The ECB walks a tightrope in helping banks
It has also created perverse incentives for institutions world-wide to tailor their collateral and route it via euro zone affiliates.
Securities tied to loans to consumers and for auto purchases in Australia and South Korea, for example, have been pledged as collateral, something the ECB probably did not anticipate when the rules were first put into place.
Silicon Valley's working class walks tightrope
"This report does an excellent job documenting what people outside the region have been slow to understand - that Silicon Valley is a fairly brutal environment," Joint Venture President Russell Hancock wrote in an e-mail. "Our performance on the global stage doesn't necessarily translate into regional prosperity, the kind that is widely shared. So you get this troubling picture where our companies are thriving but the region feels worse off."
David Prosser's Outlook: Blanchflower's iceberg alert is spot on, but MPC won't change course
This is about the worst time imaginable for serious doubts to be raised about the credibility of government statistics. Walking the tightrope between recession and inflation is a tough enough job for the Monetary Policy Committee. But if the committee can't trust the data on which decisions must be based, each member has effectively been blindfolded. Don't be surprised if they all fall off.
Tightrope: How to claim victory over a defeatist attitude
Pay particular attention to the importance you give to thoughts that are self-sabotaging, i.e., "I know this is not going to work." Or, just re-read your e-mail to me when you wrote, " I somehow don't feel that I have enough of a positive outlook…."
The economy is very well! The economy is well! The economy is well. The economy is ill. The economy is very ill. :(
I have this tendency to revert to the mean it seems. Can't say I didn't try though.
Pictures are powerful.
Take the following picture for example. It shows the average annual inflation rate over the previous five years. It isn't the black line that concerns me. Oil's dropped in price a bit recently and therefore that black line may come down a bit. It's done that quite a few times in the last few years. The red trend line (4th order polynomial) is another matter entirely. I have no idea what it will do in the coming years, but I'd be hard pressed to bet that it will ever fall below zero percent (long-term deflation).
What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation. - Ben Bernanke, 2002
2002 seems to mark the bottom in the chart. Ben Bernanke must feel very proud. "Mission Accomplished."
On May 1, 2003, it was a powerful and accurate metaphor that played to the president’s benefit, and as events grew worse, it was a powerful metaphor that played to the detriment of the president. In retrospect, the sign was too declarative, while the president’s words were accurately subtle. It all got undone because of all the post-war problems we’ve had. - Ari Fleischer
In any event, we're clearly winning the war on deflation even as home prices plummet. Perhaps "credibly threatening to" use the government's printing press "technology" to print money "at essentially no cost" has something to do with it. I see a major problem here though. What's the opposite of threaten? How does one put the threatening inflationary genie back into the bottle?
"Unthreaten" isn't actually a word in the English language. There's probably a very good reason. Once you threaten someone, that's pretty much it. For example, if someone was to threaten me with a gun he'd find it very difficult to "unthreaten" me afterwards. I'd still feel threatened. Go figure. You can be unthreatening of course, but that implies you never threatened in the first place.
I think it is safe to say that Bernanke's 2002 speech did not leave me feeling unthreatened. In fact, it has a lot to do with my long-term stagflationary outlook for as far as the eye can see. First, I now have complete faith in the government's ability to debauch its own currency (and/or "credibly threatening to do so") during an economic downturn. Second, I do not have a good feeling about where our economy has been or is heading. Between income inequality, the outsourcing of jobs, and the similarly massive and extremely related trade deficit I find very few reasons to have a positive outlook about our long-term future. The truth of the matter, at least in my opinion, is that there are billions who are willing to work for less than we will and that imbalance will someday be adjusted.
The optimists would have you believe that the standard of living of billions will soon match our own. The pessimists would have you believe that our standard of living will soon match those elsewhere. I might argue that the truth lies somewhere in between, perhaps weighted by population. If you mix billions of gallons of water with millions of gallons of fine wine, you don't end up with billions of gallons of fine wine. Of that I am fairly confident. Similarly, it seems highly unlikely that if you mix billions of low paying jobs with millions of high paying jobs that you will end up with billions of high paying jobs. Put yet another way, I don't expect to see billions of people drinking fine wine in my lifetime (not that I drink fine wine either for that matter).
Retailers Take a Slower Road in India
Just three years ago, an explosion of conferences, analyst reports, Web sites and magazines predicted the arrival of a new Indian consumer who would change the global retail landscape. The first modern retail stores here were so popular that many entrepreneurs thought people would buy almost anything at any price. They were wrong, as both large and small retailers are discovering. For some, the forecast retail boom that promised jobs for Indians and a new market for global retail giants is already a bust.
"I was an eternal optimist; now I have become a realist," says Kishore Biyani, chairman of Pantaloon Retail India Ltd., India's largest retailer by sales, which has revamped its expansion plans as it discovered more about Indian consumers. "Everybody has miscalculated."
Meanwhile, I expect more of the same for the majority of American workers.
Wages in America:
The Rich Get Richer and the Rest Get Less
The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.
See Also:
Trend Line Disclaimer
Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: CPI For All Urban Consumers: All Items
Stag,
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule
It's all BS in my book. I don't see how it is possible to model an economy of 300 million U.S. citizens let alone a global economy of 6 billion.
The fed can't create wealth. But they can sure as hell destroy wealth. That is the fed's only true power - to threaten to destroy wealth. Seems totalitarian to me. Just how can fascism create a long term environment of growth?
Bernanke gave his (in)famous "Great Moderation" speech in 2004. In 2002, Bernanke delivered his deflation/printing press speech. In 2007 Bernanke Bernanke stated there was no housing bubble. In 2008, Bernanke illegally pledged U.S. funds to prevent a meltdown of the financial system.
