Hera : SEC

The Unholy Alliance of John Maynard Keynes

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 20:03:00 GMT

Perhaps the greatest modern champion of central economic planning was the 20th century English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes, who was a political socialist and for a time a central banker, advocated the idea that the government should play a large, active role in the economy. Among the consequences of Keynes' economic theories, whether intended or unintended, is the fact that Western economies today are characterized by large, central governments, central banks and massive debts.

According to Dr. Andrew Gelman, Professor of Statistics and Political Science at Columbia University, "the law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple. It operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society, in contrast, is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences." Professor Gelman's statement seems equally apropos to central banking.

Government policies based on Keynesian theories and the institution of central banking form a nexus of central economic planning. Control of the central planning process is a winner-take-all proposition for businesses. In the U.S., the result is an unholy alliance of the U.S. federal government, the Federal Reserve (along with the largest U.S. banks) and the largest U.S. corporations. The logical chain beginning with Keynes' fundamental idea that government, supported by a central bank, should play a large and active role in the economy sets the stage for a centrally planned economy and ultimately produces a corporate state.

The U.S. economy is locked in a downward spiral of economic decline. By growing in size, and by engaging in ever larger economic interventions, the U.S. federal government became itself a material cause of the recession that began in 2007. By attempting to grow the economy through monetary expansion, i.e., consumer spending fueled by debt, the Federal Reserve destroyed savings and fueled a series of disastrous economic bubbles, culminating in the housing bubble. At the same time, the largest U.S. banks engaged in reckless lending and high-stakes gambling on hundreds of trillions in over the counter (OTC) derivatives. OTC derivatives, which amount to risky, largely un-backed wagers, were the root cause of the "too big to fail" doctrine that has virtually bankrupted Western governments since 2008. By seeking ever greater influence over Washington D.C. and by seeking to generate higher profits by cutting production in the U.S., the largest U.S. corporations undermined the U.S. market and economy. The U.S. federal government did virtually nothing to prevent the destructive developments because of the influence of the largest U.S. corporations.

Following Keynesian economic theories, the policy response of the U.S. federal government to the recession that began in 2007 and of the financial crisis that began in 2008 was to expand the government further and at a more rapid pace. In other words, some of the root causes of the economic imbalances that lead to the recession and financial crisis (the relative size of the government and the resulting economic distortions) were compounded. As a consequence, the so-called "double dip recession" in the U.S. that began in the second half of 2011 will be longer and ultimately more severe than the economic downturn of 2007-2009.

The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) indicates international shipping returning to crisis levels. Since the U.S. is the world's largest economy and has a large trade deficit, the BDI suggests that the U.S. is in a recession.

Leviathan: The Size of the State

Originally a sea monster referred to in the Bible and, in demonology, one of the seven princes of Hell, as well as its gatekeeper, the name Leviathan was adopted by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes to refer to an artificial political order, i.e., to the institution of the state. Hobbes was concerned with the distinction between individual rights and the powers of sovereign governments and he elaborated the idea of the social contract. When a government taxes its citizens, it implicitly asserts the right of the government over the property rights of individuals and presupposes that the government can make better use of economic resources than households, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and private investors.

In theory, the government's use of economic resources accomplishes goals that privately owned businesses cannot, such as national defense or emergency response services, i.e., things that, by their nature, are not economically productive or profitable but still necessary for society. In contrast, embarking upon idealistic projects such as "creating jobs" or "expanding home ownership" encroaches on the productive elements of the economy. However, governments are inefficient compared to privately owned businesses due to the absence of competition. Further, the record of history suggests an inability on the part of central planners to make superior economic decisions.

Government encroachment on the private sector, like a self fulfilling prophecy, often magnifies the reasons why government intervention was originally believed to be necessary. For example, when the U.S. federal government became involved in education through federally guaranteed student loans, the result was that the cost of a college education rose towards the limit of what students could borrow and repay during their careers simply because the loans were guaranteed by the government. The guarantees produced more and riskier loans, larger loans and higher education costs.

When the U.S. federal government promoted home ownership for minorities and the poor, mortgage loan guarantees resulted in higher home prices and contributed to the sub-prime lending debacle where banks originated loans to unqualified borrowers in order to sell them to government sponsored entities (GSEs), i.e., to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to investors as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other mortgage backed securities (MBS).

Banks were certainly to blame for knowingly making bad loans, which is fraud, but the conditions that made the problem possible existed substantially because of government intervention in the housing market, i.e., opening the door to fraud was an unintended consequence of policies intended to increase lending to unqualified, low income borrowers. Of course, the U.S. federal government did not compel lenders to commit fraud, thus accountability for the U.S. mortgage disaster is shared by the federal government, which interfered with the free market, pursued misguided policies and failed in terms of regulatory oversight and law enforcement, and by banks, which engaged in widespread mortgage related fraud.

Governments redistribute wealth and manipulate economic activity through taxes, subsidies, guarantees, regulations and so forth, but they do not produce new wealth. Government spending may be for good purposes, or at least stem from good intentions, but it unavoidably favors businesses with close ties to the government over those that are taxed but that do not benefit. Despite the theoretically higher moral purposes of lofty government undertakings, government programs that overlap the private sector divert economic resources to businesses that have the favor of politicians minus the cost of government, thus producing economic distortions and a net loss of wealth for society.

