Ben Bernanke evades the point

It’s not that a gold standard won’t help governments address problems, it’s that it won’t permit them to create a lot of them:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday took aim at proponents of the gold standard, saying that such a system handicaps the government’s ability to address economic conditions.

Bernanke spoke in the first of a series of four public lectures at George Washington University that is the central bank’s latest effort to counter a raft of negative public sentiment that has arisen from its handling of the financial crisis. The former Princeton economics professor delivers a second lecture on Thursday and two more next week.

“Since the gold standard determines the money supply, there is not much scope for the central bank to use monetary policy to stabilize the economy,” Bernanke said. “Under a gold standard, typically the money supply goes up and interest rates go down in a period of strong economic activity – so that’s the reverse of what a central bank would normally do today.”

It is the reverse of what central banks do today… and given the negative consequences of what the central banks have done, one would think that was a good thing. The fact that Bernanke even feels the need to createaddress the subject is a strong indication that the solution of central bank-created money is failing. Again.


WND column

Greek default and eurocollapse

Even a regular observer might have lost track of how many Greek rescue agreements were announced over the last two years. A default was impossible. It had been prevented, we were repeatedly assured. And yet, despite all of these many success stories, the Greek government nevertheless announced that it would not be repaying 100 billion of the 206 billion euros it owed to its creditors, while simultaneously signing up for 130 billion euros in new debt. Needless to say, there is almost no chance that any of that new debt will be repaid; this is nothing more than another flimsy support in the giant, extend-and-pretend structure with which the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund are attempting to shore up the global economy.


The debt that should not be

Student loan debt, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, is nearly twice as bad as previously reported:

The latest report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows how dire the financial situation has become for college students with outstanding loans.

According to numbers released by the bank this week, 1 in 4 borrowers with outstanding student loans had a past-due balance in the third quarter of 2011. Those figures are higher than most previous estimates because, in its recent calculations, the New York Fed deliberately left out borrowers who are temporarily exempt from making payments, like those still in school or within the usual six-month period after graduation when they’re not required to make payments. By removing those borrowers from the equation, the percentage of past-due student loan balances sits at 27% of all outstanding student loans….

The estimated student loan balance in the third quarter last year was $870 billion, which increased 2.1% from the previous quarter and is more than both Americans’ total credit card balance ($693 billion) and auto loan balance ($730 billion). About $580 billion of the total is owed by Americans who are younger than 40.

That debt isn’t going to be repaid, not when “almost half of student loan borrowers are either deferring their student loan payments or are in forbearance”.

If you think the global economic contraction is over, you’re not paying attention. The Fed and the other central banks are still fighting their desperate delaying game, but once more, the cracks are starting to show.


The reliability of government figures

Argentina takes the easy and straightforward approach to reducing inflation:

Since 2007, when Guillermo Moreno, the secretary of internal trade, was sent into the statistics institute, INDEC, to tell its staff that their figures had better not show inflation shooting up, prices and the official record have parted ways. Private-sector economists and statistical offices of provincial governments show inflation two to three times higher than INDEC’s number (which only covers greater Buenos Aires). Unions, including those from the public sector, use these independent estimates when negotiating pay rises. Surveys by Torcuato di Tella University show inflation expectations running at 25-30%.
PriceStats, a specialist provider of inflation rates which produces figures for 19 countries that are published by State Street, a financial services firm, puts the annual rate at 24.4% and cumulative inflation since the beginning of 2007 at 137%. INDEC says that the current rate is only 9.7%, and that prices have gone up a mere 44% over that period (see chart).

INDEC seems to arrive at its figures by a pick-and-mix process of tweaking, sophistry and sheer invention. Graciela Bevacqua, the professional statistician responsible for the consumer-price index (CPI) until Mr Moreno forced her out, says that he tried to get her to omit decimal points, not round them. That sounds minor—until you calculate that a 1% monthly inflation rate works out at an annual 12.7%, whereas 1.9% monthly compounds to 25.3%.

Threatening letters sent by the government to independent economists also shed light on INDEC’s methods. One was told that since the cost of domestic service was “a wage, not a price”, he should not have included it in his CPI calculations. “They have put a lot of effort and lawyers into such arguments,” he says.

What is remarkable is that one can quite reasonably rationalize this exercise in statistical fiction under the economic doctrine of “rational expectations”, which is the insane neoclassical idea that it’s not an increase in the money supply or debt outstanding or even a change in the level of prices that matters, but rather the expectation of future price changes on the part of consumers. So, if the government simply adjusts those expectations downward by lying about the current rate of inflation, then the subsequent behavior of consumers will cause prices to fall in line with those expectations regardless of how much the government ends up actually printing or borrowing.

