Fate of the US Dollar?


[Skip to the end]

I think they want to accumulate financial assets and would like to get a currency they could feel good about to do that.

And at the same time they want to net export.

The only way they could do that is to somehow ‘force’ us to borrow their new currency in order for us to net import from them.

It would be easier for them to instead come up with an inflation index and only sell their exports in exchange for financial assets linked to their new inflation index. As long as the financial assets are linked to their index the currency of denomination isn’t critical. But credit worthiness would be critical.

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>>   The following was printed in the Independent in the UK. Doesn’t this move
>>   threaten the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency?
>   

Doesn’t matter what anything is ‘priced in’ as that is just a numeraire. What matters is what the ‘save in’ which determines trade flows.

>   
>   Interesting. A political move.
>   Seems a clumsy project though: they need to find a name for this ‘basket
>   currency’ (petrodollar?) and then accept payments in any ‘real’ currency
>   equivalent to the value of the ‘petrodollar’ at the time of payment.
>   Possible that all will continue to use dollars for payment.
>   Economic consequences will depend on whether this has any effect on the
>   willingness of foreigners to hold the given amount of dollars they own.
>   

>>   
>>   â€œIn the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf
>>   Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France to end
>>   dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including
>>   the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified
>>   currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including
>>   Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Secret meetings have already
>>   beenheld by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China,
>>   Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no
>>   longer be priced in dollars.”
>>   


[top]

Chinese Export Prices/Anecdotals


[Skip to the end]

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:27 AM, wrote:
>   
>   May be of interest-from JPM China weekly-so much for lower dollar being inflationary!
>   

Details suggest that:

the fall in export prices is rather broad-based across manufactured goods, including chemicals, metal products, machinery and

equipment, telecom products, autos, handbags, and shoes. Indeed, feedback from exporters in coastal areas showed that

although orders from the EU and the US have been increasing, importers are very sensitive to prices and have been negotiating

prices aggressively. The general trend is consistent with our view that although external demand, especially from the G-3

economies, is experiencing a cyclical rebound, the bounce is from unprecedented lows. As such, there is still plenty of slack in

the global economy and the large output gap is depressing the pricing power of producers everywhere.

and Japan has to be seeing the same thing.

Won’t surprise me if they start buying dollars and test the US admin’s resolve on that issue

Be nice if they do and help sustain our real terms of trade!


[top]

Geithner- at best a case of innocent subversion.


[Skip to the end]

Appreciate it if anyone can get me a meeting with him.
This policy is a major threat to our standard of living, and he apparently doesn’t know it:

Geithner Sees G-20 Consensus, Supports Dollar’s Reserve Role

By Rebecca Christie

September 25 (Bloomberg) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he sees a “strong consensus” among Group of 20 nations to reduce reliance on exports for growth and defended the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.

“A strong dollar is very important in the United States,” Geithner said in response to a question at a press conference yesterday in Pittsburgh, where G-20 leaders began two days of talks.

Geithner predicted agreement on an Obama administration proposal to foster a global recovery that avoids lopsided flows of trade and investment. He said a higher U.S. savings rate this year is an “encouraging sign,” and he indicated that government support for markets will be withdrawn gradually.


[top]

Social Security commentary published


[Skip to the end]

Social Security: Another Case of Innocent Fraud?

By Mathew Forstater and Warren Mosler

August 6th — In his recent book, The Economics of Innocent Fraud, John Kenneth Galbraith surveys a number of false beliefs that are being perpetuated among the American people about how our society operates: innocent (and sometimes not-so-innocent) frauds. There is perhaps no greater fraud being committed presently—and none in which the stakes are so high—as the fraud being perpetrated regarding government insolvency and Social Security. President Bush uses the word “bankruptcy” continuously. And the opposition agrees there is a solvency issue, questioning only what to do about it.
Fortunately, there is a powerful voice on our side that takes exception to the notion of government insolvency, and that is none other than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The following is from a transcript of a recent interview with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan:

    RYAN… do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure?

