory has taken off in the blogosphere, where it has picked up tens of thousands of followers. And Warren just completed a whirlwind speaking tour in Italy that attracted hundreds of listeners even in small towns. (Try that, any other American economist!)

The rest of her piece is filled with bias and mistakes. First, while it is true that Warren’s former hedge fund lost money in a Russian deal, he had already sold out his stake and was not involved. Warren knew the risks of pegging a currency and opposed the deal from the beginning. Note however, that the deal was much more complicated than Lowrey implies. As I recall, the position was hedged but some major international banks defaulted on their promises; eventually Warren’s former firm collected damages. In any event, the risks of pegging a currency are well-known by followers of MMT and the Russian default is perfectly consistent with MMT’s teachings.

Lowrey also quotes Stephanie Kelton as saying ““These ideas definitely aren’t disseminated through published academic journals.” “It’s all on the Internet.” Stephanie said no such thing. And of course, it is pure nonsense. There are dozens and dozens of scholarly papers published in the academic journals on MMT. There are critiques of MMT and responses to the critics. The ideas have been debated since the mid 1990s by PhD economists. Lowrey is a lazy reporter as this would have been easy to check; or she came to the story with a bias, trying to paint MMT as silly. Indeed, she likens MMT to Ron Paul’s gold buggism–which has no academic support at all. Yes, the internet blogs have been essential to spreading the ideas of MMT outside academia–and that is a good thing–but Lowrey’s attempt to dismiss it stinks of bias. One wonders if her famous NYTimes Nobel winning economics columnist colleague put her up to this.

She also quotes blogger Mark Thoma as follows:

“They deny the fact that the government use of real resources can drive the real interest rate up,” said Mark Thoma, an economics professor and widely followed blogger who teaches at the University of Oregon. After delving into the technical details of modern monetary theory for a few minutes, he paused, then added, “I think it’s just nuts.”

The last part rings true–I don’t think Thoma has spent more than a few minutes to try to understand MMT (and he doesn’t understand any of it). But if he did say that “government use of real resources” might “drive the real interest rate up”, then he’s far more confused about macroeconomics than I ever suspected. It is one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever seen in print, so I suppose she made it up. What nonsense.

The “real interest rate” is a compound term, comprised of the nominal interest rate and the rate of inflation. Technically, the real rate is the nominal rate less expected inflation. As we know, the Fed sets the overnight nominal rate. The real rate is then the Fed’s target rate less expected inflation.

Now it is possible that “government use of real resources” MIGHT raise expectations of inflation. That is what gold buggism is all about. So let us say Ron Paul whips up inflationary expectations. What happens to the real rate? Well, we are subtracting a bigger expected inflation number from the Fed’s target rate. SO THE REAL RATE GOES DOWN! Now, Thoma might think the Fed will also react to Ron Paul’s gold buggism and so increase its target rate. How much? Who knows. Is there any guarantee the Fed will raise it MORE than Ron Paul raises inflation expectations? I see no reason why one would jump to that conclusion. And historically, the ex post real rate does often fall when inflation rises (it even goes massively negative).

That is not proof that it is impossible for the real rate to rise when government uses real resources, but there’s no reason to think the real rate automatically goes up. It depends. On whether inflation expectations increase by less than the Fed raises the nominal rate target.

Finally, Warren and “Deficit Owls” are by no means “deficit lovers”–so Lowrey’s title is misleading. There’s a time for deficits, a time for balanced budgets, and even a time for budget surpluses. It all depends on the other two sectors (reminder: Government Balance + Private Domestic Balance + Foreign Balance = 0). A more accurate title would have been: Warren Mosler: Not Afraid of Deficits.

At least Lowrey had the good sense to interview Jamie Galbraith. This is a nice statement:

“There’s a whole deficit lobby of Peterson-funded groups arguing we’re turning into Greece,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin. “They’re blowing smoke and the M.M.T. group has patiently explained why.”

Precisely. MMT tries to expose Peterson as running a dishonest scare campaign in order to push through his policy to gut the social safety net. It is not that we “love deficits”. It is that we hate dishonesty.

Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following – NYTimes.com

You got the Russian trade dead wrong. Please file a correction.

I turned the firm over to my partners at the end of 1997, long before the Russian default, after a disagreement on how that fund was managed. With a fixed exchange rate there was a very real risk of default. As I told you my only contribution to the fund was the name which proved invaluable.

Also you should have asked me for a response to Thoma and real rates if you were going to publish his comments, as a matter of journalism. The only reason real rates can be a problem is if they limit credit expansion, in which case a tax cut or spending increase is in order to sustain output and employment.

Not that it matters, but history will not be kind to you regarding these points and the dismissive tone of your article in general.

Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following

By Annie Lowry

July 4 (NYT) — Warren Mosler is a card-carrying member of the 1 percent. A deeply tanned, tennis-lean hedge fund executive, Mr. Mosler lives on this run-down but jewel-toned Caribbean island for tax reasons. Transitioning into an active retirement, he recently designed and had built an $850,000 catamaran called Knot My Problem. He whizzes around St. Croix in a white, low-slung sports car he created himself, too.

But his prescriptions for economic policy make him sound like a warrior for the 99 percent. When the recession hit, Mr. Mosler said, the government should have spent and spent until unemployment came down to a comfortable level. Forget saving the banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Washington should have eliminated the payroll tax, given every state $500 per resident and offered a basic job to anyone who wanted one.

“There would have been no recession,” Mr. Mosler, 63, said over a salad at a hole-in-the-wall seaside cafe called Rum Runners.