Wikipedia reports this interesting fact about the concept: “Chicago economists applied rational expectations to other areas in economics like finance, which produced the influential efficient market hypothesis.” The EMH, it should be needless to say, has turned out to be a complete and utter flop, as demonstrated by Robert Prechter and numerous others using a wide variety of means.

What I find rather amusing about this article from The Economist is the clear implication that it is only an Argentine tactic and other government agencies, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the United States, have not been playing exactly the same game for decades. Of course, as those who have read RGD will know, U.S. statisticians have been continually devising new and “improved” versions of CPI, each of which purports to show “true” inflation while methodically lopping off various sectors of the economy that are showing price changes such as those “volatile food and energy” sectors.

Consider this. The entire rise-and-fall in housing prices have had no effect whatsoever on U.S. CPI despite the fact that according to the latest statistics, $69.5 billion new home sales and $756.7 billion in existing home sales take place every year, representing around 5.5% of the $15 trillion in transactions that make up reported U.S. GDP.


Marketilism isn’t capitalism

I’m genuinely curious how those who regularly – and wrongly – equate Wall Street and the financial industry with “capitalism” are going to explain the latest government measures intended to prop up the great zombie beasts of the various stock and bond markets:

When back in August, Europe declared a short selling ban of any financials (here we are willing to channel Romney, and make a $10,000 bet with anyone that said ban will never be lifted), and which as we predicted has had no favorable impact on bank stocks which have since tumbled, we suggested that the next step will also be the final one: the passage of laws prohibiting sales of any kind. As usual we were partially joking. And as so often happens, we are about to be proven right again. As the FT reports in its headline article today, whose gist is simple enough, that Europe is on the verge, it is the tactically-placed final paragraph that is of particular curiosity. It says the following: “Speaking on the fringes of a start-of-year retreat of her Christian Union lawmakers in the city of Kiel, Ms Merkel said she would consider calls from her party colleagues for legislation to bar institutional investors such as insurance companies from selling bonds when ratings were downgraded, or fell below investment grade.” Allow us to recopy and repaste the key part: “legislation to bar institutional investors such as insurance companies from selling bonds.”

And there you have it: after everything else has failed, the state, not the politically independent, if at least on paper central bank, is about to formally enter the capital markets. And yes, first it will be a ban of selling on downgrades, then it will be a ban of selling on any downtick, and finally it will be a ban of selling anything and everything.

I don’t recall anything about it only being legal to buy things at a certain price or more under a capitalist system. In fact, the idea of government-fixed pricing has rather more in common with socialism, if I recall correctly, although there is nothing very socialist about the idea of fixing prices in order to protect private government-guaranteed profits. As I’ve pointed out before, that smacks of the standard practice of the royal mercantilists.

Is it progress to go from royal mercantilism to democratic marketilism? Instead of the king’s ministers picking the lucky winners, now the federal bureaucrats do.


The cost of immigration

This should be completely self-evident. And yet, the “free trade” crowd will no doubt ignore this empirical evidence, just as they have ignored the last 200 years of the logic:

A shocking report has shown that 160,000 Britons have missed out on jobs over the past ten years because they were taken by foreign labour. The true scale of the link between migration and the dole was revealed today in an independent study by the Migration Advisory Committee (Mac). There are 23 fewer jobs for British workers for every 100 migrants from outside the EU, the Government’s immigration advisers said.

If American labor is replaced at the same rate, then the 37.5 million immigrants since 1980 rendered approximately 8.6 million Americans jobless as of 2006. However, the situation is actually much worse than reported here because it doesn’t account for foreign immigration from within the EU, which accounts for two-thirds of the immigration into the UK. Factoring that in, we can estimate that approximately 25.8 million Americans are presently unemployed due to foreign immigration.

Therefore, it is both empirically and logically obvious that it is the post-1986 mass migration that is at least partly responsible for the wage stagnation and consistent decrease in the employment-population rate that has been occurring since the late 1990s.


2011 predictions reviewed

1. U-3 unemployment will climb above 10 percent. The real unemployment rate will be much higher, but it will be masked by a decline in the Labor Force Participation rate below 64 percent. The employment-population ratio will fall below 58 percent for the first time since 1984.

Incorrect.  A close miss, but still a miss. The U3 unemployment rate peaked at 9.8 percent in 2011.  It was, as expected, masked by a decline in the Labor Force Participation rate to 63.9 percent.  Even so, the employment-population rate only fell to 58.1 percent in July before recovering to 58.5 percent in November.

