Alan Greenspan: QE Failed the Real Economy, Unwinding will Unleash Market Volatility, Recommends Gold

As the US Federal Reserve officially “concluded” its QE 3.0 program this month, former Fed chief Alan Greenspan has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal as giving his assessment and predictions from such actions. (hat tip Zero Hedge)

Mr. Greenspan on the QE’s efficacy: (bold mine)

He said the bond-buying program was ultimately a mixed bag. He said that the purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities did help lift asset prices and lower borrowing costs. But it didn’t do much for the real economy.

“Effective demand is dead in the water” and the effort to boost it via bond buying “has not worked,” said Mr. Greenspan. Boosting asset prices, however, has been “a terrific success.”

Mr. Greenspan fails to include the massive debt build up as part of the asset based 'success story'.

Yet it’s one thing to be an insider and it’s another thing to be outside the corridors of power; personal views radically changes. In the case of Mr. Greenspan he goes from defending incumbent policies (as insider) to critiquing them (as outsider). 

Ironically, Mr. Greenspan initiated today's de facto easy money “aggregate demand” policy-standard, which his successor Mr. Bernanke improvised.

On QE withdrawal:

He also said, “I don’t think it’s possible” for the Fed to end its easy-money policies in a trouble-free manner.

“We’ve never had any experience with anything like this, so I’m not going to sit here and tell you exactly how it’s going to come out,” Mr. Greenspan said. But he noted that markets often react to changes in central bank policy unpredictably and not entirely rationally. Recent episodes in which Fed officials hinted at a shift toward higher interest rates have unleashed significant volatility in markets, so there is no reason to suspect that the actual process of boosting rates would be any different, Mr. Greenspan said.

He said the Fed may not even have that much power over the timing of interest-rate increases. The problem as he sees it is an interest rate the Fed pays on the money banks park at the central bank, called reserves. Fed officials plan to use this tool as their primary lever for raising interest rates when the time comes. If bankers decide to put this money to work, creating inflation risks, the Fed may be forced to raise rates, even if the economy isn't ready for it, he warned.

“I think that real pressure is going to occur not by the initiation by the Federal Reserve, but by the markets themselves,” Mr. Greenspan he said.

chart from zero hedge

With world debt levels going bonkers, the path to a relatively tighter money policy would naturally cause 'adjustment strains' which may be characterized as “significant volatility in markets”. 

Of course this won’t be limited to just the financial asset markets.

Finally. Mr. Greenspan seems to have reverted to his pristine position as 'gold bug'.

Mr. Greenspan said gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments.

In 1966, the pre-Fed chair Mr. Greenspan penned this classic Gold and Economic Freedom article on the gold standard, here is an excerpt...

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

This just illustrates how power changes people. 

But I agree with the Maestro here, in today's massive manipulation of money and markets, gold is an insurance.

On University of Chicago’s Raghuram Rajan as India’s Central Bank Governor

Austrian economist Peter Klein cheers the appointment of University of Chicago’s finance and banking professor as the Governor of the central bank of India, noting of Mr. Rajan’s familiarity of the Austrian Business Cycle.

Writes Professor Klein at the Mises Blog

Raghu Rajan is a very good neoclassical economist who has made important contributions to banking, finance, the theory of the firm, corporate governance, economic development, and other fields. He is also taking over as head of India’s central bank. Rajan is no Austrian, but he has a quasi-Austrian take on the financial crisis, and far greater appreciation for free markets in general than any of the key US or European policymakers. As I tweeted this morning, Rajan is about 1,000,000 times better than either Summers or Yellen. I’d gladly trade him for any US central banker.

Consider, for example, Rajan’s take on the financial crisis:

The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet.

As I wrote before, I’d reverse the order of emphasis — credit expansion first, housing policy second — but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.

Rajan also wrote an interesting theoretical paper with Peter Diamond that echoes the Austrian theory of the business cycle: “[W]hen household needs for funds are high, interest rates will rise sharply, debtors will have to shut down illiquid projects, and in extremis, will face more damaging [bank] runs. Authorities may want to push down interest rates to maintain economic activity in the face of such illiquidity, but intervention may not always be feasible, and when feasible, could encourage banks to increase leverage or fund even more illiquid projects up front. This could make all parties worse off.”

Read the rest here

Having a free market proponent in the belly of the beast can both be a blessing or a curse. Although like Mr. Klein, one side of me wishes Mr. Rajan all the luck, another side of me tells me not to expect anything substantial.

