Karim writes:

Yes, contrary to my opinion. This about managing expectations. With falling inflation and unemployment this high it makes no sense that they would be holding back something that could make a material difference.

Agreed.

Again, if they did have anything that would substantially increase agg demand they’d have done it.

Yes, and, again, it’s doubtful lower credit spreads will do much for the macro economy but would shift a lot of credit risks to the Fed for very little gain.

FRB: Bernanke, The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy

At best, though, fiscal impetus and the inventory cycle can drive recovery only temporarily.

That is not correct. Fiscal adjustment can sustain demand at any politically desired level.

For a sustained expansion to take hold, growth in private final demand–notably, consumer spending and business fixed investment–must ultimately take the lead. On the whole, in the United States, that critical handoff appears to be under way.

Agreed that hand off is slowly materializing and private sector debt expansion will then drive additional growth. But sustained expansion could come immediately from a fiscal adjustment as well.

However,although private final demand, output, and employment have indeed been growing for more than a year, the pace of that growth recently appears somewhat less vigorous than we expected.

Agreed.

Among the most notable results to emerge from the recent revision of the U.S. national income data is that, in recent quarters, household saving has been higher than we thought–averaging near 6 percent of disposable income rather than 4 percent, as the earlier data showed.

Non govt net savings of financial assets = govt deficit spending by identity, and with foreign sector savings relatively constant, the majority of the increase is in the domestic economy, either businesses or households.

That means in general household savings goes up with the deficit regardless of the level of consumer spending.

However, when household savings does start to fall, it’s due to household credit expansion, at which time, if the deficit is unchanged, the savings of financial assets is shifted to either the business or the foreign sector.

And, as growth accelerates, the automatic fiscal stabilizers- increased federal revenues and falling transfer payments- reduce the deficit and therefore reduce the growth in the total net savings of the other sectors.

So the hand off process is usually characterized by the federal deficit falling as private sector debt expands to ‘replace it.’

This continues until the private sector again necessarily gets over leveraged, ending the expansion.

3 On the one hand, this finding suggests that households, collectively, are even more cautious about the economic outlook and their own prospects than we previously believed.

At best his means that he thinks with this much savings households would start leveraging more.

But on the other hand, the upward revision to the saving rate also implies greater progress in the repair of household balance sheets. Stronger balance sheets should in turn allow households to increase their spending more rapidly as credit conditions ease and the overall economy improves.

Yes, as I explained. He seems to understand the sequence of the data but doesn’t seem to be quite there on the causation.

Going forward, improved affordability–the result of lower house prices and record-low mortgage rates–should boost the demand for housing. However, the overhang of foreclosed-upon and vacant housing and the difficulties of many households in obtaining mortgage financing are likely to continue to weigh on the pace of residential investment for some time yet

Yes, which is a traditional source of private sector credit expansion, along with cars, that drives the process.

Generally speaking, large firms in good financial condition can obtain credit easily and on favorable terms; moreover, many large firms are holding exceptionally large amounts of cash on their balance sheets. For these firms, willingness to expand–and, in particular, to add permanent employees–depends primarily on expected increases in demand for their products, not on financing costs.

I couldn’t agree more!
Employment is primarily a function of sales as discussed in prior posts.

Bank-dependent smaller firms, by contrast, have faced significantly greater problems obtaining credit, according to surveys and anecdotes. The Federal Reserve, together with other regulators, has been engaged in significant efforts to improve the credit environment for small businesses. For example, through the provision of specific guidance and extensive examiner training, we are working to help banks strike a good balance between appropriate prudence and reasonable willingness to make loans to creditworthy borrowers. We have also engaged in extensive outreach efforts to banks and small businesses. There is some hopeful news on this front: For the most part, bank lending terms and conditions appear to be stabilizing and are even beginning to ease in some cases, and banks reportedly have become more proactive in seeking out creditworthy borrowers.