Washington’s debts would have soared, of course. But Mr. Mosler sees no problem with that. A failed Senate candidate in Connecticut with unorthodox but attention-grabbing economic theories, he says he believes the United States should be running much bigger deficits and that the last thing the government needs to worry about is balancing its budget.

Mr. Mosler’s ideas, which go under the label of “modern monetary theory,” or M.M.T., are clearly on the fringe, drawing skeptical reactions even from many liberal Keynesian economists who agree with some of his arguments. But they have attracted a growing following, flourishing on the Internet and in a handful of academic outposts, as he and others who share his thinking have made the case that austerity budgeting in the United States and in Europe is doing irreparable harm.

Like many Keynesian economists, Mr. Mosler and other modern monetary theorists are particularly disturbed by the longstanding campaign articulated and financed by Peter G. Peterson, a former commerce secretary who co-founded the Blackstone Group private equity fund, to reduce the deficit or else.

“There’s a whole deficit lobby of Peterson-funded groups arguing we’re turning into Greece,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin. “They’re blowing smoke and the M.M.T. group has patiently explained why.”

Still, even for those with some knowledge of economics, the tenets of the modern monetary theory can make your head spin. The government does not tax its citizens to pay for federal spending. It taxes them to ensure they use the dollar and to help to regulate demand. Since the government prints the dollar, it can never run out of money and it need never balance its budget, not even to prevent the crowding out of private investment when the economy is humming along.

What about inflation? “What about it?” Mr. Mosler replied. “How can the United States have $16 trillion in debt and still be on the verge of deflation, even when Chairman Bernanke’s using every alphabet-soup trick in his book?”

To mainstream economists, Mr. Mosler and his adherents represent something of a counterpoint to the handful of academics on the right who believe the United States should return to the gold standard because the government is supposedly going bankrupt and the Federal Reserve under Ben S. Bernanke is debasing the currency.

“They deny the fact that the government use of real resources can drive the real interest rate up,” said Mark Thoma, an economics professor and widely followed blogger who teaches at the University of Oregon. After delving into the technical details of modern monetary theory for a few minutes, he paused, then added, “I think it’s just nuts.”

But just as a return to the gold standard has attracted a popular following — including many supporters of Ron Paul, the charismatic former Texas congressman — so has modern monetary theory, which has been spread on the great stage of the Web. A thriving academic blogosphere brings ideas up and knocks them down, and popular sites like Business Insider and Naked Capitalism have given modern monetary theorists a platform to join in.

“These ideas definitely aren’t disseminated through published academic journals,” said Stephanie Kelton, an economist at University of Missouri-Kansas City, who coined the term “deficit owls” to distinguish modern monetary theorists from “deficit hawks.” “It’s all on the Internet.”

Mr. Mosler has played a pivotal role in promoting the theory, and unlike many economists he has the resources to do so. He runs a popular blog called the Center of the Universe, a sly joke, perhaps, given that tiny, tropical St. Croix, which is about 1,200 miles from Miami, is the easternmost point in the United States. He eagerly appears on radio programs and on television. Recently, he went on a tour of Italy to promote his anti-austerity ideas.

He has also helped to build an infrastructure to mint new modern monetary theorists, helping to found the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and financing a small army of graduate students. “Someone once said that economics advances one funeral at a time,” Mr. Mosler said, chuckling. “The hope is that we have a generation of economists coming up who really understand how things work and can put those ideas to a public purpose.”

There were also a few self-financed political campaigns, including some fruitless races in the Virgin Islands. In his 2012 run, Mr. Mosler said he believed the voting was rigged. He made a vanity run for Senate in Connecticut in 2010 as an independent, making waves by offering to use $100 million of his own money to pay down the deficit if any member of Congress could prove that government spending was actually constrained by tax revenue. He came in third, with about 1 percent of the vote. “It was a mistake,” Mr. Mosler said of running in Connecticut. “It did get the ideas out there, though.”

Mr. Mosler started his career at a small bank in Connecticut, and eventually became a Wall Street trader. It was there, he said, that he developed an intuitive understanding of how the economy works — one very different from that of policy makers in Washington and the vast bulk of academics.

“All debt management is, is debiting and crediting different accounts,” Mr. Mosler said, recalling seeing numbers appear and disappear from his computer at Bankers Trust in New York in the 1970s. “Can the federal government run out of dollars? No, because the Fed could pipe in a bigger number. That number doesn’t come from anywhere. It’s like when a player scores a field goal at a stadium. Three points just appear. The government is just the scorekeeper for the dollar.”

In the early 1980s, he left Wall Street and along with a partner, Clifford Viner, who is now the owner of the Florida Panthers hockey team, founded a hedge fund in Boca Raton, Fla. The fund made relatively few, relatively complicated financial bets, said Michael Reger, a partner of Mr. Mosler’s for the last 20 years. “He’s an urban myth,” Mr. Reger said of the affable, talkative and bookish Mr. Mosler.

Mr. Mosler’s fund has made a number of bets informed by his theory. For instance, Mr. Reger said, when the Treasury was paying down the United States debt during the Clinton years, many bond traders thought that prices would spike because of increasing scarcity. But Mr. Mosler predicted that no such scarcity would ever materialize, and shorted the bonds.

That trade panned out, though others have not. The business lost hundreds of millions of dollars betting that Russia would not default on its debts. That country’s fixed exchange rate spurred it to go belly up, Mr. Mosler said.

On the side, he ran Mosler Automotive, which created several dozen low-slung, lightweight, superfast sports cars over its nearly 30 years in business. That passion project never quite worked out, he said, and he is now in the process of selling it off. “The Consulier got named one of the 50 worst cars ever made by Time magazine,” he said with a laugh. “Look it up!”

