Categories: My Two Cents

2011 To-Do List

Published on: 12/31/2010
Comments: 1 Comment

Many people I’ve spoken with over the past 6 months or so have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with their individual and/or collective ability to affect change in government. Sure, there have been some small victories here and there, but by and large our biggest problems continue to rage on unabated. For quite some time I shared in their frustration, and still do, but have realized that sometimes the actions of the masses need to take place on a different level to change the bigger paradigms. To use some old adages, we shouldn’t throw stones from a glass house, and we should certainly tend to our own backyard before criticizing that of our neighbor. On this last day of 2010, let’s take a look at what we can do in our own financial lives to improve our situations. Let’s call it trickle-up responsibility.

Stop Accumulating Additional Debt

Obviously, this one seems like a no-brainer, but let’s hit it from a few unconventional angles. First of all, it is important to understand that debt is one of the biggest ways the banking system creates inflation. The money multiplier, aka fractional reserve ratio, determines how much banks actually need to keep in their coffers to meet withdrawal requests by depositors. The rest can be out in the system in the form of loans, speculative investments, and the like. Let’s use an example. You to go the bank and deposit $100. The bank can create roughly $1000 in loans off that $100. In that sense, the bank has created inflation by inventing money from your deposit. Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions in this dawning age of awareness of the Federal Reserve and what it does is that the Fed is solely responsible for inflation. While the Fed does set the multiplier, the Fed itself does not create much of the inflation we experience. That is done in the banking system by creation of ~10X loans from deposits.

With this in mind, each time you take on additional debt, you are helping the banking system to create inflation, which erodes the purchasing power of the money you just borrowed plus all your other funds. This is why there has been such a big problem over the past two years and Bernanke et al are trying to scare the public about deflation. People weren’t borrowing enough to allow inflation to occur. Wonder of all wonders, we have actually undergone a period of deflation (contraction in M3), and the Fed, banks, and government just can’t have that. Why? Because they know that a fiat monetary system needs inflation like human beings need oxygen.

Who caused that period of deflation? The government and banking elite would have you believe that it was bad loans and falling home prices. WRONG. If you’d like proof of that, take a minute and read the My Two Cents from 10/10/2008. It was you – the American people – that did it by living responsibly for a time. You did it by foregoing on consumption and additional borrowing. You didn’t do it by having rallies, you didn’t do it by demonstrating, you didn’t do it by waving signs. You did it by making smart financial decisions at kitchen tables from sea to shining sea. That is the dirty secret those in charge of the banking system and the upper levels of government don’t want known.

This is another reason why the government has undertaken so much borrowing. It is not to stimulate the economy as we’ve already seen. Many of you have expressed frustration about the trillions spent on ‘stimulus’ with nearly nothing to show for it. The above facts are precisely the reason why this is the case. The government stepped in to save first the banking system, then the fiat money system itself by borrowing on your behalf. Many people have already caught on to this reality. Those are the priorities of the government. The financial system and the money system must be preserved because that is where actual political power is derived in the current paradigm. This is another reason why governments promote entitlement societies. They assist in preserving the fiat paradigm and at the same time gathering control over the citizenry.

The past two years of credit contraction and lack of additional accumulated debt by the American people have been a major thorn in the side of those who benefit from the fiat paradigm. This is why there has been a massive media and propaganda campaign to convince people that the economy is on the mend and that we should get out and spend money. It is why George Bush told the American people to go to Disney World, and it is why we continue to dump billions into continuing unemployment benefits rather than bringing jobs back home and finding ways to create sustainable employment for the unemployed. It is why banks continue to send pre-approved credit card applications to people who haven’t had jobs in 2 years. I personally know of at least two dozen situations where this is the case and I’m sure there are millions more out there.

Simply put, we’re analyzing the actions of the banks and government from a ‘good of the people’ perspective where they are acting from a ‘good of the fiat paradigm’ perspective. That is why nothing makes sense. Keep up the good work on eliminating debt accumulation; you’re doing a fantastic job!

Make Others Aware and Encourage Similar Action

On its face, the above heading may seem like the tripe that often comes out of futile movements, but as we’ve seen above, in the case of debt, what has happened has actually been working. People need to use every opportunity to make others around them aware of this reality. I understand that much of the contraction of debt accumulation has been forced on people by job loss and/or reduction in earnings. Economic realities often precipitate necessary actions and this is no exception. The key now is to continue the trend. And that will only happen if more individuals and families are recruited and encouraged to join the effort. And it costs nothing to join.

It is sad to think of the millions of Americans that have lived their entire adult lives with the burden of debt hanging like a millstone around their necks. It is even sadder when you begin to realize that much of it wasn’t necessary. I have a saying that I am quite sure someone else came up with, but it is very appropriate. It isn’t what you make, it is what you spend, and in this case what you borrow to spend. It has gotten us in trouble as individuals, as families, as counties, as states, and as a nation. While we might not be able to order Washington and Wall Street to represent us and dispense with this phony monetary paradigm, we can make it difficult if not impossible for them to continue it.

Obviously there are consequences for any course of action. Good ones and bad ones. In the case of debt, the positive consequences are freedom and peace of mind, not to mention saving all that money on interest payments. The negative consequences are that the Fed and USGovt will do their level best to pick up where you left off. Our government will borrow like it has never borrowed before and the Fed will buy more bonds. It might have to buy them all eventually. And so it will proceed until the fiat paradigm ends. It will end. It always has and always will. It is one of the immutable laws of economics given to us by God. As in all prior historical examples, it will not end well. There will be turbulence and dark times. That also is the way of things. Radical change in societies and paradigms never happens quietly. These transitions tend to follow another famous adage that those who play with fire tend to eventually get burned.

There is good news though. While all of this flux continues to transpire, you can do whatever is within your means to positively impact your situation in this regard. This much I will tell you: not only will it feel good and put more money in your pocket, you’ll sleep better at night as a result of it. Please accept my best wishes for a Happy New Year and may you be blessed in your efforts to become debt-free.

Fudge Factor in Trade Data?

For many years now this column has been periodically dedicated to the analysis of economic reports, and the exposure of ‘fudging’ that takes place in most macroeconomic data series. Immediately upon looking at this morning’s trade data it seemed that, once again, something was amiss. It probably jumped out at me because I had just finished a crude oil analysis report for December’s Centsible Investor and the information was still fresh in my mind. However, I am quite sure that I am not the only one who noticed this.

