Why Does the World Need the Dollar?

Earlier this year, I wrote a lot about inflation, and whether or not it would occur. I now believe that the dice has been thrown, that there’s no turning back: there will be large-scale inflation soon enough. The reason: the U.S. has spent almost $12 Trillion in an attempt to re-inflate the economy artificially.


To put it bluntly, the U.S. economy should no longer be described as being on a “sugar rush”. A more accurate analogy would be a cocaine high. What else could account for a 60% surge in stocks while the real unemployment rate is 20%?


Related to this is the U.S. dollar. Inflation hurts the dollar, but that’s far from the whole story. The dollar’s future as the world’s reserve currency is at stake. If everyone who holds dollars or dollar-related assets abroad starts thinking that these dollars will be worth a lot less in the near future, there will be no alternative to a currency crisis.


The fact that the U.S. has the world’s reserve currency enables it to spend far more than it makes. As I have mentioned before, this is the reason why a lot of economists, and especially American economists, are of the mindset that macro-economic models don’t apply to the U.S.. I think there’s some truth to that, because if you don’t HAVE TO ever pay back your loans, you don’t really have to worry about them. However, what happens on the day that you have to start paying?


Some prominent economists, most notably Paul Krugman, are currently claiming that a weak dollar is good for the U.S.. This will help U.S. exports, the theory goes. Also, according to Krugman, the U.S. needs to spend money on stimulus to get the economy going again, in other words through Keynesian spending.


Krugman does not address the potential of the dollar losing its position as the world’s reserve currency, but instead focuses his analysis on the short-term perspective of fighting the crisis and unemployment at all costs. What he does not realize is how real of a danger this is, but I’m sure he realizes the consequences if this were to actually happen. That’s probably why he’s not talking about it.


I believe that it actually wouldn’t take that much for the dollar to lose its position right now. Under the surface, many important international economic players have been discussing replacing the dollar with something else. These players include both wishful thinkers and those who would actually be in financial danger in the short term. If a few of these players were to move away from the dollar, it might set off a chain reaction that could crush the currency.


First this spring, people like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez started talking about the need for replacing the dollar, while barely being able to hide their excitement.


Second, shortly after that, the IMF started dusting off the old idea of international drawing rights, or a basket of currencies. This debate was also helped forward by Joseph Stiglitz and Simon Johnson, both formerly connected to the World Bank and the IMF.


Third, and this is one of the most important ones, China started voicing concerns about the dollar. This time, Geithner had to go to China and give a speech about how great the dollar was doing. China buys a third of U.S. debt on the international market.


Fourth, and this one might turn out to be very important too, Japan elected a new non-conservative government for the first time ever. Japan buys about the same amount of U.S. debt as China does. One of the basic premises of the new Japanese government was that it would stop trying to be the U.S.’s lap dog. We’ll see how that goes, but I don’t think we can expect to see Japan follow Geithner’s every whim.


Fifth, rumor has it that the Arab Gulf states want to get rid of the dollar too. Their incomes are down by more than half since the beginning of the crisis, and they’re getting a little desperate. For the dollar to drop drastically in addition would be disastrous for them.


All these economic players are not dumb, they understand, in contrast to people like Krugman, that there are some very real dangers connected to owning dollars at the present time. They may run the risk of losing their savings and day-to-day incomes at the same time.


The number one question then becomes: Why does the world need the dollar?


The dollar was instituted as the world’s reserve currency at a time when the U.S. was a world leader in production as well as consumption. This meant that the dollar was both “as safe as houses” and “as good as gold”. An advanced economy with a competitive industry would be less likely to resort to irresponsible fiscal practices, and an insatiable, highly materialistic American consumer could keep the smoke in the chimneys in factories around the world. In other words, the U.S. was the economic engine of the world, and that’s why it made sense to use the dollar as the reserve currency.


However, the U.S. is not in the same position either in terms of production or consumption, and definitely not in terms of fiscal responsibility. The American manufacturing industry is not competitive, and the American service industry turned out to be smoke and mirrors on Wall Street. There is no way that the American consumer is going to get back to spending the way they used to, because it was all built on credit.


I believe that there is a shift happening in the world economy right now. In terms of the future developments of the balance of power between the big three blocks, Asia, the EU and the U.S., this is how I think about it:


It is clear to see that China will only continue to increase both its sophistication and volume of trade. The recent crisis has only strengthened the country’s position. The U.S. is no longer China’s biggest trading partner, the EU is. Japan is also increasing trade with China, and so is India.


It seems that the EU will continue to do what it is currently doing: to be competitive in very advanced industries, while not growing or shrinking much either way. I’m basing this on a continued focus on industrial policies, a good access to education and in general a less volatile society.


With respect to the U.S., it is very hard to see what the country has going for it. Where is the growth going to come? What is going to improve? The country has no industrial policy, and will not get one soon. One year at an American University costs as much as a Mercedes E-Class. The political system is deadlocked by lobbyists who bribe individual politicians. Industry resistance to innovation digs the grave of American manufacturing. More importantly: the country is bankrupt.


I believe that the world economy will shift, and that the dependence on the U.S. will have to be lowered. This will mean more power for Asia, and a tighter relationship to that continent on the part of both the U.S. and the EU. This will also mean that the dollar will most likely be given up as the world’s reserve currency.


What will this mean for the U.S.? Simply put: a drastic reduction in material prosperity across the board.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Ease of Doing Business at Home - Difficulty of Competing Internationally

“Saturn builds cars that Americans wanna buy!!”

I’ve seen this commercial very often in the last few weeks, but the guy in the clip did not really hit the nail on the head, now that Saturn will be closed. Apparently, Saturn did not make cars that Americans want to buy… (They were supposed to merge with “Penske”. Maybe it was George Costanza’s shoddy work on the “Penske file” that killed the deal…)


The Saturn brand was started as a way for American cars to compete with Japanese and European cars. In the commercial, the message is that what Americans now want in a car is fuel-efficiency, design, reliability and other things that are usually associated with foreign cars. By imitating these foreign cars, Saturn has claimed to also possess these attributes. However, just saying it, doesn’t make it so.


It has become blatantly apparent that the American car industry is uncompetitive. It is, however, not only the car industry that is uncompetitive. The U.S. manufacturing industry, about 7% of the economy, has been shrinking steadily for decades, and the size of it is now almost half of what it is in most other industrialized countries, as a portion of GDP.


There are several reasons for this, but one of the most important ones is that U.S. industrial goods cannot compete in the international trade arena.


It is quite easy to get a grip on the market dynamics of a domestic market; the market within just one country. For instance, if you raise the fuel efficiency standard on cars, cars will become more expensive, and in the short term, fewer people will buy them. That’s the easy bit.


Industrial products, and cars in particular, are for the most part dependent on international trade. When it comes to very advanced industrial goods, it is usually not possible to sell them in a single market and still be profitable; you need more customers, and industrial products almost always fit in to some type of chain of products that are dependent on each other.


For 30 or 40 years in the western industrialized world, a steady stream of legislation and industrial policies have followed much the same path. Legislation with respect to efficiency standards, safety standards, health care, vacation time and much more has followed the same trajectory in most industrialized countries: a significant increase in these standards and rights.


However, the exception is the United States.


As I outlined in my post about circular looting, (in the list to the right on March 19) I believe that the political system which allows large-scale corporate donations to politicians has created a “business-friendly” climate in the United States. This climate has been developing over the last 30 or 40 years, and has led to policies that make it as easy as possible for companies to turn quick profits in the U.S., at the cost of long-term perspectives.


Think of it this way: as U.S. automakers were making money selling gas guzzlers in the U.S. (while not being able to sell them elsewhere), automakers in Europe and Asia were being subjected to ever stricter regulations on efficiency standards, forcing them to develop better engines. In the U.S., on the other hand, the powerful industrial companies have stood in the way of any changes that might hurt their bottom lines in the short term.


This process also applies to a lot of other areas. European and Asian automakers had to deal with higher costs for vacation time, labor rights and taxes. This was by no means easy for these companies, but what this actually does in the long term is to make them more competitive.


The politicians of Europe and Asia developed this legislation because they thought it was the right thing to do. A cleaner environment and 6 weeks of vacation for everybody were simply seen as moral imperatives. They did not think of the eventual side effects.


