Category Archives: CBs

Estonia adopts the euro

Posted on by

We still contend that the world’s economic analysts do not understand the problem with the EMU mechanism, namely that there is no central fiscal authority that is allowed to credit accounts in an unlimited fashion. If you have doubts, please read the article below.

I mentioned when Estonia announced entry three weeks ago that if any sovereign really understood that they were giving up true ability to simply supply all the credits necessary in local currency, versus now having to tax or borrow before you spend (like municipalities), Estonia would not enter.

And please read the underlined portion of the article below. They still position the Euro mechanism weakness as “no policy fits all” or “there is no authority to distribute EU wide tax revenues collected”, or “there is no political union”. It all misses the point.

The U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia and UK do not borrow money. They drain excess reserves by issuing government securities so we can earn interest. Remember, when Japan allowed 30trn of excess reserves by not issuing government securities, the bill auctions were 200 times oversubscribed, even though the bills yielded only 2 or 3bps.

The mechanism is not fixed, the governments have limited resources for obligations, unless they allow the ECB or some other fiscal authority to have unlimited ability to credit accounts.

Thanks, Cliff

Agreed.

They also seem to equate a strong euro with economic prosperity.

What Crisis? The Euro Zone Adds Estonia

June 18 (NYT) —Guess what? The funniest thing happened in Europe on Thursday. A new country joined (yes, joined) the euro zone. And the mood here was upbeat.

With a debt crisis that appears to be spreading from Greece to Spain, membership for the country, Estonia, might seem more curse than blessing. There had been speculation that countries might abandon the single currency. And some doubt Estonia is even ready for the move.

“Maintaining low inflation rates in Estonia will be very challenging,” the European Central Bank warned last month.

Still, the euro remains among the strongest currencies in the world, and membership opens the door to a club with global influence. For small and unsure countries on the fringes of the European Union, it doesn’t get much better — no matter the mounting downsides for countries already on the inside.

“Joining the euro is a status issue for countries seeking to cement their position at Europe’s top table,” said Simon Tilford, the chief economist for the Center for European Reform, a research organization based in London. “But you also could call it sheer bloody-mindedness of Estonia to join now with the outlook for the currency so uncertain.”

Meeting in Brussels, Europe’s 27 governments hailed the “sound economic and financial policies” that had been achieved by Estonia in recent years. They said Estonia would shift from the kroon to the euro on Jan. 1, 2011.

For the leaders of the bloc, expanding the euro zone to 17 nations is tantamount to a show of confidence at an inauspicious time for the battered euro, which has lost about 13 percent of its value against the dollar since the beginning of the year.

“The door to euro membership is not closed because we are going through a sovereign debt crisis,” said Amadeu Altafaj, a spokesman for Olli Rehn, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs. “Estonia’s admission is a sign to other countries that our aim is to continue enlarging economic and monetary union through the euro.”

With economic output of about $17 billion, the Estonian economy is tiny. Yet the country’s central bank governor, Andres Lipstok, will now be able to take a seat on the European Central Bank’s powerful council that sets interest rates.

Membership is also an important signpost that a country is on the way to achieving Western European standards of living, an important goal for a former Soviet republic like Estonia that has long been among the Baltic states eager to develop.

Perhaps most important, membership is recognition of the hard work and sacrifice it took to keep Estonia’s bid on track.

Estonia, along with Sweden, were the two countries with the smallest shortfalls between revenue and spending among all members of the 27-member European Union. Moreover, public debt in Estonia at 7.2 percent of gross domestic product is tiny compared with that of most other countries in the bloc.

“It’s a great day for Estonia,” Andrus Ansip, the Estonian prime minister, told Latvian state radio in an interview here.

“We prefer to be inside, to join the club, to be among decision makers.”

Estonia becomes the third ex-Communist state to make the switch to the euro, after Slovenia and Slovakia, but it is the first former Soviet republic to do so, sending a signal to other countries in Central and Eastern Europe that they, too, can aspire to membership.

That said, the euro zone is not expected to expand further for some time to come as other candidates like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland still fall short of the entry criteria partly because of their large budget deficits.

And the accession of Estonia will do little to erase the chief criticism of the euro project: that Europe’s nations are too economically disparate to maintain supranational institutions like a single currency in the long term.

Price stability is one of the main criteria for admission to the euro club. But in the past, political leaders have brushed off concerns from the European Central Bank about candidate nations in their eagerness to expand the euro zone.

Greece won admission even after the central bank reported in 2000 that the country’s debt equaled 104 percent of gross domestic product, far above the limit of 60 percent set out in the Maastricht Treaty. The bank said that Greek inflation met targets only because of declines in oil prices and other exceptional factors.

According to economists, the preparation to join the euro zone created some disadvantages for Estonia compared with neighboring countries, which have enjoyed a relative degree of flexibility by hanging on longer to their legacy currencies for now.

Now that Estonia is joining the euro zone, the most immediate advantages are likely to include greater interest from foreign investors and lower borrowing costs for both the public and private sectors.

But those could be short-term advantages. Estonia and its export-driven economy could be quickly overshadowed by financial difficulties, particularly if the euro zone remains unstable and if neighboring countries like Poland and its Baltic neighbors insist on hanging on to their currencies.

“Investors will only be willing to lend to Estonia on favorable terms if Estonia can continue to compete,” said Mr.

Tilford, the London economist. “That is where the biggest risks for Estonia now lie.”

And there is another downside, Mr. Ansip, the Estonian prime minister, said in the radio interview.

“Our banknotes are more beautiful than euro banknotes,” he said.

Share

SZ News: ‘Hope’ of SNB Countering Franc Gains

Posted on by

The Swiss have been buying euro all along to support their exporters (at the expense of the macro economy but that’s another story).

