7DIF and national security

Euro May Rise to $1.60 Due to Austerity: Economist

“a group of logistics officers at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces developed a national security strategy as a class exercise. Their No. 1 recommendation for maintaining U.S. global leadership was “restore fiscal responsibility.”

Sec. of Defense Gates also got involved. All of them seriously misinformed, and think “fiscal responsibility” equals strangling a growing economy with a fixed currency supply. It’s a crisis of misinformation. Logistics training obviously doesn’t prepare one for sound systems, operations, ecology or macroeconomics analysis. You have to wonder if they’ve all adopted the “Scorched Economy” security model from Peter-the-Not-so-Great.

New Obama security strategy hardens economic resolve

“If you owe all this money you become less independent in the broader sense because you have to worry about where you are going to raise the next loan,” he said

Mosler on cnbc

Thanks,

It was an hour interview and to some degree taken out of context.

I would not buy euro here- chart looks terrible!!!

But I would look to see it show signs of turning with an eye to getting long, probably vs the yen.

The problem with the euro zone has been a tendency for the currency to continually adjust to levels where the trade balance can’t go into surplus in a meaningful way, like China, Japan, and Germany before the euro.

To run a trade surplus generally requires tight fiscal to keep domestic demand down, but then a policy of buying fx (off balance sheet deficit spending) to keep the currency ‘competitive’ to support exporters at the expense of the macro economy.

Euro May Rise to $1.60 Due to Austerity: Economist

By Antonia Oprita

June 4 (CNBC) — Austerity measures imposed by the euro zone will likely push the euro back towards $1.50 or even $1.60 but the European currency is unlikely to achieve the status of reserve currency, economist Warren Mosler, founder and principal of broker/dealer AVM, told CNBC.com Friday.

The euro has fallen sharply versus the dollar since the euro zone’s sovereign debt worries began, with many analysts predicting it will slide to parity with the greenback or even below.

But Mosler thinks the recent plunge has been caused by portfolio adjustments – investors shifting assets from euros to gold or dollars – and that this trend is nearly over.

Rising taxes and spending cuts, pledged by governments in the single European currency area to cut debt, are “like a crop failure” because they will decrease the amount of euros available, he said.

“Everything they do in the euro zone is highly deflationary,” Mosler told CNBC.com in a telephone interview.

“I think there’s a very good chance the euro would be stronger because of the austerity measures; this can very easily get it back to $1.50-$1.60,” he added.

To keep the euro down, the ECB would have to buy dollars but “ideologically, that would mean they’re accumulating dollar reserves,” which the European Union does not want, Mosler said.

The euro is unlikely to become a global reserve currency because the EU’s economic policy is geared towards growth based on exports and the euro zone is running a surplus, he explained.

“The only way the rest of the world will hold your currency is if you run a trade deficit,” he said. “Economics is the opposite of religion, it’s better to receive than to give.”

The ECB Could End the Debt Crisis

The European Central Bank could easily appease the fears of default which have plagued markets regarding by creating money and giving it to its members, Mosler said.

The ECB, “if it wants to credit any nation, it can,” he added. “The ECB could make a distribution of, say, 10 percent of GDP to each member. The ECB can just credit the accounts of the member nations based on how many people they have. That would reduce all debt ratios this year by 10 percent.”

The measure would not contradict EU anti-bailout rules, since the money would be distributed equally among members and if the cash is used to cover the deficit would not be inflationary, Mosler added.

“My proposal is to put the ECB in a position where governments become dependent of checks from the ECB,” he said. “Operationally, it’s very simple to do, you just credit their accounts. The Finance Ministers would direct the money.”

The central bank could make this an annual distribution, and attach financial discipline conditions to it, such as respecting the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact.

The country that does not respect the pact does not get the money, making it a more powerful enforcement mechanism and helping fight speculators at the same time, he explained.

Our govt molding our children’s minds

See below what our govt. is directing at our children.

Truly depressing.

All donations to my campaign are added to what I’m spending anyway to try to get the word out.

Many thanks to all of you who have already donated, no matter how small!!!
It all goes into the pot to sustain the effort.

Also many thanks to all of you who continue to try to organize meetings and speaking events for me- much appreciated!

CBO’s Director’s Blog: Letter to a Seventh Grader

A short time ago, I received an interesting letter from a young man in Michigan asking about federal budget deficits. I thought that perhaps other students would be interested in the kinds of questions he asked and how I answered him, so I’ve decided to share my letter to him with all of you. Here’s what I wrote:

1. What are the primary causes of the current federal budget deficits?

The current large deficits are the result of a combination of factors. These include an imbalance between tax revenues and the government’s spending that began before the recent economic recession and turmoil in the financial markets, sharply lower revenues and higher spending related to current economic conditions, and the budgetary costs of policies put in place by the government to respond to those conditions.