But entering retirement, Mr. Mosler has more than enough work to do promoting his monetary theories, he said.

“Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources,” Mr. Mosler said. “If there’s a food shortage, you have a real problem in divvying up the food. Right now, we have a dollar shortage because of mistaken notions about how the monetary system works. How does that make any sense?”

Market Watch

Radical fixes needed to make the euro work

Commentary: Warren Mosler has a plan but no takers

By Darrell Delamaide

May 8 (MarketWatch) — If youre ever tempted to think the euro zone has turned the corner and is on the right track, go have a chat with Warren Mosler and hell set you straight.

The former hedge-fund manager and an original proponent of what has come to be known as modern monetary theory gave a talk recently at a wealth management conference in Zurich that took a pessimistic view of the euro righting itself on its current path.

The European slow-motion train wreck will continue until theres recognition that deficits need to be larger, Mosler said at the conclusion of his analysis. The continuing efforts at deficit reduction will continue to make things worse.

Mosler suggested several measures that could turn around the situation in the euro zone, though he acknowledged there is little chance they will be adopted.

The euro authorities need to accept that deficits should be allowed to go up to 8% of gross domestic product, instead of the current 3%, as the only way to create the monetary conditions for full employment and economic growth.

The European Central Bank should make a policy rate of 0% permanent. The ECB, as the source of the euro zones fiat money, should guarantee the debt of all euro countries and guarantee deposit insurance for all euro-zone banks, which would entail taking over bank supervision.

Individual countries in the euro zone, like individual states in the U.S., are trapped in a procyclical monetary and fiscal environment. Because they have no sovereign currency, they must reduce spending in a downturn.

In the U.S., the federal government can operate countercyclically, by running a sufficiently large deficit to provide net savings to the private sector. The ECB is the only institution in the euro zone that does not have revenue constraints and could play a countercyclical role.

Because money is a public monopoly, when the monopolist restricts supply by not running a sufficient deficit, it creates excess capacity in the economy, as evidenced by high unemployment.

Mosler says the deficit can result from lower taxes or increased government spending, whatever your politics prefers. But policies aimed at reducing the deficit are doomed to keep an economy depressed.

And theres more. All successful currency unions include fiscal transfers, Mosler said. In Canada, this is written into the constitution and in the U.S. it is achieved through the federal budget.

In Europe, this would mean that some authority like an empowered European Parliament would direct government spending to the areas with the highest unemployment.

Clearly all of this is well beyond what Europe is currently capable of doing, and the leaders in power have implicitly or explicitly rejected all of these potential fixes.

The reality is, Mosler noted, that there is no political support for higher deficits, no political support for leaving the euro, and beyond reducing deficits the only remaining fixes are taxes on depositors and bondholders like those seen in Cyprus and Greece.

Mosler, who currently manages offshore funds and produces sports cars on the side, says his views, which have been taken up and elaborated by a post-Keynesian school of economics, are based on his experience as a money manager.

And, he adds, he has a substantial following of asset managers for his ideas because these are people who are paid to get it right.

The current stopgap measures proposed by the ECB notably the putative outright monetary transactions to bail out a country under certain conditions, which has yet to be used have a dubious legal basis and are so much smoke and mirrors, Mosler said.

In this Zurich talk, Mosler did not draw any further conclusions regarding his pessimistic view of the euros current course, but a website devoted to Mosler Economics in Italy, where MMT has a considerable following, spells out what it could mean in a post called 10 reasons to return to the lira.

These reasons include the ability to lower taxes, allow the government to pay off debts to the private sector and implement a works program to provide employment and improve the public infrastructure. Read the post (in Italian).

Lest this all seem like so much pie in the sky, keep in mind that the forces that gave the protest movement of Beppe Grillo a quarter of the vote in Italys recent election will only grow as continued austerity deepens Europes recession.

So remain optimistic if you like, but youve been warned.

DRAGHI SAYS ECB TECHNICALLY READY FOR NEGATIVE DEPOSIT RATES

If anyone can get a message to him, please tell him that, functionally, negative rates are just a tax on deposits that ultimately reduces spending/output/employment, much like the PSI did in Greece and whatever you want to call the ‘deposit confiscation tax’ in Cypress.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   This is a bit unexpected
>   

*DRAGHI SAYS ECB TECHNICALLY READY FOR NEGATIVE DEPOSIT RATES

*DRAGHI SAYS ECB TECHNICALLY READY FOR NEGATIVE DEPOSIT RATES

“on the deposit facility rate… we are technically ready. There are several unintended consequences that may stem from this measure. we will address and cope with these consequences if we decided to act. We will look at this with an open mind and stand ready to act if needed”

Thaler’s Corner 04-22-2013 2013: And now?

Again, very well stated!

Thaler’s Corner

I must admit that I am at a loss for words these days. The analytical items at our disposal describe a situation so complex, given a myriad of contradictory influences, that I find it impossible to develop any sort of reasonable scenario.


I have spent a lot of time in recent weeks exchanging ideas and perceptions with academics, political officials and others in an effort to develop a coherent explanation of the events unfolding before us (Cyprus, wealth tax, etc.), but the conclusions are anything but conclusive!

Changes in financial securities will no longer be determined by purely economic factors but more and more by political decisions, such as whether or not to establish a real European banking union with all that implies in terms of cross-border budget transfer risks.

Whatever, lets take a look at the state of the real economy in the United Sates and Europe, given that it is still a bit early to draw any sort of conclusions about a third economic motor, Japan.

By the way, I strongly recommend that people check out the links in todays Macro Geeks Corner toward the end of the newsletter. It is interesting to see how two fairly divergent schools of thinking (the two first texts) end up with rather similar conclusions.