Another problem is that the regulators are forcing small banks to reduce what’s called ‘non core funding’ in a confused strategy to enhance small bank ‘deposit stability.’ Unfortunately, at the local level the regulators have interpreted the rules to mean, for example, it’s better for a small bank’s financial stability to fund, for example, a 3 year business loan with 1 year local deposits, vs funding it with a 5 year advance from the Federal Home loan bank. It’s also a fallacy of composition, as at the macro level there aren’t enough core deposits to fund local small businesses, as many larger corporations and individuals use money center banks and leave their deposits with them. The regulatory insistence on small banks using ‘core deposits’ rather than ‘wholesale funding’ recycled from the larger banks causes a shortage of local deposits and forces the small banks to pay substantially higher rates as they compete with each other for funding artificially limited by regulation.

In lieu of adding permanent workers, some firms have increased labor input by increasing workweeks, offering full-time work to part-time workers, and making extensive use of temporary workers.

Yes, and when you include this growth in employment the economy is doing better than most analysts seem to think.

Like others, we were surprised by the sharp deterioration in the U.S. trade balance in the second quarter. However, that deterioration seems to have reflected a number of temporary and special factors. Generally, the arithmetic contribution of net exports to growth in the gross domestic product tends to be much closer to zero, and that is likely to be the case in coming quarters.

Also, part of the hand off will be US consumers going into debt (reducing savings) to buy foreign goods and services, which increases foreign sector savings of financial assets.

Overall, the incoming data suggest that the recovery of output and employment in the United States has slowed in recent months, to a pace somewhat weaker than most FOMC participants projected earlier this year. Much of the unexpected slowing is attributable to the household sector, where consumer spending and the demand for housing have both grown less quickly than was anticipated. Consumer spending may continue to grow relatively slowly in the near term as households focus on repairing their balance sheets. I expect the economy to continue to expand in the second half of this year, albeit at a relatively modest pace.

Agreed.

Despite the weaker data seen recently, the preconditions for a pickup in growth in 2011 appear to remain in place.

Agreed.

Monetary policy remains very accommodative,

Yes, for many borrowers, but the lower rates have also net reduced incomes. QE alone resulted in some $50 billion of ‘profits’ transfered to the Treasury from the Fed that would have been private sector income, for example.

and financial conditions have become more supportive of growth, in part because a concerted effort by policymakers in Europe has reduced fears related to sovereign debts and the banking system there.

Agreed.

Banks are improving their balance sheets and appear more willing to lend.

Agreed, though via a reduction in interest earned by savers that’s gone to increased net interest margins for banks.

Consumers are reducing their debt and building savings, returning household wealth-to-income ratios near to longer-term historical norms.

Yes, ‘funded’ by the federal deficit spending.

Stronger household finances, rising incomes, and some easing of credit conditions will provide the basis for more-rapid growth in household spending next year.

Yes, and that basis is credit expansion.

On the fiscal front, state and local governments continue to be under pressure; but with tax receipts showing signs of recovery, their spending should decline less rapidly than it has in the past few years. Federal fiscal stimulus seems set to continue to fade but likely not so quickly as to derail growth in coming quarters.

Yes, and traditionally matched or exceeded by private sector credit expansion as above.

Recently, inflation has declined to a level that is slightly below that which FOMC participants view as most conducive to a healthy economy in the long run. With inflation expectations reasonably stable and the economy growing, inflation should remain near current readings for some time before rising slowly toward levels more consistent with the Committee’s objectives. At this juncture, the risk of either an undesirable rise in inflation or of significant further disinflation seems low. Of course, the Federal Reserve will monitor price developments closely.

The channels through which the Fed’s purchases affect longer-term interest rates and financial conditions more generally have been subject to debate.

With the debate subsiding as more FOMC participants, but far from all of them, seem to be coming to understand the quantity of the reserves per se has no consequences.