Because industrial companies in Europe and Asia have had to fight much harder to remain profitable, they have developed better products and improved productivity and technology, while they have also had less of an impact on the environment and created better working conditions.


(Nowadays, it is widely known amongst economists that the previous estimates of American workers being more productive than others are not true. The PC revolution did increase this productivity, but it was later just inflated by Wall Street profits, which later turned out to be an illusion of productivity)


OK, I know what you’re going to say: the UAW has cost the American auto industry so much that they are the reason American cars are not competitive. I agree that there is some truth to that. The UAW is what I would call a “labor aristocracy union”. Such unions are very selfish (in the beginning very racist), and have no concern for society as a whole. That is very different from European unions, which would for instance fight for more vacation for everybody, not just autoworkers.


However, the over-reaching of the UAW does not explain the fact that innovation was stifled, and that such massive lobbying to stop any improvements was undertaken for decades. The auto companies also agreed that they should be the ones to pay for workers’ health insurance, which is something I disagree with. This stance comes from the anti-socialist movement of the early 20th century. Again, the companies chose this path themselves.


The short-term perspective of the American industrial sector which has involved fierce resistance to any environmental, safety or labor-related reforms, has brought the sector to its knees. In economic boom times, the American model works. In economic recessions, the weak will be taken to the slaughter.


This is the perfect example of what the Freiburg school of economics is all about: we need capitalism, but the framework within which capitalism exists can make it stronger, and make it function much better.


A “Freiburgian” would say: Saturn didn’t make cars that Americans wanted to buy, because the economic and societal framework surrounding the auto industry promoted a hunt for short-term profits.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

The Output Gap - A false and Dangerous Theory

Please click on image to see details.

In my last post, I talked about the likelihood of inflation in the U.S. in the near future and I was trying to debunk some of the theories that claim the opposite. I will continue on that note today and talk about one issue that is supposed to make inflation an impossibility during an economic downturn: the output gap.


The “output gap” is a measure of the difference between economic activity in an economy when times are sustainably good, and when there is a downturn. A lot less goods and services are produced during an economic crisis, for obvious reasons, and that is what accounts for the output gap.


Most economists who are currently advising the Obama administration or who are given time in the media are pointing to this output gap. They are saying that the current level of production in the U.S. economy is “unnaturally low”, and hence there is a lot of “slack” in the economy.


This slack, it is thought, can simply be filled in by printing more money, in order to save the economy. Because of the slack, inflation will not be created because the money printing is simply making up for the consumption which has disappeared, but should still be there, it is thought.


In other words, they are saying that the level of production today in the U.S. is not as high as it’s “supposed to be”.


In reality, they are saying that factories are “supposed to” produce more cars, TVs and clothes, and that people are “supposed to” get more haircuts and eat out more often.


But why should this be? Who says that there’s a “natural level” at which consumption should be? Definitely not me…


Please take a look at the model that I drew up in the beginning. This is an illustration of the U.S. economy. The important thing to see in the model is that both consumption and economic output will very likely be lower in 2009 compared to what they were in 2006. My model explains the very simplest of economic linkages: output follows consumption, or put in other words: supply follows demand.


Since the crisis started, demand has gone down rapidly all across the economy. Demand for houses, labor, haircuts and basically everything else has gone down. Naturally, there would be no point in producing any of those things if nobody wants to pay for them, so production goes down.


In order to find out what happened to the demand, what made it go down, one must look at what was fueling it, where the money was coming from.


Maybe the country had an export good, the price of which suddenly dropped like a rock. This recently happened to Russia and its oil. Consumption in Russia consequently went down because a lot of money disappeared.


Maybe the country had a brain drain of people which made key industries less productive. This happened in Zimbabwe when the country expelled its white farmers. A lot of money disappeared, and, incidentally, the Zimbabwean government tried the trusty method of printing money, with less than fabulous results.


There are many ways in which an economy can get in trouble, but no matter what, during times of crises, consumption and output will go down. Where was the money coming from in the U.S.? The answer is: credit.


Wages in the U.S. have been stagnant for over 30 years, and in order to make up for that, Americans have been taking loans to fuel consumption. Credit is the very thing that disappeared in this crisis, and that is what is decreasing demand.


In order for the output gap to be closed without anything radically changing in the economy, credit would have to come back as an economic force just as strong or stronger than before. We all know that that is not going to happen, so where does that leave us?


If there are no prospects of this gap being closed by new credit, then there is no slack in the economy, and money printing will simply be the futile and devastating activity it was in Germany and Zimbabwe.


The gap would have to be closed by something else, such as a more successful export industry. If, by some miracle, the U.S. export industry were to become extremely successful within a matter of months, so that the trade gap could be closed and turned into a surplus, then maybe the theory of the output gap could be relevant. The U.S. would have to stage an unprecedented economic miracle. Somehow I don’t see that as very likely.


The theory of the output gap can be relevant in normal economic times, when simply analyzing small ups and downs. But this theory is wholly irrelevant in a structural crisis or a depression.


In conclusion: the theory of the output gap is false and irrelevant because it is based on a notion of the imminent return of the credit-fueled good times. Using this theory as a justification to print money has been done before, with disastrous inflation as a result.

The economy is not "supposed to be" anything. It is only what you make it in to!




Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

The Inflation Riddle

The single most important discussion in economics at the moment is whether or not there will be inflation in the U.S., and if so, when that will happen. The Bush and Obama administrations along with the Fed and the Treasury have made their positions crystal clear: they believe that inflation is a near impossibility in this economic environment.


The government, the Fed and the Treasury have for months now been trying to tell the world that things are getting better and that the measures they have taken to ease the crisis are working. Geithner even went to China and gave speeches telling everyone how much confidence the Chinese still had in the U.S. economy, even as the Chinese sold long-term U.S. Treasuries and bought short-term U.S. Treasuries instead (which is a clear sign of a loss of confidence).


Governments around the world are currently engaging in what they call “quantitative easing”, otherwise known as money printing. The most famous example of this is probably Germany after World War I. Germany had a huge war debt to pay, and that debt was strangling the German economy. The Germans decided to simply print more money and be done with it. After that policy was implemented, people started using money to light fires in their furnaces because it was worth so little.


Nowadays, even the Bank of Switzerland is printing money. The U.S. government is the worst offender, and is currently flooding the U.S. economy with money. In a matter of months, the Fed has suddenly expanded its balance sheet 40 times, after having stuck to a policy of stability for six decades. This is truly revolutionary and truly disturbing.


Take a look at the recent expansion in the Fed's monetary base:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/usfd/page3.pdf

Why are governments doing this? It has to do with the theoretical approach to the creation of inflation.


For people who are unfamiliar with a range of theories in economics, such as the entire economic team of the Bush and Obama administrations, there is a dogma concerning inflation:


Inflation can only be created by a wage and price spiral


This is what the government believes, or at least is strongly hoping for. In other words, for inflation to start growing, people would have to start demanding higher salaries (which is not exactly easy in a country essentially without unions or labor laws) and people would have to start consuming goods and services to a much higher degree. So, all of a sudden, we would have higher salaries, more consumption and the good times would again start to roll. The government sees this as an unlikely scenario. On that point, I absolutely agree.


So, if you believe that the preceding scenario is the only scenario under which inflation can be created, printing money might make sense for a while. However, I, and many others, do not believe that this is the only scenario under which inflation can occur.


You can look at the problem of what inflation actually is in 2 ways:


1. inflation is ONLY a wage and price spiral where too much money is chasing too few goods and services, OR


2. inflation is an excess of money in the economy


In order to find out which of these two statements is true, a simple theoretical model can be constructed. If statement 1 were true, there would be no examples in history where inflation was created without a wage and price spiral. Is that so? The answer is unequivocally: NO.


Inflation has been created without a wage and price spiral countless times in economies around the world. Some examples are: Argentina at the end of the 90:s, Zimbabwe currently, Germany in the 1920:s and 1930:s, and so on and so on.


However, what these countries do have in common during the abovementioned crises is money printing. For different reasons, these countries have been printing money in order to get out of a crisis, and that has created massive inflation. This is exactly what the U.S. is doing today, so why should the U.S. be different?


The statement that inflation can only be created by a wage and price spiral is most certainly untrue. It has no basis in empirical evidence, and in fact, much evidence to the contrary exists.


I believe that inflation is simply an excess of money in the economy. Is an excess of money being created by the Fed right now? You would have to be some sort of lunatic to answer "no" to that question.