In Exhibit 17 of this morning’s Foreign Trade Report, found on the Census Bureau’s website, the report claimed that the United States imported 9.656 million barrels per day (mbpd) in September of this year. The report goes on to assert that October’s level was 8.209 mbpd. The crude in question sold for an average cost of $72.36, and $74.18 per barrel in September and October respectively. This accounts for a $2.1 Billion decrease in our crude oil import bill from September to October.

FT900 Report - October 2010

This struck me as odd, especially considering the higher relative price and the drastic nature of the drop in imports, so I took a look at the EIA’s (Energy Information Administration) data for the same periods. The EIA reported average (derived from the weekly import numbers) daily imports of crude oil of 9.06 mbpd in September and 8.74 mpbd in October; certainly not the drastic drop purported to have existed in the Census Bureau’s data. The average prices for that oil, according to the EIA, were $71.71 and $75.84 per barrel in September and October respectively. Not a big deal, right? What’s a few cents here and there? Well, it turns out when the numbers are totaled up that, according to the EIA, our oil import bill for September 2010 was $19.49 Billion, and our bill for October was $20.55 Billion, an increase of nearly a billion dollars!

What’s the Big Deal?

Regardless of why this discrepancy exists, it important that it be exposed. We can dispute the validity of data from either group. Obviously the EIA doesn’t actually go out and dipstick every storage tank from sea to shining sea each week. I’ll readily admit that. And the Census Bureau? I’m not sure they could count much of anything at this point since they’ve laid off most of their temporary help (yes, the Census Bureau is actually the subgroup of the Commerce Department that compiles and releases FT900 – the Foreign Trade Report). Perhaps there is a difference in methodologies by the two groups. Again, the reasons aren’t as important as the results.

These discrepancies in reporting are a big deal because of the takeaway messages and bias that the media applies to the data. In this case, the message is clear: The economy is primed for growth and the lower trade deficit will provide the fuel. Here’s a brief sampling…

From Bloomberg…

“It is good news all around. The deficit is down as exports are up, oil imports are down, and nonoil imports rebounded moderately. The overall U.S. trade deficit in October shrank to $38.7 billion from a revised $44.6 billion shortfall the month before…. The decrease in goods imports was led by a $1.7 billion drop in industrial supplies with the crude oil subcomponent down $2.3 billion.”

From MarketWatch… “The U.S. trade deficit narrowed sharply in October, surprising economists and suggesting that the trade sector may make a positive contribution to growth in the fourth quarter for the first time since the final three months of 2009…. The value of U.S. crude-oil imports fell to $18.88 billion in October from $20.96 billion in September despite a rise in the price of a barrel of oil to $74.18 from $72.36 in the previous month. The quantity of crude imports fell to 254.5 million barrels from 289.7 million in September.”

So once again, the average person is confused. They’re hearing that our imported oil bill is decreasing; yet anything they buy that is made from or with oil is going up steadily. Another component in this report that I’ll leave for another time is the food component. A closer look at the data reveals that food price ‘inflation’ contributed quite a bit to the nominal dollar gain in exports in October’s data. This doesn’t purport well for growth anywhere, but is yet another (un)intended consequence of Central Bank quantitative easing.

Crisis or Coup?

As some of the disclosures required by the financial reform bill are made, everyday Americans are starting to figure out what many zealous economy and market watchers have known since 2008: The Fed’s rescue programs weren’t just aimed at domestic banks with Manhattan headquarters. The aid stretched far into the reaches of everyday America, with the recipients of approximately $885 billion in loans still not disclosed.

For those who had not already arrived at this conclusion, it should now be crystal clear: the collapse of 2008 was a mini financial coup d’ etat. The very institutions and individuals charged with the oversight of our financial system were the same people who were helping to blow up asset bubbles and perpetuating cheap, easy credit. I think that it is very important to understand that these folks have been systematically doing the exact same thing to our willing government in the form of debt monetization. In the 1990’s and forward, they sucked in a willing consumer with massive expansion of available credit and sleazy marketing campaigns aimed at convincing people that it was really ok to owe $15,000 on a credit card at 19.9% interest.

The American people and their government both readily embraced the concept of deficit spending and debt accumulation as a viable path to prosperity. The Federal Reserve and its member (owner) banks have been the primary facilitators in this great transition from prosperity to poverty. Its actions in 2008 and 2009 were nothing more than an attempt to snare even more control of the financial system and the economy, while kicking the can down the road just a little further. Banks have gone from their traditional role as financial intermediaries to micromanagers of the economy. And this has all taken place in a little over a generation.

The startling part of what has transpired is that more and more of our economic destiny than ever now falls under the direct control of a panel of unelected and virtually unaccountable banking aristocrats. These bankers made decisions in 2008 not only to shower electronic dollars created from nothing on Wall Street banks, but on international banks, and companies like Harley Davidson, Caterpillar, GE, and Verizon. GE is an easy one since it has a huge exposure to default risk through its banking operations. But what of the rest? These supposedly healthy companies couldn’t make it through a few months of tight credit without running to the Fed for assistance?

Here’s a breakdown of the assistance: The Fed purchased commercial paper (CP) from Harley Davidson 33 times in 2008 and early 2009 for a grand total of $2.3 Billion. It purchased commercial paper from Verizon twice for a total of $1.5 Billion. GE was the big winner at the time, selling to the Fed 12 times for a grand total of $16 Billion. However, the biggest winner of all is Uncle Sam who is has already sold and will continue to sell to the Fed for at least another $600 Billion.

The mere existence of this activity should in and of itself reveal the very phony nature of a fiat paper money system. However, in all the mainstream news articles (many of which are owned by GE incidentally), nobody has bothered to ask where the Fed got the $3.3 Trillion it used to conduct the bailouts.

Fed Balance Sheet

Putting in Perspective

Back in April of this year, Will Hutton of the London Observer wrote:

“The global financial crisis, it is now clear, was caused not just by the bankers’ colossal mismanagement. No, it was due also to the new financial complexity offering up the opportunity for widespread, systemic fraud. Friday’s announcement that the world’s most famous investment bank, Goldman Sachs, is to face civil charges for fraud brought by the American regulator is but the latest of a series of investigations that have been launched, arrests made and charges made against financial institutions around the world. Big Finance in the 21st century turns out to have been Big Fraud. Yet Britain, centre of the world financial system, has not yet leveled charges against any bank; all that we’ve seen is the allegation of a high-level insider dealing ring which, embarrassingly, involves a banker advising the government. We have to live with the fiction that our banks and bankers are whiter than white, and any attempt to investigate them and their institutions will lead to a mass exodus to the mountains of Switzerland. The politicians of the Labour and Tory party alike are Bambis amid the wolves.