    GREENSPAN: Well, I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created
    which those benefits are employed to purchase. (emphasis added)

For a long time we have been saying there is no solvency issue (see C-FEPS Policy Note 99/02 and the other papers cited in the bibliography at the end of this report). Now with the support of the Fed Chairman, maybe we can gain some traction.

Let us briefly review, operationally, government spending and taxing. When government spends it credits member bank accounts. For example, imagine you turn on your computer, log in to your bank account, and see a balance of $1,000 while waiting for your $1,000 Social Security payment to hit. Suddenly the $1,000 changes to $2,000. What did the government do to make that payment? It did not hammer a gold coin into a wire connected to your account. It did not somehow take someone’s taxes and give them to you. All it did was change a number on a computer screen. This process is operationally independent of, and not operationally constrained by, tax collections or borrowing.

That is what Chairman Greenspan was telling us: constraints on government payment can only be self-imposed.

And what happens when government taxes? If your computer showed a $2,000 balance, and you sent a check for $1,000 to the government for your tax payment, your balance would soon change to $1,000. That is all—the government changed your number downward. It did not “get” anything from you. Nothing jumped out of the government computer into a box to be spent later. Yes, they “account” for it by putting information in an account they may call a “trust fund,” but this is “accounting”—after the fact record-keeping—and has no operational impact on government’s ability to later credit any account (i.e., spend!).

Ever wonder what happens if you pay your taxes in actual=2 0cash? The government shreds it. What if you lend to the government via buying its bonds with actual cash? Yes, the government shreds the cash. Obviously, the government doesn’t actually need your “funds” per se for further operational purpose.

Put another way, Congress ALWAYS can decide to make Social Security payments, previous taxing or spending not withstanding, and, operationally, the Fed can ALWAYS process whatever payments Congress makes. This process is not revenue constrained. Operationally, collecting taxes or borrowing has no operational connection to spending. Solvency is not an issue. Involuntary government bankruptcy has no application whatsoever! Yet “everyone” agrees—in all innocence—that there is a solvency problem, and that it is just a matter of when. Everyone, that is, except us and Chairman Greenspan, and hopefully now you, the reader, as well!

So if solvency is a non-issue, what are the issues? Inflation, for one. Perhaps future spending will drive up future prices. Fine! How much? What are the projections? No one has even attempted this exercise. Well, it is about time they did, so decisions can be made on the relevant facts.

The other issue is how much GDP we want seniors to consume. If we want them to consume more, we can award them larger checks, and vice versa. And we can do this in any year. Yes, it is that simple. It is purely a political question and not one of “finance.”

If we do want seniors to participate in the future profitability of corporate America, one option (currently not on the table) is to simply index their future Social Security checks to the stock market or any other indicator we select—such as worker productivity or inflation, whatever that might mean.

Remember, the government imposes a 30% corporate income tax, which is at least as good as owning 30% of all the equity, and has at least that same present value. If the government wants to take a larger or smaller bite from corporate profits, all it has to do is alter that tax—it has the direct pipe. After all, equity is nothing more than a share of corporate profits. Indexation would give the same results as private accounts, without all the transactional expense and disruption.

Now on to the alleged “deficit issue” of the private accounts plan. The answer first—it’s a non-issue. Note that the obligation to pay Social Security benefits is functionally very much the same as having a government bond outstanding—it is a government promise to make future payments. So when the plan is enacted the reduction of future government payments is substantially offset” by future government payments via the new bonds issued. And the funds to buy those new bonds come (indirectly) from the reductions in the Social Security tax payments—to the penny. The process is circular. Think of it this way. You get a $100 reduction of your Social Security tax payment. You buy $100 of equities. The person who sold the equities to you has your $100 and buys the new government bonds. The government has new bonds outstanding to him or her, but reduced Social Security obligations to you with a present value of about $100. Bottom line: not much has changed. One person has used his or her $100 Social Security tax savings to buy equities and has given up about $100 worth of future Social Security benefits (some might argue how much more or less than $100 is given up, but the point remains). The other person sold the equity and used that $100 to buy the new government bonds. Again, very little has changed at the macro level. Close analysis of the “pieces” reveals this program is nothing but a “wheel spin.”