No doubt other nations are/will do same, also to protect exporters, and do the best they can managing risk of their euro denominated financial asset portfolios.

Over the last two years or so the ‘automatic stabilizers’ in the euro zone added to deficits and weakened the currency, helping to support domestic demand and exports, but threatening solvency as the national govts are credit constrained.

The credit constraint aspect blocked further fiscal easing, and caused a proactive move toward fiscal tightening.

If the easing phase was sufficient to cause them to ‘turn the corner’ with regards to GDP, which appears to be the case, it is possible GDP growth can remain near 0 with the austerity measures, while the firming currency works to slowly cut into exports.

In other words, the euro zone may, in its own way, also be going the way of Japan, but with the extreme downside risk that the austerity measure cut too deep and the deflationary forces get out of hand, as they are flying without a fiscal safety net.

Switzerland’s Gerber Sees ‘Hope’ of SNB Countering Franc Gains

By Simone Meier

June 4 (Bloomberg) — Jean-Daniel Gerber, the Swiss
government’s head of economic affairs, said he’s counting on the
central bank to counter any “excessive” gains of the franc to
protect the country’s export-led recovery.

“I’m of course concerned” about franc gains, Gerber, who
heads the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, told Cash in
an interview published on the newspaper’s website today. “But
there’s hope that the SNB will be able to keep its promise of
countering an excessive appreciation of the franc.”

The Swiss currency has been pushed higher on concerns that
a Greek debt crisis will spread across the 16-member euro region
and hurt an economic recovery. The Swiss National Bank has
countered franc gains by purchasing billions of euros at an
unprecedented pace to protect exports and fight deflation risks.

The franc today breached 1.40 per euro for the first time
since the single currency was introduced in 1999. It
strengthened to as much as 1.3867 against the euro, trading at
1.3942 at 3:29 p.m. in Zurich.

Gerber said that while it’s “up to the central bank” to
decide on the extent of currency purchases, the SNB’s ability to
counter franc gains is “theoretically unlimited.”

“You can always counter an appreciation if you want to,
you just have to inject money into the market, purchase euros,
and that’s how you’re able to stabilize the value of the franc
versus the euro more or less,” he said. “But of course it
could have considerable negative side effects, namely of larger
liquidity sparking inflation if it isn’t re-absorbed.”

Share

G20 rules out fiscal expansion

Posted on by

G20 Says Expansionary Fiscal Policy Not Sustainable

The G20 has dropped its support for fiscal expansion. The deficit hawks are prevailing. But why is that? We all either know or should know that operationally Federal spending is not constrained by revenues, as Chairman Bernanke stated last year, when asked on ’60 Minutes’ by Scott Pelley where the funds given to the banks came from :

“…we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.”

We know that when the Fed spends on behalf of the Treasury it simply credits a member bank or foreign government’s reserve account at the Fed.

We know that a US Treasury security is a credit balance in a securities account, also at the Fed.

We know that buying a Treasury security means US dollars (numbers on the Fed’s spreadsheet) shift from a Fed reserve account to a Fed securities account, which adds to the ‘national debt.’

We know that government deficits = ‘non government’ saving (net dollar financial assets) to the penny, as a matter of national income accounting.

And we know paying off the Treasury securities happens continuously when Treasury securities mature and the Fed simply shifts those US dollars from the securities account back to a Fed reserve account (including the interest).

So why should we care if US dollars are in a Fed reserve account or a Fed securities account?

We should not, yet most still do.

There are two featured sides to the argument, pro and con, deficit hawks and deficit doves. The deficit hawks aren’t the problem. They have no argument that makes any sense as a point of simple monetary operations. There is no such thing as the Federal Government running out of money, being dependent on foreigners or anyone else for funding to be able to spend, and the US is not the next Greece.

The problem is the deficit doves featured by the media don’t understand actual monetary operations and reserve accounting, and so they take the same ‘fundamentally wrong’ positions as the deficit hawks. The difference is nothing more than timing and degree. In effect, the media is showing only one side of the argument.

To be a credible media deficit dove, you agree deficits are ‘bad’ but in the long term, arguing that in the short term we need tax cuts or spending increases now, and deficit reduction later. You agree that deficits can be too high, but argue they have been higher, particularly in World War II, so current levels should be easily manageable, further agreeing there is a level that could not be manageable. You agree markets could be ‘unfriendly’ and a lack of confidence could translate into far higher interest rates, but argue that the current low rates for Treasury securities are the markets telling us that currently they do have confidence in the US and they are eager to fund current deficits. You agree that ‘bang for the buck’ matters and support tax cuts and spending increases based on higher ‘multipliers.’

The two ‘sides of the story’ are in fact on the same side, just with differing degrees. The media does not feature the true deficit dove story. Nor do any of the true doves have even a small piece of the administration’s ear, or the ear of anyone in Congress willing to speak out. There are maybe a hundred of them, including many senior economics professors. The nagging question is why this professional, highly educated, highly experienced collection of true doves, who happen to be correct and could get us back to full employment and prosperity in reasonably short order, does not get a fair hearing.

The answer may be credentials. My BA in Economics from the University of Connecticut in 1971 doesn’t cut it, nor the fact that the very large fund I managed was the highest rated firm for the time I ran it. And my net worth never getting anywhere near a billion hasn’t helped either. Seems billionaires get celebrity status and airtime for just about anything they want to say.