The Rahn curve is an economic theory proposing that there is an optimal level of government spending, 15% to 25% of gross domestic product (GDP), to maximize economic growth. As the government grows larger, economic growth is curtailed and, eventually, the economy contracts, crushed under the burden of government. As the government grows in size relative to the economy, not only is economic growth compromised, but the potential for, and the cost of, government waste, fraud and abuse increases.

How the Government Destroys Jobs

While politicians extol the theoretical benefits of ever more government control of the economy, e.g., through increased regulation, from the standpoint of individual entrepreneurs, businesses and private investors, the government is a nuisance, an impediment to wealth creation, and the source of countless costs and risks. The larger the government becomes relative to the size of the economy, the more it tends to discourage economic activity. Although roughly 70% of U.S. jobs are created by small businesses, ranging from family owned businesses to high technology startups, the burden of government falls disproportionately on them because they have fewer resources with which to administer and to demonstrate compliance with government regulations.

When large companies are audited or investigated by any of several government agencies, their accounting, legal and compliance departments are well equipped to deal with such matters. However, when a small company faces the same hurdles or seeks government permits, licenses or certifications, its operations are directly impacted and the associated accounting, legal and regulatory compliance costs can cause the business to lose money or to fail. In the event of an audit or investigation, small business owners in the U.S. generally seek to comply immediately and often pay fines or penalties without contest in order to end the government's interference. While large companies can afford to dispute the government, small businesses face the equivalent of extortion.

As a practical matter, small businesses in the U.S. are permitted to operate at the sole discretion of government bureaucrats that can effectively shut down small businesses without any evidence of wrongdoing. Setting aside the fact that small business owners live in constant and well justified fear of their own government, the result is a stifling of economic activity and a net loss of jobs. For example, traditional small businesses in the U.S., i.e., sole proprietorships, increasingly avoid hiring employees.

Free market competition and the inherent uncertainty of economic conditions provide ample risk for startup businesses. A disproportionately large government relative to the size of the economy damages economic activity and discourages investment in new businesses. The aggregate overhead of government regulations and regulatory compliance, along with taxes and potential penalties, e.g., the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), increases business costs, amplifies business risks and further increases the burden of regulatory compliance. The result of systematically increasing the costs and risks of doing business-in lock step with the size of government-is to reduce the rate of business formation and to encourage investors to look elsewhere to find returns.

If the U.S. government, currently almost 45% of GDP, desired to create jobs, the correct policy would be to greatly reduce the countless regulations, taxes and fees that encumber small businesses. The path to job creation is for the government to reduce job destruction. Since no political will to reduce the size of the government exists, however, continued shrinking real GDP and permanent workforce reduction can be expected.

Money Out of Thin Air

Central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, are examples of central economic planning, i.e., they control the money supply and exercise centralized control over the value and cost of money through interest rates, bank reserve ratios, monetary inflation and by other means. In contrast to the government's central planning for the putative public good, the Federal Reserve engages in central planning for the benefit of banks. Like the U.S. federal government, the Federal Reserve, through monetary mechanisms, distorts spending and investment patterns, redistributes wealth and preempts the financial and economic decisions of households, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and private investors.

When a central bank increases the money supply beyond the level necessary to support a sustainable economy or population growth, it destroys the value of savings and wages by diluting the value of money and causing prices to rise. Wall Street embraces the Federal Reserve because easy monetary policies provide an inexpensive way to finance operations and to expand, but there is a cost. Inflationary monetary policies favor speculators over savers and debt over genuine capital formation.

Banks do not create wealth. The structure of the financial system, where debt-based money is created ex nihilo, virtually guarantees banks a piece of the action whenever wealth is created. When debt service (principal and interest payments) is attached to the income streams of consumers and businesses, excess production is diverted from capital formation into the coffers of banks. The Federal Reserve, therefore, is at the core of a system where, over time, wealth accrues to banks while capital formation is reduced, ironically increasing the need to borrow. The majority of entrepreneurs and businesses have little choice but to borrow and, even if they are successful, the economy as a whole may still suffer due to increased debt levels relative to GDP.

Keynesians embrace the Federal Reserve's un-backed, fiat money because it permits the government to borrow and spend freely based on the theory that stimulating the economy through deficit spending produces economic growth at a faster pace than debt accumulates. However, as a function of debt service, the number of dollars that must be borrowed and spent to generate each new dollar of GDP becomes larger as the total amount of debt grows.

The result is debt saturation where further debt funded increases in GDP are impossible and where, therefore, existing government debt cannot be retired, i.e., the result of Keynes' theory, taken to an extreme, is government insolvency and sovereign default. Default, of course, can take the form of monetary inflation in order to debase the currency and reduce the real value of debt, e.g., the Federal Reserve's monetary easing and continued accommodative monetary policy.

Keynes and The Corporate State

The U.S. economy is anything but a free market today. In fact, the U.S. government increasingly resembles an oligarchy in which the oligarchs are large corporations, i.e., a "corporatocracy". Thus, the illegitimate offspring of the grand government envisaged by Keynes and the institution of central banking is a corporate state.