Just consider the roll call beyond Goldman Sachs. In Ireland Sean Fitzpatrick, the ex-chair of the Anglo Irish bank – a bank which looks after the Post Office’s financial services – was arrested last month and questioned over alleged fraud. In Iceland last week a dossier assembled by its parliament on the Icelandic banks – huge lenders in Britain – was handed to its public prosecution service. A court-appointed examiner found that collapsed investment bank Lehman knowingly manipulated its balance sheet to make it look stronger than it was – accounts originally audited by the British firm Ernst and Young and given the legal green light by the British firm Linklaters. In Switzerland UBS has been defending itself from the US’s Inland Revenue Service for allegedly running 17,000 offshore accounts to evade tax. Be sure there are more revelations to come – except in saintly Britain.”

Hutton pretty much summed up what most of the sentiment here in the US is: The crisis of 2008 is starting to stink – bad. Remember that, at the time, the Fed assured everyone that it was saving the financial system. How many companies did the Fed end up buying CP from anyway? I don’t think for a minute that we even NOW have the full story on what went on. And that begs the question how many other firms were allowed to languish and become ripe for government takeover. Not to mention the small businesses that didn’t have access to the Fed’s supposed charity. And they still don’t since many are still unable to get credit, except via their small business credit cards and the accompanying astronomical rates. More than two years after the beginning of the credit crunch, this situation has still not been resolved. This is allowed to continue while banks rake in huge profits by skinning fractions of pennies from each other by front-running transactions on the exchanges. The same folks have been amassing huge reserves at the Fed itself. I have been begging people to ask the important questions for two years now: Where did the bailout money go? We now have what at best can be considered a partial answer there. Why is the Fed paying banks to keep reserves at the central bank and incentivizing them to do so by paying interest? This is a very important question given the fact that Bernanke’s talking points have centered on making credit available to small businesses!

There are two main (and possibly more) reasons for this accumulation of reserves. The first is that banks are lying through their teeth and expect further massive losses from bad loans, bad bets, and trillions more in OTC derivative beatings. The second potential reason is that banks (and the Fed) are preparing for a fire sale of the American economy. This is by far the worst of the two scenarios and would fall squarely into the category of a financial coup d’ etat.

OTC Derivatives Return Heroes or Villains?

The bottom line in all of this is that eventually a critical mass is reached and the truth is demanded. Even then, it will be slow to come out, and will be a process. We’re lucky if we know 10% of what went on during the second half of 2008. If we want the rest we’re going to have to fight tooth and nail for it. Above all else the financial establishment is well versed in self-preservation tactics. However, what we do know certainly makes it clear that the survival of the financial ‘system’ was put well ahead of the economy that should be sustaining it. Not the other way around.

My Two Cents – The Great Currency Wars

On 9/18/2009 I wrote an editorial called ‘The Quiet Grab’. It discussed China’s deal cutting on the natural resources front, specifically in the rare earth element and petroleum sectors. The article pointed out that the Chinese were quietly provisioning ready supplies of strategic assets for the turmoil that lay ahead, particularly arising from a disdain and mistrust of paper instruments, especially currencies. With the USFed’s second iteration of quantitative easing now underway, the currency battles are starting to heat up and so is the rhetoric. This week we take a look at the ongoing (and intensifying) currency wars, strategic assets, and why we are behind the proverbial eight ball.

The Return of 1930’s Style Protectionism?

This morning, the head of the World Trade Organization (WTO), General Pascal Lamy, weighed in with that group’s position on currency wars.

Generating employment “is at the heart of the strategy of some countries to keep their currencies undervalued,” Lamy said in New Delhi. “Just as it is also at the heart of other countries’ loose monetary policies.”
Competitive devaluations, which have raised fears of a global currency war, could trigger “tit-for-tat protectionism”, he told a business audience.

What Lamy and most economists and policymakers neither want to acknowledge nor deal with is that their great paradigm of ‘borrow and spend to prosperity’ is broken. His argument that countries like China want to keep currencies cheap to export is absolutely true. His position that the USFed’s decision to try to keep the Dollar cheap is borne out of a desire to ‘stimulate’ the economy is also spot on. Where he misses the boat are on the causes for the current predicament, the very existence of his employer being front and center as a major contributor.

China is the World’s Biggest Wal-Mart

Not only do the Chinese provide the vast majority of the consumer goods on Wal-Mart’s shelves, they’ve stolen a page or two from the mega-retailer’s playbook. Or perhaps Wal-Mart swiped China’s modus operandi, but it really doesn’t matter. China has for years now been flooding the developed world with cheap goods and, with the cooperation of first world politicians, has been driving manufacturing jobs to the Third World. This has been done much in the same way Wal-Mart has destroyed thousands of Mom and Pop stores throughout the nation. They go into an area, undercut local businesses on price, put them out of business and then establish monopoly power. They don’t even need to raise prices once the competition is destroyed. Economies of scale produce sizable profits all on their own.

China is doing much the same thing. This is one of the reasons they have been ready and willing to buy our Treasuries for so long. It provided them with the ability to undergo their very own industrial revolution and establish a bridgehead as the world’s manufacturing power. In the process, how many American industries have fallen by the wayside? Too many to count. And we’re not their only trading partner either. Less than 25% of China’s exports actually made it to North America in 2007. That is a staggering revelation for most people, as we tend to believe that the Chinese somehow ‘need’ us to consume their products.

The Destination of China's Exports

But China has her own problems. Their cheap currency, while enabling significant export gains, has also touched off a wave of domestic inflation, which is being manifested right now in politically sensitive soaring food prices. Americans should take note here.

America’s Ridiculous Demand

Perhaps the most ironic occurrence in the early stages of the currency war is the exhortations by American politicians and central bankers. They are demanding that China allow its currency to appreciate, which would in effect make it easier for American companies to export to China. We do export a significant amount of heavy equipment to China, as does Germany. After all, someone needs to provide the Chinese manufacturing machine with capital equipment.