Never has so much been said by so many about a non-issue. It is a clear case of “innocent fraud.” And what has been left out? Back to Chairman Greenspan’s interview—what are we doing about increasing future output? Certainly nothing in the proposed private account plan. So if we are going to take real action, that is the area of attack. Make s ure we do what we can to make the real investments necessary for tomorrow’s needs, and the first place to start for very long term real gains is education. Our kids will need the smarts when the time comes to deal with the problems at hand.

References

•Galbraith, John Kenneth, 2004, The Economics of Innocent Fraud: Truth for Our Time, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

•Wray, L. Randall, 1999, “Subway Tokens and Social Security,” C-FEPS Policy Note 99/02, Kansas City, MO: Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, January, (http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn9902.html).

•Wray, L. Randall, 2000, “Social Security: Long-Term Financing and Reform,” C-FEPS Working Paper No. 11, Kansas City, MO: Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, August, (http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp/wp11.html).

•Wray, L. Randall and Stephanie Bell, 2000, “Financial Aspects of the Social Security ‘Problem’,” C-FEPS Working Paper No. 5, Kansas City, MO: Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, January, (ht tp://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp/wp5.html).


[top]

Geithner Pledges Smaller Deficit as China Talks Start


[Skip to the end]

Geithner Pledges Smaller Deficit as China Talks Start

By Rebecca Christie and Rob Delaney

July 27 (Bloomberg) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pledged the U.S. will shrink its budget deficit over the next four years and boost national savings,

Ah, ‘national savings,’ that gold standard measure that’s inapplicable with our non convertible dollar and floating fx policy.

Today it’s nothing more than another term for our trade balance.

‘National savings’ falls when the federal deficit rises and those funds thus created are held by non residents.
On a gold standard (or other fixed fx regime) that represented a gold outflow, as non residents were holding US currency that was convertible into gold on demand. And the gold supply was the national savings.

Anyone who uses that term in the context of non convertible currency is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.

and he called on China to maintain efforts to ease the impact of the global recession. “We are committed to taking measures to maintaining greater personal saving and to reducing the federal deficit to a sustainable level by 2013,” Geithner said in opening remarks for Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings with Chinese officials in Washington.

Since total non government savings of financial assets equals federal deficit spending to the penny (it’s an accounting identity) cutting the deficit and increasing domestic savings can only be done by simultaneously reducing our trade deficit by exactly that much. That would likely mean importing a lot less from china.

So what his words are telling them is that the US is committed to buying less from them. That should give them a lot of comfort?

Geithner’s comments reinforced his efforts to reassure China, the largest foreign holder of American government debt, that this year’s record U.S. budget gap won’t pose a long-term danger. The shortfall is on course to reach $1.8 trillion in the year through September.

Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are hosting Vice Premier Wang Qishan and Dai Bingguo, a state councilor, at the meetings today and tomorrow, the first such gathering since President Barack Obama took office.

Obama called for the two nations to deepen cooperation and work together to help the global economy. “As Americans save more and Chinese are able to spend more, we can put growth on a more sustainable foundation,” Obama said in his remarks. “Just as China has benefited from substantial investment and profitable exports, China can also be an enormous market for American goods.”

Wonderful, we work and produce goods and services for them to consume. That is called diminished real terms of trade and a reduced standard of living for the us.

Outside Investment

U.S. officials said last week they plan to raise concern
about China’s resistance to foreign investment at the talks,

China’s growing dollar reserves result mainly from foreign investment, where foreigners buy yuan with dollars so they spend the yuan in China on real investment (and maybe a bit of speculation).

while Chinese officials this year have highlighted their own worries about the value of their American investments.

Yes, and the play us for complete fools.

