Hera : mortgage backed securities

Why Financial Repression Will Fail

Ron Hera — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:53:00 GMT

Excessive leverage and risk in the financial system, e.g., using customer funds to speculate, never ends well. Stock market crashes, bank and investment firm failures or economic recessions are all potential consequences. Following the failure of the United States to regulate over the counter (OTC) derivatives and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, U.S. banks became the largest financial business entities in history. The U.S. real estate bubble, sub-prime lending and mortgage backed securities (MBS), along with unregulated OTC derivatives, then lead to bank insolvencies, a historic stock market crash and a near collapse of the global financial system.

Central banks and governments intervened to prevent systemic collapse but governments were saddled with enormous debts due to bank bailouts, lost tax revenues and massive social welfare costs. Rather than systemic collapse, and perhaps another Great Depression, the post crisis period came to be characterized by (1) market interventions, (2) direct government control over the economy, and (3) ongoing monetization by central banks. Longer term solutions that would have allowed a return to putatively free markets failed to emerge and government debt, particularly in Europe, became a crisis in its own right.

Measures that began as emergency interventions became routine suggesting a new economic paradigm. In the new paradigm, big banks, politicians and academics would decide what market outcomes, e.g., bankruptcies, interest rates or bond yields, would be permitted, as well as when to apply accounting rules, regulations and laws. Despite increased centralization of decision making and greatly expanded powers, however, policymakers were unable to repair the financial system. Instead, mounting government debt led to de facto financial repression.

Financial repression occurs when governments channel funds into their own sovereign bonds in order to reduce debt levels through mechanisms such as directed lending, caps on interest rates, capital controls, debt monetization, or by other means. Economist Carmen M. Reinhart, et al., brought the term back into popular usage in 2011 after a long hiatus. Past examples of financial repression include several South American countries, such as Argentina. The promise of financial repression is that it will hold down government borrowing costs and reduce government debt levels, but critics argue that financial repression merely targets the producers of society, i.e., the middle class, and therefore harms the economy.

The Liquidation of Government Debt , Carmen M. Reinhart and M. Belen Sbrancia (NBER 16893, 2011)

Debt monetization, which can be a tool of financial repression, destroys savings while a zero percent interest rate policy (ZIRP), which reduces government borrowing costs, deprives savers and pensioners of interest income and can lead to inflation. What is more important, however, is that financial repression prevents capital formation. Of particular concern in the U.S. is the link between capital formation and new business creation, which is primarily a middle class phenomenon. The vast majority of corporations in the U.S. are small businesses and they account for the majority of jobs. By preventing capital formation, financial repression short circuits the engine of new business creation, increases unemployment and threatens to bring down the middle class.

Governments cannot supply entrepreneurship or innovation in the marketplace, nor can they effectively replace savings (genuine capital derived from surplus production) or private investment with bank credit or with public funds, which represent debt and a transfer of wealth, respectively. The deployed capital, inventions, products and services of new businesses drive innovation, fuel competition, provide jobs and increase the wealth of society. In contrast, financial repression can only produce economic stagnation and result in a net loss of wealth to society.

Crisis and Consequence

Substantially as a consequence of the financial crisis and global recession, Europe was engulfed in a sovereign debt crisis characterized in the European periphery by austerity measures and Great Depression levels of unemployment. In the U.S., the real estate collapse and stock market crash represented a direct loss of household wealth while bank bailouts represented a transfer of wealth from proverbial Main Street to literal Wall Street. Deficit spending, debt monetization and the Federal Reserve’s purchases of MBS and U.S. Treasury bonds expressed a radically inflationary monetary policy and, although much of the money is idle in the banking system, the overall increase in the supply of U.S. dollars is concerning. The True Money Supply (TMS), formulated by famed economist Murray Rothbard, represents the amount of money in the economy that is available for immediate use in exchange.