I see the evidence as most favorable to the view that such purchases work primarily through the so-called portfolio balance channel, which holds that once short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Federal Reserve’s purchases of longer-term securities affect financial conditions by changing the quantity and mix of financial assets held by the public. Specifically, the Fed’s strategy relies on the presumption that different financial assets are not perfect substitutes in investors’ portfolios, so that changes in the net supply of an asset available to investors affect its yield and those of broadly similar assets. Thus, our purchases of Treasury, agency debt, and agency MBS likely both reduced the yields on those securities and also pushed investors into holding other assets with similar characteristics, such as credit risk and duration. For example, some investors who sold MBS to the Fed may have replaced them in their portfolios with longer-term, high-quality corporate bonds, depressing the yields on those assets as well.

This is evidence Bernanke himself has come around to the understanding that the quantity of reserves at the Fed per se is of no further economic consequence.

We decided to reinvest in Treasury securities rather than agency securities because the Federal Reserve already owns a very large share of available agency securities, suggesting that reinvestment in Treasury securities might be more effective in reducing longer-term interest rates and improving financial conditions with less chance of adverse effects on market functioning.

Again, it shows the understanding that QE channel is price (interest rates) and not quantities.
This is a very constructive move from understanding indicated in prior statements.

Also, as I already noted, reinvestment in Treasury securities is more consistent with the Committee’s longer-term objective of a portfolio made up principally of Treasury securities. We do not rule out changing the reinvestment strategy if circumstances warrant, however.

In particular, the Committee is prepared to provide additional monetary accommodation through unconventional measures if it proves necessary, especially if the outlook were to deteriorate significantly. The issue at this stage is not whether we have the tools to help support economic activity and guard against disinflation. We do. As I will discuss next, the issue is instead whether, at any given juncture, the benefits of each tool, in terms of additional stimulus, outweigh the associated costs or risks of using the tool.

Notwithstanding the fact that the policy rate is near its zero lower bound, the Federal Reserve retains a number of tools and strategies for providing additional stimulus. I will focus here on three that have been part of recent staff analyses and discussion at FOMC meetings: (1) conducting additional purchases of longer-term securities, (2) modifying the Committee’s communication, and (3) reducing the interest paid on excess reserves. I will also comment on a fourth strategy, proposed by several economists–namely, that the FOMC increase its inflation goals.

In my humble opinion those tools carry no risk and provide no reward to the macro economy.

MMT interview:

Defining the Modern Monetary Theory

Still feels like the weakness is coming out of events in the euro zone,
as evidenced by the euro going down as gold goes up phenomena re emerging

It’s all being held together by the ECB buying national govt debt in the secondary market.

The question I’ve seen, is how long can the ECB keep doing this/what are the limits?

The short answer is there are no nominal limits, just political limits.

And the political limit is tolerance of inflation, and inflation control is their single mandate.

They don’t want deflation or inflation.

They are buying national govt debt to prevent a euro zone wide deflationary collapse.

So how much can they buy before it’s all inflationary?

Inflation comes from spending.

Traditionally, knowing the ECB is buying your debt and that you can’t default opened the door to moral hazard issues

A nation being supported would expand spending as much as possible.

But the ECB is first imposing ‘terms and conditions’ to prevent that before buying the national govt bonds.

So not only is (deficit) spending not being expanded, it is being cut back.

And, in any case, the euro zone national govts are complying with ECB demands, directly or indirectly.

So if it doesn’t work, it’s up to the ECB to implement alternative strategies.

It would make no sense for the ECB to cut off funding because an ECB directed policy fails.

With the ECB directly or indirectly in control of member nation fiscal policy,

And with no one increasing their spending in any material way,

I don’t see a demand pull inflation possible as a function of ECB securities buying, no matter how large.

And with deficits over there already high enough for at least modest growth, which seems to be materializing,
it will be a while before fiscal gets too tight for modestly positive growth.

Good news on the proposed ’stimulus’ even in the face of 200% type debt to GDP ratios.

Someone over there must get it?

They obviously don’t like the way the yen is going, which calls for deficit spending to reverse it.