United States

In the United States, the economy is (logically) slowing as the effects of the Sequester slowly make themselves felt. Only the (increasingly discredited) partisans of Reinhold & Rogoffs constructive austerity thought it would not affect household consumption.

We had to wait for the hike in payroll taxes for the effect to be seen in retail sales figures, down 0.4% in March. Similarly, all the latest leading economic (PMI) and confidence indicators came in below expectations, which augurs for a soft patch in the US.

Moreover, the yens decline can only have a negative impact on America trade balance with Japan as it puts US exporters at a disadvantage, in particular, as they compete with their Japanese rivals on Asian markets. And the pitiful state of the European economy is not going to help this sector of the US economy either.

But there remains one bright spot, namely the residential real estate market, which should remain a powerful support in the quarters ahead. Check out one of my favorite graphs real animal rates.

Real animal rates in the US:


Full size image

These rates are calculated using a proprietary equation I developed, which includes, in addition to terms like mortgage interest rates, recent home price trends, the difference between the reported unemployment rate and that during periods of full employment, and the difference between the average length of unemployment and that existing in times of full employment.

With the Animal Spirits so dear to Keynes and behavioral science in mind, the goal was to factor in items more subjective than simple economic criteria (nominal borrowing rates) in the home purchase decision-making process of a household.

If experience has taught us anything, it is that the factors which most influence a potential homebuyers decision is his degree of job security and the feeling that prices can only rise.

The first point is that the only time these real animal rates dipped into negative territory (in the upper part of graph, transcribed in inverted scale) corresponds perfectly with the great real estate bubble of 1998 to 2006.

This big trend reversal occurred in 2006 when rates resurfaced above zero and thus below the graphs red line.

The only other time real animal rates became negative was in 1989, but that was abruptly reversed by the sharp hike in nominal interest rates.

In the current context, nominal interest rates are unlikely to undergo any such sharp hike in the quarters ahead, and this dip of real animal rates into negative territory should enable the real estate market to continue to recover. This all the more true, given that the yens decline will only strengthen disinflationary trends in North America, which ensure accommodative monetary policies for some time to come!

All you need to do is look at the steep decline in inflationary expectations, as expressed by the TIPS market in the US, to understand that investors seem to have finally realized that QE policies have nothing to do with the so-called dollar printing press. Notwithstanding the ZeroHedge paranoids!

That said, existing home sales in the US, out just a few minutes ago, came in weak, at -0.6% m-o-m (vs expected +0.4%, i.e. 4.92M vs 5M), which explains this afternoon shiver on stockmarket indices.

Now, as the IMF has said in recent days, the main brake on a worldwide recovery is the Eurozone, which remains paralyzed by the obsession of its northern member states on austerity and by the ECBs total and unforgivable incapacity to comply with its own mandate! In todays Macro Geeks Corner, you will find two instructive links on this matter.

Eurozone

Instead of harping on the endless stream of errors made by our beloved European monetary and governmental leaders, I prefer to comment on some far more instructive graphs.

Lets start with our graph on aggregate 2-year Eurozone government bond rates, which have proven to be so useful in recent years for evaluating the ECBs reaction function.

This rate, currently at a record low 0.55%, is now well below the 0.75% set for the refi. This stems from two factors.

First, in view of the state of the economy and the latest comments by certain ECB board members, investors expect that the refi rate will very soon (May or June) be cut to 0.50%.

Second, certainty that short-term interest rates, like the Eonia, which have been stuck between 5 bps and 12 bps for the past 9 months, are not going to rise anytime soon is pushing investors to seek yields wherever they can still find them, like in Spain and Italy where 2-year bonds still fetch between 1.95% and 1.25%, now that they are assured that, henceforth, in case of insolvency, bank depositors will be forced to pay the bill without pushing sovereign issuers into default, as happened in Greece!

Aggregated Eurozone government 2-year rate:

Full size image

However, we have reason to be concerned that the ECB, if it does lower the refi to 0.50%, will be satisfied with what it already deems a low rate and highly accommodative monetary policy. Such is far from being the case, even if we go by the ECBs own obsolete aggregates, like M3, as money velocity continues to skid to a halt, following Cyprus.

And all this has an impact on the real economy, as you can see in the following graphs.

Eurozone Industrial Production

Full size image

The least we can say is that this graph is particularly distressing. Of course, it does not account for the economys industrial aspect, which some call the old economy. But it provides a whole lot of jobs and no economic area can afford to neglect it.

And the impact of Mr Sarkozys renowned Walk of Canossa, following his summons by Ms Merkel in July 2011 to Berlin where the unfortunate decision to create the first sovereign default of a developed country was endorsed (Greek PSI), is very clear on this graph. Together with a hardening of austerity policies and the nefarious consequences of the ECBs hikes of benchmark interest rates in the spring of 2011, this decision torpedoed already distressed economies, with the consequences we all know today.


But if there is one depressing economic indicator, which reflects even more cruelly how austerity affected the Eurozone, it is surely the unemployment curve.

Eurozone Unemployment

Full size image

Here again, no comment is needed. I included earlier in this newsletter the graph comparing the US and Eurozone curves, but even that is no longer all that relevant. If people are happy to underperform the United States, who cares? If the Eurozone wants to try liquidationist economic policies to help drive home the morality message, it has every right to do so, just as its citizens merit the leadership they elect.

But to go from there to creating a situation of hysteria, leading to an increasingly large segment of the active population being ejected from the labor market, is a big step that must never be taken.