Despite the 2008 financial crisis, global recession and inflationary policies, confidence in the U.S. dollar, the U.S. stock market, the U.S. federal government and the U.S. economy remained largely intact. Inflationary policies reduced certain risks, such as the risk of a deflationary collapse, and increased liquidity from central bank monetization lifted financial markets, but the effects were only temporary. Confidence was also boosted in Europe by the European Central Bank’s (ECB) outright monetary transactions (OMT) program and in the U.S. by the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing III (QE3) program. In Europe, the risks of sharply rising sovereign bond yields, sovereign defaults and the potential breakup of the euro were muted by OMT while European leaders putatively moved toward a permanent solution, such as a fiscal union. Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s ZIRP and ongoing “operation twist,” U.S. Treasury yields remained near historic lows.

On the surface, the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis was effectively managed, but the basic causes of the crisis were never addressed. The lines between depository institutions and securities firms, erased in the U.S. by the final repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, were not restored and the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) mark-to-market rule was never reinstated.

Although bank capital ratios have improved, leverage remains excessive, bank balance sheet assets remain troubled and economic conditions have deteriorated compared to the pre-crisis period. Banks deemed “too big to fail” in 2008 have become bigger and the gross credit exposure associated with high risk OTC derivatives is roughly as large as it was before the financial crisis. By the end of 2013, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet will have exceeded $3.4 trillion. At the same time, the U.S. federal government faces a so-called “fiscal cliff.”

The Road to Stagflation

For 2012, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects GDP 2.2% growth in Japan and the U.S. and 3.5% globally. Based on the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), which reflects the price of moving major raw materials by sea, the global economy has slowed in 2012. Nonetheless, there has been some improvement in comparison to the depths of the global recession in 2009.

The BDI is a leading indicator of economic growth because it reflects the demand of manufacturers for raw materials. A decline in the BDI signals falling global demand for manufactured goods. In the U.S., rail carloads also indicate falling demand.

In contrast, removing potentially optimistic projections, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) liquid fuels consumption data suggests an anemic recovery in the U.S. on a par with 2011.

Despite the recent uptick in U.S. manufacturing, manufacturing currently accounts for only 11.7% of U.S. GDP. In the past few decades, U.S. corporations moved production offshore, eliminating domestic jobs. Credit expansion masked the lost income of U.S. consumers but the process inexorably reached its logical conclusion in 2007. The shift of U.S. workers to often lower paying service sector jobs was counterproductive because debt levels rose while income flowed out of the U.S. following on the heels of jobs.

Although policymakers, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, deny it, in fact, U.S. unemployment is a long term, structural problem linked to the still ongoing outflow of U.S. consumer incomes to net exporter countries such as India and China.

The current surplus of U.S. labor, abundant capital and somewhat less expensive energy (partly due to advances in hydraulic fracturing that have increased U.S. domestic oil production) are insufficient to stimulate a broad-based economic recovery. In addition to the U.S. federal government’s growing debt and need for increased tax revenues, U.S. consumers remain burdened with high debt levels.

A U.S. manufacturing renaissance, for example, is unlikely to take hold unless the U.S. dollar weakens significantly and global demand also rises. In a global slowdown it remains unclear where new customers might come from for new U.S. products or services.

Although the financial system has continued to function due to massive infusions of liquidity, economic activity, with some exceptions, has not generally recovered or has continued to deteriorate, e.g., the shrinking number of U.S. citizens participating in the official workforce. Ignoring improvements in the unemployment rate related to the shrinking size of the workforce, much of the U.S. economic recovery in the post crisis period can be attributed to government deficit spending.

U.S. GDP has been boosted by government deficit spending in excess of $1 trillion per year. Removing the temporary effects of extraordinary deficits, U.S. GDP remains negative. Compounding the problem, loose monetary policies, rather than spurring lending to consumers or small businesses, have created inflationary pressures and have lead to stagflation.

Rather than putting Americans back to work, inflationary policies have helped to push prices higher. Based on U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI), the official inflation rate in the U.S. is roughly 2%, but the CPI does not accurately measure the cost of maintaining a constant standard of living. Using the same methodology as in 1980, the CPI should be 9.3% currently.