(Budget deficits are like bumper crops, which put downward pressure on the price of the crop. Budget surpluses are like crop failures which do the reverse)

The off balance sheet way to deficit spend to weaken the yen is to buy fx, as they used to do, and, from the charts on their US Tsy holdings, they may currently be quietly doing just that.

The other way is to cut taxes to spur private sector demand, or increase govt spending to provide more public goods.

The exporters like the latter even though it does add to private sector demand some.

Japan Headlines,

Govt To Mull Extra Stimulus: Arai

Kan Says Govt Considering Additional Economic Stimulus

Inventory, Capital Spending Fall Short Of Economist Estimates

Forex: Dollar Remains in Lower Y85 Range in Tokyo on Weak US Data

Stocks: Nikkei Hits New 2010 Closing Low;Firmer Yen Trips Tech Shares

Bonds: JGB Yields At Multi-Year Lows On Views BOJ May Ease Policy

Govt To Mull Extra Stimulus: Arai

TOKYO (NQN)–Minister of Economy and Fiscal Policy Satoshi Arai said Tuesday the government will start discussing extra stimulus measures later this week.

“From around Friday, we’ll begin discussions on whether to implement (an additional pump-priming package),” Arai said in a speech at a Tokyo hotel that afternoon.

As for the need to compile a supplementary fiscal 2010 budget to finance the extra measures, “Prime Minister Naoto Kan will start hearing from ministries and agencies involved from Friday,” the minister said.

Kan Says Govt Considering Additional Economic Stimulus

TOKYO (Nikkei)–Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Monday that the government may offer another round of stimulus measures in a bid to underpin the economy.

On Monday, Kan instructed Minister of Economy and Fiscal Policy Satoshi Arai, Minister of Finance Yoshihiko Noda and Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Masayuki Naoshima to examine the current economic conditions and report back with specific proposals.

Japan’s preliminary real gross domestic product showed a tepid 0.4% growth for the April-June quarter, while a strong yen and weak stocks threaten to derail the economic turnaround. “We need to closely monitor developments, along with currency conditions,” Kan told reporters at his official residence.

The stimulus steps could include extending such consumer spending incentives as the eco-point program for energy-saving electronics, which is set to expire at the end of December. Programs to support job-hunting graduates and measures to aid small and midsize businesses beleaguered by a strong yen are also believed to be in the works.

The government is expected to have around 900 billion yen in leftover funds in the fiscal 2010 budget originally earmarked for the economic crisis and regional revitalization. And an additional 800 billion yen of surplus money from the fiscal 2009 budget gives it a combined 1.7 trillion yen to fund additional stimulus.

But government officials are reluctant to increase bond issuances, citing concerns about the nation’s deteriorating finances.

(The Nikkei Aug. 17 morning edition)

Karim writes:

Wish I could do it this well!

Well worth your 6 minutes.

Please distribute!

Karim writes:

Yes, Q2 GDP to be revised down, but it’s been down. Q2 is history. Corporate earnings were based on the actual numbers- sales, costs, profits.

In other words, we know what the S&P were able to earn even with very modest headline GDP growth.

The higher final demand is also at least sustainable.
The relatively large and ongoing fiscal deficit that added that much income and savings to the non govt sectors allowed for the higher final demand AND higher savings.

While the QE from the Fed does nothing beyond causing term rates to be marginally lower than other wise, it does add some support for asset prices via implied discount rates.

As discussed earlier this year, markets are figuring out that the economy is flying without a net. All the Fed can do is alter interest rates which, with each passing day since the recession began, has been shown to not be able to support output and employment, or even prices and lending. (Just like Japan has shown for going on 20 years.)

And a Congress and Administration that thinks it’s run out of money and is dependent on borrowing and leaving the bill to our grand children to be able to spend is unlikely to provide meaningful fiscal adjustments to support aggregate demand.

So we muddle through with unthinkably high levels of unemployment and modest GDP growth waiting for an increase in private sector demand to kick in via credit expansion from the usual channels- cars and housing.