Geithner fielded a bevy of questions about the deficit during his June visit to Beijing. China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries reached $801.5 billion in May, recording about a 100 percent increase on the level at the beginning of 2007, according to U.S. government figures.

“Recognizing that close cooperation between the United States and China is critical to the health of the global economy, we need to design a new framework to ensure sustainable and balanced global growth.”

No hint of what that ‘framework’ might actually be.

After seeing the ‘framework’ they’ve come up with for the US financial structure the odds of anything functionally constructive seem slim.

The Obama administration will take steps to put the U.S. on course for economic health, he said.

Like reducing the federal budget deficit when current steps have fallen far short of restoring aggregate demand?

Obama’s Goals

“The president also is committed to making the investments in clean energy, education and health care that will make our nation more productive and prosperous,” Geithner said. “Together these investments will ensure robust U.S. growth and a sustainable current account balance.”

Non look to add to aggregate demand in any meaningful way, especially with the associated tax increases.

And investement per se reduces standards of living. It’s only when that investment results in increased productivity for consumer goods and services is there an increase in our standard of living.

Geithner also repeated his call for China, which has posted record trade surpluses in recent years, to increase demand at home.

“China’s success in shifting the structure of the economy towards domestic-led growth, including a greater role for spending by China’s citizens, will be a huge contribution to more rapid, balanced, and sustained global growth,” Geithner said.

Just what we need, a billion non residents increasing their real consumption and competing with us for real resources.

In the talks today and tomorrow in Washington, U.S. officials said they plan to tell the Chinese the American rebound from a recession won’t be led as much by consumers as past recoveries.

That means our standard of living won’t be recovering even though GDP is recovering.

The American side also will urge China to rely more on household spending and less on exports for growth, an official told reporters in a July 23 press briefing in Washington.

Clearly the obama administration does not understand the monetary system and is working against actual public purpose.

The U.S. is concerned that there’s been a hardening of attitudes regarding China’s treatment of foreign investment, the official also said last week. China’s exchange-rate policy is another topic for discussion, the official said.

Total confusion on that front as well.

We push for a weak dollar/strong yuan policy so prices for China’s products at our department stores rise to the point we can’t afford to buy them.

Then we try to get them not to sell their dollar reserves because it might make the dollar go down.

From Mauer:

Hey, why don’t we all move to Latvia, where they do all of the stuff that Geithner advocates:

Latvia, which pegs its currency to the euro, now has a “strong”, stable currency. Good for them. They are sustaining this strong currency by crushing demand. Exports are down 28pc, but imports are down even more. The result of this Stone Age policy is economic contraction of 18pc this year, and 4pc in 2010.

But hey, you’ve got a “healthy” currency and a country which is pursuing a “sensible” fiscal policy with lots of belt tightening. And supposedly “building up national savings” as a consequence of these wonderful policies.

Where do we find these people?


[top]

new pecora open letter


[Skip to the end]

The ‘finanical crisis’ is not an economic concern per se. Particularly as the financial sector contributes no value added to the real economy and for the most part serves no public purpose.

However, when aggregate demand falls short of politcal goals, as evidenced by the unemployment rate, capacity utilization, and other measures, government has the immediate option of a fiscal adjustment of any size necessary to meet those political output and employment goals.

What caused the sudden drop in aggregate demand last July is therefore less important than what it is that continues to delay an appropriate fiscal response to immediately restore output and employment.

The answer is that an unwarrented fear of Federal deficits per se has taken the readily available option of using a fiscal adjustment to fully restore employment and output completely off the table.

As our politcal leaders, opinion leaders, and leading economists struggle to determine how the economy can be ‘saved’ with the least possible amount of Federal deficit spending, and none challenge the President’s statement that the nation has ‘run out of money,’ the unemployment rate continues to rise and millions of Americans needlessly depreciate in the unemployment lines.

It’s really quite simple. Taxation functions to reduce aggregate demand. It does not function to give the Federal governent ‘something to spend.’ In fact, if you pay your taxes at the Fed with actual cash they take your money, give you a receipt, and then throw the bills in a shredder. If you pay by check they change the number in your bank account to a lower number. The government doesn’t actually get anything to spend.