But there is much more to this than meets the eye and that is where we all need to be paying attention. Think about what Bernanke, and many members of Congress are asking for. When they demand that China allow their currency to appreciate, they are in effect demanding that the Dollar be depreciated. They are saying essentially “Yes Mr. Jiabao; we want the Dollar to be worth less so Mr. and Mrs. America will have to pay more for your imported goods when they go to the store”. This flies totally in the face of the robotic ‘A strong dollar is in the national interest’ phrase uttered by Hank Paulson in what seems to be an eternity ago now.

USD/CNY Pair - Yuan stagnation

In this reality lies the essence of our current problem. We have a choice. Our government is taking a stance that we can create jobs by depreciating the Dollar and somehow that is going to overcome the massive increase in costs of imports. This might work if we weren’t such an import-driven society, but that is certainly not the case. And it isn’t just the Chinese we import from either. Think crude oil and refined gasoline products. At current import rates and oil prices, we import almost $900 Million per day just in petroleum. That is around $27 Billion per month. We’ve seen what the devaluation of the Dollar has done to the jobs picture in just the past five years. Does any person with two brain cells to rub together really expect this nonsense to work?

Strategic Assets Trump Cash?

We are reaching the point where I believe the quiet grab by the Chinese over the past decade in terms of strategic assets is about to pay off. Anyone who runs a manufacturing operation knows that stable input prices and supplies are a key component of that business’ long-term success. Obviously any manufacturing operation built using the petroleum paradigm is going to use plenty of black gold. The same goes for a world that is hooked on handheld gadgets and green technology. Most hybrid owners don’t realize the amount of exploration, provisioning, and drilling/mining that goes into finding the materials necessary to make the high tech components of their vehicles. The same goes for the owners of the vast majority of consumer electronics. We just don’t think about it. The Chinese have. By virtue of their location, they have roughly 95% of the world’s rare earth elements at their disposal. They’ve locked down supplies of crude oil to fuel their manufacturing empire, at least in the short to medium term. Who really thinks the United States is going to win a trade war, a currency war, or any type of economic war with the Chinese at this point?

Given these realities, and how all of these circumstances are woven together, we can already be pretty sure of how the great currency wars will turn out. Those with the advantages will use them and those at a disadvantage with posture, pander, and talk. But in the end, talk is cheap.

A Tale of Two Cities

It certainly looks as though once again insanity has prevailed over common sense. In what has become a recurring theme in our world, particularly from a policy standpoint, the Federal Reserve announced another round of government bond purchases, dubbing the effort ‘QE2’. I wonder if QE2 is any relation to R2D2 from the popular Star Wars series? I think a rather strong argument could be made that the little guy has more common sense than the entire board of Fed governors. All jest aside, however, there are rather serious ramifications to this latest round of pumping; especially since there is no reason to believe the results will be any different than the last effort. Banks and the Government will maintain the status quo while Main Street languishes.

The Government’s Story

The massive borrowing by the US Government has certainly been no secret over the past 2 years. It has been the topic of nearly every political debate or dinner table discussion. Many, myself included, have wondered aloud how long it would be before the Chinese, Japanese, OPEC, and the rest of our creditors would be able to continue to justify buying all our debt, especially considering the awful rates at the long end of the yield curve. There has been a rotation into the shorter end for sure, and many bond players are now speculating on making money on bonds through higher bond prices as opposed to the normal practice of clipping bond coupons. This mentality was on full display recently when a group of geniuses bought roughly $10 Billion worth of 5-Year TIPS at a negative yield.

Foreign Holdings of Treasuries - CFR

Let’s not split hairs here. The Fed has been backdoor monetizing for some time now. There are many different ways they’ve done this such as using currency swaps with the ECB, and other ‘facilities’ in foreign jurisdictions like the UK to make their purchases for them. Notice at around the same time China started cutting back on its exposure that Great Britain, broke as a stone, started ramping up bond purchases. It is a pretty safe bet that this is none other than Mr. Bernanke and Co. at work.

This has been going on and will continue. However, the shift towards overt monetization should tell us that the Fed is stuck and is beginning to panic. The stimulus didn’t work. The last round of asset purchases, totaling nearly $2 Trillion that we know of, only fattened bank balance sheets and did almost nothing to help Main Street. I am inclined to believe that was the whole idea though since the Fed has been incentivizing the banks NOT to expand lending.

In any case, our government requires massive amounts of cash to continue its wayward spending patterns. The Treasury estimates that borrowing this quarter will be in the $362 Billion ballpark. That is a $1.4 Trillion annual clip for those keeping score at home. And now with what appears to be political gridlock in Washington, it hopefully won’t get worse. But of course that also means that it is also rather likely that it will not get better either. Someone is going to need to buy all those fresh Treasury bonds, and the Fed has just openly positioned itself as the buyer of last resort. At least that part of the charade is ending.

The Consumer’s Retrenchment

Another battle going on is the need for retrenchment on the consumer level. This flies directly in the face of stimulating economic growth since much of our ‘growth’ the past few decades has been derived from a service oriented, consumption driven model. The fuel for that growth has been the expansion of consumer credit, so much that consumer credit outstanding and GDP have marched in near lock step since the turn of the century. This tells us that our ‘growth’ has been borrowed, and is in fact, not growth. Throw in the inflation of the early part of this decade and there has been negative growth across the board. The prosperity has been put on plastic and now hangs like a boat anchor around the necks of most Americans. Here are some frightening statistics:

In 2009, the average balance on credit cards held by undergraduates was $3,700, with the average rate being 17.86%.

Among households who have credit card debt, the average debt was $15,788 in 2009.

In 2009, 14% of disposable income went towards servicing credit card debt.

In 2008, 44% of small business owners identified business credit cards as a source of financing, more than any other source of financing including earnings.

On the flip side of the coin, there are certainly some bright spots:

Almost 45% of consumers who had a credit balance said that balance got ‘lower or much lower’ in 2009.This is a signal of at least a partial retrenchment.

Earlier this year, 29% of poll respondents said they did not have a credit card, which was a 10% jump over the same period in 2009.

In a somewhat dated study in July 2008, 37% of consumers said they were using their credit cards less.