People tend to focus too much on microeconomics when thinking about inflation, which is what makes them believe in the wage and price spiral theory. They believe that consumers tend to steer the economy with their spending. This does not have to be true in many cases, though.


If a central bank such as the Fed starts printing money and flooding the economy with it, that money is going to go somewhere. It does not have to go to consumption of goods and services, it can go to the financial markets and spur speculation.


That this happened in the last few months would be a good bet, because the recent attempts to save the economy has mainly been a huge bailout of financial companies, transferring massive amounts of wealth over to them.


If all this money had been transferred to American citizens in the form of living allowances or something like that, we might have had some sort of price spiral, but that didn’t happen. When Wall Street got all the bailout money, it started to push up prices of stocks again in the early spring, and a massive stock rally occurred.


So, I believe that the rise of the stock market has to do with an inflation of prices brought on by the financial bailout. This will most likely put additional upwards pressure on inflation. This is a kind of price spiral too, and this taken together with the excess of money in the economy makes inflation even more likely.


To sum up: the U.S. will experience massive inflation soon as a result of the money printing activities and the recent stock rally is an illusion brought on by the financial bailout.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

A Job That Doesn’t Need Doing - The Structural Crisis of 2009

A structural economic crisis is very different from normal economic crises. With an astonishingly accurate history, they come around just about once every 40 years. When a country slips into a structural crisis, it means that there is really nothing that can be done about it, except to plan for a new future when the crisis is finally over.


Put more simply, a structural crisis means that the way in which a country has previously built its prosperity has come to an end. This is because the country has become dependent on a certain type of industry that has become obsolete, unable to compete or can no longer grow.


The following is a timeline of structural economic crises in America over the last 120 years:


1890 - The Long Depression


For a few decades, the U.S. economy had been growing rapidly as a result of the development of natural resources and huge investments in infrastructure, most notably railroads. This ultimately made the entire economy dependent on the continuation of this rapid growth, because so much money had been invested the driving forces behind it. When the crisis came, mines, railroads, factories and farms closed on a large scale, and unemployment eventually reached close to 20%.


Fast forward 40 years:


1929 - The Great Depression


In my view, the Great Depression was caused by a combination of a tech bubble and a real estate bubble. These bubbles were inflated with the help of too much credit and speculation with borrowed money. The U.S. economy had become dependent on the continuation of these bubbles, and the high value of the stock market, and when that was no longer sustainable, everything came crashing down. The outcomes are well known: unemployment of 25%, bread lines and lost savings.


Fast forward 40 years:


Early 1970s - Oil, Gold and Manufacturing Crisis


Another classic type of structural crisis is when an industry becomes completely unable to compete, seemingly over night. This happened all over the Western world in the early 1970s in the apparel sector. Huge numbers of people used to be employed in this sector prior to this time, but Asian competitors took over the market completely. This was only a part of a series of Asian manufacturing takeovers that continues to this day.


The 1970s crisis was multifaceted, and not as severe in the short term, although it could be argued that it partly set the stage for the next crisis. The 1970s crisis also involved the end of the Bretton-Woods system and the oil embargo.


The most notable long-term outcomes in the U.S., though, was a decline in manufacturing of apparel, steel, ships and many other industrial goods, because American companies were unable to compete with imported goods. This crisis permanently changed the make-up of American employment in general, as manufacturing jobs kept getting lost (in relative terms) even after the crisis had passed.


Fast forward 40 years:


2008 - Subprime/Derivatives/Credit Crisis


Out of the three structural crises I have briefly described, the current crisis is certainly the most similar to the Great Depression. The similarities keep adding up every day, but the most striking similarity is the fundamental causes: a real estate bubble (preceded by a tech bubble), built on too much borrowing and speculation with borrowed money.


Put in other terms, the dependence on Wall Street in particular really unite these two structural crises. Speculation with borrowed money, the government’s vested interest in the continuation of the bubble, ordinary people’s reliance on the bubble itself: the situation today is almost exactly the way it was in the 1930s.

What I'm actually saying by giving the example with the 40-year cycles is that it seems that it takes 40 years for an economy to develop different types of imbalances. These imbalances can take different forms, but all lead to the same thing: a structural crisis.

For a polticial discussion, imbalances that lead to structural crises are very helpful tools in trying to figure out the best way forward for an economy. There are distinct imbalances that can develop both on the left and on the right. Today's crisis is one that developed on the right, and the crisis in the 1970s was a crisis on the left.

Put simply, when an enormous accumulation of capital occurs in the financial sector, or in an oligarchy, a severe imbalance in the economy has developed. That was the case in the 1930s as it is today. This leads to a structural crisis.

Conversely, when the government tries to steer the economy too much in an artificial way, the industry usually becomes uncompetitive. This was the case with the British auto industry in the 1970s and the Swedish shipping industry in the 1980s. This also leads to a strucutural crisis.

What we see in this pattern is another example of a political pendulum swinging back and forth. Judging by this pendulum, the next structural crisis in the U.S. will occur in 2050, and it will be a structural crisis coming from the left.



When an economic system becomes reliant on speculation alone, which is the case now and in the 1930s, I believe that the crisis will be more severe.

Before the Long Depression and the crisis of the 1970s, the U.S. had overextended itself in particular industries, but there was at least something to show for it at the end of the day. There were goods and infrastructure available that people legitimately needed, but a crisis which has Wall Street speculation as its main feature leaves only a black hole.


Financial speculation is a job that doesn’t need doing. It benefits no one in the long run. Speculation inflates bubbles that in the end do a lot more harm than good, particularly to ordinary people who don’t see them coming.


Speculation doesn’t provide a good source of funding for businesses and their new ventures, both venture capitalists and businesses can attest to that. Most importantly, as we have seen now, it can bring down an entire economy if it goes on for long enough.


Whether you are on the left or on the right, financial speculation is your enemy. I believe that the U.S. will fall into a depression either this year or in 2010. History is screaming it from the roof tops.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

What Actually Caused the Great Depression?

During times of economic crises, wacky theories concerning the origin of the crisis tend to spread like wildfire. That was the case during the great depression, and that is the case now. Some people might include my theories in that category, but that is, of course, purely based on ignorance.


At present, there are literally hundreds of theories about the crisis out there, and discussions about the great depression have also resurfaced.


With respect to the great depression in relation to the current crisis, almost all the arguments can be boiled down to the following question:


Was the great depression caused by the easy access to cheap money?


As President Obama has noted, the discussion about the great depression is far from over. The factors behind that crisis are very complex, and far beyond the understanding of most politicians. Obama recently spoke in disbelief about the continued disputes over this.


There are a few things that I believe are beyond discussion:


- The stock market crash set off the depression because so many had so much invested in the market.


- The stock market crash was caused by overly inflated values of stocks.


- The overly inflated values of stocks were caused by an unprecedented amount of speculation with borrowed money.


Following this line of reasoning, the question remains: what causes speculation? If we can nail down what causes large-scale speculation, we might be able to answer what causes depressions.


More specifically, circling back to my initial question, “was the great depression caused by the easy access to cheap money?”, the question becomes:


- Does easy access to cheap money cause large-scale speculation which in turn causes depressions?


The answer to this question can be found more easily than one would think. If you can identify periods of time in history when money was cheap and abundant, and ascertain that rampant speculation always occurred during such times, you have your answer.


A quick look back in history tells us that this is not so. There have been many periods in history when borrowing money was cheap, but when speculation was minimal. This is noted in what is widely considered to be a standard work on the depression, “The Great Crash”, by John Kenneth Galbraith.


During several periods in the 19th century, cheap money was available, but without the result of large-scale speculation. This was also the case in the 1950s and 1960s. So, to say that cheap money alone causes large-scale speculation would be erroneous from a scientific standpoint.


I tend to believe that speculation can trace its roots to something far more basically human. I believe that speculation does not occur just because it CAN occur, but because there seems to be a reason to for people to speculate.


Greed is a human emotion that can never be extinguished. Everyone is guilty of it, and when a human sees an opportunity to make a quick buck without effort, whether this is prudent or not, he or she often takes that opportunity.


The most classic example of speculation is the tulip bulb speculation in Holland in the 16 Hundreds. This business went so far that a single tulip bulb could be worth an entire year’s salary at the time. What this speculation frenzy also featured were contracts with rights to buy bulbs in the future, trading fictitious bulbs that had not yet been grown, and all the other classic speculation behaviors that we see again today.