The same is true of the Economics professors who’ve got it right. Without being from and at the usual ‘top tier’ schools none can even get published in main stream economics journals, where submissions featuring obvious accounting realities are routinely rejected. In fact, any economist who states accounting identities and operational realities such as ‘deficits = savings’ or ‘loans create deposits’ or ‘Federal spending is not constrained by revenues’ is immediately labeled ‘heterodox’ and unworthy of serious mainstream consideration. Even the late Wynne Godley, who did have reasonable credentials as head of Cambridge Economics, and was the number one UK economics forecaster, was labeled ‘unorthodox’ because his mathematical models featured the deficits = savings accounting identity.

The breakthrough could happen at any time, in addition to economists at the ‘right schools’ or right financial sector firms, there are government officials with sufficient credentials to lead the breakthrough, including the head of the CBO and OMB, the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman, as well as former Fed officials, particularly from monetary operations.

Unfortunately Treasury Secretary Geithner, a potential hero due to the celebrity of his office, and the rest of the G20 are acting out the deficit hawk position, acting as if they do indeed believe the US has run out of money, is dependent on its creditors, and could be the next Greece. They speak as if they have no idea that the euro nations operate within a unique institutional structure that puts them in a ‘revenue constrained’ financial position similar to the US States, but with nothing equivalent to the US Treasury to run the countercyclical deficits for them. They speak as if they have no idea that the US, UK, Japan, and others with ‘normal’ central governments taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to raise revenue per se. They act as if they don’t realize they can immediately make the fiscal adjustments- cut taxes and/or increase government spending- that will restore aggregate demand, employment, and output. In short, they act as if they were all still on the gold standard, an institutional arrangement where indeed government spending was constrained by revenues, and, as a consequence, the world witnessed repetitive, devastating deflationary depressions, far worse than what we’ve seen so far in this cycle.

The results of unnecessarily allowing a universal lack of aggregate demand to persist are already tragic, and if policy continues along the line of this weekend’s G20 results no relief is in sight, and it could all get a whole lot worse.

Share

EU Daily, China, and Fed swap lines

Posted on by

The euro remains under the cross currents of deflation driven further by the austerity measures that make it stronger.

And portfolio shifting out of euro mainly into dollars and gold out of fears of disintegration and restructuring that are making it weaker.

The latter is currently the stronger force as evidenced by the falling euro and rising price of gold, especially when priced in euro.

It may even be a case of allowing ‘insiders’ to get out and leave the public institutions like banks holding the bag at the point of restructuring at the expense of the remaining shareholders.

The deflation forces are evident in the falling commodity prices, declining equity values, and declining term structures of rates outside of the euro zone, where the politics of fiscal austerity also seem to be getting the upper hand as the world goes the way of Japan.

And each passing day provides more evidence that ultra low overnight rates from central banks are in fact deflationary, probably through the income and cost channels, which allows governments to have a much lower level of taxation for a given level of government spending (higher deficits) to sustain optimal levels of output and employment.

Unfortunately they firmly believe the opposite and continue with their deflationary, overly tight fiscal policies.

And talk coming out of China about ‘monetary easing’ tells me they see reason to be very concerned about their growth as well.

So it looks like the two external threats to the US economy, the euro zone and China, are indeed happening as feared.

Last, on a reread and after discussion, the new Fed swap lines look to be both unsecured and containing rollover language that reads as the foreign central banks being able to roll over their loans in perpetuity meaning they are not loans but one way fiscal transfers from the US to foreign central banks, as repayment is strictly voluntary.

EU Daily

Zapatero Said Sarkozy Threatened to Leave Euro, El Pais Says
ECB’s Trichet Dismisses Inflation Fears
ECB’s Tumpel Says Inflation to Be Fought ‘Without Compromise’
Volcker Sees Euro ‘Disintegration’ Risk From Greece
Trichet Says ECB Plans Time Deposits to Sterilize Buys
ECB Will Give ‘Sterilization’ Details Next Week
Quaden Says Market Reaction to Greece Was Excessive
German Cities’ Deficits to Hit Record in 2010, Rundschau Says
ECB Pares Spanish, Italian Bond Purchases, AFME Says
Constancio Says ECB Will Give Details on Sterilization Soon
Spain’s Core Inflation Turns Negative for First Time

Share

EU lends to itself to bail itself out – ECB remains sidelined

Posted on by

“While each component makes sense in its own narrow terms, the EU policy as a whole is madness for a currency union. Stephen Lewis from Monument Securities says Europe’s leaders have forgotten the lesson of the “Gold Bloc” in the second phase of the Great Depression, when a reactionary and over-proud Continent ground itself into slump by clinging to deflationary totemism long after the circumstances had rendered this policy suicidal. We all know how it ended.”

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The meeting took 14 hours and produced numbers large enough and rhetoric credible enough to trigger today’s short covering that might continue at least through half of tomorrow.

But all the actual announced funding comes from the same nations that are having the funding issues. There is no external funding of consequence of national govt borrowing needs coming any source other than the euro governments, nor can there be, as the the funding needs are in euro. And the ECB, the only entity that can provide the euro zone with the needed net financial assets, remains limited to ‘liquidity’ provision which does not address the core funding issue.

Yes, the funding needs have been move evenly distributed among the national governments. But even the financially strongest member, Germany, is structurally in need of continually borrowing increasing quantities of euro to roll over existing debt and fund continuing deficits, with no foreseeable prospects of even stabilizing its debt to GDP ratio or debt to revenue ratio. Adding this new financing burden only makes matters worse, and do the austerity measures now under way in all the member nations.

The one bright spot is the ‘whatever it takes’ language that presumably includes the only move that can make it work financially- actual funding of national govt. debt by the ECB either directly or indirectly through guarantees. But there can be no assurance, of course, that it’s just another bluff to buy time, hoping for a large enough increase in net exports which would be evidence of the rest of the world deciding to reduce its euro net financial assets via the purchase of goods and services from the euro zone.