Without a large government, businesses have little incentive to influence it, but with the government (local, state and federal) representing nearly half of the U.S. economy, influencing the government is a mission-critical objective for every company. The size of government implied by Keynesian economics provides motive and opportunity but only the largest corporations have the means to succeed.

The goals of businesses seeking to influence the government include winning government business, mandating consumption of products and services (from child car seats to health insurance), avoiding taxes, guaranteeing profits, creating regulatory loopholes, protecting markets, eliminating competition, socializing losses and so forth.

Obama		Romney
Citigroup Inc	$736,771	Citigroup Inc	$57,050
Columbia University	$547,852	Bain & Co	$52,500
General Electric	$529,855	Bain Capital	$74,500
Goldman Sachs	$1,013,091	Goldman Sachs	$367,200
Google Inc	$814,540	Bank of America	$126,500
Harvard University	$878,164	Barclays	$157,750
IBM Corp	$532,372	Blackstone Group	$59,800
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$808,799	JPMorgan Chase & Co	$112,250
Latham & Watkins	$503,295	Credit Suisse Group	$203,750
Microsoft Corp	$852,167	EMC Corp	$117,300
Morgan Stanley	$512,232	Morgan Stanley	$199,800
National Amusements Inc	$563,798	HIG Capital	$186,500
Sidley Austin LLP	$600,298	Kirkland & Ellis	$132,100
Skadden, Arps et al	$543,539	Marriott International	$79,837
Stanford University	$595,716	PriceWaterhouseCoopers	$118,250
Time Warner	$624,618	Sullivan & Cromwell	$79,250
UBS AG	$532,674	UBS AG	$73,750
University of California	$1,648,685	The Villages	$97,500
US Government	$513,308	Vivint Inc	$80,750
WilmerHale LLP	$550,668	Wells Fargo	$61,500
Total Primary Dealers:	$3,603,567	Total Primary Dealers:	$810,050
Political campaign contributions indicating U.S. Federal Reserve Primary Dealers (Source: opensecrets.org)

The influence of Wall Street over Washington D.C. through political campaign contributions, corporate lobbyists and revolving doors (where the same individuals alternate between closely linked private sector jobs and government posts) is almost absolute. Lobbyists are intimately involved in writing legislation that is often rubberstamped by the U.S. Congress, i.e., passed without reading or meaningful debate. The largest corporations support political candidates through campaign contributions and by funding political action committees that, among other things, use corporate public relations tools for political purposes, i.e., propaganda. Key government posts are consistently held by individuals with clear conflicts of interest and the existence of such conflicts is routinely ignored.

The current reality of the United States is that the largest corporations have hijacked the Keynesian central planning powers of the federal government and have used these powers to encourage ever larger and more direct interventions in the economy for their own benefit, as well as laws and regulations that serve as a barrier to free market competition. U.S. regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appear to have been captured by the industries they are intended to regulate. Government regulators selectively enforce regulations, often against small businesses and growing companies, such as organic dairy farmers, protecting the interests of the largest corporations from small businesses, free market competition and consumer choice.

The largest U.S. corporations (including oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron; drug companies like Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline; agribusiness companies like Archer Daniels Midland, which are heavily subsidized by the U.S. federal government; agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto; military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon and General Dynamics; and banks like Bank of America, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) have not only been the beneficiaries of government expansion, deficit spending and central economic planning, but, considering political campaign funding practices, have become the de facto oligarchs of America.

Sliding Into the Keynesian Abyss

The decline of the U.S. economy is the logical outcome of Keynesian economics, which enshrines central economic planning and embraces central banking. The unholy alliance of the federal government, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street has all but eliminated capitalism and has transformed the United States from a burgeoning free market economy into a failing corporate state.

The U.S. federal government, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street each played a role in the progression from central economic planning and central banking to a corporate state. Politicians used Keynesian economics to justify big government, a welfare state and budget deficits. The Federal Reserve sought to grow the economy through monetary expansion, focusing on consumption but ignoring debt levels and inadvertently encouraging financial speculation. At the same time, Wall Street sought higher profits both by eliminating production (and jobs) in the U.S. and by sparing no expense to influence the government. The resulting corporate state undermined capitalism and the free market in the United States and produced a downward spiral of economic decline from which there is no escape without fundamental reforms.

Keith Neumeyer: The Silver Market Lacks Integrity

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:59:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter (HRN) is pleased to present an incredibly powerful interview with Keith Neumeyer, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of First Majestic Silver Corp. (TSX:FR / NYSE:AG). Mr. Neumeyer began his career at the Vancouver Stock Exchange and worked in the investment community for 26 years beginning his career in a series of Canadian national brokerage firms including McLeod Young Weir (now Scotia McLeod), then Richardson Greenshields and then Walwyn Stogell McCuthchen (which became Midland Walwyn).

Mr. Neumeyer moved on to work with several publically traded companies in the natural resource and high technology sectors. His roles have included senior management positions and directorships in the areas of finance, business development, strategic planning and corporate restructuring. Mr. Neumeyer, who has listed a number of companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange, has extensive experience dealing with financial, regulatory, legal and accounting issues.

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for joining us today. Let's begin by talking about silver supply and demand.