2. How will budget deficits affect people under the age of 18?

The government runs a budget deficit when it spends more on its programs and activities than it collects in taxes and other revenues. The government needs to borrow to make up the difference. When the federal government borrows large amounts of money, it pushes interest rates higher, and people and businesses generally need to pay more to borrow money for themselves. As a result, they invest less in factories, office buildings, and equipment, and people in the future—including your generation—will have less income than they otherwise would.

Also, the government needs to pay interest on the money it borrows, which means there will be less money available for other things that the government will spend money on in the future. Squeezing other spending affects different people in different ways, depending on their individual situations. For example, many young people benefit from government programs that provide money to families in need of food or medical care or to people who have lost their job, or from the financial support the federal government provides to local schools, or from the grants or loans the government offers to help pay for college education.

3. How is the U.S. government working to reduce budget deficits?

The President created a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to draw up plans to address the deficit problem. Most of the people on the commission are Members of Congress.

The commission will consider ways to reduce the budget deficit by 2015 as well as ways to improve the long-term budget outlook. Under current government policies, the gap between the government’s spending and revenues in coming years will be large. Therefore, balancing the budget would require significant changes in spending, taxes, or both. On CBO’s Web site, you can find information about the budget outlook during the next 10 years and over the long term.

More information about the commission can be found on its Web site: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov.

Congress also has enacted a new law (called “Pay-As-You-Go”) that typically requires legislation that increases spending or lowers tax revenues to include other measures to offset the costs of those changes.

4. What can people, and especially school-aged children, do to help curb budget deficits? The most important thing that school-aged children can do to help reduce future deficits is to study hard and acquire the best possible education. This will help you and your classmates get better jobs when you grow up, which will help the economy grow. In turn, a stronger economy will produce higher tax receipts for the government, which will lower the deficit.

When young people get jobs, they should be sure to save some of the money they earn. Through a fun and important bit of math called compounding, savings of small amounts can grow over time into significant amounts. For the economy as a whole, the more people save, the more money is available for businesses to invest in factories, office buildings, and equipment. For individuals and families, more savings provide a financial cushion in times of economic difficulty. In particular, more savings can help people pay large medical expenses or save their home in case they lose their job or become ill, thus helping them avoid needing government assistance.

People of all ages can also help to reduce the deficit by learning how the government spends money and from whom the government collects money. Understanding the current budget is essential for choosing intelligently among different ways to change programs and policies in order to reduce deficits.

5. If I am to convey one key message to my school regarding the federal budget deficit, what would it be?

The prospect of budget deficits for many years in the future is a serious problem for our country. Ultimately, people in the United States will have to bring into balance the amount of services they expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the amount of taxes they are willing to send to the government to finance those services. Because it takes a long time to implement major policy changes, deciding what those changes will be is an urgent task for our citizens and for our policymakers.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us about these difficult issues.

Best wishes,

Doug Elmendorf

latest Senatorial release

The JOBS candidate Warren Mosler announces his
Million Dollar Challenge to Senate CANDIDATES

Middletown, Conn. (June 2, 2010) – Warren Mosler, Independent candidate for US Senate, knows for a fact that, operationally, there is no such thing as the US government running out of dollars, being dependent on foreign borrowing, or potentially facing a solvency crisis like Greece, and he has pledged $1 million of his own money to any of his Senate opponents on the ballot who can prove him wrong.

“Those concerns are due to pure fear mongering from supposed experts. They have no factual basis, and they have become the true obstacles to the return of full employment and prosperity” said Mosler, who added “and there is absolutely no financial reason to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.”

Many have also argued that the nation’s growing debt rules out further tax reductions, but Mosler says those assertions are blatantly untrue, proposing a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday for employees and employers that will add over $300/mo to the take home pay of someone earning $50,000 a year. This plan and similar initiatives will reintroduce the capital the economy needs to prosper and grow.

“We lost over 8 million private sector jobs primarily for one reason- sales collapsed,” said Mosler. “My full payroll tax (FICA) holiday for employees and employers boosts take home pay and helps lower prices to quickly restore those lost sales which brings back the lost jobs, fixing the economy the right way, the American way, from the bottom up.”