The risk to growth is now primarily proactive fiscal consolidation- spending cuts and/or tax hikes- in advance of private sector credit expansion. So far I haven’t seen anything meaningful enough to be of consequence. But the anti deficit rhetoric is certainly there, counterbalanced to some degree by the call for jobs.

So it remains a pretty good equity environment but a very ugly political environment.

As expected, boom time for now as the massive deficit spending raised savings and incomes, recharging consumer batteries, and supply the financial equity to fuel the subsequent expansion.

Look for rate hikes to add gasoline to the fire as well.

The risk of slowing from fiscal tightening is way down the road.

In fact, it’s usually the automatic stabilizers that tighten things sufficiently to throw the economy into reverse.

Again, years down the road.

Someday they may learn to use proactive fiscal rather than let the automatic stabilizers reverse recessions…

UK Headlines:

U.K. GDP Jumps Most in Four Years as Recovery Ignites

Bank of England Rate Setters Surprised By High Inflation,says Spencer Dale

U.K. BBA June Mortgage Approvals Fall to 34,813 From 36,418

Osborne Tells Cabinet He’s Cautiously Optimistic on Economy

Haven’t yet hit the ‘get a job buy a car’ accelerator.

Watch for car sales to be the indicator of more rapid growth.

Meantime, muddling through with modest growth remains an ok equity environment as fear of becoming the next Greece is turning us into the next Japan.

And, of course, we continue to underestimate the deflationary effect of the Fed’s zero rate policy which should be a good thing in that it allows us to have lower taxes for a given size govt.

The staff still expected that the pace of economic activity through 2011 would be sufficient to reduce the existing margins of economic slack, although the anticipated decline in the unemployment rate was somewhat slower than in the previous projection.

Karim writes:

Table below is average of FOMC members, not staff, but appears to have similar profile. Average expectations for 2011 growth at 3.85% from 3.95% prior..

A few participants cited some risk of deflation. Other participants, however, thought that inflation was unlikely to fall appreciably further given the stability of inflation expectations in recent years and very accommodative monetary policy. Over the medium term, participants saw both upside and downside risks to inflation.

Deflation talk still seems contained to a ‘few’ members.

Members noted that in addition to continuing to develop and test instruments to exit from the period of unusually accommodative monetary policy, the Committee would need to consider whether further policy stimulus might become appropriate if the outlook were to worsen appreciably.

This was only mention of QE2 – not very extensive.

Zimbabwe for hyperventilators 101

A very good read. Today’s hyper inflation fears due to ‘money printing’ are pure fear mongering.

My comment to Bill in support of his article:

Russia in 1998 is an example of how much the flat earth economists are wrong in what determines the value of a currency

Russia had a fixed fx rate of 6.45 rubles to the US dollar going into the August crisis.

At the end, rates on gko’s went to over 200% until there was no interest rate where holders of rubles did not want to cash them in at the CB for dollars. Dollar reserves were depleted, and no more dollars could be borrowed to support the currency.

Instead of simply floating the ruble and suspending conversion the CB simply shut down the payments system and the employees all walked out the door.

It was several months before the payments system was restarted.

There was no confidence, no faith, and no expectations of anything good happening.

The ruble went from 6.45 to about 28 or so in what has turned out to be a one time adjustment.

There was no hyper inflation, and not even much inflation as per Bill above, just a one time adjustment.

Pretty much the same for Mexico when it’s fixed fx regime blew up in the mid 90′s. The peso went from about 3.5 to 10 in a one time adjustment.

These are two examples of stress far in excess of whatever the US, Uk, and Japan could possibly face, yet with no actual inflationary consequences, as defined.

Euro Swings Won’t Stop China Reserves Shift, Yu Says

Right, they want to stay ‘competitive’ in the euro zone

China Property Stocks to Rebound End-Year, Xia Says
China’s Inflation Target of 3% This year ‘Difficult’ to Meet

Even with the yen rising with the dollar.
Not a good sign.
Inflation per se isn’t ‘bad’ for an economy, it’s that people don’t like inflation and fighting inflation can be very bad for an economy.