We may think we’re so advanced today, but greed, this inescapable human emotion, has already conjured up the complicated schemes of speculation many times before in the history of man.


If you can buy a tulip bulb and sell it the next day, and then not have to work for the rest of the year, who wouldn’t do that? If you can buy a house in Florida, sell it within weeks for a comparable profit, how could you resist?


In short, humans need a reason to start speculating, and in the case of the great depression, people got excited about mainly two things which will sound familiar to everyone today: real estate and new technology.


People started buying second homes to be resold shortly afterwards, and stocks in new technologies like radio and automobiles.


Speculation frenzies will probably always exist, but when such a frenzy gets out of control, it can shake the very foundations of society. When too many people start getting in to the frenzy, perhaps even the government (by relying on the stock market to provide basic public services, such as pensions, infrastructure and, of course: jobs), the country becomes utterly dependent on the continuation of the speculative bubble.


A speculative bubble can never be upheld forever, and it can never be re-inflated, so when a bubble of sufficient proportions is created, a country will not be able to avoid a depression.


In the decade before the depression, President Coolidge repeatedly praised the wonders of the stock market. In addition, most of the powerful politicians in Washington, and the members of the Federal Reserve Board, were themselves highly vested in the stock market, and were hence not at all interested in reining it in, even though they could see ominous signs.


It seemed at this time that all of America could become prosperous without any effort on the part of Washington politicians. This is extremely similar to how the Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations operated. Hands off, hope for the best and leave the provision of American prosperity to private corporations.


Then as now, the United States was utterly dependent on the upholding of the inflated values of the stock market.


The question then becomes whether the current speculative bubble is large enough to cause a depression. I believe that the answer is, unequivocally: yes.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed

What the People Want - Crisis Management and Proportional Representation

One of the central premises of this blog is that the will of the people, the voters, is not at all realized in actual political policies in countries, such as the United States, that don’t have proportional representation.


One of the clearest examples of this in history can currently be seen in the differences in the economic crisis management between countries that have proportional representation and those who don’t.


The voters in The United States and Great Britain (which both have the winner-takes-all voting system) are outraged and disgusted by the taxpayer give aways to the financial oligarchy, whereas voters in countries with proportional representation, such as Germany and Sweden, are generally pleased with the political handling of the crisis, even though they suffer greatly in this crisis too.


The winner-takes-all voting system excludes all those voters, often more than 50% of the voters, who do not subscribe to the specific beliefs of the two only parties that exist in this country. By contrast, a system with proportional representation counts every single vote, and if a party gets 10% of the votes, it gets 10% of the seats, hence incorporating the will of all the voters, as opposed to a small number of them.


In addition to this, the United States allows huge political donations to individual politicians in a scheme that can only be described as a “policy purchasing program”. Money for policy; it’s as simple as that.


The Handling of the Economic Crisis in The United States and Great Britain


Since the current economic crisis began last year, the handling of it has been strikingly similar in The United States and Great Britain. It has been based on one central premise alone:


Protect the current financial power structure, and the individual players within it, at any cost to the taxpayers and no matter what the long-terms consequences to the economy are.


It really is as simple as that, because there is virtually no evidence to the contrary. With bailouts, loans, guarantees to AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Bear Sterns and many more, the U.S. taxpayers are on the line for over $10 Trillion at this point!


Enormous bailouts of Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays Bank and many more in Great Britain will eventually cost British taxpayers Trillions of dollars too. All the while banks and other financial companies in both countries are continuing to pay enormous bonuses while successfully opposing financial regulation.


The American and British economies are at this point essentially unregulated. The people in both countries are outraged, and I personally don’t know anyone, nor have I heard anyone outside the corrupt media elite, voice support for the bailout and support of the financial oligarchy.


I don’t have any exact numbers for this, but if I, as a resident of Manhattan working in the financial industry, don’t know anyone who thinks that this is a good idea, I can only imagine what people around the country think about it.


Protesters in Britain have repeatedly smashed the windows of banks, and bank employees have had to hire body guards, so I don’t think the outrage is any smaller there.


The Handling of the Economic Crisis in Germany and Sweden


Although there have been bank bailouts recently in Germany and Sweden, it has been done on a much smaller scale. Banks in both Germany and Sweden had been over extending themselves in lending to Eastern Europe while that part of the continent was trying to re-join Europe after communism.


Both the German and Swedish governments have repeatedly stated that it would be immoral to throw away large amounts of taxpayer money, both for the immediate purposes of taxpayers and the long-term consequences to the economy.


The internal economies in Germany and Sweden were already sufficiently regulated, so in no way are the banks there causing as much of a domestic problem. One could instead look at an industry that is vital to the U.S., Germany and Sweden: the auto industry.


The U.S. has simply given away billions of dollars to companies that are clearly not competitive. Germany’s car companies are very competitive, but the car market in Germany is extremely slow nevertheless. Germany was creative in dealing with this, and gave taxpayers a few thousand dollar to scrap their old car and buy a new one. Sweden will most likely follow this idea.


Sweden refused to bail out SAAB, noting that the company had only been profitable for a handful of years during its 50-year existence. How would Sweden be able to turn around a car company when the biggest automaker in the world could not? It must be noted that the Swedish government in general is not opposed to state-owned companies.


The Swedish government owns many companies that it runs for profit, and created and maintained one of the most successful brands in the world: Absolut Vodka. Who said the government couldn’t run a business?


The Swedish and German governments have, throughout the economic crisis always had the taxpayers’ interests and the future of the country as their first and only priorities.


Small bailouts have occurred, and stimulus in the form of aid to local governments that have run short on cash because of job losses have been paid.


The public outrage that has occurred in Germany and Sweden has largely concerned bonuses, but the big difference is that those bonuses were paid by the companies themselves, not the taxpayers, as in the case of the U.S. and Great Britain.


The policy response to the economic crisis from the winner-takes-all countries has been disastrous, and I personally disagree with almost 100% of what the response has consisted of. The policy is based on the premise that the financial oligarchy must be preserved, taxpayers and country be damned.


The policy response to the economic crisis from the proportional representation countries has been deliberate, responsible, thoughtful with a long-term approach. I agree almost 100% with what has been done in those countries, even though I would not vote for any of the parties currently in power in either country.


This fact describes clearly that the will of the people is not translated into policy in the United States and Great Britain. These two countries are undemocratic and both need vast constitutional overhaul.






Obviously, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Financial Minority Reports

Since taking office, Timothy Geithner has been an absolutely appalling Treasury Secretary with only one strategy: to pamper and protect Wall Street as much as possible with taxpayer money while opposing legislation that would hold Wall Street accountable for having run the economy into the ground.


I was thus highly surprised when he on Thursday came out with a sweeping program to deal with the deadly mess in the financial markets, a program that was meant to deal with both long and short term problems.


The most important suggestion in the program presented by Geithner is the creation of a single regulator, “with responsibility for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities”.


This may not sound like much on the surface, but it actually deals with some of the central problems in the American financial system, as well as problems in the academic world of economics.


It is a well-known fact that the American economy is a so-called “boom-and-bust” economy. It cannot seriously be denied that this is a result of the fact that the U.S. has an essentially unregulated economy. The lack of a social safety net is also a significant contributing factor.


Geithner’s new, single, regulator would actually, according to him, continuously research the dynamics of boom and bust, and try to prevent the harmful results.


More specifically, the new regulator would try to find out when an asset bubble is building, such as the tech bubble in the 90s, or the housing bubble of today, and then try to stop it in its tracks.


This is critically important, and it is a strategy that can prevent financial crises, similar to the murder prevention strategy in the movie “Minority Report” with Tom Cruise.


In that movie, some type of psychic people called “pre-cogs” can see into the future, and they can see who will commit murders in the future. The would-be perpetrators of murder are then arrested and jailed in advance, so that the murder never actually takes place.


There is no ”pre-cog” needed for the new regulator, nor will anyone have to go to jail for crimes not yet committed, but studying emerging asset bubbles in the economy and acting on the findings will produce a functionally similar result: preventing pain and suffering in the future.


The way this could be done is rather simple. The new regulator would study anomalies in the market. If the price of an asset, say real estate in Florida, starts rising unusually quickly and without a clear reason, that would be a strong indication of a bubble.