In the midst of our social and economic calamity, with the Republican and Democratic candidates offering no viable plans to restore full employment, Mosler, an expert in monetary operations, is uniquely qualified to quickly move America back to full employment and prosperity. He knows the American economy works best when people working for a living have enough take home pay to buy the goods and services they produce, with business competing for those consumer dollars.

Mosler congratulated candidates McMahon and Blumenthal on their convention victories, and looks forward to public debate on the urgent economic issues facing our nation and the world.

“We have seen Republicans and Democrats overseeing the devastatingly tragic loss of over 8 million jobs. And while lower income people working for a living struggle to survive, elites who contributed to our problems rake in billions from bailouts,” said Mosler. “It’s time the government focuses on getting its hand out of the pocket of the hard working Americans who make this country great.”

See www.moslerforsenate.com for details of Mosler’s ‘Right on the Money’ proposals and his $1 Million Challenge.

Mtg Purchase Applications

Obvious that the end of the $8,000 first time home buyer credit caused a spike that has been more than reversed, much like November.

The question is how much that pull back, along with the euro and China issues, will slow what has been a moderately growing US economy.

With demand leakages like pension fund contributions and income compounding in pension funds and other corporate reserves, aggregate demand can only be sustained by the private sector or the public sector spending more than its income.

And right now the drivers of private sector debt- housing and cars- don’t show signs of the increases necessary to close our output gap.

That leaves the public sector.

For the current size of govt, we remain grossly over taxed by a govt that thinks its run out of money and is now dependent on the confidence of investors to fund itself.

Note, for example, the expired unemployment benefits mean a reduction in aggregate demand which in fact works against employment.

And this is with a Democratic majority.

As long as the ‘deadly innocent fraud’ that to be able to spend dollars the US Govt needs to tax or borrow is taken as a given, it seems unlikely that pro growth policy will be implemented and unlikely growth will be sufficient to materially close the output gap any time soon.

senator kohl on SS “solvency”

Press Release of AGING – NON Committee

KOHL: SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY, TARGETED BENEFITS CAN BE IMPROVED WITH MODEST TWEAKS

Aging Committee Report Delivered to Members of the Fiscal Commission
Contact: Ashley Glacel (202) 224-5364
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released an official Committee report on Social Security. The report outlines the challenges currently facing America’s retirement program and highlights options for addressing program solvency,

There is no solvency issue. The premise for the changes is a mistake.

benefit adequacy, and retirement income security for economically-vulnerable groups. Emphasizing that a majority of America’s seniors rely on Social Security as their primary source of income, the report calls on Congress to enact modest changes to Social Security in the near future to bring its long-term financing into balance and improve benefits for those who need them most.

“This report shows that, contrary to popular belief, the sky is absolutely not falling for Social Security. By implementing one or more of these modest changes, we can ensure solvency and even strengthen benefits for those who count on their monthly check the most,” said Chairman Kohl.

The sky is not falling even with the ‘modest changes’

Copies of the report were delivered to all eighteen members of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Many of the Commission’s members have publicly mentioned their interest in addressing Social Security as part of their work to reduce the federal deficit.

Deficit reduction also stems from an incorrect premise

“Social Security has never been responsible for one penny of the federal deficit, and by law is barred from doing so. In fact, it has been in surplus every year since its inception. If the Commission chooses to take a look at the program, it is my hope that they find our Aging Committee report of use,” Kohl said.

Whether it is in surplus or deficit alters aggregate demand, not solvency. Solvency is not the issue.

The report points out that the nation’s demographics have changed significantly since the Social Security program began in 1935. Americans are living longer, women’s participation in the labor force has significantly increased, and with a rise in the divorce rate, household composition has changed. The labor force is also growing more slowly and with fewer companies offering pensions, the nature of work and compensation has altered in ways that affect workers’ ability to save for retirement. Therefore, in addition to improving solvency,

Solvency is not an issue

any future reforms to the program should take into account America’s evolving demographics in order to ensure that benefits are adequate and equitable for generations to come.

Those are the only relevant criteria.

The report includes an important disclaimer that the options laid out represent a range of commonly-considered proposals, and that none of them should be construed as having been endorsed by the Committee or its members. In the foreword, Chairman Kohl asserts: “Many members of the Committee, including myself, do not support and actively oppose many of the options. However, a full and informed debate begins with the collection of research and information, and it is our hope that this report will serve as a resource to Congress and policymakers as they discuss ways to ensure that Social Security will remain strong for another 75 years.”