Inflationary central bank policies support government borrowing and the banking system but increased liquidity resulting from low interest rates, central bank asset purchases or debt monetization can have destabilizing effects. Excess liquidity can result in price inflation, fuel financial speculation or asset price bubbles, or provoke competitive devaluations (currency wars). Asset purchases and debt monetization by central banks alter the distribution of money, thus of purchasing power over the economy and therefore redistribute wealth. Monetary inflation erodes the value of savings replacing genuine capital distributed throughout the economy with credit concentrated in banks. In the U.S., one of the Federal Reserve’s policy assumptions is that asset purchases will help small businesses by making more credit available. While it is true that small businesses rely on bank credit for operations and expansion, it is savings, not credit that fuels small business creation and therefore job growth. Since most U.S. jobs are in small businesses, QE3 and similar policies destroy jobs by redistributing wealth from savers, entrepreneurs and investors to banks and stifling new business creation. The combination of reduced new business creation, continuing high unemployment and inflationary price pressures set against a backdrop of high debt levels precisely defines stagflation.

Reign of Repression

The stagflationary environment in the U.S. is a mild example of financial repression. Countries in the European periphery, e.g., Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, where high taxes and austerity measures are already in place, are more pointed examples. In the case of Greece, which has descended into an economic depression, the natural market outcome would have been a Greek default and an exit from the European Monetary Union (EMU) accompanied by losses for European banks and quite probably a number of European bank failures, along with the systemic impact of associated OTC derivatives, such as Credit Default Swaps (CDS). To prevent bank losses and failures, however, policy decisions replaced market outcomes. The normalization of market interventions, direct government control over the economy and ongoing monetization by central banks represented a transition from a market based status quo to a policy based status quo which maintained or increased otherwise unworkable government debt levels. Maintaining the status quo, however, requires financial repression.

Like the emergency measures that preceded it, financial repression has become a fixture in a new economic paradigm, but it is no more likely to provide a permanent solution. Financial repression will remain in place as long as bank failures and sovereign defaults continue to be prevented, e.g., through bailouts, asset purchases or debt monetization by central banks. Overall economic conditions in Western countries can therefore be expected to remain stagnant or to deteriorate. The continued debasement of major currencies, such as the U.S. dollar and the euro, will reduce the real value of debts but monetary inflation cannot create a genuine economic recovery as long as bank balance sheets and government finances remain impaired. Without robust economic growth, however, both the banking system and the finances of Western governments certainly will remain impaired. In other words, financial repression in the U.S. and in Europe is set to remain in place indefinitely.

Under an ongoing regime of financial repression, savings, jobs, economic opportunity and living standards will all suffer. The middle class will be reduced as generations of socioeconomic progress are gradually reversed. Younger people, mired in stagflation, will be left behind in terms of income and economic opportunity, which will have a long term negative impact. Since U.S. banks stand to profit from financial repression, it will increase income disparity and the concentration of wealth. The destructive forces set in motion by financial repression will greatly increase the burden on government social welfare programs. Thus, financial repression will fail to alleviate government debt unless tax increases and austerity measures follow, which could turn the United States into another Greece. In theory, financial repression, together with other measures, can liquidate government debt but, in practice, it is a destructive and highly destabilizing approach that will result in a net loss of wealth to society.

Martin Armstrong on the Sovereign Debt Crisis

Ron Hera — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 20:06:00 GMT

The Hera Research Newsletter is pleased to present a fascinating interview with Martin A. Armstrong, founder and former Head of Princeton Economics, Ltd. In the 1980s, Princeton Economics became the leading multinational corporate advisor with offices in Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Sydney and in 1983 Armstrong was named by the Wall Street Journal as the highest paid advisor in the world.

As a top currency analyst and frequent contributor to academic journals, Armstrong's views on financial markets remain in high demand. Armstrong was requested by the Presidential Task Force (Brady Commission) investigating the 1987 U.S. stock market crash and, in 1997, Armstrong was invited to advise the People's Bank of China during the Asian Currency Crisis.