Keith Neumeyer: Silver mine production was around 736 million ounces in 2010. Demand was around 1 billion ounces. Scrap silver recycling and some government sales filled the gap. We're at historic lows in terms of above ground silver. Eric Sprott recently said there are 1 billion ounces of triple nine silver left aboveground. Unlike gold, silver gets used. We're at historic highs in supply when it comes to gold, but the exact opposite is true for silver.

HRN: Is there a deficit in terms of mine supply?

Keith Neumeyer: We've had a supply deficit for the past 13 years. 2009 was the first year we created equilibrium. We only went into a surplus in 2010, in terms of industrial and jewelry fabrication demand. The surplus mine supply was purchased by investors, obviously. A lot of mining companies are showing lower production because a lot of silver comes from base metals and, with lower base metals prices, it's becoming more difficult. I don't see any major supply drivers for silver in the next several years.

HRN: Do you expect more scrap silver to enter the market?

Keith Neumeyer: That's what happened in 2009 when gold rallied over $1,200 and then corrected to below $1,100. It was primarily caused by scrap gold entering the market. I believe the same thing was happening for silver. We'll see that again as the metals make new highs. It's the same as a stock. You replace part of the shareholder base at different levels.

HRN: Are you optimistic about future demand?

Keith Neumeyer: Yes, I've been optimistic about silver since 2002 because silver is a strategic metal. I think it's more important than gold.

HRN: Are there new applications that could increase demand?

Keith Neumeyer: We're seeing all kinds of new applications. A recent report by Barclays forecast that 120 million ounces of silver will be used for solar power generation in 2012 versus 40 million ounces in 2009. The battery industry is growing as well. Zinc-silver batteries provide very stable capacity-their output doesn't degrade like lithium batteries-and they deliver 40% more energy compared to nickel metal-hydride batteries. They're safer than water-based chemical batteries because they don't heat up or explode. They're also mercury free and 95% recyclable. Lithium-ion batteries in cell phones, for example, need to be replaced after 12 to 18 months. I'm very optimistic about battery technology. There are also robotics and other applications on the horizon.

HRN: What's your long term price target for silver?

Keith Neumeyer: Silver will reach a value based on its natural ratio of 15:1 with gold. I expect to see at least $2,000 gold and most likely $3,000 in the next 3 to 5 years, so silver will be between $130 and $200. It's a big number from where we are today but that's where I think we're headed. We're dealing with a market that needs to be corrected.

HRN: Isn't the price of silver set by supply and demand?

Keith Neumeyer: I don't think supply and demand has anything to do with the price, unfortunately. The world we live in today is a paper environment where silver is priced by financial circumstances. Banks, traders and investors around the world move markets to where they want them to be. Governments and commercials-big banks like HSBC and JP Morgan-all have a piece of the action. They alternately work together or sometimes against each other. All these forces price the metal. That's one reason we're seeing the volatility that we're seeing today.

HRN: How can supply and demand be irrelevant?

Keith Neumeyer: In short term trading, the price is financially driven. Eventually, markets do correct themselves over time. In the long run, supply and demand does have influence. That's why the price will ultimately return to its natural ratio of 15:1.

HRN: How is the price of silver financially driven?

Keith Neumeyer: It has to do with the financial instruments that we trade in and with the fact that silver trades a billion ounces per day on the COMEX alone when there are 26 to 30 million ounces of silver available for delivery. With that kind of leverage, you just don't have a proper market.

HRN: It has been reported that there are 100 ounces under contract for every ounce in the COMEX warehouse.

Keith Neumeyer: The governments, regulators and bullion banks have let the silver market get more and more leveraged. We've seen a lot of wealth destruction as a result of this leverage and we're going to see a lot more until, finally, the governments decide to change the system.

HRN: Isn't the COMEX guaranteeing market integrity, by raising margins, for example?

Keith Neumeyer: I don't buy the argument on margin hikes at all.

HRN: Don't margin hikes prevent dangerous asset price bubbles?

Keith Neumeyer: It's not up to them to decide what is parabolic. They're not investors themselves. They don't have money in the market. They decide a bubble is going to happen if they don't raise margins but no one knows when a bubble is forming. It is only apparent after it's already happened. By hiking the margins, they create the appearance of a bubble bursting. They create the bubble. They create the proof that it was a bubble. If they let it alone, the market would stabilize by itself.

HRN: What should the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) do?

Keith Neumeyer: The job of the regulators is to protect the retail investor. That's their only job. It's not to protect the banks or the brokerage firms. The little guy is the primary taxpayer. Why were the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC put in place? They were put in place to protect retail investors. Prior to regulation, the banks controlled the market. Today, the banks control the market again. Who should control the market? Retail investors. Who's protecting them? No one.

HRN: Are you saying that the CFTC does nothing while the COMEX caters to banks and brokerage firms?

Keith Neumeyer: Yes.

HRN: And the COMEX doesn't serve retail investors?

Keith Neumeyer: No. Absolutely not.

HRN: Do you foresee a return to a free market in the future?

Keith Neumeyer: I'm an optimist. I believe one day that governments will rewrite the rules and force the regulators to protect investors. That's where we were back in the '70s and that's where I think we have to be again to correct the problems that have arisen over the past 40 years. Silver is being revalued. It's going to affect a lot of people along the way and it will change the financial system. Ultimately, we're going to have a new financial system and, hopefully, we'll go back to natural markets, completely driven by supply and demand. It may take another 20 years but I think it will happen.