In some countries, the figures are just horrifying, with nearly 30% general unemployment and over 50% for those under 25 years of age. It is incredible that some continue to boast the merits of such policies for countries like Ireland while ignoring the daily siphoning of the population due to massive immigration to seek jobs elsewhere!!

I wonder if those responsible for such policies have forgotten the consequences of such an approach in Europe and the breakdown in the social fabric during the Great Depression, especially now, with so many leaders spicing their speeches with anti-German references?

This pathetic situation, reflecting month after month of economic policies based on no worthwhile or credible foundations, be it on a theoretical or empirical basis, explains why I am having a hard time re-establishing a decent pace of publication.

This is especially so in that the conflict between this depressive macro situation and the strong efforts undertaken by the Fed and the BoJ (among others) to reignite economic activity leave no space for laying out clear asset allocation biases.

We continue to enable our clients to take advantage of opportunities on option markets which make it possible during these troubled times to make bets on the cheap but without any real conviction.

Has our asset allocation strategy, dating from 2007 (a bit early, I know), of favoring government debt came to maturity with German 10-year rates at 1.23%, i.e. more than 30 bps below those of the United States?

Will European stock markets continue to suffer from our big fear, the Japanese syndrome? Or will popular pressure push the ECB and the Austrian School proponents to realize that they have a modern currency at their disposal and that reversing their entire intellectual edifice is possible?


Despite all my efforts, studies, reading and discussion, I am totally incapable of responding to these questions, which a great lesson in humility. Sorry for the consequences in terms of this newsletters clarity and frequency of publication, but if anyone has any ideas, I am all ears!

The Macro Geeks Corner:

Dear Northern Europeans Monetary easing is not a bailout

A factual rebuttal of remarks of ECB chief Jrg Asmussen, made at the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Investor conference

Breaking bad inflation expectations

Super Seccareccia on R&R

Dear all,
I am amazed at how much media coverage since yesterday this study criticizing the Reinhart-Rogoff work is getting thanks largely, apparently, to the Roosevelt Institute research support which I think is great (see below)! Needless to say, I am convinced that there was hardly any error from some incompetent research assistant but that it was most likely an exercise in data mining and selective use of data series that are rampant and that practically all economists engage in … not to mention the causality issue in interpreting the statistical evidence to which many now are also referring.

What bothers me about this is to suggest that the rejection of austerity is predicated on the basis of faulty data series. We know that, regardless of the amount of empirical evidence that one has to disprove a theory, unless there is a coherent alternative that is espoused and around which political forces can coalesce, the theory will remain intact and the proponents of austerity will continue to spew their toxic ideas and implement their destructive measures worldwide. That is why Krugman and his disciples will not get very far with this, since they do not have a coherent alternative to some loanable funds theory. All of them subscribe to some notion of debt stability as being a constraint ultimately on public spending and thus on economic growth. Hence, instead of 90% debt/GDP ratio, they may find some other higher ratio, say, 150% and they will then have to say that Greece and Japan must now still implement austerity measures! The problem here is that they are stuck in a faulty and misleading paradigm that must eventually lead them to austerity. The only viable framework that is truly a paradigm shift is the broad circuitist cum MMT framework. Unless we can get that through to the media, all of this interesting debate over data series will not go anywhere …. much like the conclusions last year on the IMF fiscal multipliers being larger than originally assumed has hardly changed anything in preventing governments from continuing to apply austerity measures internationally.


But there is some hope because at least there is a shake-up in the profession! As Alain undoubtedly would say: Ce n’est qu’un dbut, continuons le combat!

All the best,
Mario Seccareccia

Gold

When Central Banks buy it, the price tends to go up, and when they sell it, the price tends to go back towards marginal cost of production.

Talk of Cypress being forced to sell stokes fears of Greece doing same, and of course when EU policy turns biased towards selling its doubtful any of the member banks would buy?


Full size image

The Stockman’s big swinging whip

The Man from Snowy River

By Banjo Paterson

So Clancy rode to wheel them — he was racing on the wing
Where the best and boldest riders take their place,
And he raced his stock-horse past them, and he made the ranges ring
With the stockwhip, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung the dreaded lash,
But they saw their well-loved mountain full in view,
And they charged beneath the stockwhip with a sharp and sudden dash,
And off into the mountain scrub they flew.

Unemployment is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon, and necessarily a government imposed crime against humanity. The currency is a simple public monopoly.

The dollars to pay taxes, ultimately come from government spending or lending (or counterfeiting…)

Unemployment can only happen when a govt fails to spend enough to cover the tax liabilities it imposed, and any residual desire to save financial assets that are created by the tax and by other govt policy.

Said another way, for any given size government, unemployment is the evidence of over taxation.

Motivation not withstanding, David Stockman has long been aggressively promoting policy that creates and sustains unemployment.

Comments below:

State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America

By David Stockman

March 30 (NYT) — The Dow Jones and Standard & Poors 500 indexes reached record highs on Thursday, having completely erased the losses since the stock markets last peak, in 2007. But instead of cheering, we should be very afraid.

Over the last 13 years, the stock market has twice crashed and touched off a recession: American households lost $5 trillion in the 2000 dot-com bust and more than $7 trillion in the 2007 housing crash. Sooner or later within a few years, I predict this latest Wall Street bubble, inflated by an egregious flood of phony money from the Federal Reserve rather than real economic gains, will explode, too.

Phony money? What else are $US other than credit balances at the Fed or actual cash in circulation? Of course he fails to realize US treasury securities, also known as ‘securities accounts’ by Fed insiders, are likewise nothing more than dollar balances at the Fed, and that QE merely shifts dollar balances at the Fed from securities accounts to reserve accounts. It’s ‘money printing’ only under a narrow enough definition of ‘money’ to not include treasury securities as ‘money’. Additionally, of course, QE removes interest income from the economy, but that’s another story…

Since the S.&P. 500 first reached its current level, in March 2000, the mad money printers at the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheet sixfold (to $3.2 trillion from $500 billion).