Can’t resist the temptation to repeat my suspicions that zero interest rate policy is deflationary from the supply and the demand side.

:)

Karim writes:

Commodities looking weak as well.

Always been a question as to whether the central bank’s tools can gradually deflate a property bubble or just facilitate a crash.

Shanghai Home Sales Fell to 5-Year Low Last Week on Tightening
China CPI to be around 3% in May, June: NDRC
China to Sell Five-Year Government Debt at 2.4%, Survey Shows
China’s Smaller Stocks Face ‘Major Correction’: Chart of Day

Funny how those ultra low rates never do seem to generate inflation as many fear…

*BOE SAYS NEAR-TERM CPI OUTLOOK HIGHER ON POUND, OIL PRICE
*BOE CONSTANT-RATE FORECAST SHOW INFLATION BELOW 2% IN 2 YEARS
*BOE SAYS DOWNSIDE U.K. GROWTH RISKS HAVE `INCREASED SOMEWHAT’
*BOE FORECASTS BASED ON RATE AT 0.6% END 2010, 1.7% END 2011
*BOE SAYS U.K. BUDGET CUTS MAY NEED TO BE `MORE DEMANDING’
*BOE FORECASTS SHOW INFLATION AT ABOUT 1.4% IN 2 YEARS’ TIME
*BOE SAYS NEAR-TERM CPI OUTLOOK `SOMEWHAT HIGHER’ THAN FEBRUARY
*BOE SAYS DOWNSIDE U.K. GROWTH RISKS HAVE `INCREASED SOMEWHAT’
*BOE SAYS U.K. RECOVERY `LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO GATHER STRENGTH’
*BOE SAYS GDP RISKS FROM MARKET CONCERNS ON BUDGET DEFICITS
*BOE SAYS EURO-AREA FISCAL PRESSURES COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT U.K
*BOE FORECASTS SHOW GDP GROWING ABOUT 3.5% ANNUAL PACE IN 2 YRS
*BOE SAYS STIMULUS, POUND, GLOBAL DEMAND SHOULD AID RECOVERY
*BOE SAYS U.K. BUDGET CUTS MAY NEED TO BE `MORE DEMANDING’
*BANK OF ENGLAND RELEASES INFLATION REPORT IN LONDON
*BOE SAYS `SIGNIFICANT’ MEDIUM TERM FISCAL CONSOLIDATION NEEDED
*BOE CONSTANT-RATE FORECAST SHOW INFLATION BELOW 2% IN 2 YEARS

May 12 (Bloomberg) — The Bank of England said risks to the
economic recovery have increased on investor concern about
European budget deficits, and called on David Cameron’s incoming
government to step up measures to tackle the U.K.’s shortfall.
The central bank predicted the economy will sustain its
pickup and reach a 3.5 percent annual pace by the beginning of
2012, while inflation is still likely to remain below the 2
percent target. The forecasts are based on the interest rate
staying close to its record low of 0.5 percent this year and
reaching 1.7 percent by the end of 2011….

Check out the property story below.

And they do seem very worried about inflation.

Not sure if they can control it without triggering a crash.

Maybe.

China’s Stocks Have ‘Corrected Enough,’ BofA Says
China’s Monthly Car-Sales Growth Slows Amid Inflation
China Think Tank Sees 4.2% Inflation, Urges Yuan Flexibility
‘Measures to cool property already working’
New loans set to grow in April

‘Measures to cool property already working’ (China Daily) The skyrocketing prices of property could harm the financial security and social stability of the nation, Qi Ji, vice-minister of housing and urban-rural development, said. “Excessive gains in prices are mainly due to a shortage of supply, and a major part of the demand for housing is due to unreasonable demand,” Qi said. “The government will strictly carry out current measures to curb such demands,” he said. Hangzhou, capital of eastern Zhejiang province, saw a 72.55-percent month-on-month plunge in properties sold during the week ending April 25. Beijing witnessed a 45-percent fall in property sales, while in Shanghai the drop was 38 percent, according to China Index Research Institute. EverGrande Real Estate is reportedly offering a 15-percent discount to push sales of apartments in one of its housing developments in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong province.
New loans set to grow in April