2. Real GDP growth for 2011 will fall short of the 3.4 percent predicted by Goldman Sachs. It will remain positive in initial reports throughout the year, but the final quarter will eventually be revised down into negative territory. The legitimacy of GDP as a valid metric for economic growth will increasingly be called into question as the positive numbers are belied by actual conditions.

Correct.  The first three quarters of 2011 were all below 2%, so this one can be called even though the initial Q4 report isn’t out yet.

3. The 2011 federal deficit will exceed the projected $1.27 trillion despite the Republican House majority. This will likely be the result of emergency spending required for an economic or military crisis.

Correct.  The deficit in the fiscal year of 2011 was $1,295 billion.  And the only reason it is that close was the delay in bumping up the debt ceiling, which has already been reached again.  So much for the oft-heard assumption that a Tea Party-inspired Republican House would solve the spending problem.

4. More than 230 banks will fail or be seized by the FDIC. This will represent around 1.2% of total deposits. Bank of America will be effectively nationalized to prevent it from failing.

Incorrect.  Not even close.  Only 92 banks failed this year, none of them giants.  Bank of America’s stock took a hit, but it is still staggering around, hemorrhaging red ink.  I suspect the flat stock market prevented this from getting out of hand.

5. TOTLL will decline below $6.3 trillion on an unadjusted basis. (Below $5.9 trillion adjusted.)

Incorrect again.   The Fed managed to keep bank lending propped up; TOTLL is still holding tight at $6.9 trillion, although it is still below peak.

6. The two government sectors will not be able to maintain their present rate of debt expansion which presently averages around $450 billion per quarter. As the financial and household sectors continue to decline, all sectors credit market debt outstanding, (Z1), will fall below $50 trillion for the first time since 2007.

Incorrect, unless Federal debt falls more than $762 billion in Q4.  Although its rate of growth did slow down considerably during the first two quarters, federal debt outstanding leaped 4 percent in the third quarter alone and exceeded $10 trillion for the first time thanks to the debt ceiling hike.  The state and local sector is a bit of a mess, since some serious revisions in the last Z1 report suddenly show that a sector which has been showing flat for three years growing 23.8 percent in from Q2 to Q3.  Z1 itself showed $1.3 trillion in growth from Q2, but most of that was historical revisions and is now at $53.8 trillion.  The numbers look increasingly sketchy, but regardless, my prediction of a sub-50 all sectors Z1 was wrong.

7. The national median existing-home price will fall below 160k from the present 170,600.

Correct.  Home prices fell to 156,100 in February.  As of the November report, they presently stand at 164,200

8. There will be a serious Euro crisis, most likely brought about by a sovereign default or a nation announcing it will be leaving the Euro. Italy is the most likely candidate.

Correct.  Greece has technically defaulted even though it’s being spun as a “restructuring”, and although no nation has announced that it is leaving the Euro yet, there is definitely a serious Euro crisis taking place, as the IMF-led overthrow of the governments of Greece and Italy demonstrates.

9. One U.S. state and at least three major cities (100k population plus) will attempt to file for bankruptcy or federal bailout. (It’s unclear if states can file for bankruptcy and public employee unions will oppose the city filings.)

Incorrect.  One big county and one state capital too small to count as major aren’t enough.

Bonus: Sitemeter-recorded visits to the blog will increase from 2,370,028 visitors in 2010, (197,502 per month) to 2,750,000.
Correct.  2,828,490 visitors in 2011 exceeded projections, especially considering that this doesn’t count the 305,835 visitors to the new Alpha Game blog.  Combined, that shows an increase in blog readership somewhere between 19 and 32 percent over the course of the year.  Combined pageviews for 2011 were 4,600,960; since it’s an election year in 2012, there would appear to be a reasonable chance to exceed 5 million on VP alone.

Overall, the score is 4-4, with the bonus tipping the balance in my favor, 5-4.  Not very good, and I’m disappointed with the Z1 revisions rendering the historical statistics potentially useless now.  That was a little worse than last year’s 5-3 scorecard.  In light of another mediocre performance, I’ll have to think about whether I’m going to bother making any quantifiable predictions for 2012, other than to say that I expect it to be more chaotic and contractionary than 2011 was.


No, he really wasn’t

Paul Krugman is once again desperately trying to rewrite history, resurrect a rotting Keynesian economics, and cover his exposed posterior:

Unfortunately, in late 2010 and early 2011, politicians and policy makers in much of the Western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again.