Let’s take a look at some of the components of consumer credit. Due to the extremely close correlation with GDP, consumer credit is something I have written about many times. The past few years have seen the ONLY contraction in total credit outstanding since recordkeeping began in 1943.

Total Consumer Credit Outstanding

The only period in the past 67 years that rivaled what has happened since 2008 is the recession of the early 1990s, which saw a gentle stagnation in credit outstanding. Sadly, 1993 was the period in time when the growth in consumer debt began in earnest and marked a crossing of a Rubicon from wage financed consumption to credit financed consumption. The current contraction, which is showing signs of exhaustion, has only clipped 6.49% off the total consumer debt outstanding. While this is significant in that it is unprecedented, it is not enough to substantially decrease the costs of servicing the debt for consumers. Since being bailed out, banks have continued to raise rates on many forms of revolving debt to keep profits steady.

What might be somewhat surprising, however, is who actually HOLDS the consumer debt that remains. We’re able to do some breakdowns in this regard.

Total Bank Credit by Commercial Banks

Commercial banks net on net are in a better position with regards to their holdings than they were before the recession started and the average rate on their cards has increased significantly as well. It is no wonder the banks are profitable again. When you figure the bailouts, higher interest rates, and steady holdings, even the losses from charge-offs and other bad debt procedures, there is still plenty of gravy.

Pricey Plastic

The bottom line here is the impact of policy. It should be obvious now that there have been beneficiaries of the policies of the past decade (or more), and there have been those who have seen little or no benefit. What the above analysis should also tell us is that an economy-cleansing consumer retrenchment still has not taken place. It has also become very clear that the Fed and our government will not allow such a retrenchment to take place. Why do I say this? Because every time consumers refuse to spend more, the government does it for them and the Fed pumps more fiat cash into the banking system to fill the gap. All that said, there is still nothing wrong with cleaning up your own personal balance sheet; you may not be able to teach your government anything, but you’ll certainly sleep better at night.

Intended Consequences?

As was generally expected, this morning’s employment situation report gave another bundle of evidence to suggest that there is in fact no recovery, never was, and that several trillion dollars of ‘stimulus’ has disappeared down a rat hole of greed. In typical fashion, the mainstream press tried yet again to put a positive spin on a negative reality, pointing to the fact that we should rest easy; the Fed is going to buy government bonds to save the day. It is in total wonderment that I listen to these happy expectations and can only guess if these people know what they’re even wishing for. Let’s look at a few examples.

AP Business Writer Stephen Bernard writes:

“High unemployment remains a major hurdle as economic growth continues to be sluggish. The Labor Department’s report, considered the most important on the economic calendar, did little to alter anyone’s perception about the strength of the economy.

While the job growth remains scarce, there could be a silver lining. Expectations are growing that the Federal Reserve will try to stimulate the economy through the purchase of government bonds. The gloomy jobs report could give the Fed more incentive to act.”

While this is certainly true, do we really want the private, non-government Federal Reserve buying more bonds? It is bad enough that the Chinese already own massive portions of our future economic output in the form of Treasury Bond holdings. They own scads of mortgage bonds as well. Does anyone out there feel comfortable about the Chinese holding the note on your house? How about the Fed? Do we really want them owning the notes on any more of our homes? I asserted years ago that the housing bubble was nothing more than a property-grab and all indications are that it has been little more than just that.

Let’s look at another news outlet and their thoughts. Greg Robb at Marketwatch writes:

“There is little in the data to suggest further easing measures aren’t up the Federal Reserve’s sleeve. Prior to the report, economists had said that a strong U.S. payrolls number would be needed to take pressure off the Fed to deliver a second round of quantitative easing.”

Essentially the same pabulum from another ‘independent’ media outlet. The fancy term quantitative easing (QE) must be explained to the masses. We’ll try to sum it up in a few sentences so everyone is clear. QE entails the printing of money. It is what happens when interest rates are already at zero. The Fed cannot reasonably pay people to borrow money (negative interest rates) and expect this charade to continue. So QE is the printing of money, which is then used to buy certain strategic assets such as stocks, bonds, etc in the hopes of goosing markets and giving the Treasury ill-gotten cash with which to continue ‘stimulating’ the economy. QE is, in essence, declaring a fire sale on America, then creating the money from nothing to take advantage of the sale.

To make an analogy, it is kind of like you and I lending a bunch of money to a store, getting the store hooked on easy credit, etc. etc. then when it breaks, walking into the store with a pile of Monopoly money and buying the entire inventory. This is robbery and needs to be called for what it is.

And now, perhaps my favorite, coming from Reuters:

“Expectations the Fed, which has already pumped $1.7 trillion into the economy by buying mortgage-related and government bonds, would announce a second phase of quantitative easing at its Nov. 2-3 meeting have buoyed U.S. stocks and prices for shorter-dated government debt and have undercut the dollar.”

There is QE again. Sounds mighty fancy to the untrained ear, doesn’t it? Notice that even Reuters gives the truth almost as an afterthought. QE, and/or the expectation thereof, has undercut the dollar. That affects Main Street. Wages are stagnant, jobs are very hard to come by, and the Fed is purposely undertaking a course of action that will further squeeze Main Street by driving up the cost of living. While the Fed might get a 9.5 for style points and the fancy terminology, it gets a big, red, F- in terms of stewardship of its two legal mandates: maximum employment and price stability. Round 1 of QE didn’t help and there is no reason to believe that more of the same will do any better.

And how about the recent rally in stocks? Are any of these gains real? Of course not. The dollar is tanking while stocks, Gold, and oil take off. The Fed is trying to rekindle inflationary expectations to artificially pump markets. If they are successful, it will most assuredly be at the expense of the American taxpayer-consumer.

This is the crossroads at which we now stand. The M3 contraction that has been occurring for the entirety of 2010 will either be allowed to continue, which would have a cleansing affect despite the many negative manifestations in the real economy, or the Fed will simply try to overwhelm market forces and fill a $200+ trillion fiscal gap with dumpsters of worthless paper dollars.

So far the Fed et al have proven to be completely unable to perfect the ‘kick the can down the road’ approach. The economy is sliding despite QE and other miscellaneous efforts to this point. Certainly things might be ‘worse’ had they done nothing, but we can certainly make the argument that in this case, the cure is worse than the disease.