And with a meaningful increase in exports likely to happen in a meaningful way only with a much lower euro, the terms and conditions of today’s announcements introduce conflicting forces. The austerity measures work to strengthen the euro to the extent they succeed, and to weaken it to the extent they result in increased national govt debt and changes in portfolio preferences.

My best guess is that market forces will soon be testing this new package and its core weaknesses.

Share

corrected post on IMF operations

Posted on by

I now understand it this way:

The IMF creates and allocates new SDR’s to its members.

There is no other source of SDR’s.

SDR’s exist only in accounts on the IMF’s books.

SDR’s have value only because there is an informal agreement between members that they will use their own currency to lend against or buy SDR’s from members the IMF deems in need of funding who also accept IMF terms and conditions.

Originally, in the fixed exchange rate system of that time, this was to help members with balance of payments deficits obtain foreign exchange to buy their own currencies to keep them from devaluation.

The system failed and now the exchange rates are floating.

Currently SDR’s and the IMF are used by members needing help with foreign currency funding needs.

Looks to me like Greece will be borrowing euro from other euro nations using its SDR’s as collateral or selling them to other euro nations.

Either way it’s functionally getting funding from the other euro members.

Greece is also accepting IMF terms and conditions.

The only way the US is involved is if a member attempts to use its SDR’s to obtain $US.

The US is bound only by this informal agreement to accept SDR’s as collateral for $US loans, or to buy SDR for $US.

SDR’s have no intrinsic value and are not accepted for tax payments.

It’s a lot like the regional ‘currencies’ like ‘lets’ and ‘Ithaca dollars’ that are also purely voluntary and facilitate unsecured lending of goods and services with no enforcement in the case of default.

It’s a purely voluntary arrangement which renders all funding as functionally unsecured.

There is no IMF balance sheet involved.

While conceptually/descriptively different than what I erroneously described in my previous post, it is all functionally the same- unsecured lending to Greece by the other euro nations with IMF terms and conditions.

The actual flow of funds and inherent risk is as I previously described.

No dollars leave the Fed, euro are transferred from euro members to Greece.

I apologize for the prior incorrect descriptive information and appreciate any further information anyone might have regarding the actual current arrangements.

Prior post:

I understand it this way:

The US buys SDR’s in dollars.
those dollars exist as deposits in the IMF’s account at the Fed.

The euro members buy SDR’s in euro.
Those euro sit in the IMF’s account at the ECB

The IMF then lends those euro to Greece
They get transferred by the ECB to the Bank of Greece’s account at the ECB.

The IMF’s dollars stay in the IMF’s account at the Fed.

They can only be transferred to another account at the Fed by the Fed.

U.S. taxpayers are helping finance Greek bailout

By Senator Jim DeMint

May 6 — The International Monetary Fund board has approved a $40 billion bailout for Greece, almost one year after the Senate rejected my amendment to prohibit the IMF from using U.S. taxpayer money to bailout foreign countries.

Congress didn‚t learn their lesson after the $700 billion failed bank bailout and let world leaders shake down U.S taxpayers for international bailout money at the G-20 conference in April 2009. G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors asked the United States, the IMF‚s largest contributor, for a whopping $108 billion to rescue bankers around the world and the Obama Administration quickly obliged.
Rather than pass it as stand-alone legislation, President Obama asked Congress to fold the $108 billion into a war-spending bill to send money to our troops.

It was clear such an approach would simply repeat the expensive mistake of the failed Wall Street bailouts with banks in other nations. Think of it as an international TARP plan, another massive rescue package rushed through with little planning or debate. That‚s why I objected and offered an amendment to take it out of the war bill. But the Democrat Senate voted to keep the IMF bailout in the war spending bill. 64 senators voted for the bailout, 30 senators voted against it.

Only one year later, the IMF is sending nearly $40 billion to bailout Greece, the biggest bailout the IMF has ever enacted.

Right now, 17 percent of the IMF funding pool that the $40 billion bailout is being drawn from comes from U.S. taxpayers. If that ratio holds true, that means American taxpayers are paying for $6.8 billion of the Greek bailout. Although the $108 billion extra that Congress approved for the IMF in 2009 hasn‚t yet gone into effect, you can bet that once it does Greek bankers will come to the IMF again with their hat in hand. And, if other European Union countries see free money up for grabs they could ask the IMF for bailouts when they get into trouble, too. If we‚ve learned anything from the Wall Street bailouts it‚s that just one bailout is never enough.
To hide the bailout from Americans already angry with the $700 billion bank bailout, Congress classified it as an „expanded credit line.‰ The Congressional Budget Office only scored it as $5 billion because IMF agreed to give the United States a promissory note for the rest of the bill.
As the Wall Street Journal wrote at the time, „If it costs so little, why not make it $200 billion. Or a trillion? It‚s free!‰

Of course, money isn‚t free and there are member nations of the IMF that won‚t be in a hurry to pay it back. Three state sponsors of terrorism, Iran, Syria and Sudan, are a part of the IMF. Iran participates in the IMF‚s day-to-day activities as a member of its executive board.

If the failed bank bailout and stimulus bill wasn‚t enough to prove to Americans the kind of misguided, destructive spending that goes on in Washington this will: The Democrat Congress, aided by a few Republicans, used a war spending bill to send bailout money to an international fund that‚s partially-controlled by our enemies.

America can‚t afford to bail out foreign countries with borrowed dollars from China and certainly shouldn‚t allow state sponsors of terror a hand in that process.

This has to stop if we are going to survive as a nation. Congress won‚t act stop such foolishness on its own. The only way Americans can stop this is by sending new people to Washington in November who will.

Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican U.S. Senator from South Carolina.

Share

my euro essay from 2001

Posted on by

I wrote this in 2001, the euro has been an accident waiting to happen.