New loans set to grow in April(China Daily) Analysts expect new loans to exceed 600 billion yuan ($87.88), or even top 700 billion yuan, in April, after dipping to 510.7 billion yuan in the previous month. The central bank is scheduled to release April lending figures next week. Mounting inflationary pressure and asset bubble risks are clouding the Chinese economy this year after nearly 9.6 trillion yuan in new loans flooded into the market in the previous year. The central bank revived the lending quota mechanism, a method to cope with economic overheating in early 2008, to help contain credit growth. To this end, Chinese lenders are allowed to give out roughly 2.25 trillion yuan in new loans in the second quarter, accounting for 30 percent of the 7.5 trillion yuan target set by the authority. In the first three months, more than one third of the 2.6 trillion yuan in new loans was directed to real estate developers and homebuyers.

Cost push inflation coming in via the fx window?

America’s disastrous debt is Obama’s biggest test

By Roger Altman

April 21 (FT) — The global financial system is again transfixed by sovereign debt risks. This evokes bad memories of defaults and near-defaults among emerging nations such as Argentina, Russia and Mexico.

Yes, all fixed FX blowups.

But the real issue is not whether Greece or another small country might fail. Instead, it is whether the credit standing and currency stability of the world’s biggest borrower, the US, will be jeopardised by its disastrous outlook on deficits and debt.

This comp completely misses the fundamental difference between the two. The Fed is an arm of the US govt, while the ECB is not an arm of greece.

America’s fiscal picture is even worse than it looks. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just projected that over 10 years, cumulative deficits will reach $9,700bn and federal debt 90 per cent of gross domestic product – nearly equal to Italy’s.

Another apples/oranges comp. This is less than poor analysis.

Global capital markets are unlikely to accept that credit erosion. If they revolt, as in 1979,

There was no ‘revolt’ in regards to the US in 1979.

ugly changes in fiscal and monetary policy will be imposed on Washington. More than Afghanistan or unemployment, this is President Barack Obama’s greatest vulnerability.

His greatest vulnerability is listening to this nonsense, and not recognizing that taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to raise revenue.

The unemployment rate is all the evidence needed, screaming there is a severe shortage of aggregate demand, and a payroll tax holiday would restore private sector sales by which employment immediately returns.

Instead, the admin is listening to this nonsense and working to take measures to tighten fiscal policy which will work to reduce aggregate demand.

How bad is the outlook? The size of the federal debt will increase by nearly 250 per cent over 10 years, from $7,500bn to $20,000bn. Other than during the second world war, such a rise in indebtedness has not occurred since recordkeeping began in 1792.

Point? Govt deficit spending adds back the demand lost because of ‘non govt’ savings desires for dollar financial assets.

The cumulative govt ‘debt’ equals and is the net financial equity- monetary savings- of the rest of us.

You could change the name on the deficit clock in nyc to the savings clock and use the same numbers.

It is so rapid that, by 2020, the Treasury may borrow about $5,000bn per year to refinance maturing debt and raise new money; annual interest payments on those borrowings will exceed all domestic discretionary spending and rival the defence budget. Unfortunately, the healthcare bill has little positive budget impact in this period.

That just means our net savings is rising and the interest payments are helping our savings rise.

In fact, treasury securities are nothing more than dollar savings accounts at the fed. Savers include us residents and non residents like the foreign countries that save in dollars.

Why is this outlook dangerous?

Because it leads to backwards policies by people who don’t get it.

Because dollar interest rates would be so high as to choke private investment and global growth.

There is no such thing.

First, rates are set by the fed.

Second, there is no imperative for the tsy to issue longer term securities or any securities at all.