Germany Seeks ‘Orderly’ Insolvency Option for Euro Members

Germany Seeks ‘Orderly’ Insolvency Option for Euro Members

(Bloomberg) Germany is proposing that the European Union create the option of an “orderly state insolvency” for countries using the euro, according to a Finance Ministry document. That would set incentives for governments to follow “solid” fiscal policies and for “responsible” behavior by investors, the document said.

This is a very critical issue. Germany doesn’t want to have to write the check for other euro member’s debt.
An ‘orderly state insolvency’ would mean the lenders would lose their investment rather than get bailed out.

The main problem with this is that by making insolvency a viable option, euro members become subject to increased liquidity risk. And, in the case of actual insolvency and legal debt write downs, euro bank assets are written down as well, subjecting them to increased liquidity risk as well.

Krugman: We’re Not Greece

We’re Not Greece

By Paul Krugman

It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good, and the crisis in Greece is making some people — people who opposed health care reform and are itching for an excuse to dismantle Social Security — very, very happy. Everywhere you look there are editorials and commentaries, some posing as objective reporting, asserting that Greece today will be America tomorrow unless we abandon all that nonsense about taking care of those in need.

True. I just finished a week in dc fighting back against the bipartisan move to cut social security.

The truth, however, is that America isn’t Greece — and, in any case, the message from Greece isn’t what these people would have you believe.

So, how do America and Greece compare?

Both nations have lately been running large budget deficits, roughly comparable as a percentage of G.D.P. Markets, however, treat them very differently: The interest rate on Greek government bonds is more than twice the rate on U.S. bonds, because investors see a high risk that Greece will eventually default on its debt, while seeing virtually no risk that America will do the same. Why?

One answer is that we have a much lower level of debt — the amount we already owe, as opposed to new borrowing — relative to G.D.P.

That has nothing to do with it. Japan’s debt is near triple ours, and their 10 year rates are about 1.3% for example.

True, our debt should have been even lower. We’d be better positioned to deal with the current emergency if so much money hadn’t been squandered on tax cuts for the rich and an unfunded war.

Not true. With us govt spending not operational revenue constrained the way greece is, we are always able to spend (or cut taxes) however much we want to. It’s a political decision without external constraints.

But we still entered the crisis in much better shape than the Greeks.

Yes, because we are the issuer of the dollar and greece is not the issuer of the euro. Greece is like a us state in that regard.

Even more important, however, is the fact that we have a clear path to economic recovery, while Greece doesn’t.

For the same reason. We can manage our aggregate demand because our fiscal policy is not operationally constrained by revenue the way Greece is.

The U.S. economy has been growing since last summer, thanks to fiscal stimulus

Yes, mostly the automatic stabilizers with some help from the proactive measures congress has taken, however misguided.

and expansionary policies by the Federal Reserve.

I don’t agree with this but that’s another story.

I wish that growth were faster; still, it’s finally producing job gains — and it’s also showing up in revenues.

True, however the output gap is finally stable at best as it remains tragically wide.

Right now we’re on track to match Congressional Budget Office projections of a substantial rise in tax receipts. Put those projections together with the Obama administration’s policies, and they imply a sharp fall in the budget deficit over the next few years.

Yes, with our only hope for lower unemployment being an increase in private sector debt that exceeds that. Not my first choice in mending what ails us.

Greece, on the other hand, is caught in a trap. During the good years, when capital was flooding in, Greek costs and prices got far out of line with the rest of Europe. If Greece still had its own currency, it could restore competitiveness through devaluation.

Should have been said this way-

‘If Greece had its own currency and was running its deficits in local currency market forces would have caused the currency to depreciate.’

But since it doesn’t, and since leaving the euro is still considered unthinkable, Greece faces years of grinding deflation and low or zero economic growth. So the only way to reduce deficits is through savage budget cuts, and investors are skeptical about whether those cuts will actually happen.

True. And worse. The proactive cuts and tax hikes can slow the economy to the point the deficit doesn’t come down, and might even increase, making matters even worse.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that Britain — which is in worse fiscal shape than we are, but which, unlike Greece, hasn’t adopted the euro — remains able to borrow at fairly low interest rates. Having your own currency, it seems, makes a big difference.

It is all the difference.

Hard to see why that isn’t obvious. US, UK, Japan, etc. Etc. With one’s own non convertible currency and floating exchange rates, interest rates are necessarily set by the central bank, not by markets.

And govt securities function to support interest rates and not to fund expenditures

And note the uk economy is on the mend. Even housing has found a bid, with the main risk being a govt that doesn’t get it and tries to balance the budget.