Based on a study of historical gold prices and financial panics, Armstrong developed a cyclical theory of commodity prices, which lead to the pi-cycle economic confidence model (ECM), used to make long term forecasts. Using the ECM, Armstrong predicted both the high-water mark of the Nikkei in 1989, months ahead of time, and the July 20, 1998 high in the U.S. equities market, as well as a major top in financial markets on February 27, 2007. The ECM was called "The Secret Cycle" by the New Yorker Magazine and Justin Fox wrote in Time Magazine that Armstrong's model "made several eerily on-the-mark calls using a formula based on the mathematical constant pi." (Pg 30; Nov. 30, 2009).

Hera Research Newsletter (HRN): Thank you for joining us today. Considering the Federal Reserve swap lines and the European Central Bank's (ECB) Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO), what's the outlook for the Euro?

Martin Armstrong: The structure of the Euro is fundamentally flawed. To put it in American terms, it would be as if all fifty states were able to issue federal bonds. It would be total, absolute chaos. What they did, to be politically correct, was to say that, since every member issues its own federal type bonds, they all have to be reserves and the large banks have to fairly allocate among them all. It's completely crazy. As countries like Greece and Spain and Italy crumble under the debt, it feeds back into the banking system. In the United States, we had the Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapse and we saw the government bail out a hedge fund so that they wouldn't be seen bailing out the New York banks. They have the same problem in Europe. Basically, the ECB bailing out European banks is really going through the back door to support European sovereign bonds.

HRN: Would it be fair to say that the bailouts of Greece have really been bank bailouts while the LTRO is a sovereign debt bailout?

Martin Armstrong: Sure. The two words "political" and "economy" should have been divorced when they first met. Politicians always do this. In the U.S. Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis, the politicians encouraged lending into local real estate markets by allowing thrifts to be federally chartered in 1980 and insuring them with public dollars. So the S&Ls concentrated their portfolios in real estate. Then the politicians needed money so they reduced the schedule for write-offs in real estate. And they didn't think that would change the market? They basically expanded credit for real estate, incentivized S&Ls to invest in real estate, then passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. So then about a quarter of S&Ls went bankrupt and they had an S&L bailout and wanted to lock everybody up when they had created the problem in the first place. It's the same type of thing in Europe.

HRN: European politicians created the European sovereign debt crisis by rating all European sovereign bonds as reserves?

Martin Armstrong: Yes. By making all European sovereign bonds reserves and requiring banks to hold reserves, they made European banks hold the debt of countries like Greece and Spain. Greece, for example, was able to borrow at substantially lower rates than they would have normally. This year, €600 billion in debt has to be rolled forward only for Spain and Italy. All these bonds were issued at a very low rate. Now they have to be rolled forward and the new rates are around six or seven percent. The government budgets are going to grow dramatically and this is going to cause the real economic crisis.

HRN: Will the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM) help to solve that problem?

Martin Armstrong: No. I told them in 1997 or 1998, when they were creating the Euro, that they couldn't do this and they had to have a single debt. They felt that it would be perceived as a bailout of members that had more debt at the time. The EFSM, which is part of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), is moving in that direction but it's more of a bailout mechanism, not a consolidation. It's a half measure. They need to convert the existing debt into federal bonds and whatever new debt is issued by European Union member countries would be the equivalent of U.S. state debt and not acceptable for reserves.

HRN: Can the Euro survive?

Martin Armstrong: I don't think it will go off the boards. I think they will do everything in their power to keep it there. Politicians never want to admit a mistake. If they have to inflate they will inflate. Germany has capitulated.

HRN: Will this cause another financial crisis?

Martin Armstrong: The next crisis we're going to see will be from 2015 on. It doesn't take more than a three year old with a pocket calculator to see the long term trends.

HRN: Do you mean the European sovereign debt crisis?

Martin Armstrong: It's not just the Euro zone. The entire idea that you can borrow perpetually year after year and never pay anything back and that, somehow, that's less inflationary than if you just print money is absolutely insane. In the U.S., if we had just printed the money, the national debt would only be 40% as much as it is today. We're both creating currency and also paying interest on it.

HRN: Do you see Japan as having the same problem as well?