This would then be made widely known, the public would be strongly cautioned, and perhaps some temporary legislation could be put into place in that region (temporary changes in zoning laws to prevent over-building maybe). The regulator would immediately look for evidence of predatory lending and other fraud in Florida, and act on anything it would find.


On the other hand, let’s say there were an area in Florida where new and profitable industries were being built. Jobs were being added and the population was growing. At a time like that, it would make perfect sense for real estate values to go up, so an instance like that would be ignored by the regulator after an investigation was done.


Unfortunately, asset bubbles are poorly understood among academic economists in the U.S. today, or at least they are said to be poorly understood. In reality, asset bubbles are products of simple, basic human behavior. To understand asset bubbles, you need to know only 2 things:


1. When everyone else is doing something, people in general will automatically think that it’s a good thing to do. It’s a basic function of being a pack animal.


2. When it seems that there exists a real possibility of making money quickly and easily, even the smartest people get sucked in to, for instance, a speculative bubble. This human tendency is the reason why some of the most successful investors on Wall Street invested their own money with Bernie Madoff.


However, these facts are rarely recognized by American economists because they defy free-market orthodoxy.


Hence, Geithner’s new program of establishing a single regulator is a big step away from the free market orthodoxy that is prevalent among the vast majority of public and academic officials in the United States.


I believe that the program could become an extremely important tool in a sustained economic recovery in the United States.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Circular Looting

Please click on the image to see the model

“Looting” is a concept in economics developed by two American economists called George Åkerlöf and Paul Romer. This term was recently put into the framework of the current crisis by David Leonhardt of the New York Times, and I believe that it is very helpful to do so.

I also believe that there is more to the story than the original concept of financial looting, namely that of collaboration from politicians, which creates a type of perpetual motion of looting that I call Circular Looting.


The concept of looting in economics is rather simple:

It means that corporations that know that they will be bailed out by the government if they are at risk of going bankrupt, act irresponsibly in order to make as much short-term profit as possible, without regard to the long-term consequences.

In other words, corporations “loot” the economy instead of trying to make a profit with an investment strategy that they genuinely think will work. Corporations always know that the looting business strategy will fail eventually, but when it does, it’s the government’s problem.

What comes to mind first is obviously sub prime mortgages. In Vallejo, California, a man whose profession was to be a strawberry picker, was in 2006 approved for a $720,000 mortgage for a house. Needless to say, this man did not meet the traditional requirements for such a large mortgage, and defaulted on the mortgage rather quickly.


This particular mortgage makes for a good example of what has been happening over the last few years. As the strawberry picker signed up for the mortgage, there was a string of people who were given large fees, going all the way back to Wall Street itself.


These fees, and the overall profit from all the investments related to the sub prime market, are what constitutes the “loot” in the looting cycle that has been going on over the last decade or so.


Here’s what most likely happened in the Vallejo example:


- the bank received mortgage origination fees


- the bank sold the mortgage to an investment bank (like Lehman Brothers), and got a fee


- Lehman Brothers packaged the strawberry picker’s mortgage with others, created a “mortgage-backed security” and sold that to Wall Street, and received a fee


- Wall Street traders bought and sold the securities, and received large commissions


Obviously, everybody in the chain knew that a strawberry picker was not going to be able to pay this mortgage, but everyone was making money in the meantime, so the looting was a win-win situation, for a period of time.


This describes how looting is a good idea for corporations that engage in it, while being ready to run for the hills when everything comes falling down. Now we’ll move on to the political connection.


There are not that many companies in the United States that can depend on being bailed out by the government, but the exception to the rule is the financial sector. In other words, large banks, investment banks and any other financial institutions that are deemed to be important enough for the local or national economy, can usually count on being bailed out.


Bailouts don’t only concern the institutions that are considered “too big to fail”, which is evidenced by Åkerlöf and Romer’s report, “Looting”, which describes the looting behavior of smaller, local banks in Texas.


The financial industry in the United States donates enormous amounts of money to virtually all politicians in Congress and those running for President. This has been going on for so many years that it is now a Washington institution.


This behavior obviously creates a dependency on the part of politicians on the financial industry, without which they would not be able to become elected.


This, along with the promise of a bailout when the financial institutions are about to go under, creates an utterly symbiotic relationship between politicians and the financial industry.


This symbiotic relationship is described by the following four stages of the Circular Looting that you can see in the model at the beginning of the text:


1. Donations from the financial industry to every imaginable political campaign.


2. The donations force politicians to create and perpetuate a business friendly climate with low taxes, virtually no financial regulation or oversight, and the absence of labor rights.


3. In such a “business friendly” climate, corporations are free to engage in whatever kind of business they desire, because they are left alone, and because of extremely low taxes, they can reap all the rewards instantly. Looting is created on a massive scale.


4. There is only so much looting that can go on until the market is depleted. Eventually the bubble has to pop, either because of inflated values, or because of exposed fraud. It is then that the politicians come back and help their friends in the financial industry with bailouts.


If looting is to be successful in the end, individuals who are working for the financial institutions must be sure to not invest in their own companies too much, and cash bonuses are essential to the scheme.


What AIG recently did when executives were given bonuses after the bailout had already happened is remarkable. Even after the looting was done, the executives were able to extract bonuses directly from taxpayer money. This must surely be unprecedented prior to this crisis.


Looting, bailouts and political donations make American society eerily reminiscent of the feudal society of Europe during the middle ages, where most people were serfs, and everything and everyone was controlled by the aristocracy.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Gordon Brown's Proposals

Last Wednesday, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech to Congress, parts of which were very surprising to me. Brown expressed a need for countries to work together to solve the global crisis, and he also suggested two important new measures:


1. A “Global New Deal”, or “Economic Marshall Plan”, and


2. Making the “shadow banking system” illegal


These two suggestions are actually quite radical, but I have not come across many details of these two suggestions. I will nevertheless attempt to speculate around these ideas.


A Global New Deal is hard to imagine ever coming to fruition. What Brown means by this seems to be that countries should come together and inject vast amounts of money in markets, where needed, in order to save and re-build those markets. Brown also seems to be talking about more tangible investments in industries to spur future growth, hence the mention of the Marshall Plan.


I assume that it would involve many different countries putting large amounts of money into a big pot, and then trying to decide where the money would help the most. Alternatively, if the global new deal involves countries simply coordinating financial rescue actions, it’s a little less hard to imagine, but still unlikely.


The issue of “international bailouts” has come up recently in the EU. Eastern Europe has been attempting to free itself from the chains of communism by creating an entire “subprime economy”. They took loans in foreign currencies such as Euros, Swiss Francs and Swedish Crowns. As Easter European currencies plunged in value, the loans skyrocketed in value.


It was thought to be an understanding in the EU that Eastern Europe could act fiscally irresponsibly in order to re-join Europe as equals, and that Western Europe would help them in case they ran in to trouble. When a number of Eastern European countries, such as Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria asked for an actual bailout, Germany said no. Germany feels a lot of resentment for having given up its own financial stability in order to support stability in the Euro and EU zone, and the country has apparently had enough.


When it comes to trying to convince many different countries to act in solidaric ways during a crisis, I believe there must be a system set up in advance. Otherwise, a country will have to choose between international solidarity or feeding its own population, and the former will obviously take a back seat.


Making the shadow banking system illegal, is quite a radical proposal, especially for the economies of the UK and the U.S.. Brown did not specify what he meant by the “shadow banking system”, but it is clear that he was referring to entities such as hedge funds and investment banks that are providing capital for lending in the economy.


In a way, this is a strange proposal, considering the fact that governments around the world have actively been participating in creating the “shadow banking system”, setting up entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Brown seems to be saying that the banking system needs to go back to basics, to the way it was before governments started subsidizing mortgage rates (back 60-70 years ago in most cases).


Whether or not you expressly make the shadow banking system illegal, it is in the process of disappearing anyway. Brown’s comments seem to stem from a newly found clarity in terms of the real role of various financial institutions in the U.K. and the U.S., a clarity that he, like U.S. politicians, did not have when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.


What Brown is suggesting is, in my mind, sound. If entities other than banks would stop providing enormous amounts of capital for all types of speculation, societies would become less reliant on stock markets, and the housing market would experience less swings. Mortgage rates would definitely become higher. Mortgage rates of over 20% were not too uncommon a few decades ago.