HRN: A new financial system?

Keith Neumeyer: If I'm wrong, the banks will run the world, even more so than they do today, 10 or 20 years from now. God forbid that we ever get there because that's a one currency, one government world that would absolutely be a disaster for the human race. There would be no freedoms at all to move or to invest. It would be like having shackles on our ankles. There is a movement to go in that direction, unfortunately. There are a number of very wealthy people that want to see that. I hope that we can find the politicians to prevent that type of world from coming to pass.

HRN: Thank you for your time and for your candor.

Keith Neumeyer: It was a pleasure.

After Words

Keith Neumeyer, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of First Majestic Silver Corp. (TSX:FR / NYSE:AG) is an industry leader who analyzes the silver market with the gloves off. In the wake of the failure of commodities trading firm MF Global, Mr. Neumeyer's lack of confidence in the CFTC and in the integrity of the COMEX appears to be justified.

First Majestic Silver, which is one of a small number of primary silver producers, has consistently increased its production, cash margins and mineral resources while lowering production costs. With three operating mines and a fourth mine under construction, the company is growing steadily from a junior producer to a mid-tier producer that expects to produce 10 million ounces of silver in 2012.

Editor's Note: Hera Research, LLC or its Directors are shareholders in First Majestic Silver Corp.

How the U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 2)

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:50:00 GMT

The United States is quickly coming to resemble a post industrial neo-3rd-world country. Unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling real wages and household incomes, growing poverty and increasing concentration of wealth are major trends in the U.S. today. Behind these growing problems are monetary inflation created by the Federal Reserve's monetary policies, federal government deficit spending and the dominant influence of "too big to fail" banks and large corporations in Washington D.C., which has altered the direction of law in the United States. To make matters worse, the U.S. government faces a historic fiscal crisis.

High unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, low wages, widespread poverty, extreme concentration of wealth, unsustainable government debt, control of the government by international banks and multinational corporations, weak rule of law and counterproductive policies are defining characteristics of 3rd world countries. Other factors include poor public health, nutrition and education, as well as lack of infrastructure-factors that deteriorate rapidly in a failing economy.

Apparently ineffective regulation and relatively little law enforcement action by the federal government in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown resulted in widespread speculation that special interests had taken priority over the rule of law. Critics have also charged that the federal government's policies threaten to eliminate what remains of the American middle class.

Accelerating Concentration of Wealth

In response to the economic downturn that began in 2007 and the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the U.S. federal government and the Federal Reserve resorted to a radically inflationary policy intended to save banks and to shepherd the U.S. economy through a recession. Instead, radically inflationary policies greatly increased the concentration of wealth.

Under ordinary circumstances, monetary inflation has the effect of redistributing wealth in favor of those who receive newly created money first. The value of money is reduced as a function of the number of currency units in the economy but recipients of newly created money can spend it before it loses value. In a declining economy, however, the wealth redistribution effects of inflation are magnified.

When the Federal Reserve or the federal government supports banks and financial markets through liquidity injections, bailouts, asset purchases, quantitative easing, etc., the lion's share of financial support, i.e., newly created money, is captured by the largest financial institutions and by the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Money printing skews the distribution of money over the economy while the value of money, i.e., the purchasing power of wages and savings, is reduced. The overall effect is a wealth transfer from proverbial Main Street to literal Wall Street.

Looming Fiscal Crisis

U.S. government debt and deficit spending have markedly accelerated over the past decade. For example, The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created and the U.S. military grew to 3 million active duty and reserve personnel, not including contractors. Since 2001, the U.S. spent approximately $1 trillion on military expansion while the total cost of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been estimated to exceed $3.7 trillion.

Although the U.S. federal government remains in denial, the Congressional debt ceiling debate and subsequent U.S. credit rating downgrade on August 5, 2011 were only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the United States faces a historic fiscal crisis.

As of 2012, the majority of new federal government debt will stem from interest on existing debt. Treasury bond issues totaled $2.55 trillion in 2010, roughly 2x the federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Artificially low U.S. Treasury bond yields, created by the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing (QE1 and QE2) programs and by its current "Operation Twist," only slow the rate at which the federal debt balloons.

The U.S. federal government's fast growing debt is $14.94 trillion, approximately 100% of GDP. Additionally, future liabilities total $66.6 trillion based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP accounting) and using official data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and from the audited financial report of the federal government.

Medicare: $24.8 trillion
Social Security: $21.4 trillion
Federal debt: $10.2 trillion* (not including intra-governmental obligations)
State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion
Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion
Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

The eventual insolvency of the U.S. federal government cannot be averted through any combination of taxes, budget cuts or realistic GDP growth. Inflationary policies, i.e., increasing deficit spending by the federal government and debt monetization by the Federal Reserve, would devalue the U.S. dollar and potentially trigger a hyperinflationary collapse of the currency. To stave off the inevitable, interim measures might include tax increases, exchange controls, nationalization of pension funds or other measures similar to those taken in 3rd world countries.