It’s an unstable equilibrium, as Mike just reminded me I used to say.

Like balancing a marble on top of an upside down bowl, if it starts to go it accelerates downward

Vs the dollar, a stable equilibrium system, which is like placing a marble in a bowl right side up, and any movement meets forces which brings it back to the starting point.

And like many ponzi schemes, it works just fine on the way up, and can go on a long time before it crumbles.

Rites of Passage

The Child of Consensus

Conceived in post WWII politics, and baptized in the political waters of the 90’s, a new common currency- the euro- assumed its position on January 1, 1999. Representatives of the prospective member nations masterfully achieved political consensus by both the absence of objectionable clauses and the inclusion of national constraints, as manifested in the Treaty of Maastricht. During that tumultuous process, with deep pride, the elders grasped and shielded the credit sensitive heel of the infant euro. The ‘no bailout’ directive for the new ECB (European Central Bank) emerged as a pillar of the political imperative to address the ‘moral hazard’ issue that so deeply concerned the political leadership, and, two years later, that same rhetoric of fiscal responsibility continues to ring at least as loudly when the merits of the EMU (European Monetary Union) are proclaimed. Unfortunately, however well intended as protection from a genetic proclivity toward fiscal irresponsibility, the naked heel is but a magnet for the financial market’s arrows of our hero’s mortal demise.

As Apollo’s chariot adeptly carries its conflagration from east to west, the European Monetary Union carries its members on the path of economic growth. Unlike the path of the sun, however, the path of an economy continuously vacillates, including occasional dips into negative territory. And, like the sign most rental car agencies post by the entrance for returning cars about to drive over a one way bump strip, the new EMU, with its lurking unidirectional bias, could do a service to it members with a similar posting – WARNING- DO NOT BACK UP!

The Dynamics of the Instability

The euro-12 nations once had independent monetary systems, very much like the US, Canada, and Japan today. Under EMU, however, the national governments are now best thought of financially as states, provinces, or cities of the new currency union, much like California, Ontario, and New York City. The old national central banks are no longer the issuers of their local currency. In their place, the EMU has added a new central bank, the ECB, to manage the payments system, set the overnight lending rate, and intervene in the currency markets when appropriate. The EP (European Parliament) has a relatively small budget and limited fiscal responsibilities. Most of the governmental functions and responsibilities remain at the national level, having not been transferred to the new federal level. Two of those responsibilities that will prove most problematic at the national level are unemployment compensation and bank deposit insurance. Furthermore, all previous national financial liabilities remain at the national level and have been converted to the new euro, with debt to GDP ratios of member nations as high as 105%, not including substantial and growing unfunded liabilities. These burdens are all very much higher than what the credit markets ordinarily allow states, provinces, or cities to finance.

Since inception a little over two years ago the euro-12 national governments have experienced moderate GDP growth, declining unemployment, and moderate tax revenue growth. Fiscal deficits narrowed and all but vanished as tax revenues grew faster than expenditures, and GDP increased at a faster rate than the national debts, so that debt to GDP ratios declined somewhat. Under these circumstances investors have continued to support national funding requirements and there have been no substantive bank failures. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that as long as this pattern of growth continues finance will be readily available. However, should the current world economic slowdown move the euro-12 to negative growth, falling tax revenues, and concerns over the banking system’s financial health, the euro-12 could be faced with a system wide liquidity crisis. At the same time, market forces can also be expected to exacerbate the downward spiral by forcing the national governments to act procyclically, either by cutting national spending or attempting to increase revenue.

For clues to the nature and magnitude of the potential difficulties, one can review the US Savings and Loan crisis of the 80’s, with the difference being that deposit insurance would have been a state obligation, rather than a federal responsibility. For example, one could ask how Texas might have fared when faced with a bill for some $100 billion to cover bank losses and redeem depositors? And, once it was revealed that states could lack the borrowing power for funds to preserve depositors insured accounts, how could any bank have funded itself? More recently, if Bank of America’s deposit insurer and lender of last resort were the State of California rather than the Federal Reserve, could it have funded itself under the financial cloud of the state’s ongoing power crisis and credit downgrade? And, if not, would that have triggered a general liquidity crisis within the US banking system? Without deposit insurance and lender of last resort responsibilities the legal obligation of a non-credit constrained entity, such as the Federal Reserve, is systemic financial risk not ever present?

The inherent instability can be expressed as a series of questions:
*Will the euro-12 economy slow sufficiently to automatically increase national deficits via the reduction of tax revenues and increased transfer payments?
*Will such a slowdown cause the markets to dictate terms of credit to the credit sensitive national governments, and force procyclical responses?
*Will the slowdown lead to local bank failures?
*Will the markets allow national governments with heavy debt burdens, falling revenues and rising expenses the finance required to support troubled banks?
*Will depositors lose confidence in the banking system and test the new euro-12 support mechanism?
*Can the entire payments system avoid a shutdown when faced with this need to reorganize?

Conclusion

Water freezes at 0 degrees C. But very still water can be cooled well below that and stay liquid until a catalyst, such as a sudden breeze, causes it to instantly solidify. Likewise, the conditions for a national liquidity crisis that will shut down the euro-12’s monetary system are firmly in place. All that is required is an economic slowdown that threatens either tax revenues or the capital of the banking system.
A prosperous financial future belongs to those who respect the dynamics and are prepared for the day of reckoning. History and logic dictate that the credit sensitive euro-12 national governments and banking system will be tested. The market’s arrows will inflict an initially narrow liquidity crisis, which will immediately infect and rapidly arrest the entire euro payments system. Only the inevitable, currently prohibited, direct intervention of the ECB will be capable of performing the resurrection, and from the ashes of that fallen flaming star an immortal sovereign currency will no doubt emerge.