And also debited/reduced/removed an equal amount of $US from Fed securities accounts. The net ‘dollar printing’ is 0.

Yet during that stretch, economic output has grown by an average of 1.7 percent a year (the slowest since the Civil War); real business investment has crawled forward at only 0.8 percent per year; and the payroll job count has crept up at a negligible 0.1 percent annually. Real median family income growth has dropped 8 percent, and the number of full-time middle class jobs, 6 percent. The real net worth of the bottom 90 percent has dropped by one-fourth. The number of food stamp and disability aid recipients has more than doubled, to 59 million, about one in five Americans.

Yes, and anyone who understood monetary operations knows exactly why QE did not add to sales/output/employment, as explained above.

So the Main Street economy is failing while Washington is piling a soaring debt burden on our descendants,

‘Paying off the debt’ is simply a matter of debiting securities accounts at the Fed and crediting reserve accounts at the Fed. There are no grandchildren or taxpayers involved, except maybe a few to program the computers and polish the floors and do the accounting, etc.

unable to rein in either the warfare state or the welfare state or raise the taxes needed to pay the nations bills.

The nations bills are paid via the Fed crediting member bank accounts on its books. Today’s excess capacity and unemployment means that for the size govt we have we are grossly over taxed, not under taxed.

By default, the Fed has resorted to a radical, uncharted spree of money printing.

As above, ‘money printing’ only under a narrow definition of ‘money’.

But the flood of liquidity, instead of spurring banks to lend and corporations to spend, has stayed trapped in the canyons of Wall Street, where it is inflating yet another unsustainable bubble.

With floating exchange rates, bank liquidity, for all practical purposes, is always unlimited. Banks are constrained by capital and asset regulation, not liquidity.

When it bursts, there will be no new round of bailouts like the ones the banks got in 2008.

There is nothing to ‘burst’ as for all practical purposes liquidity is never a constraint.

Instead, America will descend into an era of zero-sum austerity and virulent political conflict, extinguishing even todays feeble remnants of economic growth.

This dyspeptic prospect results from the fact that we are now state-wrecked. With only brief interruptions, weve had eight decades of increasingly frenetic fiscal and monetary policy activism intended to counter the cyclical bumps and grinds of the free market and its purported tendency to underproduce jobs and economic output. The toll has been heavy.

The currency itself is a simply public monopoly, and the restriction of supply by a monopolist as previously described, is, in this case the cause of unemployment and excess capacity in general.

As the federal government and its central-bank sidekick, the Fed, have groped for one goal after another smoothing out the business cycle, minimizing inflation and unemployment at the same time, rolling out a giant social insurance blanket, promoting homeownership, subsidizing medical care, propping up old industries (agriculture, automobiles) and fostering new ones (clean energy, biotechnology) and, above all, bailing out Wall Street they have now succumbed to overload, overreach and outside capture by powerful interests.

He may have something there!

The modern Keynesian state is broke,

Not applicable. Congress spends simply by having its agent, the tsy, instruct the Fed to credit a member bank’s reserve account.

paralyzed and mired in empty ritual incantations about stimulating demand, even as it fosters a mutant crony capitalism that periodically lavishes the top 1 percent with speculative windfalls.

Some truth there as well!

The culprits are bipartisan, though youd never guess that from the blather that passes for political discourse these days. The state-wreck originated in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for fiat money (currency not fundamentally backed by gold), economic nationalism and capitalist cartels in agriculture and industry.

Under the exigencies of World War II (which did far more to end the Depression than the New Deal did), the state got hugely bloated, but remarkably, the bloat was put into brief remission during a midcentury golden era of sound money and fiscal rectitude with Dwight D. Eisenhower in the White House and William McChesney Martin Jr. at the Fed.

Actually it was the Texas railroad commission pretty much fixing the price of oil at about $3 that did the trick, until the early 1970’s when domestic capacity fell short, and pricing power shifted to the saudis who had other ideas about ‘public purpose’ as they jacked the price up to $40 by 1980.

Then came Lyndon B. Johnsons guns and butter excesses, which were intensified over one perfidious weekend at Camp David, Md., in 1971, when Richard M. Nixon essentially defaulted on the nations debt obligations by finally ending the convertibility of gold to the dollar. That one act arguably a sin graver than Watergate meant the end of national financial discipline and the start of a four-decade spree during which we have lived high on the hog, running a cumulative $8 trillion current-account deficit. In effect, America underwent an internal leveraged buyout, raising our ratio of total debt (public and private) to economic output to about 3.6 from its historic level of about 1.6. Hence the $30 trillion in excess debt (more than half the total debt, $56 trillion) that hangs over the American economy today.

It also happens to equal the ‘savings’ of financial assets of the global economy, with the approximately $16 trillion of treasury securities- $US in ‘savings accounts’ at the Fed- constituting the net savings of $US financial assets of the global economy. And the current low levels of output and high unemployment tell us the ‘debt’ is far below our actual desire to save these financial assets. In other words, for the size government we have, we are grossly over taxed. The deficit needs to be larger, not smaller. We need to either increase spending and/or cut taxes, depending on one’s politics.

This explosion of borrowing was the stepchild of the floating-money contraption deposited in the Nixon White House by Milton Friedman, the supposed hero of free-market economics who in fact sowed the seed for a never-ending expansion of the money supply.