Partial Equilibrium Analysis – Part 2

Andrew W. Sutton, MBA

In the first part of this series, we took at a look at Partial Equilibrium (PE) analysis in terms of analyzing a particular good or service rather than macroeconomic aggregates. What PE allows us to do as well is to both qualitatively and quantitatively assess the true effects of taxes and subsidies. We can also answer whether or not taxes and subsidies represent Pareto efficiencies. For our example we chose to look at the area of gasoline taxes. Many state governments are considering increasing gasoline taxes in the face of collapsing tax receipts. Intuitively, it would seem that such measures would be penny-wise and dollar foolish, but let’s use PE and see if that bears out conventional wisdom.

We’re going to also take it a step further and add an externality to our analysis: reserves depletion. Peak oil has been talked about in many forums, including military think tanks, World Bank whitepapers, and countless other places. We’ll take a look at efficiency and how it is affected by the lack of internalization by energy producers and consumers.

The first conclusion that we were able to arrive at last time is the fact that non-intervention (zero taxes / subsidies) market equilibrium are Pareto efficient, that is to say that Total Net Social Benefit (TNSB) is maximized. This fits the criteria for being Pareto efficient since any other combination would result in certain parties being made better off at the expense of other parties.

In the non-intervention equilibrium, there are only two types of surpluses – consumer and producer. There were no other parties involved. Certain economic agents produced the goods, while others consumed them. However, in the situation where there is a tax or subsidy (in this case a proposed tax), the government is now put into the mix and its impact on equilibrium must be studied. When the government collects a tax, it now has a surplus, which otherwise would have accrued to either producers or consumers. We’ll call the government’s new windfall GS.

The bottom line in any tax situation is that consumers are now short GS. In the most simplistic terms, GS could be returned to the consumers and a return to Pareto efficiency would be observed. Obviously GS has not disappeared; it is still available to society. This is where the rhetorical question of who spends your money better comes from.

In the following chart, note that equilibrium is present at Pm and Qm. When the government imposes a tax (let’s insert our proposed gasoline taxes in here), the price of gasoline is shifted to Pc, with producers collecting Pp. The new quantity produced/traded is Qd. This new reality reflects consumers’ lack of willingness to consume at the equilibrium quantity since they’re facing higher prices. It must be noted that elasticity of demand will determine exactly how much less they’re willing to consume, but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that demand and supply are both linear functions.

PE: Total Net Social Benefits

In the situation where the tax is collected, consumers will lose surplus because they are paying more for what is consumed. Producers are losing surplus because they receive less for what they sell. The government generates a surplus because it collected the tax. Let’s take a look at the welfare calculations:

Total Welfare

It is obvious from the welfare analysis that the equilibrium was economically efficient while the new tax equilibrium is not because the total welfare is lower under the tax equilibrium than the market equilibrium. Put another way, the change in total welfare from the new tax is negative, indicating that the tax is not economically efficient. –(E+F) is often referred to as a welfare loss in general economics classes.

Conversely, let’s think about the affect of reducing a tax. Let’s say we reduced the tax by 40%. We’d now see equilibrium re-appear at new price level P(reduced tax) and the new quantity at Q(reduced tax). The new –(E+F) or welfare loss would be considerably smaller than at the original tax level. In this case, the total welfare would have increased from the level of the original tax levy, but would still not be Pareto efficient since it would still be less than market equilibrium.

Welfare Loss created by Pareto Inefficient Tax

Partial Equilibrium with Externalities

Obviously with peak oil on the mind of most people, it pays to take a look at partial equilibrium with a negative externality, namely overproduction, in this instance. In our prior example, we had several classes of surpluses: consumer, producer, and government. Now, we’ll add a fourth economic agent, albeit a non-acting agent, in the form of petroleum reserves. It is important to note up front that we are not in any way trying to estimate the degradation of any specific resources, but merely to show how efficiency towards reserves will be affected by other intransigent policy.

In our example, we’ll label our variables CS, PS, GS, and ES for consumer surplus, producer surplus, government surplus, and externality surplus. The total welfare or TNSB will be the sum of these four surpluses. We can then further deduce that the change in TNSB (?TNSB) will be the sum of the changes of the four surpluses. ?G will merely be (R-S) revenue minus subsidy or spending. ?E will be the change of petroleum reserves.

SD functions with externality

In the above chart MSC represents the marginal social cost, and MPC represents the marginal private cost. The difference here between the MSC and MPC represents the ?ES or depletion of reserves in this case. The case where MSC intersects MSB is the efficient outcome from the standpoint of the depletion externality, and the intersection of MPC and MSB is the market equilibrium. It is fairly obvious in this case that consuming at the market equilibrium entails inefficiency in terms of reserves depletion. Again, any consumption is obviously going to diminish reserves, however, we’re searching for the most efficient mix of production and consumption.

Let’s take a look at total welfare and see what we get in terms of adding this very important externality to the equation.

Welfare Analysis - With Externality

In the case of petroleum, taxes can actually serve to bring MSC and MPC (MC) into line, meaning that in effect, taxes can make actual production equal the optimal from both a cost and depletion perspective. However, too high of a tax will obviously be inefficient as well. In our case, graphically, the tax would need to be precisely the difference between MSC and MPC (MC) in the above chart. This would serve to reduce production and consumption to the point where utilization was optimal.
Let’s look at the total welfare analysis:

Surpluses in the presence of the tax:

Welfare Analysis - Tax Included

Surpluses at market equilibrium:

Welfare Analysis - Tax Removed

Welfare analysis (Sum of changes in all surpluses):

Welfare Analysis - Sum of Surpluses

With the externality in place, less oil is produced, less damage is done to reserves, and TNSB is maximized with a tax equal to the different between MSC and MPC in place.

Summary and Conclusions

Consumers and producers both generally prefer the market equilibrium and, minus externalities, the market equilibrium is the most efficient as measure in Pareto terms. Taxes in such a situation will cause immediate dislocations and will not be efficient. However, in cases where there are externalities, taxes can be useful for bringing the monetary costs and the net social costs into line. We can easily conclude that imposing a gasoline tax merely for the purposes of increasing revenue is inefficient because the intent is not to bring monetary and social costs in line, but rather is arbitrary and capricious in nature. Further analysis could easily glean whether or not the actual taxes collected were efficient or not. The example of using depletion of petroleum reserves is key since taxes can actually help to make our use of this wasting asset more efficient. However, simply applying additional revenue-generating taxes on the purchase, consumption, or the byproducts of oil are not economically efficient, and while they may prolong reserves a bit further, there will be other economic costs that will be greater than the benefits accrued.