The fed has no idea what they are doing.
MAB,
ReplyDeleteThe fed has no idea what they are doing.
I did a search for "no idea what they are doing" and found hundreds of thousands of links. Here's one that seems to support your theory.
Recent fatalities highlight water safety
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_10098336
"They don't have brakes, they don't have air bags, they don't have seat belts, and once you come off the throttle you lose your steering capability," Powell said.
Sure looks like the Fed to me.
"We get a lot of people out in Discovery Bay that are new boat owners from other areas that have no idea what they are doing, and they wreak havoc on the Discovery Bay waterways," Carreon said. "I think it would help if people had to pass a boating class and have a special license to operate a boat."
My bad. Although Bernanke does seem like a new boat owner, I believe he is technically considered to be a new ship owner. Any fool can steer a boat. It takes a greater fool to steer a ship the size of the Titanic using nothing more than a rear view mirror and a stack of spreadsheets though.
Bernanke's Complete and Utter Failure
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/07/17/bernankes-complete-and-utter-failure.aspx
At the core of the current catastrophe is Bernanke's asinine assumption that simply throwing money at a problem is a way to solve it. Unfortunately, the (nearly) free money he throws about is about the costliest capital on the planet. The true cost isn't measured by the interest rate he arbitrarily chooses to charge, but on the effects his actions have on the private sector.
That last article is not a "no idea what they are doing" link. It is a "Bernanke Titanic" link. There's tens of thousands of those to pick from as well. It was a comment from a reader that did the damage.
The metaphor "Bailing out" is apt in this situation. As in the question, "What if the passengers on the Titanic had been more adept at "bailing out?'" The answer would rightly seem to be that the Titanic (i.e. US economy) would still have sunk, but the passengers while furiously bailing would still have drowned. They just would have been more distracted by the bailing out activity and wouldn't be able to have paid as much attention to the Real Dilemma. Ben, more buckets, please. - dustdevil11
Stag,
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills
After WWI, Germany had no gold. They got on without it though via a faith based currency. FDR took notice. Nixon noticed too. Wisely, FDR & Nixon kept America's gold as an insurance policy (~ 300,000,000 ounces as best as I can tell).
Bernanke's alphabet soup credit facilities seem to show he has a sense of German history too.
The greatest story never told.
MAB,
ReplyDeleteThe greatest story never told.
Nothing to See Here, Please Disperse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic
Stag,
ReplyDeleteIf faith can be fickle so can faith based currencies. That's why it's hard for me to "buy" into the Euro when it is backed by only faith. At least the U.S. is still the worlds largest owner of gold. And our natural resources are much greater than Euro countries too.
A variation of the MEFO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Rentenmark
Rentenmarks would never be confused with wampum or pelts. "Renton Marks" maybe.
Anyway, I keep trying to sanity test current U.S. global trade and domestic credit policies against a traditional gold exchange standard. I can't help thinking its a good litmus test if money is indeed still equated with work (something I now doubt). No matter how I look at things, I just don't see how our credit binge can continue. Especially since it's largely based on the faith of foreigners. Perhaps the foreign faith bubble is the next to pop. That would be a bummer for U.S. interest rates.
Think about current trade as if it were governed by a gold standard. Would the U.S. actually ship our gold overseas in exchange for consumables? I seriously doubt it. I'm sure the French have no doubts. I see a big mismatch - too many goods for paper. If I was a foreigner, I'd want to start owning more U.S. equities & actual assets over more bonds. Fiat makes defaulting on bonds via printing a real worry. That Budweiser deal made sense to me. Especially if you think the Euro is over hyped.
If we do indeed have a free market and money is indeed equated with work, adjustments are in the offing. My best guess is that under a gold standard we would be facing a 1930s deflation. Under fiat, I think your stagflation scenario is the likely outcome.
Also, I think all that gold we've been hoarding will be quite useful. Oddly, I think a lot of foreign faith is mistakenly banking on it.
Lots of loosely connected thoughts. It's a tough race to handicap.
MAB,
ReplyDeleteRentenmarks
Okay, that's just plain spooky.
My best guess is that under a gold standard we would be facing a 1930s deflation.
I agree.
Under fiat, I think your stagflation scenario is the likely outcome.
I lean heavily that way, but stagflation is currently losing its luster a bit. In the long run, I think faith (or lack thereof) will remain a serious issue though.
Despite Lower Oil Prices, Little Relief for Consumers
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/business/03commodities.html?ref=business
“Everybody still feels there is too much uncertainty to be clear about what action they should take,” said Ali Dibadj, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, who specializes in companies that use oil-based raw materials in making a variety of consumer products. “They won’t immediately drop their prices.”
I'm certainly not clear what action I should take. I can say that the thought of burying faith based paper dollars in my back yard as a long term store of wealth doesn't seem all that appealing to me.
I think we're about due for another deflation scare. Anyone burying cash in the backyard will soon feel Bernanke "credibly threatening" them again soon. Just a hunch. The aftermath of the last deflation scare (earlier this decade) saw several years of above average inflation. I can't imagine that the next one will be any different.
I also continue to believe that the gap between our standard of living and the standard of living in China is attempting to narrow. If our standard of living must fall (not a certainty, but it has been the trend for the middle class and the poor) and our wages are not actually allowed to fall, then the gap must eventually be closed through inflation.
There are two simple ways to have a falling standard of living. You either see your wages fall faster than prices fall (serious deflation) or you see prices rise faster than your wages increase (serious inflation). It seems to me that we are in a situation where wages are not allowed to fall. Money can certainly be printed to stop and/or slow it anyway. We are not in a situation where prices are not allowed to rise though, in the long-term anyway. In fact, in the long-term it is encouraged.