Warren Mosler
May 1, 2001

Share

The USA is broke and something needs to be done NOW

Posted on by

Yet Another ‘Innocent Fraud’ Attack On Social Security And Medicare

The Future of Public Debt

By John Mauldin

For the rest of this letter, and probably next week as well, we are going to look at a paper from the Bank of International Settlements, often thought of as the central bankers’ central bank. This paper was written by Stephen G. Cecchetti, M. S. Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli. ( http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf?noframes=1)

The paper looks at fiscal policy in a number of countries and, when combined with the implications of age-related spending (public pensions and health care), determines where levels of debt in terms of GDP are going. The authors don’t mince words. They write at the beginning:

“Our projections of public debt ratios lead us to conclude that the path pursued by fiscal authorities in a number of industrial countries is unsustainable.

Solvency is never the issue with non convertible currencies/ floating exchange rates. The risk is entirely inflation, yet I’ve never seen a manuscript critical of deficit spending that seriously looks at the inflation issue apart from solvency concerns.

Drastic measures are necessary to check the rapid growth of current and future liabilities of governments and reduce their adverse consequences for long-term growth and monetary stability.”

The negative consequences are always due to the moves presumed necessary to reduce deficits, not deficit spending per se.

Drastic measures is not language you typically see in an economic paper from the BIS. But the picture they paint for the 12 countries they cover is one for which drastic measures is well-warranted.

That would mean a hyper inflation scare, not solvency fear mongering.

I am going to quote extensively from the paper, as I want their words to speak for themselves, and I’ll add some color and explanation as needed. Also, all emphasis is mine.

“The politics of public debt vary by country. In some, seared by unpleasant experience, there is a culture of frugality. In others, however, profligate official spending is commonplace. In recent years, consolidation has been successful on a number of occasions. But fiscal restraint tends to deliver stable debt;

Stable public debt means stable non govt nominal savings with economies that require expanding net financial assets to support expanding credit structures and offset institutional demand leakages.

rarely does it produce substantial reductions. And, most critically, swings from deficits to surpluses have tended to come along with either falling nominal interest rates, rising real growth, or both. Today, interest rates are exceptionally low and the growth outlook for advanced economies is modest at best. This leads us to conclude that the question is when markets will start putting pressure on governments, not if.

Govts with non convertible currency/floating fx are not subject to pressure from markets with regards to funding or interest rates.

“When, in the absence of fiscal actions, will investors start demanding a much higher compensation for the risk of holding the increasingly large amounts of public debt that authorities are going to issue to finance their extravagant ways?

Investors have to take what’s offered, or exit the currency by selling it so someone else. And floating exchange rates continuously express the indifference levels

In some countries, unstable debt dynamics, in which higher debt levels lead to higher interest rates, which then lead to even higher debt levels, are already clearly on the horizon.

Only countries such as the euro zone members who are not the issuer of the euro, but users of the euro. They are analogous to us states in that regard, and are credit sensitive entities.

“It follows that the fiscal problems currently faced by industrial countries need to be tackled relatively soon and resolutely.

Agreed, except fiscal drag needs to be removed to restore private sector output and employment. They have this backwards.

Failure to do so will raise the chance of an unexpected and abrupt rise in government bond yields at medium and long maturities, which would put the nascent economic recovery at risk.

Like Japan? Triple the ‘debt’ of the US with a 1.3% 10 year note? And never a hint of missing a payment. And Japan, the US, UK, etc. all have the same institutional structure.

It will also complicate the task of central banks in controlling inflation in the immediate future and might ultimately threaten the credibility of present monetary policy arrangements.

Yes, inflation is the potential risk, which is mainly a political risk. People don’t like inflation and will topple a govt over it. But there is no economic evidence that inflation is a negative for growth and employment.

“While fiscal problems need to be tackled soon, how to do that without seriously jeopardising the incipient economic recovery is the current key challenge for fiscal authorities.”

Yes, exactly. Because they have it wrong. The fiscal problem that has to be tackled soon is that it’s too tight, as evidenced by the high rates of unemployment.

They start by dealing with the growth in fiscal (government) deficits and the growth in debt. The US has exploded from a fiscal deficit of 2.8% to 10.4% today, with only a small 1.3% reduction for 2011 projected. Debt will explode (the correct word!) from 62% of GDP to an estimated 100% of GDP by the end of 2011.

Yes, and not nearly enough, as unemployment is projected to still be over 9%, and core inflation is what is considered to be dangerously low.

Remember that Rogoff and Reinhart show that when the ratio of debt to GDP rises above 90%, there seems to be a reduction of about 1% in GDP. The authors of this paper, and others, suggest that this might come from the cost of the public debt crowding out productive private investment.

Can be true for fixed exchange rate regimes/convertible currency, but not true for today’s non convertible currency and floating fx regimes. And today, deficits generally rise due to slowdowns that drive up transfer payments and cut revenues ‘automatically’ (automatic stabilizers) so it’s no mystery that rising deficits are associated with slowing economies, but the causation is the reverse RR imply.

Think about that for a moment. We are on an almost certain path to a debt level of 100% of GDP in less than two years. If trend growth has been a yearly rise of 3.5% in GDP, then we are reducing that growth to 2.5% at best. And 2.5% trend GDP growth will NOT get us back to full employment. We are locking in high unemployment for a very long time, and just when some one million people will soon be falling off the extended unemployment compensation rolls.

Nothing that a sufficient tax cut won’t cure. There is a screaming shortage of aggregate demand that’s easily restored by a simple fiscal adjustment- tax cut and/or spending increase.