References: Primer on PE: R. Wigle, Microeconomics: J. Perloff, Economics and Public Policy: J. Kearl.

Meet the New Goldilocks

Back in the glory days of 2008, the mainstream press, political pundits, and various government officials talked about the idea of the Goldilocks economy. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. Of course the analogy ended when the bears chased Goldilocks out of the cottage. While the same outlets aren’t trotting out the fairy tale this time around, it is clear that the US has hit phase two of the Goldilocks economy and it is my guess that most folks will like this one even less than the first.

And again, there are three major bears that are threatening to once again drive Goldilocks deep into the forest.

Bear #1 – A Jobless Economy

Month after month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases Employment Situation reports that continue to befuddle even the most casual of observers. They have become Newspeak in the truest sense of the word. Take last Friday’s report for example.

BLS reported that 54,000 jobs had been lost in August. The media immediately jumped on the fact that private sector payrolls were up by 67,000 and immediately blamed the entirety of the negative report on the fact that it was only bad because some census workers got laid off. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Back in the spring when the census workers were being hired, it was the same press that counted those temporary jobs as if they were actually created by a recovering economy.

U6 Underutilization Aggregate

But it actually goes a lot deeper than just the 67,000 jobs gained in the private sector. Let’s analyze:

331,000 people became underemployed for economic reasons, meaning that they desired full time work, but were only able to find part time work. 331,000 full-time jobs lost. That takes out total up to 385,000. Left completely uncounted are those folks who lost one full time jobs and managed to find another, but at a much lower wage.

BLS’ CESBD Birth/Death adjustment assumed that 115,000 full-time jobs were created by new businesses in August. This ‘adjustment’ has been a source of great consternation by labor market analysts and real economists for some time now. In what turned out to be a vain attempt at getting a look at the methodology used to derive this number, I contacted BLS and had email communications with no less than a half dozen staff economists in its Continuing Employment Statistics group. Not a single one of them could or would give me any information on how this metric was arrived at other than to point me to the website. At this point, we are left to assume that the Birth/Death adjustment is probably more arbitrary than anything based in reality. So for argument’s sake, let’s back out half of those fictitious jobs. Our total is now at 442,500 full-time jobs lost.

CESDB Adjustments for 2010

Finally, in order to keep pace with demographics, the economy needs to create 150,000 full-time jobs each month just to break even. Creating that many will not result in a reduction in unemployment but is the working equivalent of treading water.

Taking all this into account, August saw a deficit of 592,500 full-time jobs. And this was carried as a ‘good’ report? Former Labor Secy. Robert Reich actually came out and declared the report in its totality to be ‘awful’.

Keep in mind that the mediocre (at best) and lately awful jobs reports are after nearly a trillion dollars in direct stimulus and over another trillion in palliatives by the Fed in the form of purchasing mortgage-backed securities to stimulate the housing/construction sector. This reality alone should serve to underscore how dire the situation is. Unfortunately, this will likely be the status quo moving forward. Meet the new Goldilocks.

Bear #2 – An Unending Bear Market

It has been a cruel twist that the bear market which has been firmly in place since 2007 came precisely as the baby boomers began having serious thoughts about retirement. There have been countless stories of folks who retired in late 2007 or early 2008, either by choice or because they lost jobs and decided to retire, then had their portfolios halved over the next 18 months.

Sure the markets have recovered somewhat, but so many individual investors bailed out at Dow 8000 to 6500 and never got back in for the upswing. This market certainly has many folks perplexed. This is one of the reasons we have focused nearly exclusively on income producing investments, opting to lock in returns in the present rather than gambling on an uncertain future.

What many still have not realized is that the investing paradigm changed in a big way back in the year 2000. Stocks had seen an 18 year Supercycle of solid gains. One could quite literally pin the Sunday business section up on a wall, throw darts blindfolded and have a better than average chance of picking a winning portfolio. Precious metals languished for nearly two decades. That all changed in 2000 and as we entered a new century, we entered a new paradigm. Gold has surged fourfold and change and stocks have gone absolutely nowhere.

10-Year Gold Chart

These Supercycles are generally 16, 18, or 20 years, so at a minimum, the current paradigm has another 6 years to go. Given all the distress in the economy from both a macro and fiscal perspective, it is entirely possible that we’re only halfway through this cycle. That means another 6-10 years of the stock market bear and another 6-10 years of strength in precious metals. At least in this case, there is a silver lining – pun intended.

Bear #3 – Leverage in All the Wrong Places

Perhaps the most ferocious of all the bears set to battle this new, unimproved Goldilocks is leverage or lack thereof. We have heard plenty about the leverage in the banking system and how it has been used to enhance bank and brokerage profits over the past few years. We’ve also talked plenty about how leverage has helped destroy the consumer, which is absolutely true. What is not being talked about, however, is the lack of leverage that we have as a nation in terms of righting the ship.

There have been many calls for the US to reassert itself as the premier manufacturing nation in the world. This would serve the dual purpose of diminishing our reliance on foreign goods as well as helping the unemployment situation by bringing jobs home. While I am a huge advocate of doing exactly this, there are several major problems that need to be dealt with along the way should we as a nation decide to pursue this path.

2010 Trade Deficit

First and foremost is the fact that many American goods are not price competitive with their foreign counterparts simply because of the cost of labor. Placing tariffs on imported goods is an obvious solution proposed by many, but keep in mind the role that just the Chinese have played in keeping our economy afloat over the past decade in particular through vendor financing – the purchase of US debt.

Secondly, shifting manufacturing back to the US would require the rebuilding of the manufacturing infrastructure including the railroads and likely the power distribution grids in many areas as well. This is a huge capital investment and isn’t even on the radar of most policymakers. The mindset isn’t there at this time. For the most part we are content to convert old railways into biking paths instead of trying to figure out how to revive them.

A third area where the US lacks the leverage to reassert herself is in the area of energy. With peak oil on the immediate horizon, we are doing precious little other than burning a lot of corn to prepare for yet another paradigm shift. As long as we’re dependent on foreigners for one of the most important staples of economic growth, we will not be able to affect meaningful changes.