In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional wisdom. In Washington, in particular, the failure of the Obama stimulus package to produce an employment boom is generally seen as having proved that government spending can’t create jobs. But those of us who did the math realized, right from the beginning, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more than a third of which, by the way, took the relatively ineffective form of tax cuts) was much too small given the depth of the slump. And we also predicted the resulting political backlash.

He is not only at odds with conventional reality, but with history as well. Krugman is being shamelessly dishonest here. As I, and others, have chronicled, the stimulus package that he now claims was too small was actually $187 billion bigger than the $600 billion stimulus his “back-of-the-envelope calculations” recommended and described as “huge”.

Keynes was not right. He, and his General Theory, are still dead. Keynesian economists are not only still completely and entirely wrong, but are still in complete denial about the problem of debt, as I shall subsequently demonstrate in a forthcoming post.


Republican fiscal frauds

Remember how the House Republicans voted to increase the debt limit “just one more time” a few months ago? Well, I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am that Congress managed to burn through the additional debt and needs more already:

The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government’s debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday. The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given that Congress is in recess until later in January and the request is in line with an agreement to keep the U.S. government funded into 2013.

I note that this request for additional debt was obvious simply by observing the federal sector’s return to 4+ percent quarterly growth in the third quarter Z1 outstanding credit report.

I have been beating this drum for more than 10 years now, so if you still can’t figure out that the Republican Party is a significant part of the fiscal problem, not the potential solution they present themselves as being, you really have a severe problem with accepting reality. This isn’t to say that Obama and the Senate Democrats are any better, as they are not. But then, they don’t pretend to be the financially responsible party either.

Either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney would be an unmitigated disaster as president. Both of them signed a pledge not to increase the debt limit, and yet it’s clear they will do so using the “just one more time” gambit; Newt didn’t even oppose raising the debt last time so long as the deal didn’t include tax increases.

No Tax Increase in the Debt-Ceiling Deal by Newt Gingrich

“Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has said he would agree to increasing the debt limit only if a deal was “accompanied by a major effort to restructure and reduce the size of government.”

A major effort such as, for example, the one that supposedly cut $100 billion ten years from now… that was in the last deal.


Why smart people support Ron Paul

Ashley just can’t figure out why:

I’ve been trying to understand why smart people I know support Ron Paul and I just can’t get my head around it. I get the sense that maybe the Ron Paul People I know just don’t realize what Ron Paul’s all about. That or they just don’t care.

The Ron Paul People I know are almost all straight, single, relatively young, non-religious, white men. Available demographics suggest that this is an accurate picture; there are others in Ron Paul’s camp, but it’s basically youngish white men.

They do not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Some of them hate the idea of rules, many of them hate the idea of having their money taken away in taxes, but none of them are stupid or without the resources to learn more about their candidate. And none seem to care about any of Ron Paul’s policies outside of cutting spending, regulations, and taxes.

Every Ron Paul Person I know comes out of the woodwork any time anything negative is said about the guy, no matter how true the statement and no matter how much that individual disagrees with Ron Paul’s position or behavior. I get the sense that libertarians are so excited to have someone on the national stage that they don’t want to see anything problematic with the guy, but he’s transparently a bad deal.

So, why are these people supporting a crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist?

I sent her the following email:

Dear Ms Miller,

I’m not going to waste any time correcting your attempt to criticize Ron Paul. Instead, let us simply posit that you are absolutely correct concerning every single complaint you listed about the man. Here is why you, and everyone else, should not only vote for him, but pray to the God in whom you do not believe that he wins the 2012 election anyhow.

He is the only national politician who gives the United States any chance of surviving the collapse of the global economy.

You may not like him. You may think he is crazy and hypocritical and wrong on a panoply of issues. But the fact of the matter that he has been warning everyone about the eventual consequences of the credit boom that the Federal Reserve and the federal government created over the last fifty years, and the subsequent bust they have been desperately staving off since 2008. In doing so, they have made things worse, so much so that the USA may not survive as a nation when their efforts finally fail.

This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing. It is an economic sanity vs insanity thing. Obama has been disastrous, as he has increased federal debt 92% since 2008. McCain would have done the same or worse. Romney and Gingrich would actually be worse than Obama in this regard. The economic Fimbulwinter is coming and there is only one national politician who even understands the core issues involved.

You probably won’t believe anything I say here. That’s fine. But the central banks are presently dancing on the very edge of the precipice, as the recent actions of the Fed and the ECB serve to demonstrate. And if it all collapses before November, I hope you will remember that there was one man who understands why it happened, who tried to prevent it happening, and has been preparing to rebuild from the ashes for a very long time.

With regards,
Vox