With respect to mortgages, I have for a long time advocated a system of covered bonds for the banks, like the one Germany has. I also believe that the Federal Reserve needs to be made into a government-owned Central Bank with a single, inflation fighting, mandate.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Upholding the Illusion

Upholding the illusion that America’s financial system is simply going through a crisis which can be resolved is becoming increasingly more difficult for the U.S. government. After an enormous bailout package, a stimulus package worth about 6% of GDP and guarantees of bad assets worth much more than that, the government has nothing to show in terms of recovery.


It is also an illusion that many U.S. financial institutions are not already nationalized. AIG has received $150 Billion from taxpayers. The company has far more in losses, and it will report what is expected to be the biggest losses in U.S. financial history on Wednesday.


AIG has now asked for more taxpayer money, although the government already owns 80% of the company.


Citigroup has received $45 Billion from taxpayers, and is now asking for much more. Citigroup is only worth about a fourth of that, around $10 Billion, so why the hell are there any shareholders left other than the U.S. government?


The U.S. government’s ideological opposition to nationalization has wound up costing American taxpayers 4 or 5 times more than what a nationalization would have cost.


Citigroup’s shares are as I just mentioned worth $10 Billion, yet taxpayers have paid the company $45 Billion just so that the shareholders won’t lose their investments (of which there is only 10% left since Citigroup’s stock lost 90% of its value), and so that the executives won’t have to be fired.


It would have been a lot cheaper to simply buy all the stock. Cheaper yet would have been the only morally sound thing to do: wipe out shareholders and nationalize the bank.


Furthermore, banks are failing across the United States every week now, and the FDIC (which nationalizes such banks every week so that they can be liquidated and/or sold off) has had to hire more staff, and is currently bringing people back from retirement.


The U.S. government also has a secret list of which banks are in serious trouble, and are in imminent danger of failing. Many have called for this list to be made public, but the government refuses.


In addition to all this, the U.S. government is engaging in the sort of “creative accounting’ that played a large role in creating this crisis. It is trying to sweep all the losses of big institutions under the rug by “not estimating assets too conservatively” as Geithner has stated.


What that means is that when the government has given taxpayer money to big banks and other institutions, it has valued their assets much higher than the market (which values them at zero), creating the illusion that these institutions are much better off than they really are.


Also, the government has helped institutions like AIG to set up “special purpose entities” where the company can hide bad assets away from the balance sheet, again creating the illusion that things are much better than they really are. This is what Enron did, and a lot of people went to jail after that…


All these efforts are obviously counterproductive and ultimately detrimental. The government is lying about many things relating to the financial crisis, but most people don’t realize it. Why is the government doing this? Well, I think it feels that it MUST uphold the illusion that the system can indeed go on as it has before. If it cannot, what is the alternative?


They know what the alternative is: a European-style regulated society where citizens are guaranteed a standard of living rather than being left to hope for that standard amidst cycles of boom and bust. In a country where all politicians are either right or right-wing, this is a terrifying prospect.


I recently realized that the upholding of illusions is exactly what Keynes based his theories of spending and crisis management on, and that’s why it makes perfect sense for Keynes’ theories to be back in the spotlight.


It is widely believed that Keynes developed his theories in response to the Versailles Treaty after World War I, and the treatment of Germany in economic terms.


The Versailles Treaty made it so that Germans’ standard of living went lower and lower each year after it was enacted. This, according to Keynes, destroyed confidence among Germans, and the economic crisis started feeding off itself (which is something that was echoed by Ben Bernanke in a speech before Congress today).


So, after the war, Germans were obviously bankrupt. Even so, thought Keynes, they should keep spending, and if they could not, the government should enable them to do so. Even if you don’t have money to spend, you must uphold the illusion that you do, by borrowing money to spend, otherwise the economic crisis will get worse. That is in essence what Keynes thought.


Expressed in that way, Keynesian economics sounds like a really bad case of “keeping up appearances”, don’t you think? Upholding the illusion is what it is all about.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

A Better Stimulus Package - Research and Education

Obama’s recent stimulus package will help to plug a lot of holes in state budgets across the country. It will also marginally improve the infrastructure situation. However, 40% of the package is made up of tax cuts, and for that and other reasons, I believe that it will be very unsuccessful in actually helping the economy recover.


I believe that the road to economic recovery for the United States is not one of tax cuts or stimulus packages, but one which made this country great in the first place: massive spending on scientific research and education.


I do not believe in trickle-down economics, like the Reagan/Bush/Clinton policies, because that theory is based on a belief that excess money, spent by wealthy individuals, floating around in society, will somehow create wealth for all citizens.


I also do not believe in Keynesian economics, like the stimulus package, because that theory is based on a belief that excess money, spent by the government, floating around in society, will somehow create wealth for all citizens.


You can probably tell where I’m going with this: the basic flaw of both trickle-down and Keynesian economics is that the money that the government spends and/or controls in other ways has no direction or purpose.


I’m not saying that the government should tell people what to spend money on, or that there isn’t a large role for the so-called “invisible hand” for people in society. I’m saying that when the government spends money, it must do so with a specific purpose, and do it well.


There are two important issues to consider when delving deeper into this: economic growth and job creation. These are favorite expressions of politicians, but most politicians have only a vague idea of what they actually mean.


Economic growth occurs when something is added to society. If someone gets up off the couch and starts growing potatoes, he or she has contributed to economic growth. Economic growth does not occur if the government gives someone a tax cut or chooses to spend tax money on road maintenance.


Job creation occurs when someone hires an unemployed person and pays that person’s salary with the revenue from increased production. When the PC was invented and Silicon Valley hired thousands of people, that was a perfect example of actual job creation.


Job creation does not occur when the government hires someone to work on road maintenance or when a company hires someone and pays the salary out of money left over from a recent tax cut. (the government could create jobs by actually starting their own business enterprises, but that is rather unusual).


Hence, both trickle-down and Keynesian economic policies are ineffective for economic growth and job creation, especially in times of crisis. In order to actually spur job creation and economic growth, you need something specific, something new, and American history provides excellent examples.


After World War II, The United States started spending massive amounts of money on higher education and scientific research. Young people were able to go to college for free, and scientific researchers were making strides like never before. This enabled the U.S. to go to the moon, invent vaccines and computers, and become the most industrially and economically powerful country in the history of the world.


In sector after sector, The United States became the world leader with the help of education and research, and this laid the foundation for the immense prosperity that the country still enjoys today. Unfortunately, since Nixon, all that prosperity which was originally created by everyone in society, has been funneled only to the top.


It would be very difficult to make the case that these industrial advances came about as a result of trickle-down, low tax economics. Nor could it be argued that Keynesian economics was behind it, because it was not used.


It is crystal clear that America’s prosperity mainly came about as a result of massive government spending on research and education, and it is to this that we must return.


In order to actually create jobs, and to achieve actual economic growth, the U.S. government should:


- make college education much cheaper, and free for as many people as possible


- fund research into as many areas as possible and help industries with the practical application of research results


- create national standards in the most important school subjects, such as the natural sciences and English


- end the system where local schools depend on local real estate taxes, and centralize funding for schools


These are only a few ideas for a new stimulus package with a real potential to help the American economy, and there are myriads of other things that could be done quite easily. A stimulus package full of tax cuts will do nothing to help the American economy recover, but research and education will.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

The Geithner Proposal - On Second Thought

Initially, I thought the Geithner plan seemed pretty stupid and unfinished. I still believe it is both of those things, in its essence, but I have come to realize that it actually has some merit, albeit through unintended consequences. Bear with me and I will explain.


First of all, the Geithner plan is a direct descendant of the Paulson plan, which makes it fundamentally misguided and immoral in nature. Also, the most counterintuitive of arguments is its main premise: that private investors will want to buy toxic assets that are worthless because the same investors turned their backs on them.


Now, the important thing to remember is that there are different kinds of so-called toxic assets. I’m not sure who came up with the term, but it seems to mean that nobody wants to buy the assets, that they have somehow become “contaminated”.


In most cases, they are contaminated for a reason, such as that they are made up of mortgages for houses that have actually been torn down or have lost more than half of their values. In other cases, however, the assets are sort of guilty by association.


In the eyes of a capitalist economy, whether or not an asset is actually destroyed or just guilty by association does not matter; an asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.