Government transfer payments of some type now make up more than 20% of all household income. That is set up to fall rather significantly over the year ahead unless unemployment payments are extended beyond the current 99 weeks. There seems to be little desire in Congress for such a measure. That will be a significant headwind to consumer spending.

Yes, backwards policy. They need to work to restore demand, not reduce it.

My first proposal is for a full payroll tax (fica) holiday, for example.

Government debt-to-GDP for Britain will double from 47% in 2007 to 94% in 2011 and rise 10% a year unless serious fiscal measures are taken.

Or unless the economy rebounds. In that case the deficit comes down and the danger is they let it fall too far as happens with every cycle.

Greece’s level will swell from 104% to 130%,

Yes, and they are credit sensitive like the US states.
This is ponzi.
Ponzi is when you must borrow to pay maturing debt

The US, UK, Japan, etc. Have no borrowing imperative to pay debt, the way Greece does.
They make all payments the same way- they just mark up numbers on their computers at their own central banks:

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

Bernanke didn’t call china to beg for a loan or check with the IRS to see if they could bring in some quick cash. He just changed numbers up with his computer.

so the US and Britain are working hard to catch up to Greece, a dubious race indeed.

Confused!

Spain is set to rise from 42% to 74% and “only” 5% a year thereafter; but their economy is in recession, so GDP is shrinking and unemployment is 20%. Portugal? 71% to 97% in the next two years, and there is almost no way Portugal can grow its way out of its problems.

Yes, they are in Ponzi

Japan will end 2011 with a debt ratio of 204% and growing by 9% a year. They are taking almost all the savings of the country into government bonds, crowding out productive private capital.

Nothing is crowded out with non convertible currency and floating fx. Banks have no shortage of yen lending power. The yen the govt net spends can be thought of as the yen that buy the jgb’s (japan govt bonds)

Reinhart and Rogoff, with whom you should by now be familiar, note that three years after a typical banking crisis the absolute level of public debt is 86% higher, but in many cases of severe crisis the debt could grow by as much as 300%. Ireland has more than tripled its debt in just five years.

Ireland is in Ponzi as they are users of the euro.

The BIS continues:

“We doubt that the current crisis will be typical in its impact on deficits and debt. The reason is that, in many countries, employment and growth are unlikely to return to their pre-crisis levels in the foreseeable future. As a result, unemployment and other benefits will need to be paid for several years, and high levels of public investment might also have to be maintained.

“The permanent loss of potential output caused by the crisis also means that government revenues may have to be permanently lower in many countries. Between 2007 and 2009, the ratio of government revenue to GDP fell by 2-4 percentage points in Ireland, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Again, failure to recognize the critical differences between issuers and users of the currency.

It is difficult to know how much of this will be reversed as the recovery progresses. Experience tells us that the longer households and firms are unemployed and underemployed, as well as the longer they are cut off from credit markets, the bigger the shadow economy becomes.”

Yes, responsible fiscal policy would not have let demand fall this far. The US should have had a full payroll tax holiday no later than sept 08, and most of the damage to the real economy would have been avoided.

We are going to skip a few sections and jump to the heart of their debt projections. Again, I am going to quote extensively, and my comments will be in brackets [].Note that these graphs are in color and are easier to read in color (but not too difficult if you are printing it out). Also, I usually summarize, but this is important. I want you to get the full impact. Then I will make some closing observations.

The Future Public Debt Trajectory

“We now turn to a set of 30-year projections for the path of the debt/GDP ratio in a dozen major industrial economies (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States). We choose a 30-year horizon with a view to capturing the large unfunded liabilities stemming from future age-related expenditure without making overly strong assumptions about the future path of fiscal policy (which is unlikely to be constant). In our baseline case, we assume that government total revenue and non-age-related primary spending remain a constant percentage of GDP at the 2011 level as projected by the OECD. Using the CBO and European Commission projections for age-related spending, we then proceed to generate a path for total primary government spending and the primary balance over the next 30 years. Throughout the projection period, the real interest rate that determines the cost of funding is assumed to remain constant at its 1998-2007 average, and potential real GDP growth is set to the OECD-estimated post-crisis rate.

[That makes these estimates quite conservative, as growth-rate estimates by the OECD are well on the optimistic side.]

Yes, future liabilities are always quoted in isolation from future demand leakages including growth of reserves in pension funds, insurance companies, corps, foreign govts, etc.

And they are always used to imply solvency issues. No actual calculations are ever done regarding inflation.

Debt Projections

“From this exercise, we are able to come to a number of conclusions. First, in our baseline scenario, conventionally computed deficits will rise precipitously. Unless the stance of fiscal policy changes, or age-related spending is cut, by 2020 the primary deficit/GDP ratio will rise to 13% in Ireland; 8-10% in Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States; [Wow!] and 3-7% in Austria, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal. Only in Italy do these policy settings keep the primary deficits relatively well contained – a consequence of the fact that the country entered the crisis with a nearly balanced budget and did not implement any real stimulus over the past several years.

Yes, this is big trouble for the solvency of the euro zone members, but not the rest.

“But the main point of this exercise is the impact that this will have on debt. The results plotted as the red line in Graph 4 [below] show that, in the baseline scenario, debt/GDP ratios rise rapidly in the next decade, exceeding 300% of GDP in Japan; 200% in the United Kingdom; and 150% in Belgium, France, Ireland, Greece, Italy and the United States. And, as is clear from the slope of the line, without a change in policy, the path is unstable. This is confirmed by the projected interest rate paths, again in our baseline scenario. Graph 5 [below] shows the fraction absorbed by interest payments in each of these countries.From around 5% today, these numbers rise to over 10% in all cases, and as high as 27% in the United Kingdom.