Martin Armstrong: Japan's debt is slightly below 300% of GDP. The only reason the yen has remained strong is because money is being drawn back into Japan. I think we're approaching a bottom in Japan that will be followed by inflation and that will probably be the last straw.

HRN: How would you compare the U.S. dollar to the Euro and the yen?

Martin Armstrong: The U.S. dollar is the best looking of the three ugly sisters. Europe is a basket case because of its structure. They'd have to federalize Europe and I don't think there's a political will to do that. Japan is totally hopeless at this stage.

HRN: Does this call into question the whole concept of central banking?

Martin Armstrong: Central banks can step up and add cash to the system when necessary, taking in the longer term assets. That was basically the original idea of the Federal Reserve.

HRN: Isn't the Federal Reserve System the main reason why the U.S. national debt is so high compared to what would have happened if the U.S. government issued its own currency?

Martin Armstrong: When the Federal Reserve was created there really wasn't any national debt. The U.S. national debt began with World War I and then World War II. When the Federal Reserve wanted to stimulate the economy it bought corporate paper not federal bonds and that really did stimulate the economy. The politicians have completely distorted what the Federal Reserve was supposed to be. In order to issue all the debt for the wars, the politicians instructed the Federal Reserve not to buy corporate paper but to buy federal paper. Throughout World War II they also instructed that the Federal Reserve maintain the par value of those bonds.

HRN: Politicians altered the role of the Federal Reserve?

Martin Armstrong: When the Federal Reserve was created, in 1913, it really was a kind of an insurance mechanism to help manage the banks and it was owned by them. It wasn't as sinister as many people have portrayed it. It was closer to something like the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It was World War I that changed the role of the Federal Reserve. They came up with this theory that inflation was an increase in the money supply and, since the Federal Reserve was in charge of the money supply, the politicians basically said to the Federal Reserve that inflation was their problem. The vast majority of the members of Congress don't think they have any responsibility for the economy. They throw their hands up in the air and say "well, that's the Fed's job."

HRN: Fractional reserve banking systems are inherently inflationary.

Martin Armstrong: Well, it's really a leveraging system. You're increasing the money supply by taking the same money and lending it out several times, so if I deposit $100 and the bank lends you $100 we both think we have $100 but there's only one $100 deposit. Take the mortgage market where the Federal Reserve created trillions by buying mortgage backed securities (MBS). The mortgage market contracted by maybe $5 trillion from the top. So, you have deleveraging at the same time. If the Federal Reserve created $3 trillion when there was no deflation then that would be inflationary, but, in this type of system, every time you get a decline in the economy it's deflation and deleveraging. In a deflation, everyone wants cash so asset values fall. The cash is only a small fraction of the total asset value at the peak. If Bill Gates sold all his Microsoft stock at once it wouldn't be worth as much as it is on paper. It's a yin and yang between leverage and deflation.

HRN: What's the difference between leveraging deposits to loan out $10 for every $1 on deposit and creating money out of thin air?

Martin Armstrong: The current banking system that we have in the world today is really a fraud. You used to pay the bank as a storage facility to store your money but they began lending it out to make more money. They figured out a long time ago that they only needed to keep 6% or 10% of deposits. When the economy goes down it's a kind of a run on the bank. But the real problem is that they borrow short term on demand deposits and lend long term to make the spreads. When a crisis comes, their assets are tied up for ten or twenty or thirty years but they've got short term demand saying 'give me my money now'. So the system doesn't really work on a perpetual basis.

HRN: Let's talk about the gold standard. Would it have prevented the European sovereign debt crisis?

Martin Armstrong: No. In the U.S., they could have kept the gold standard but they had to raise the price of gold. They kept the official price at $35 and went to a two tier system in 1968 where the free market also had a price. They continually issued more paper but didn't change the ratio. They didn't think, at some point, it was going to go bust? Politicians always spend more than they have. We had a gold standard and they blew it up. It's "vote for me and I'll give you a chicken in every pot." Nothing is funded. In the U.S., there has been no planning for Social Security. It's just politicians standing up and saying "vote for me and I'll give you this and that" but nobody pays for it.