If Geithner’s plan can help to separate out the two kinds of assets and entice investors to buy the ones that are not as bad, then the plan will have achieved something. An asset like this would have to be something rather special though. It would have to be:


- unrelated to the housing market


- unrelated to the continued existence of firms that are very near bankruptcy, which includes many banks


Also, the buyer would have to have a long-term strategy, because there is simply no way that the stock market will achieve any stability, probably for years to come. I have no idea how many assets that fit all these criteria there are at this time, and I don’t think anyone has.


Circling back to what I said in the beginning about unintended consequences, what I have just described is not what the plan meant to do. Geithner wanted investors to buy the assets that in fact have been destroyed, and that will happen when hell freezes over.


Another important point that I’d like to mention, and one that I will come back to soon, is the reason for this confused and unfinished plan. What most people don’t realize is that politicians have no idea what’s going on. They don’t know what these assets are, how they came to be, or how to solve the problem of them being worthless.


I happen to work in a large office building in midtown Manhattan, and ever since Bear Sterns failed, I have seen officials from the government running around in my office building and other buildings, talking to experts in financial trades, banking regulation and more, trying to understand what is going on.


Long story short: it’s not something you learn over a few doughnuts.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

There ARE Solutions to the Banking Crisis

Treasury Secretary Geithner presented his new financial rescue plan on Tuesday, which impressed no one. The plan was confused, unfinished and intellectually contrafactual. In this posting, I will expand on my solution to the banking crisis, which involves a system of what are called “covered bonds” along with the creation of new banks.


After the plan was introduced and poorly received, Geithner defended himself by saying that there was “no historical precedent” to this crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply giving the banks taxpayer money to spend as they please, a.k.a. the “Bush/Paulson/Geithner solution” is what lacks a historical precedent, simply because it’s so infinitely stupid.


Geithner, along with what seems to be the entire American political and economic establishment seems to be completely in the dark in terms of economic research and economic history. I’m saying that there are many precedents to this crisis, and that there are many precedents on how to solve it.


There are 2 main, related problems that must be solved as soon as possible:


1. the banks are insolvent, and


2. the mortgage securitization market is dead


The banks are insolvent because they own worthless assets that nobody wants to buy. Geithner’s plan involves trying to convince private investors to buy these worthless assets, but the reason they’re worthless is that these same investors didn’t want to have anything to do with them in the first place.


The assets are like rotten apples in a fruit stand, and however much such apples are promoted, I think it’s pretty safe to say that few people will ever by them.


The mortgage securitization market is the market where banks sell off mortgages to private investors in the form of mortgage-backed securities, which is the same thing as the assets I mentioned above.


Nobody wants to participate in the mortgage securitization market anymore because housing prices have imploded, so the market is dead with little chance of being revived any time soon. In other words, if housing prices don’t go up, the mortgage securitization market will continue to be dead.


Now to my suggestions of solutions to these problems. In a catastrophic banking crisis, the solution has in the past been either nationalization or the creation of new banks.


Nationalization is the more common solution, but if a bank’s debts are five times its market value, what is the point of rescuing it by nationalizing it? Spending five dollars to make one dollar doesn’t make a lot of sense… In light of the banks’ situation, nationalization would be the least severe destiny awaiting them. It would, however, be extremely expensive for the taxpayer.


Because the U.S. Government is ideologically opposed to nationalization, my bet would be that Bank of America and Citigroup (along with many smaller banks) will have the same fate as Lehman Brothers.


Instead, I believe that the creation of new banks is the appropriate solution. This was done in the 1800s in the United States during a catastrophic banking crisis. Under this plan, the government would simply set up a new bank, inject it with money for lending and write strict rules on how it can operate. That would instantly create a stable, prudent and dependable bank.


The government would then sell off 49% of the shares to private investors and keep running the bank according to prudent standards until the crisis is over. At that point, the bank can be sold off completely.


Instituting a system of covered bonds would be a good solution for the mortgage market. This is a very stable system that has been used for hundreds of years in Europe. Basically, all the banks would get together and put all their mortgages in a giant pool.

As soon as one mortgage defaults, it is immediately taken out of the pool, and the loss is shared by all the banks at once. All the mortgages, meaning the investments that the banks have made, are hence “covered” by all the participants in the system.


Under this system, the mortgages remain on the banks’ balance sheets. It is a collaborative effort, as well as being a system where each bank has to take responsibility for its own lending practices. This system encourages prudent lending standards by all participants, stabilizes the housing market in general, and improves the trust in the financial system.


We need to think in new ways about the crisis, which Geithner acknowledged in his speech, but he is so ignorant that he does not know of any solutions like the ones I just described.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

What to do with the Banks?

Allow me to explain, in plain language, what the whole discussion about the troubled banks is about. A lot of the banks, most notably Bank of America and Citigroup, are already insolvent. The only reason that they haven’t had to file for bankruptcy is that they’re claiming that their assets are worth much more than they actually are.


The banks are saying: our assets are worth a lot, but nobody is willing to pay anything for them now, but the value of them will go up in the future, so give us money now.


The very foundation of a capitalist economy is that any asset, whether it’s a house, a painting or a complex financial product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. In a communist economy, the government decides what assets are worth, but that is not, as we all know, how things are done in the U.S..


The assets that the banks are claiming to be worth so much money are actually completely worthless, because nobody is willing to pay anything for them. They’re like houses in a ghost town.


According to financial regulation you have to “mark assets to market”, which means that you have to value them according to what people are willing to pay for them, which is in line with the capitalist economy. However, the banks are hiding all these assets away from sight of regulators, investors and the public, so that they can get away with not doing this.


They do this by putting worthless assets in what they call “special purpose entities”, which do not appear on the balance sheet. It’s as if someone were to have a secret credit card with a huge balance that they have hidden away from their spouse, while telling that spouse that they have no debts.


Currently, the U.S. government is trying to figure out how they can relieve the banks of these assets (of which the government actually has no idea how much there are, or of what they are made up). Tim Geithner will present a plan tomorrow at 11 a.m., and the most important factor in this plan is that the government will try to buy these worthless assets from the banks.


What they have to do, in actual fact, is to decide a price of the assets, just like communist governments used to do. It is strange for the government to engage in communist economic policies in order to save capitalism. The taxpayers will pay for the assets, but whatever price is above zero is too high, so the American taxpayer is without question being ripped off big time… again.


The money which is available for use in this plan is $350 Billion. That is nowhere close to being enough for the banks so that they can avoid bankruptcy. The only thing this does is to buy time. It buys time for these worthless assets to go up in value again, and that is the only way that the banks can remain in their current forms.


Will the assets recover the value that they used to have? Absolutely not. Using the analogy of the house in the ghost town again, the ghost town would have to turn into a boom town in just a few months. I’m not aware that something like that has ever happened.


To simplify things quite a bit, you could say that one of these bank assets is made up of 1,000 houses in a low-income area of Cleveland (where the sub prime crisis is extremely severe).


By now, all of them will have lost at least 50% of their value, 200 of them will have been torn down, and 500 of them are empty (and the empty ones have lost 80% of their value due to looting and other things).


If each house were worth $20,000 in the beginning, the bank asset would have been worth $20 million. After the value destruction that I outlined above, the face value of the asset would be only $5 million. In addition to that, such an asset is priced based on the future expectations of it, which I need hardly mention are not good. Hence, nobody wants to buy it, and it is in fact worthless.


This decrease in value from $20 million to $5 million in a short time is the essence of the banks’ problems. In many cases, the situation is far worse than what I have described above, but I’ll try to keep it simple for now.


Hence, this bailout, like the other ones, is totally misguided and has no prospects of working. Why are they doing this anyway? Because the prospect of nationalization is too ideologically offensive to American politicians. Nationalization would lead to all the shareholders losing their money, and the bank executives would be fired.


Several banks will have to be nationalized sooner rather than later anyway, regardless of further bailout attempts. As I said, the reason for this is simple: the value of the bank assets will not go back up. I don’t favor nationalization because I think that would be too wasteful and expensive, but instead, I favor the creation of new banks, as I wrote in January.






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Turning Prime Into Subprime - For Taxpayers

A disturbing new trend is slowly emerging as banks are responding to the crisis and the political climate. Banks and Wall Street firms have obviously made billions from the bailouts because of taxpayer donations, but it has taken them a while to figure out how to benefit from the crisis and rip off taxpayers with a new business model. Now they seem to have figured that out.