When the Federal government spends, numbers in bank accounts get changed by government to higher numbers from lower numbers. As Chairman Bernanke told Congress in May, when asked where the funds come from that he’s giving the banks, the Fed simply changes numbers in the member bank’s account at the Fed.

Federal spending is obviously not operationally constrained by revenues. There is no such thing as the Federal government ‘running out of money.’ The only constraints on nominal spending are self imposed.

So what does the statement ‘higher deficits today mean higher taxes later’ actually state? The reason taxes would be higher ‘later’ would be if aggregate demand is deemed too high at the time- unemployment too low and capicity utilization too high- and a tax hike proposed to cool down an overheating economy.

So does that statement not mean that higher deficits today will cause aggregate demand to increase, unemployment come down, and capacity utilization go up, to the point a tax increase might be called for?

And how does the Federal government pay off it’s debt? When Treasury securities mature the Fed debits the holder’s security account at the Fed and credits his reserve account at the Fed. End of story.

The risks of deficit spending are inflation, not insolvency or even higher interest rates. Yet the public debate is paralyzed by fears of Federal insolvency, and ratings agencies only add to that fear with threats of downgrades.

This misinformation IS the problem, and it isn’t rocket science. There will always be something that causes a surprise drop in aggregate demand. And, in fact I have made numerous recommendations for banking and the financial sector over the last several years that would have prevented most of the subsequent problems, and drastically scaled back the entire financial sector to limit it to areas of direct public purpose.

The greater problem, however, is the inability of our political leaders to respond appropriately when aggregate demand does fall, for any reason.

Therefore I urge you to redirect this project to instead promote an understanding of how a currency actually functions, and the operational reality of monetary operations and reserve accounting.

Determining ‘what went wrong’ will do nothing to enlighten policy makers as to their available fiscal options that can immediately restore the American economy to desired levels of employment and output. In fact, the effort will only delay a favorable outcome as energies get diverted from the more urgent issue of restoring demand.

FYI – the Roosevelt Institute is launching a major new initiative around the new Pecora Commission – we have been posting significant commentary on www.newdeal20.org (thank you for the great overview launch piece Bill), we have a partnership with Huffington and have created a Big News page around it, have investigative reporters in the works to track the commission, are considering a shadow commission, etc. As part of that, we have written an open letter to the commission that we will launch publicly the minute it gets announced – the open letter pushes for the three criteria that Bill discusses. We have several prominent economists and historians signing it (Stiglitz, Galbraith, Robert Reich, Bill, etc). The goal is to have 50-100 major econ/historians and then push it publicly once the commission members are formally announced (possibly in a day or two according to my sources). You can see the open letter here www.whatcausedthecrisis.com – if you are willing to sign the open letter, please let me know – please send me your name and affiliation so I can list you appropriately. We are also planning a media push around it so if you can speak on it or want to blog, please let me know

Thank you –

And if you can sign the letter, please let me know soon – I think this is happening in a day or two.


[top]

California bill to allow IOU’s for State tax payments


[Skip to the end]

I have been writing about this for a long time.

If enacted, the ramifications are profound.

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 29, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 14, 2009
california legislature—2009–10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1506

Introduced by Assembly Member Anderson
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Adams, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Duvall, Fletcher, Gaines, Garrick, Hagman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, and Villines)

February 27, 2009

An act to add Section 17203.6 to the Government Code, relating to
state funds, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately.

legislative counsel’s digest

AB 1506, as amended, Anderson. State funds: registered warrants.
Existing law prescribes procedures for the issuance of registered
warrants and provides that a registered warrant is acceptable and may
be used as security for the performance of any public or private trust
or obligation.


This bill would require a state agency to accept, from any person or
entity, a registered warrant or other similar evidence of indebtedness
issued by the Controller endorsed by that payee, at full face value, for
the payment of any obligations owed by that payee to that state agency.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.


[top]