Dominant Corporate Influence

In a 2009 radio interview on Elmhurst, Illinois' WJJG 1530 AM, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) explained that "...the banks-hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created-are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." Senator Durbin was unequivocal in saying that the federal government of the United States is controlled by banks. Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had reached the same conclusion one month earlier in his widely read article The Quiet Coup. Johnson explained that the finance industry had effectively captured the U.S. government, a state of affairs typical of 3rd world countries.

Corporate influence over the political process, as well as over the tax and regulatory policies of the United States, is at an all time high. The federal government is the largest single customer in the U.S. economy and, through taxation or regulation, the government can grant or deny market access to private companies and can either prevent or mandate the consumption of their products and services. As a result, virtually every large corporation in the United States seeks to win the government's business and to steer government tax policies and regulations in their favor. Naturally, politicians who accede to the wishes of particular corporations are given campaign funds to ensure their reelection. In the past decade, the amount of money spent on lobbying has more than doubled and there are currently 24 lobbyists for every 1 member of Congress.

The interdependence of elected officials and the largest U.S. corporations reached a new high with the 2008 bank bailouts. The influence of private corporations and de facto industrial cartels (comprising the largest corporations in each major industry) over tax and regulatory policies creates significant economic distortions that ultimately compromise the sustainability and the stability of the economy. Ideally, the government would be an impartial referee, rather than an active business partner that overwhelmingly favors large businesses over small businesses, despite the fact that small businesses account for the vast majority of American jobs.

Impact on the Rule of Law

Corruption, cronyism and weak rule of law are typical of 3rd world countries. The United States exhibits a clear corporate influence over elections and legislation and, arguably, relatively little law enforcement action where large, legally well-equipped corporations are concerned. Reports of so-called crony capitalism have appeared in the U.S. news media, but the term "corruption" has been avoided, along with discussion of fundamental reforms.

A cursory examination of legal developments over roughly the past decade evidences a pattern in which U.S. federal law systematically favors the largest financial institutions, as well as a paradigm in which financial institutions heavily influence both the regulations that putatively govern their activities and the laws that apply to consumers of their products and services. The financial crisis that began in 2008 and the subsequent response of the federal government appear to follow logically from prior legislative events:

1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). The Act repealed key provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act prevented depository institutions from engaging in high risk financial speculation.
2000 The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA). The Act deregulated over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, such as credit default swaps, referred to by Warren Buffett as "financial weapons of mass destruction." OTC derivatives were at the heart of the financial crisis that began in 2008 and are the root cause of the "too big to fail" doctrine. The Act preempted state gaming laws that had prevented banks from speculating in OTC derivatives with no connection to underlying assets.
2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The financial provisions of the Act allow banks to collect additional financial information about account holders, for example, linking business accounts to the personal financial records of business owners, thus weakening both financial privacy and the corporate veil. The Act enhances the ability of creditors to collect and allows federal authorities to monitor financial transactions and to obtain financial records without a subpoena.
2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). The Act, which was sponsored by banks and credit card companies, effectively eliminated the concept of a "fresh start" by allowing banks and credit card companies to engage in collections activities, in effect, forever. As a result, small business owners who end in bankruptcy are less likely to ever start another business. The Act places banks in front of bankruptcy courts, creates liabilities for bankruptcy attorneys and contains many widely criticized, anti-consumer provisions.
2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The Act, commonly referred to as a "bank bailout," authorized the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Instead, the funds were given to foreign and domestic banks to offset their risky MBS, OTC derivatives and other losses. The bank bailout set a precedent of socializing losses but keeping gains private. The Act effectively bound the fate of the U.S. Treasury to that of the largest U.S. financial institutions.
2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling prior case law and guaranteeing the ability of corporations to influence elections without meaningful restrictions. The Court's decision gave carte blanche to corporations to influence elections, legitimized the interdependence of elected officials and large corporations and created a precedent under which the rights of corporations supersede those of citizens.
2010 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act failed to restore critical provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, significantly regulate OTC derivatives, break up "too big to fail" banks, prevent another financial crisis and prevent further bailouts. The Act created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but did not repeal any provision of BAPCPA or restore the financial privacy of U.S. citizens removed by the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act failed to provide adequate funding to the government's watchdogs, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), potentially hobbling enforcement. The Act has also been criticized for the burden it places on smaller competitors in the financial sector, which could ultimately result in an increased concentration of financial power in "too big to fail" banks.

Critics have alleged that, underlying the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that triggered the financial crisis in 2008 was rampant fraud. Fraud has been alleged at virtually every level from the assessment of property values and credit risk; to the loans themselves and to their securitization as MBS assets; to the ratings of MBS assets as AAA; to hedging or betting against MBS assets in the OTC derivatives market (perhaps including financial firms allegedly betting against MBS assets that they themselves created and sold to clients as AAA assets). After the crisis, a seeming pattern of fraud continued apparently unabated in the robo-signing foreclosure scandal where documents submitted to courts were falsified. Despite an avalanche of alleged crimes under existing federal law, no firm or individual of any significance in the financial crisis has yet been prosecuted.

President Barack Obama said in October 2011 that the mortgage finance practices leading to the economic meltdown were "immoral, inappropriate and reckless ... but not necessarily illegal." Since fraud is, in fact, illegal, critics claim that the U.S. federal government has simply failed to enforce the law. Adding fuel to the fire, the Solyndra loan scandal could be construed to suggest corruption at high levels and the MF Global debacle could be construed as indicative of weak regulation and law enforcement and even of questionable market integrity.