In short, we’re not Greece. We may currently be running deficits of comparable size, but our economic position — and, as a result, our fiscal outlook — is vastly better.

Wrong reason- we are the issuer of our own currency, the dollar, while Greece is the user of the euro and not the issuer.

That said, we do have a long-run budget problem. But what’s the root of that problem? “We demand more than we’re willing to pay for,” is the usual line. Yet that line is deeply misleading

First of all, who is this “we” of whom people speak? Bear in mind that the drive to cut taxes largely benefited a small minority of Americans: 39 percent of the benefits of making the Bush tax cuts permanent would go to the richest 1 percent of the population.

Wasn’t my first choice of which tax to cut to support the private sector. I’d have cut fica taxes and i continue to propose that.

And bear in mind, also, that taxes have lagged behind spending partly thanks to a deliberate political strategy, that of “starve the beast”: conservatives have deliberately deprived the government of revenue in an attempt to force the spending cuts they now insist are necessary.

And liberals have artificially constrained themselves with the misguided notion that spending is operationally constrained by revenues, and fail to understand the ‘right sized’ deficit is the one that coincides with full employment and desired price stability.

Meanwhile, when you look under the hood of those troubling long-run budget projections, you discover that they’re not driven by some generalized problem of overspending. Instead, they largely reflect just one thing:

An understanding of national income account and monetary operations shows deficits are driven by ‘savings desires’ and any proactive attempt to increase deficits beyond savings desires results in inflation.

the assumption that health care costs will rise in the future as they have in the past. This tells us that the key to our fiscal future is improving the efficiency of our health care system — which is, you may recall, something the Obama administration has been trying to do, even as many of the same people now warning about the evils of deficits cried “Death panels!”

Wrong causation. What he calls our ‘fiscal future’ is the size of future deficits and they will always reflect future ‘savings desires.’ if we proactively get them smaller than that the evidence will always be unemployment.

So while cutting health care costs may be a ‘good thing,’ when the time comes, future deficits need to reflect future savings desires to keep us fully employed.

So here’s the reality:

The mistaken, political reality.

America’s fiscal outlook over the next few years isn’t bad. We do have a serious long-run budget problem,

Unfortunately, this kind of talk makes him part of the problem, not part of the answer.

which will have to be resolved with a combination of health care reform and other measures, probably including a moderate rise in taxes.

Wonderful, with screaming shortfall in aggregate demand as evidenced by tragic levels of unemployment, the celebrity voice from the left is calling for spending cuts and tax hikes not to cool an over heating economy, but to reduce non govt savings of financial assets.

(govt deficit = non govt savings of financial assets to the penny as a matter of national income accounting, etc)

But we should ignore those who pretend to be concerned with fiscal responsibility, but whose real goal is to dismantle the welfare state — and are trying to use crises elsewhere to frighten us into giving them what they want.

This is one of the current iteration of the ‘deficit dove’ position.

It does not cut it.

It is part of the problem, not part of the answer.

Doing the best i can to get the word out.

Please distribute to the max!

Fighting back against the move to slash Social Security

Social Security is not being attacked on its merits.

Therefore the bleeding heart arguments will not prevail.

The protagonists believe the problem is that the federal government is on the road to financial ruin, and not merits of Social Security per se .

My conclusion is the only message that will work is that operationally social security is not broken as the protagonists believe.

Their central premise is simply wrong and they can be proven wrong on that central contention.

Government checks don’t bounce- all Federal spending is done by using their computer to mark up numbers in bank accounts (Bernanke quote)

The Federal government will always be able to make all its payments including Social Security payments (Greenspan quote)

Federal spending is in no case operationally dependent on revenues from taxing or borrowing and everyone in Fed operations knows it.

Spending begins to cause inflation only after all the unemployed have been hired and all the excess capacity is used up.

Government deficit spending = world dollar savings, to the penny and everyone in the CBO and OMB knows it.

If government spending isn’t enough to allow the economy to pay its taxes and meet its savings desires
the result is unemployment, excess capacity, and deflationary forces in general.
All as a point of logic.

The wholesale interest rates for the banking system, which also determines interest rates the Treasury pays, are set by the Federal Reserve Bank, not market forces.

The move to cut Social Security is an innocent fraud coming from a position of ignorance of monetary operations.

It is coming from those who mistakenly believe that the federal government has run out of money,
that federal spending is dependent on borrowing that our children will be left to repay,
and that any deficit spending always risks hyper inflation.

It is driven predominately by people who would support Social Security if they didn’t believe the federal government was on the road to financial ruin.