HRN: Do you favor returning to a gold standard?

Martin Armstrong: We have to deal directly with the government spending. Eliminate the ability to borrow. That's more important than what you are going to call money. In theory, what are they trying to do with the gold standard? They are trying to say, if we put the gold standard in then you can't create money beyond what you have in gold, but they did that the last time. I don't see where that is some sort of magic bean that's going to stop them from doing it again. It gets to a stage where it doesn't matter if you use conch shells for money or gold. There is no fiscal responsibility in government. We have to eliminate the core problem and eliminate government borrowing except in time of war.

HRN: Is that an argument for smaller government?

Martin Armstrong: Absolutely. During the Great Depression, unemployment had only gotten up to where it is now but then we had the Dust Bowl. It was what Schumpeter called creative destruction. It started the American workforce on a path to skilled labor. Before the Great Depression nearly half of the workforce was in agriculture. By 1980 only 3% was in agriculture. We are facing the same problem now only 40% of the workforce is in government. They produce nothing and don't contribute anything at all to the gross domestic product (GDP). Of course, the government statistics include both the government's spending and also the wages of government employees, so, if the government hires someone, the GDP goes up twice as fast.

HRN: That would suggest that the debt to GDP situation is worse than it appears.

Martin Armstrong: Yes. The government basically finagles every number under the sun. We're looking at a very, very serious situation. The only country that has funded its pension plan is Australia. The U.S. has $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. At the peak, in 2007, the total of U.S. mortgages was $15 trillion. We are facing dire circumstances ahead. This is why the government is going after what they call the rich, etc. The rich now include anyone with household income of $250,000 or more. If you and your wife both have a job that pays $125,000 per year you're part of the rich. Since young people are staying with their parents longer, their income may be a part of household income too.

HRN: Isn't that what's left of the middle class?

Martin Armstrong: They always bring out people like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates but there aren't that many of those people and if the government took everything they had it wouldn't even balance the budget for a year. This is effectively a war against the American middle class. The ceiling will start to cave in when they can't sell bonds anymore. At that point, the bond market will be absolutely devastated.

HRN: Do you expect the Federal Reserve to continue monetizing U.S. Treasuries: QE3, for example?

Martin Armstrong: They are forced into monetization but it won't stimulate the economy. It isn't only Americans that own 30 year bonds. Maybe the Chinese sell their bonds to the Federal Reserve and then say thanks and take the money back to China. You can't stimulate just a domestic economy. The theories the Federal Reserve has are antiquated. They're based on the domestic economy and even on the old gold standard. These are theories based on things that don't even exist anymore. Look at the universities. They don't even teach hedging at the London School of Economics. It's amazing.

HRN: Do you think we'll see U.S. dollar hyperinflation?

Martin Armstrong: No, because the economy would not survive long enough to reach the stage of hyperinflation. Everything would collapse before that happens. What's important to understand is that Americans tend to focus on American numbers but Europe is in far more serious trouble. A lot of the European banks are still owned by the governments.

HRN: What can the U.S. government do to get the economy back on track?

Martin Armstrong: It's hard to get them to do anything that's actually going to be beneficial to the economy. They don't get it. There are also record highs in terms of corporate cash in the U.S. because the politics are so bad.

HRN: What is it that members of Congress don't understand?

Martin Armstrong: I testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means in 1996 and they wanted to know why no American companies had gotten any of the contracts to build the Yellow River dam. I said that the U.S. and Japan are the only countries in the world that tax worldwide income. We hear about companies paying their fair share, but if they're not in the United States, what is a fair share? As far as the U.S. government is concerned, you're an economic slave. If you're born in the United States, you owe taxes in the U.S. even if you're not in the U.S. and don't receive any benefits. Other countries don't do that. A German company, for example, bidding on the same contract in China is automatically cheaper than an American company.

HRN: Are you saying that the U.S. federal government's tax policies have driven companies offshore?