There are other areas as well, but I think the point has been made. A stagnant labor market, lack of individual wealth growth, and a lack of economic and tactical leverage to change key areas are conspiring to create this new Goldilocks economy which will plod along as long as trillions of new dollars are pumped in on a regular basis. Can anyone say unsustainable?

Next week we’ll finish up our analysis of proposed new gasoline taxes from a partial equilibrium perspective.

Partial Equilibrium Analysis – Part I

Published on: 08/30/2010
Categories: Economics, My Two Cents
Comments: No Comments

One of the many tools available to economists and analysts in determining the suitability of fiscal or economic policy is partial equilibrium (PE) analysis. However, many scoff at the notion of using partial equilibrium simply because many of its assumptions are deemed to be too unrealistic. However, for taking a look at the potential benefits (or costs) of a policy such as a tax on a single good, PE is a very valid construct. One of the biggest hot button topics these days in nearly every state is how to raise revenue (rather than cutting costs). One of the traditional cash cows for states is in the form of gasoline taxes. The same goes for the Federal government in this regard. However, as we all know, simply arbitrarily and capriciously taxing a product is not necessarily efficient. In fact it usually isn’t.

Proponents of supplemental gasoline taxes have pointed out that the additional revenue gives the taxing authority resources, which it can use to benefit citizens, increase spending, and generate economic activity. This argument is centered on the belief that government can most efficiently allocate economic resources. Opponents claim that the taxes create an unnecessary and unfair drag on those economic agents (people) who tend to create the most in the way of economic activity. Their argument is based on the belief that the economic agents can allocate resources more efficiently than government.

The goal of this exercise is to assess the efficiency of this go-to, knee-jerk taxing mechanism, and also take a look at the equitability of such taxes. It must be noted before we begin that gasoline is not a true final good since it is used in some instances in the production or provisioning of other final goods and/or services.

Scope of PE Analysis and Assumptions

As a general rule, PE analysis works much better for more specific instances. For example, our exercise of a tax on a single product (a gallon of gasoline) lends itself to PE much better than the government’s proposal of adding a VAT to all products. In the case of the VAT, general equilibrium analysis would be more appropriate.

The following assumptions are used in PE analysis:

• The market under scrutiny is that of a private good. There are no externalities such as imports and/or exports.

• All product and factor markets are perfectly competitive.

• Production shows non-increasing returns of scale (scale economies)

• There is no government intervention

What these assumptions mean is that we can look at the demand curve for gasoline as being equal to the Marginal Social Benefit (MSB) and the supply curve as being equal to the Marginal Social Cost (MSC). By aggregating the individual curves of all economic agents, we can derive the total demand and total supply curves (shown below).

Summing Demand Curves

From this, we can derive the total social benefit (TSB) and total social cost (TSC) for a market by summing the marginal benefits and costs for all units purchase/produced according to the following:

TSB =?MSB(1?Qpurchased)

TSC =?MSC(1?Qproduced)

Before anyone gets too excited about the government intervention and externalities assumptions, these can be backed out of the analysis or mitigated once a baseline has been established.

Interpretation and Pareto Efficiency

For now, it is important to connect supply and demand for a product to the concept of Net Social Benefit/Cost. Really, when you think about it, the validity of any tax or subsidy is whether its benefits outweigh its costs. If we can answer ‘yes’ to that question, then from a strictly economic perspective, it is a valid policy.

One of the measuring sticks used to interpret the results of PE analysis is the concept of Pareto efficiency, which states simply that efficiency exists when all factors are such that one party cannot be made better off without making another party worse off. In other words, our gas tax would be Pareto efficient if it were structured so that its net benefits to government and individuals were equal to or greater than its net costs to other individuals.

It is crucial to note that just because something makes sense economically and is Pareto efficient does NOT make it equitable. There are many instances of taxes and levies that may pass the Pareto efficiency criteria, but you’ll be hard pressed to convince the payers of the tax that it is equitable.

Supply, Demand and Total Net Social Benefits

With the earlier assumptions in place, it is now possible to take a look at the demand function for a particular product, in this case, gasoline, and interpret it as a social benefit. This is important since one of the goals of PE analysis is to create a cost-benefit scenario then make judgments from there. That said if we know each individual’s demand function, it is simple to derive the total demand for that particular good, or in our case, the total social benefit. We can aggregate the supply curves in similar fashion, and derive total social cost. Once we have these two, finding net social benefit is done by:

TNSB = TSB – TSC

where TNSB is total net social benefit, TSB is total social benefit, and TSC is total social cost.

Below, we take a look at a chart with three quantity levels, Q0, Q1, and Q2.Using PE, we will then analyze TNSB at each point.

Marginal Social Cost/Benefit

In traditional general equilibrium analysis, Q1 represents what we would consider equilibrium at P1 (unlabelled). However, using PE, we’re going to take a look at TNSB at each level of Q.

Total Net Social Benefit

Let’s take a look at Q0. The area under the Demand Curve (MSB) is A+B. This represents the TSB for gasoline. The area under the supply curve (MSC) is B. Subtracting TSC from TSB leaves us with a TNSB of A. Following the methodology for Q1, we get a TNSB of A+C, which is obviously more optimal than that of Q0. In this case, the highest TNSB occurs at the market equilibrium Q1.

Another Look at Market Efficiency

For comparative purposes, let’s take a look at another example and examine the various surpluses that arise and what that means for equilibrium:

Market Equilibrium

It is also relatively easy to see how we can look at the surpluses generated at the different levels of Q and assign these surpluses to either producers or consumers. Looking at the above market equilibrium chart, we can see that the consumer’s surplus in this case is the value of purchases to consumers (total benefits) minus the cost paid. Consumers received value of ABC, and paid BC, leaving the consumer surplus of A. The producer surplus equals total payments received (B+C) minus the opportunity cost of the production of the goods (C), leaving the producer surplus at B. The TNSB of this situation is the sum of the producer and consumer surpluses (A+B). It is important to note that:

• Market equilibrium requires MSB=MSC,

• Supply equals Demand, and

• Assuming no externalities, market equilibrium represents a Pareto optimum (as illustrated above).

In the next installment we’ll apply the concept of PE analysis to the notion of an additional tax on each gallon of gasoline sold and determine if in fact this would represent market efficiency.

References: Primer on PE: R. Wigle, Microeconomics: J. Perloff.

« page 3 of 9 »

Welcome , today is Saturday, 02/11/2012