Politicians have been angry with the banks for not lending more money to the public. Since the banks got the bailout money, they have been sitting on it and only been spending money on “essentials” such as bonuses and dividends.


What is happening now is that they actually are starting to lend. They are giving 30-year fixed rate mortgages with very low interest rates. This is also the centerpiece in a new recovery plan put forth by the Republicans. Making these loans seems like something a very healthy bank would do, so in light of the fact that most of the major banks are effectively insolvent, how are they doing that?


Recently, it has come out that Wells Fargo is giving 30-year fixed rate home mortgages in Portland, Oregon, with an interest rate of only 3.875%. Considering that interest rates everywhere else are much higher, these loans are completely unrealistic from a business perspective. In addition, Oregon’s real estate market is not exactly booming, so the loans are quite likely to go into default.


Today, Citigroup announced that it was going to use $36.5 billion in bailout money to provide home loans for the public. $10 billion of that will be backed by the government entity Fannie Mae. Citigroup has not announced interest rates or other details as far as I’m aware, but the important thing to remember is the combination of using bailout money and government-backed entities to guarantee the loans.


I believe that Wells Fargo and Citigroup are doing the same thing: making loans that are likely to go into default using taxpayer money while taxpayers guarantee the loans if the default.


This is very similar to how the subprime loans were created. When making those loans, the banks didn’t care at all whether the loans would go into default; they just took the fees for making them, and then sold off the loans.


This is the same thing, and from a taxpayer perspective. This amounts to a triple or quadruple whammy.


First, taxpayers pay for the unbelievable mistakes the banks made, then they pay CEO bonuses, then they pay to start up the subprime scourge again, and finally get sent the bill from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When will we stop digging a deeper hole for ourselves???






Moreover, I advise that the winner-takes-all voting system should be destroyed.

Good Versus Bad Protectionism

For the longest time, The United States had a firm commitment to protectionism. Protectionism is a policy under which a country limits imports by different means so that the country consumes primarily its own goods. In the early 20th century, America’s commitment to protectionism was ended, and a commitment to free trade was started instead. Of course, protectionism has its clear advantages. It is clearly better for the U.S. economy on the whole if Americans buy Fords instead of Toyotas, because the money would stay in the U.S. instead of being transferred to Japan. The story, however, is much more complicated than that.


During times of a severe crisis when job losses mount and industries shut their doors, calls for protectionism usually grow louder. That happened during the Great Depression, and it is happening now. Much of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric was centered on domestic industry and a return to consumption of domestic goods, and more recently, Timothy Geithner has repeatedly alluded to the fact that China is manipulating its currency to stimulate exports. What Geithner is effectively saying is that China should raise the value of its currency, so that Chinese goods will become more expensive in the U.S., so that Americans will buy American goods instead. So, what are the benefits of free trade, and is there such a thing as “good protectionism”?


Free trade has many advantages. Most importantly, it lowers the price of goods dramatically, and makes goods available everywhere. 20 years ago, the prices of food, furniture, clothes, electronics, appliances and much more were considerably higher than they are today. The globalization of free trade have made these goods much cheaper in the West and provided jobs in the Third World. Today, most types of trade is global, and many countries even import the same goods that they export (this is also called “counter trade”). Globalization has, in short, put millions of people to work, and brought cheaper goods and greater prosperity to everyone.


During a crisis, globalization and free trade do little good. The enormous forces of the global economy cannot be controlled or steered towards a certain goal, such as job creation in the U.S.. Protectionism can do that, but at a cost to the global economy, and global growth. An increased amount of protectionism would likely cause some problems in trade relations around the world, but those problems may not be as large as those that would occur if the unemployment rate were to go up to 15-20%. There are definitely some excesses in global trade that could be addressed, while local goals could be achieved.


Not every country can produce everything, and it would make little sense for advanced, industrialized countries to start producing basic goods again just to create jobs. For the government to sponsor a pencil factory next to a bio-tech lab would be stupid. That would be an example of bad protectionism. We need trade to a large extent, but we don’t need trade for everything, and in some cases, trade can be a liability.


There are certain goods that are not suited for global trade, for various reasons. I’m thinking primarily of food, defense and government contracts. If a country does not have its own food production, it becomes very vulnerable to political insecurity in the world. If a food exporting country has a choice between feeding its starving citizens, or breaking a deal with a food importing country, the former will obviously be chosen.


A country that is dependent on imports for its defense is also very vulnerable to insecurity. Again, if a weapons exporting country is faced with a choice of defending itself or breaking a deal with another country that wants to buy weapons, the former will be chosen.


With respect to government spending in general, it makes little sense not to buy domestically when buying police cars, fire trucks, steel for bridges, energy, and so on. To directly take taxpayer money and transfer it to foreign taxpayers through government imports results in a dramatic hemorrhaging of money for the country’s finances.


The conclusion one can draw from these examples is that there is such a thing as “good protectionism”. If the American government wants to create jobs at home, it should primarily focus on supporting domestic production in food, defense and whatever goods the government purchases. Good protectionism is protectionism that makes economic and philosophical sense.


No country can be legitimately blamed for implementing such policies, so the impact on global trade is minimized using this approach. Focusing on good protectionism can also lower the trade imbalance and strengthen the dollar. When it comes to free trade, the story is very similar to that of public goods and public utilities: there are times when the free market is unmatched in providing what is needed, but there are other times when the free market is completely unsuited to the task at hand.

Share your thoughts in the comment section

The Good Bank Solution

One solution to the financial crisis that is currently being discussed is the so-called “bad bank solution”. What this means is that the government would set up an entity, and gather all the toxic assets that the banks have, so that the bank system can be freed of the bad stuff and move on. Sounds good, but where do the losses go? The answer is: to the American people.


This solution is no different from the original TARP plan, in that the American taxpayer simply gives banks money to cover all the mistakes those banks made, with no strings attached. I believe that the losses in the banking system are too great for a bailout like this one to have the potential to work, regardless of the moral implications. That is why we need a different solution.


First, a reality check to illustrate my point. Bank of America and Citigroup are the two large banks that are in the worst shape. Consider their market value in 2007 compared to today:


Bank of America’s market value in the second quarter of 2007: $228 Billion


Bank of America’s market value in January 2009: $33 Billion


Citigroup’s market value in the second quarter of 2007: $255 Billion


Citigroup’s market value in January 2009: $15 Billion


In addition to this, these banks have several times their market value in toxic assets, which means that they are effectively insolvent already. Consider also what Bank of America did after it received bailout money: it went and bought MORE mortgage-backed securities, creating even greater losses. When the bank found out that it was going to get a bailout, it started paying huge bonuses to its executives, in reality using TARP money for that. It’s definitely time to stop betting on the losing horses. It doesn’t matter how much money we spend on these banks, they’re not going to be able to continue in their current forms. The bad bank solution is nothing more than a bad solution.


I am instead proposing a Good Bank Solution, under which the government sponsors entirely new banks, completely untainted by the crisis and the toxic assets. Instead of trying to repair a complete wreck of a bank, a new one is constructed from scratch. The public could then safely put its money into those banks, investors could invest money in them, and the banks could immediately start lending with prudent standards. More specifically, the plan would consist of the following steps:


1. The government drafts a bank charter (the rules for the bank), and includes very stringent standards on lending, how much capital the bank must have, how the bank can invest, how much money the bank must lend, and so on.


2. The government puts money into the bank. We’re talking about billions of dollars, not billions in losses, but in investments in a new banking system with a clear potential for profit. The government owns 100% of the bank.


3. The bank opens for business, takes customer deposits and starts lending immediately. Investors will be able to buy 49% of the stock, but the government must remain the majority shareholder for a few years until the financial crisis has been resolved. By selling stock, the government may already have recouped half of the investment at this stage, potentially at a profit.


The government can create many of these banks, and in one fell swoop bring confidence and lending back. It is important to note that this is just a temporary solution. Once the crisis has passed, these entities can be sold completely, so that the government does not have to act as a banker.


Before that happens, the government will also have been given time to legislate the new financial regulation that is so direly needed. The “good banks” don’t need regulation, because they will have that written into their charters. This would be a big operation for sure, but it must be done, because the current system is broken.






Share your thoughts in the comment section.