Martin Armstrong: In order to compete internationally, American companies have to leave the United States. It isn't just because of the labor costs because you have to have a skilled labor force. I helped take a lot of companies into Europe. You have to balance the type of labor force versus tax advantages. You can't just put an automaker in Zimbabwe. It's much more of a delicate balance than what politicians tend to say.

HRN: Is there anything that policymakers can do to bring companies back to the U.S.?

Martin Armstrong: One of the primary things is that the tax rate should be cast in stone and it should not change for every election. That is why corporate cash is at record highs. Why should a company start to hire people when all you hear is "we're going to get the rich", "we're going to get the corporations" and they're going to have to pay more. This is why corporate cash is at an all time high. Why should you start hiring people now and then next year you might have to pay 20% more? You can't do things that way. No one, on a personal level, would go sign a lease on an apartment where the lease said the landlord can change your rent at any time he wants if he spent too much money for himself. A contract is a contract and you're not going to have stability until you have something set in stone. A lot of countries have attracted capital by doing precisely this. If you go there and set up a plant, they guarantee not to increase taxes for 20, 30, 40 years. If you're going to do a business plan then you need to know what your costs are. It can't be maybe $1 mill this year and next year it's 25% more. Business plans don't work like that. The politicians need to just cast it in stone and that's it; take it off the table. Stop the rhetoric. They're not going to create jobs without that. Why should anyone build a plant in the U.S. if the government can change everything in 6 months? That's not the way to build an economy.

HRN: So, uncertainty is one of the main problems with the U.S. economy?

Martin Armstrong: The major problem is the whole debt structure. Uncertainty is why cash is at record levels and it's been that way for at least 2 years now. Lack of stability dampens confidence. In order for somebody to invest, there has to be confidence. This is why interest rates can go to 0%, but if you don't think you can make 1% then you're not going to borrow at 0%. Interest rates always go down dramatically during a depression because no one is willing to borrow. There is a lack of confidence in the future, so you're not going to have somebody opening a new restaurant or hiring a bunch of people. Small companies, in particular, are not hiring because they can't get a loan from a bank. They're cut off more than a large company. A large company, if it's public, has shares and banks will lend more against them then they will against a small business owner. Small businesses create the most jobs but they get bashed the most by the banks and they are less likely to hire because they can't borrow to do so.

HRN: What else should the U.S. government do to get the economy back on track?

Martin Armstrong: The government has to stop the perpetual borrowing and we have to really deal with the national debt. It would have to change the tax policies and they would have to cast it in stone that it can't change. It can't flip back and forth for every election because when you do that then you are undermining confidence. Why should somebody build a plant or hire more people until after the next election?

HRN: How can monetary policy help?

Martin Armstrong: As soon as something happens the politicians throw their hands up in the air and say it's the Federal Reserve's fault. It's not the Fed's fault. The politicians are the ones actually doing the spending. The Federal Reserve can't control Congressional spending. There's not much it can do to change the dynamics of the problem. The Fed can seize any company it thinks is too big to fail, so now we're outside the scope of banking. They can seize Ford Motor Company if they want to. We are so far from what the Federal Reserve was supposed to be, it's just insane. It wasn't supposed to be in charge of the money supply. It wasn't supposed to be in charge of inflation or bailing out companies that are too big to fail. It was never designed to do this, it was simply there as an insurance fund for banks, period. The Congress assumes they have no responsibility. Nobody takes responsibility. It's just one big party down in D.C.

HRN: Thank you for your time.

Martin Armstrong: It's my pleasure.

After Words

Martin Armstrong, founder of Princeton Economics, Ltd. is one of the most sought after experts in the world on financial markets, global capital flows and currencies. His frank assessment of the monetary and economic problems facing the U.S., the EU and Japan today points to government spending, tax policies and meddling in the banking system by politicians as the root causes. The solution starts with cutting government spending, instituting consistent, long term tax rates and tackling the real reasons why American companies have moved offshore. Without fundamental changes, out of control spending, failure to take responsibility, lack of accountability and crippling uncertainty will prolong poor economic conditions and high unemployment indefinitely.

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.