And the never ending expansion of $US global savings desires, including trillions of accumulations in pension funds, IRA’s, etc. Where there are tax advantages to save, as well as trillions in corporate reserves, foreign central bank reserves, etc. etc.

As everyone at the CBO knows, the US govt deficit = global $US net savings of financial assets, to the penny.

The Fed, which celebrates its centenary this year, fueled a roaring inflation in goods and commodities during the 1970s that was brought under control only by the iron resolve of Paul A. Volcker, its chairman from 1979 to 1987.

It was the Saudis hiking price, not the Fed. Note that similar ‘inflation’ hit every nation in the world, regardless of ‘monetary policy’. And it ended a few years after president Carter deregulated natural gas in 1978, which resulted in electric utilities switching out of oil to natural gas, and even OPEC’s cutting of 15 million barrels per day of production failing to stop the collapse of oil prices.

Under his successor, the lapsed hero Alan Greenspan, the Fed dropped Friedmans penurious rules for monetary expansion, keeping interest rates too low for too long and flooding Wall Street with freshly minted cash. What became known as the Greenspan put the implicit assumption that the Fed would step in if asset prices dropped, as they did after the 1987 stock-market crash was reinforced by the Feds unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management.

The Fed didn’t bail out LTCM. They hosted a meeting of creditors who took over the positions at prices that generated 25% types of annual returns for themselves.

That Mr. Greenspans loose monetary policies didnt set off inflation was only because domestic prices for goods and labor were crushed by the huge flow of imports from the factories of Asia.

No, because oil prices didn’t go up due to the glut from the deregulation of natural gas .

By offshoring Americas tradable-goods sector, the Fed kept the Consumer Price Index contained, but also permitted the excess liquidity to foster a roaring inflation in financial assets. Mr. Greenspans pandering incited the greatest equity boom in history, with the stock market rising fivefold between the 1987 crash and the 2000 dot-com bust.

No, it wasn’t about Greenspan, it was about the private sector and banking necessarily being pro cyclical. And the severity of the bust was a consequence of the Clinton budget surpluses ‘draining’ net financial assets from the economy, thereby removing the equity that supports the macro credit structure.

Soon Americans stopped saving and consumed everything they earned and all they could borrow. The Asians, burned by their own 1997 financial crisis, were happy to oblige us. They China and Japan above all accumulated huge dollar reserves, transforming their central banks into a string of monetary roach motels where sovereign debt goes in but never comes out. Weve been living on borrowed time and spending Asians borrowed dimes.

Yes, the trade deficit is a benefit that allows us to consume more than we produce for as long as the rest of the world continues to desire to net export to us.

This dynamic reinforced the Reaganite shibboleth that deficits dont matter and the fact that nearly $5 trillion of the nations $12 trillion in publicly held debt is actually sequestered in the vaults of central banks. The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985

I wonder if he’ll ever discover how wrong he’s been, and for a very long time.

was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation

Hadn’t heard about an US bankruptcy filing? Am I missing something?

through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism for the wealthy.

He’s almost convinced me deep down he’s a populist…

The explosion of the housing market, abetted by phony credit ratings, securitization shenanigans and willful malpractice by mortgage lenders, originators and brokers, has been well documented. Less known is the balance-sheet explosion among the top 10 Wall Street banks during the eight years ending in 2008. Though their tiny sliver of equity capital hardly grew, their dependence on unstable hot money soared as the regulatory harness the Glass-Steagall Act had wisely imposed during the Depression was totally dismantled.

Can’t argue with that!

Within weeks of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, Washington, with Wall Streets gun to its head, propped up the remnants of this financial mess in a panic-stricken melee of bailouts and money-printing that is the single most shameful chapter in American financial history.

The shameful part was not making a fiscal adjustment when it all started falling apart. I was calling for a full ‘payroll tax holiday’ back then, for example.

There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it was purely another Wall Street concoction. Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved. The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding.

While the actual policies implemented were far from my first choice, they did keep it from getting a lot worse. Yes, it would have ‘burned out’ as it always has, but via the automatic fiscal stabilizers working to get the deficit high enough to catch the fall. I would argue it would have gotten a lot worse by doing nothing. And, of course, a full payroll tax holiday early on would likely have sustained sales/output/employment as the near ‘normal’ levels of the year before. In other words, Wall Street didn’t have to spill over to Main Street. Wall Street Investors could have taken their lumps without causing main street unemployment to rise.

Instead, the White House, Congress and the Fed, under Mr. Bush and then President Obama, made a series of desperate, reckless maneuvers that were not only unnecessary but ruinous. The auto bailouts, for example, simply shifted jobs around particularly to the aging, electorally vital Rust Belt rather than saving them. The green energy component of Mr. Obamas stimulus was mainly a nearly $1 billion giveaway to crony capitalists, like the venture capitalist John Doerr and the self-proclaimed outer-space visionary Elon Musk, to make new toys for the affluent.

Some good points there. But misses the point that capitalism is about business competing for consumer dollars, with consumer choice deciding who wins and who loses. ‘Creative destruction’ is not about a collapse in aggregate demand that causes sales in general to collapse, with survival going to those with enough capital to survive, as happened in 2008 when even Toyota, who had the most desired cars, losing billions when 8 million people lost their jobs all at once and sales in general collapsed.

Less than 5 percent of the $800 billion Obama stimulus went to the truly needy for food stamps, earned-income tax credits and other forms of poverty relief. The preponderant share ended up in money dumps to state and local governments, pork-barrel infrastructure projects, business tax loopholes and indiscriminate middle-class tax cuts. The Democratic Keynesians, as intellectually bankrupt as their Republican counterparts (though less hypocritical), had no solution beyond handing out borrowed money to consumers, hoping they would buy a lawn mower, a flat-screen TV or, at least, dinner at Red Lobster.