Third, there is no econometric evidence high interest rates do that. In fact, because the nation is a net saver of the trillions called the national debt, higher rates increase interest income faster than the higher loan rates reduce it (bernanke, sacks, reinhart, 2004 fed paper).

It is Mr Obama’s misfortune to preside over this.

It’s his misfortune to be surrounded by people who don’t understand monetary operations. Otherwise we’d have been at full employment long ago.

The severe 2009-10 fiscal decline reflects a continuation of the Bush deficits and the lower revenue and countercyclical spending triggered by the recession. His own initiatives are responsible for only 15 per cent of the deterioration. Nonetheless, it is the Obama crisis now.

It’s the obama crisis because taxes remain far too high for the current level of govt spending and saving desires.

Now, the economy is too weak to withstand the contractionary impact of deficit reduction. Even the deficit hawks agree on that.

It’s too weak because the deficit is too small. And yes, making it smaller makes things worse.

In addition, Mr Obama has appointed a budget commission with a December deadline. Expectations for it are low and no moves can be made before 2011.

Yes, and then to cut social security and medicare!!!!

Yet, everyone already knows the big elements of a solution. The deficit/GDP ratio must be reduced by at least 2 per cent, or about $300bn in annual spending. It must include spending cuts, such as to entitlements,

Here you go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and new revenue. The revenues must come from higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends or a new tax, such as a progressive value added tax.

Yes, all working to cut aggregate demand and weaken the economy.

It will be political and financial factors that determine which of three budget paths America now follows.

Yes, the backwards understanding by our leaders.

The first is the ideal. Next year, leaders adopt the necessary spending and tax changes, together with budget rules to enforce them, to reach, for example, a truly balanced budget by 2020. President Bill Clinton achieved a comparable legislative outcome in his first term. But America is more polarised today, especially over taxes.

Clinton was ’saved’ by the unprecedented increase in private sector debt chasing impossible balance sheets of the dot com boom, which was expanding at 7% of GDP, driving the expansion even as fiscal was allowed to go into a 2% surplus, which drained that much financial equity, and ending in a crash when incomes weren’t able to keep up.

The second possible course is the opposite: government paralysis and 10 years of fiscal erosion. Debt reaches 90 per cent of GDP. Interest rates go much higher, but the world’s capital markets finance these needs without serious instability.

Japan is well over 200% (counting inter govt holdings) with the 10 year JGB at 1.35%. Interest rates are primarily a function of expectations of future fed rate settings, along with a few technicals.

History suggests a third outcome is the likely one: one imposed by global markets.

There is no history that suggests that, just misreadings of history.

Yes, there may be calm in currency and credit markets over the next year or two. But the chances that they would accept such a long-term fiscal slide are low. Here, the 1979 dollar crash is instructive.

A dollar crash, whatever that means, is a different matter from the funding issues he previously implied.

The Iranian oil embargo, stagflation and a weakening dollar were roiling markets. Amid this nervousness, President Jimmy Carter submitted his budget, incorporating a larger than expected deficit. This triggered a further, panicky fall in the dollar that destabilised markets. This forced Mr Carter to resubmit a tighter budget and the Fed to raise interest rates. Both actions harmed the economy and severely injured his presidency.

The problem was the policy response to the ‘dollar crash.’ rates went up because the fed raised them with a vote. Market forces aren’t a factor in the level of rates per se. They are part of the Fed’s reaction function, which is an entirely different matter.

America’s addiction to debt poses a similar threat now. To avoid an imposed and ugly solution, Mr Obama will have to invest all his political capital in a budget agreement next year. He will be advised that cutting spending and raising taxes is too risky for his 2012 re-election. But the alternative could be much worse.

So it’s all about avoiding a dollar crash?

So why are we pressing china to revalue their currency upward which means reducing the value of the dollar? Can’t have it both ways?

Altman was in the Clinton admin confirms they were in the ‘better lucky than good’ category.

Feel free to distribute, thanks.

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

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.