In theory, selective enforcement of the law risks the creation of two sets of laws: one for big banks and corporations, and for their executives, i.e., those with connections in Washington D.C. or on Wall Street, and one for everyone else. Among other things, failure to enforce the law could create an environment in which crime pays, but, for ordinary citizens, hard work, prudent financial decision making, saving and investing for the long term do not.

More than any other aspect of America's progression towards 3rd world status, the federal government's low level of law enforcement action where "too big to fail" banks are concerned is perhaps the most insidious because it raises questions of legitimacy and of the social contract. A financial and legal system of moral hazard implies that victims face double jeopardy while they are deprived of legal recourse, i.e., those allegedly defrauded might face inflation and tax burdens stemming from preferential treatment of favored corporations or from further bailouts.

Destructive Tax Policies

In the face of rising government debt, the rapidly shrinking American middle class is the primary target of the U.S. federal government's tax policies. The eventual extinction of the American middle class would be a key milestone along the road to 3rd world status. Current U.S. tax policies favor the largest corporations and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Although tax increases exacerbate economic downturns, several tax options have been or are being discussed. However, none of them are likely to be put in place.

Increasing taxes on corporate profits would result in job losses in the short term and would affect dividends and share prices in the stock market. Lower dividends or share prices would affect pension funds, including government pension funds.
Increasing taxes on capital gains would impact the non-tax-exempt investments of the now retiring "baby boomer" generation and would reduce capital formation thus reducing investment in new businesses or business expansion and hampering job growth.
Increasing payroll taxes would cause companies to downsize resulting in job losses and would have a chilling effect on hiring.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is impractical in the United States because countless special taxes already exist at all levels of the supply chain. To prevent unpredictable, disruptive consequences, implementing a VAT would require years of study and comprehensive tax reform.
A national sales tax is undesirable because it would overlap and interfere with already existing state sales taxes, which are highly inconsistent across states.
Carbon taxes remain possible but they would encumber businesses and result in job losses or reduce hiring.

Chief among the remaining possibilities is the income tax but, according to the Tax Policy center at the Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, 46% of American households will pay no federal income tax in 2011. The reasons include income tax exemptions for subsistence level income, dependents and nontaxable tax expenditures for senior citizens and low-income working families with children.

Assuming that big banks, multinational corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans remain off limits in terms of tax policy, the range of income taxed is likely to widen from the current tax on households earning more than $250,000 per year to progressively lower income levels. In fact, the government's intended revenue source is precisely what remains of the once much larger middle class: professionals, small business owners and dual income families in urban areas, etc. These are the households that have managed to stay ahead of inflation, declining real wages and falling household incomes.

Among other things, U.S. tax policies will erode capital formation within the remnants of the middle class, which is the engine of small business creation and the source of most American jobs. The eventual result will be a three-tier socioeconomic structure consisting of a super rich wealthy class, a much poorer working class and a massive, politically and financially disenfranchised underclass, similar to that of a 3rd world country.

Via Dolorosa

The United States increasingly resembles a 3rd world country in terms of unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, falling wages, growing poverty and concentration of wealth, government debt, corporate influence over government and weakening rule of law. Federal Reserve monetary policies and federal government economic, regulatory and tax policies seem to favor the largest banks and corporations over the interests of small businesses or of the general population. The potential elimination of the middle class could reshape the socioeconomic strata of American society in the image of a 3rd world country. It seems only a matter of time before the devolution of the United States becomes more visible. As the U.S. economy continues to decline, public health, nutrition and education, as well as the country's infrastructure, will visibly deteriorate. There is little evidence of political will or leadership for fundamental reforms. All other things being equal, the U.S. will become a post industrial neo-3rd-world country by 2032.

How the U.S. Will Become a 3rd World Country (Part 1)

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:44:00 GMT

The United States is increasingly similar to a 3rd world county in several ways and is accelerating towards 3rd world status. Economic data indicate a harsh reality that obviates mainstream political debate. The evidence suggests that, without fundamental reforms, the U.S. will become a post industrial neo-3rd-world country by 2032.

Fundamental characteristics that define a 3rd world country include high unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, low wages, widespread poverty, extreme concentration of wealth, unsustainable government debt, control of the government by international banks and multinational corporations, weak rule of law and counterproductive government policies. All of these characteristics are evident in the U.S. today.

Other factors include poor public health, nutrition and education, as well as lack of infrastructure. Public health and nutrition in the U.S., while below European standards, stand well above those of 3rd world countries. American public education now ranks behind poorer countries, like Estonia, but remains superior to that of 3rd world countries. While crumbling infrastructure can be seen in cities across America, the vast infrastructure of the United States cannot be compared to a 3rd world country. However, all of these factors will rapidly deteriorate in a declining economy.

Unemployment and Lack of Economic Opportunity

Unemployment, which is a deep, structural problem in the U.S., is a fundamental challenge to economic opportunity. The U.S. labor market is in a long-term downward trend linked to globalization, i.e., offshoring of manufacturing, outsourcing of jobs and deindustrialization.