Ok, apart from the ‘borrowed money’ part. Congressional spending is via the Fed crediting a member bank reserve account. They call it borrowing when they shift those funds from reserve accounts at the Fed to security accounts at the Fed. The word ‘borrowed’ is highly misleading, at best.

But even Mr. Obamas hopelessly glib policies could not match the audacity of the Fed, which dropped interest rates to zero and then digitally printed new money at the astounding rate of $600 million per hour.

And ‘unprinted’ securities accounts/treasury securities at exactly the same pace, to the penny.

Fast-money speculators have been purchasing giant piles of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, almost entirely by using short-term overnight money borrowed at essentially zero cost, thanks to the Fed. Uncle Ben has lined their pockets.

Probably true, though quite a few ‘headline’ fund managers and speculators have apparently been going short…

If and when the Fed which now promises to get unemployment below 6.5 percent as long as inflation doesnt exceed 2.5 percent even hints at shrinking its balance sheet, it will elicit a tidal wave of sell orders, because even a modest drop in bond prices would destroy the arbitrageurs profits. Notwithstanding Mr. Bernankes assurances about eventually, gradually making a smooth exit, the Fed is domiciled in a monetary prison of its own making.

It’s about setting a policy rate. The notion of prison isn’t applicable.

While the Fed fiddles, Congress burns. Self-titled fiscal hawks like Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, are terrified of telling the truth: that the 10-year deficit is actually $15 trillion to $20 trillion, far larger than the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of $7 trillion. Its latest forecast, which imagines 16.4 million new jobs in the next decade, compared with only 2.5 million in the last 10 years, is only one of the more extreme examples of Washingtons delusions.

And with no long term inflation problem forecast by anyone, the savings desires over that time period are at least that high.

Even a supposedly bold measure linking the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments to a different kind of inflation index would save just $200 billion over a decade, amounting to hardly 1 percent of the problem.

Thank goodness, as the problem is the deficit is too low, as evidenced by unemployment.

Mr. Ryans latest budget shamelessly gives Social Security and Medicare a 10-year pass, notwithstanding that a fair portion of their nearly $19 trillion cost over that decade would go to the affluent elderly. At the same time, his proposal for draconian 30 percent cuts over a decade on the $7 trillion safety net Medicaid, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit is another front in the G.O.P.s war against the 99 percent.

Never seen him play the class warfare card like this?

Without any changes, over the next decade or so, the gross federal debt, now nearly $17 trillion, will hurtle toward $30 trillion and soar to 150 percent of gross domestic product from around 105 percent today.

Not that it will, but if it does and inflation remains low it just means savings desires are that high.

Since our constitutional stasis rules out any prospect of a grand bargain, the nations fiscal collapse will play out incrementally, like a Greek/Cypriot tragedy, in carefully choreographed crises over debt ceilings, continuing resolutions and temporary budgetary patches.

No description of what ‘fiscal collapse’ might look like. Because there is no such thing.

The future is bleak. The greatest construction boom in recorded history Chinas money dump on infrastructure over the last 15 years is slowing. Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and all the other growing middle-income nations cannot make up for the shortfall in demand.

Agreed.

The American machinery of monetary and fiscal stimulus has reached its limits.

Do not agree. In fact, there are no numerical limits.

Japan is sinking into old-age bankruptcy and Europe into welfare-state senescence. The new rulers enthroned in Beijing last year know that after two decades of wild lending, speculation and building, even they will face a day of reckoning, too.

The state-wreck ahead is a far cry from the Great Moderation proclaimed in 2004 by Mr. Bernanke, who predicted that prosperity would be everlasting because the Fed had tamed the business cycle and, as late as March 2007, testified that the impact of the subprime meltdown seems likely to be contained. Instead of moderation, whats at hand is a Great Deformation, arising from a rogue central bank that has abetted the Wall Street casino, crucified savers on a cross of zero interest rates and fueled a global commodity bubble that erodes Main Street living standards through rising food and energy prices a form of inflation that the Fed fecklessly disregards in calculating inflation.

It’s not at all disregarded. And the Fed has only done ‘pretend money printing’ since they ‘unprint’ treasury securities as they ‘print’ reserve balances.

These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it cant happen.

How about a full payroll tax holiday? Too radical to happen???

It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy. It would require a renunciation of crony capitalism and its first cousin: Keynesian economics in all its forms. The state would need to get out of the business of imperial hubris, economic uplift and social insurance and shift its focus to managing and financing an effective, affordable, means-tested safety net.

These are the conclusions of his way out of paradigm conceptualizing.

All this would require drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.

Whatever…

It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.

I happen to fully agree with narrow banking, as per my proposals.

It would require, finally, benching the Feds central planners, and restoring the central banks original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.

Rhetoric that shows his total lack of understanding of monetary operations.

That, of course, will never happen because there are trillions of dollars of assets, from Shanghai skyscrapers to Fortune 1000 stocks to the latest housing market recovery, artificially propped up by the Feds interest-rate repression.

No govt policy necessarily supports rates. Without the issuance of treasury securities, paying interest on reserves, and other ‘interest rate support’ policy rates fall to 0%. He’s got the repression thing backwards.

The United States is broke fiscally, morally, intellectually and the Fed has incited a global currency war (Japan just signed up, the Brazilians and Chinese are angry, and the German-dominated euro zone is crumbling) that will soon overwhelm it. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse.

How about a full payroll tax holiday???

If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is.

I tend to agree but for the opposite reason.

The deficit may have gotten too small with the latest tax hikes and spending cuts.

(feel free to distribute)