“Seeing that the status quo is untenable, countries are embarking on fiscal consolidation plans. In the United States, the aim is to bring the total federal budget deficit down from 11% to 4% of GDP by 2015. In the United Kingdom, the consolidation plan envisages reducing budget deficits by 1.3 percentage points of GDP each year from 2010 to 2013 (see eg OECD (2009a)).

Why would anyone who understood actual monetary operations want to increase fiscal drag with elevated unemployment and excess capacity .

“To examine the long-run implications of a gradual fiscal adjustment similar to the ones being proposed, we project the debt ratio assuming that the primary balance improves by 1 percentage point of GDP in each year for five years starting in 2012. The results are presented as the green line in Graph 4. Although such an adjustment path would slow the rate of debt accumulation compared with our baseline scenario, it would leave several major industrial economies with substantial debt ratios in the next decade.

“This suggests that consolidations along the lines currently being discussed will not be sufficient to ensure that debt levels remain within reasonable bounds over the next several decades.

“An alternative to traditional spending cuts and revenue increases is to change the promises that are as yet unmet. Here, that means embarking on the politically treacherous task of cutting future age-related liabilities.

Here we go- this is too often the ‘hidden agenda’

It’s all about cutting social security and medicare.

Who would have thought!!!

Yes, the euro zone’s institutional arrangements that make member govt spending revenue constrained have it on the road to collapse, maybe very soon, and for reasons other than long term liabilities.

The rest of the world doesn’t have that issue, as govt spending is not revenue constrained, and the risk to prosperity is acting as if we all have the same revenue constraints as the euro zone.

With this possibility in mind, we construct a third scenario that combines gradual fiscal improvement with a freezing of age-related spending-to-GDP at the projected level for 2011. The blue line in Graph 4 shows the consequences of this draconian policy. Given its severity, the result is no surprise: what was a rising debt/GDP ratio reverses course and starts heading down in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. In several others, the policy yields a significant slowdown in debt accumulation. Interestingly, in France, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, even this policy is not sufficient to bring rising debt under control.

Share

Greece CAN go it alone

Posted on by

Greece CAN Go it Alone
Yesterday at 5:00pm
By Marshall Auerback and Warren Mosler

Greece can successfully issue and place new debt at low interest rates. The trick is to insert a provision stating that in the event of default, the bearer on demand can use those defaulted securities to pay Greek government taxes. This makes it immediately obvious to investors that those new securities are ‘money good’ and will ultimately redeem for face value for as long as the Greek government levies and enforces taxes. This would not only allow Greece to fund itself at low interest rates, but it would also serve as an example for the rest of the euro zone, and thereby ease the funding pressures on the entire region.

We recognize, of course, that this proposal would also introduce a ‘moral hazard’ issue. This newly found funding freedom, if abused, could be highly inflationary and further weaken the euro. In fact, the reason the ECB is prohibited from buying national government debt is to allow ‘market discipline’ to limit member nation fiscal expansion by the threat of default. When that threat is removed, bad behavior is rewarded, as the country that deficit spends the most wins, in an accelerating and inflationary race to the bottom.
It is comparable to a situation where a nation like the US, for example, did not have national insurance regulation. In this kind of circumstance, the individual states got into a race to the bottom, where the state with the laxest standards stood to attract the most insurance companies, forcing each State to either lower standards or see its tax base flee. And it tends to end badly with AIG style collapses.

Additionally, the ECB or the Economic Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) effectively loses the means to enforce their austerity demands and keep them from being reversed once it’s known they’ve taken the position that it’s too risky to let any one nation fail.

What Europe’s policy makers would like to do is find a way to isolate Greece and mitigate the contagion effect, while maintaining the market discipline that comes from the member nations being the credit sensitive entities they are today; hence, the mooted “shock and awe” proposals now being leaked, which did engender an 8% jump in the Greek stock market on Thursday.

But these proposals don’t really get to the nub of the problem. Any major package weakens the others who have to fund it in the market place, because the other member nations are also revenue dependent, credit sensitive entities. Much like the US States, they do not control central bank operations, and must have good funds in their accounts or their checks will bounce.

The euro zone nations are all still in a bind, and their mandated austerity measures mean they don’t keep up with a world recovery. And Greek financial restructuring that reduces outstanding debt reduces outstanding euro financial assets, strengthening the euro, and further weakening output and employment, while at the same time the legitimization of restructuring risk weakens the credit worthiness of all the member nations.

It does not appear that the markets have fully discounted the ramifications of a Greek default. If you use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy analogy, large parts of the country would be shut down and the “company” (i.e. Greece Inc) could spend only its tax revenues. But the implied spending cuts represent a further substantial cut in aggregate demand and decreased revenues, in a most un-virtuous spiral that ends only with an increase in exports or privation driven revolt.

The ability of Greece to use the funds from the rescue package as a means to extinguish Greek state liabilities would improve their financial ratios and stave off financial collapse, at least on a short term basis, with the side effect of a downward spiral in output and employment, while the sovereign risk concerns are concurrently transmitted to Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and beyond. Those sovereign difficulties also morph into a full-scale private banking crisis which can quickly extend to bank runs at the branch level.

Our suggestion will rescue Greece and the entire euro zone from the dangers of national government insolvencies, and turn the euro zone policy maker’s attention 180 degrees, back to their traditional role of containing the potential moral hazard issue of excessive deficit spending by the national governments through the Stability and Growth Pact. If the member states ultimately decide that the Stability and Growth Pact ratios need to be changed, that’s their decision. But the SGP represents the euro zone’s “national budget”, precisely designed to prevent the hyperinflationary outcome that the “race to the bottom” could potentially create. At the very least, our proposal will mitigate the deflationary impact of markets disciplining credit sensitive national governments and halting the potential spread of global financial contagion, without being inflationary.

Share