The U.S. workforce has declined by approximately 6.5% since its year 2000 peak to roughly 58.2% of working age adults and the U.S. now suffers chronic unemployment of 9.1%. Although the workforce grew in the 1980s and 1990s, as dual income families became the norm, the size of the workforce is shrinking due to a lack of economic opportunity.

Officially, long-term unemployment is 16.5% and the ranks of the long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) include 5.9 million, 42.4% of those unemployed. However, prior to the Clinton administration, unemployment measures included workers who are now no longer counted as part of the workforce. Using the more accurate pre-Clinton criteria, unemployment exceeds 22%, only 3% below the worst point (24.9%) of the Great Depression. For countries with populations greater than 2 million, Macedonia leads the world with 33.8% unemployment, followed by Armenia at 28.6%, Algeria at 27.3% and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip both at 25.7%.

Compounding the unemployment problem is the fact that an entire generation of young Americans is being left behind in terms of economic opportunity. Student loans exceed $1 trillion while the labor force participation rate for those aged 16 to 29 who are working or looking for work fell to 48.8% in 2011, the lowest level ever recorded. Lack of economic opportunity among the youth, including millions of unemployed college graduates, is a political wildcard reminiscent of countries like Tunisia.

The structural decline of the U.S. labor market will continue as American workers are merged into a global labor pool in which they cannot yet directly compete for jobs with workers in countries like China and India. In China, for example, gross pay, in terms of purchasing power parity, is equivalent to approximately $514 per month, 57% below the U.S. poverty line. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. trade deficit with China alone caused a loss of 2.8 million U.S. jobs since 2001.

Falling Real Wages and Household Incomes

Workers earning more dollars are actually poorer in terms of purchasing power when the cost of living rises faster than wages,. In fact, if household income is adjusted for inflation, most American families have grown significantly poorer over the past ten years. In 2010, for example, real median household income fell 2.3%. Although the average wage has risen steadily in nominal terms, dwindling purchasing power is a reality for most Americans. When adjusted for inflation, the wages of most Americans have not kept up with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

According to famed economist Milton Friedman, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." In other words, prices rise when the money supply is increased faster than population or sustainable economic activity. Apparent economic growth created through credit expansion, i.e., by increasing the money supply, has a temporary stimulative effect but also causes prices to rise. True Money Supply is an accurate measure of inflation.

Although CPI is sufficient to illustrate declining real wages, CPI does not measure the cost of living in a realistic way. According to economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, CPI systematically understates inflation.

The decline in real household income has set Americans back to 1996 levels, despite many households now having two incomes rather than one. Dual income families accounted for much of the increase in real median household income during the 1980s and 1990s, but, today, two incomes are barely better than one income was three decades ago. The decline in real wages was obfuscated in the 1980s and 1990s by growth in the workforce, e.g., by women entering the workforce. Real median household income rose while real wages declined because more households had two incomes. As U.S. wages and household income continue to fall in real terms, both poverty and reliance on government assistance programs will continue to rise.

Growing Poverty

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate in the United States rose to 15.7% in 2011, with 47.8 million Americans living in poverty (1 in 6). The official poverty line, determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is $22,314 for a family of four. The number of families living in poverty has risen sharply since 2006 and continues to climb. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as "food stamps," serves 45.8 million households as of May 2011. The program now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children.

Based on the outlook for employment and wages, both poverty and reliance on government assistance programs will continue to grow. However, the negative trends in employment, wages and poverty have not affected all Americans equally. In fact, the household income and wealth of the wealthiest Americans has increased sharply, despite the overall deterioration of the U.S. economy.

Increasing Concentration of Wealth

Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned that, "Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and ... trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume." In other words, concentration of wealth undermines the consumer base of the economy, causing GDP to decline and resulting in unemployment, which reduces living standards. Obviously, the total wealth of society is reduced when wealth is highly concentrated because there is a lower overall level of economic activity.

Economic data from several sources, including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), show that wealth and income in the United States have become increasingly concentrated with the wealthiest 1% of Americans owning 38.2% of stock market assets, e.g., shares of businesses. For the wealthiest 1% of Americans, household income tripled between 1979 and 2007 and has continued to increase while household wealth in the United States has fallen by $7.7 trillion. The Gini Coefficient illustrates the growing disparity in income distribution. In terms of the Gini Coefficient, the United States is now at parity with China and will soon overtake Mexico, a still developing country. It should be noted, of course, that the U.S. remains a far wealthier country overall. If the current trend continues, however, the U.S. will resemble a 3rd world country, in terms of the disparity in income distribution, in approximately two decades, i.e., by 2032.

Welcome to the 3rd World

The United States is quickly becoming a post industrial neo-3rd-world country. Partly as a consequence of worsening unemployment and lack of economic opportunity, falling real wages and household incomes, growing poverty and increasing concentration of wealth, the U.S. government faces a historic fiscal crisis. Dominant corporate influence over the U.S. government, particularly by large banks, weakening rule of law at the federal level and destructive tax policies are compounding the economic problems facing the United States. Barring fundamental reforms or a hyperinflationary collapse of the U.S. dollar (due to the fiscal problems of the U.S. government), the deterioration of the U.S. economy will continue and accelerate. As the U.S. economy continues its decline, public health, nutrition and education, as well as the country's infrastructure, will visibly deteriorate and the 3rd world status of the United States will become apparent.