While it may be true that Mr. Rajan has a magnificent track record of understanding central banks and the entwined interests of the banking system coming from the free market perspective, in my view, it is one thing to operate as an ‘outsider’, and another thing to operate as a political ‘insider’ in command of power.

Mr. Rajan will be dealing, not only conflicting interests of deeply entrenched political groups, but any potential radical free market reforms are likely to run in deep contradiction with the existing statutes or legal framework from which promotes the interests of the former.

Moreover, other political agencies, whose interests has been to promote the status quo, may run roughshod with Mr. Rajan perspective of reforms.

It would be interesting to see how Mr. Rajan will deal with  the present repressive “war on gold” policies by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (PMEAC) whose interventionists actions has expanded to cover not only gold imports, but on gold transactions at every distribution level of the Indian economy.

In short, assuming the central bank governorship won’t just be about monetary, or banking policies but about the politics of bureaucracy, the welfare state and crony capitalism. 

Mr. Rajan will also have to deal with the huge resistance-to-change attitude from these groups.

In addition, in assuming the role of the proverbial hammer, where everything would look like a nail, the allure of the possession of the extraordinary power of political control over society risks overwhelming Mr. Rajan’s principles.

A great precedent would be former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. Dr, Greenspan used to be an ardent Ayn Rand fan and a Ms. Rand influenced objectivist who embraced free market principles. Mr. Greenspan even authored the splendid, Gold and Economic Freedom in 1966. 

However upon assuming the Fed Chairmanship, Mr. Greenspan eventually abandoned free market principles to become a rabid inflationist or a serial bubble blower. Yet today’s lingering problems have, in effect, been a legacy of Greenspan-Bernanke actions.

True Mr. Rajan may not be Dr. Greenspan. But with the manifold challenging tasks ahead coming from different fronts, Mr. Rajan may want to take heed of Yoda’s advice to Anakin Skywalker: The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.

Family of Cyprus President Moved Money Out; Politicians Benefit from Loan Write offs

Previously I posted about how money leaked out of Cyprus during the bank bail-in negotiations and of the Cyprus president having ”warned” his friends of imminence of the crisis.

It turns out that money has been flowing out of Cyprus even earlier or 2 months prior to the crisis. (chart from Zero Hedge)

And part of such outflows could have been made by the family of the president of Cyprus.

From the RT:

A company owned by in-laws of Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades wired €21 million from Laiki Bank to London days before the Eurogroup’s crisis-triggering levy proposal, claims a Cypriot newspaper. The president demands an investigation.

During two days, 12 and 13 of March, the company A.Loutsios & Sons Ltd., co-owned by Loutsios John, the husband of Nikos Anastasiadis’ daughter, Elsa, took five promissory notes worth €21 million from Laiki Bank. The money was then transferred to London, reported Cypriot newspaper Haravgi, affiliated to the communist-rooted AKEL party.

The withdrawal was fulfilled just three days before the Eurogroup meeting when euro finance ministers agreed a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout for Cyprus.

The company, however, has firmly denied the reports.

So many people "knew" or anticipated the crisis.

 

Yet the report says that the President demands an investigation of his family’s action? Unless there is a feud, this would be like proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

It also figures that the alleged beneficiaries of the recent loan write-offs have been the political class and their cronies.

From the Telegraph:

Lawmaker Mavrides, meanwhile, confirmed that a committee appointed by President Nicos Anastasiades would investigate a list published by Greek media of Cypriot politicians who allegedly had loans forgiven.

The Bank of Cyprus, Laiki and Hellenic Bank reportedly forgave millions of euros in loans over the past five years to lawmakers, companies and local company authorities, newspapers in Greece said.

The allegations would likely be discussed in parliament next week, Mavrides added.

Developing events in Cyprus just reveals that while the public gets squeezed, it pays to be a part of the insider or the political class, the well connected and the cronies.

How Money Oozed out of Cyprus during Negotiation of Bailout Deal

And almost everyone thought that the public’s money froze in Cyprus as ATMs went out of cash and banks were officially closed while local politicians haggled with unelected eurocrats for a bailout deal which was concluded right before the deadline.

Well, reports say that money had oozed out of Cyprus during the weekend.

From Reuters: (bold mine) 

In banknotes at cash machines and exceptional transfers for "humanitarian supplies", large amounts of euros fled the east Mediterranean island before and after Cypriot lawmakers stunned Europe by rejecting a levy on all bank deposits.

EU negotiators knew something was wrong when the Central Bank of Cyprus requested more banknotes from the European Central Bank than the withdrawals it was reporting to Frankfurt implied were needed, an EU source familiar with the process said. "The amount the Cypriots mentioned... on a daily basis was much less than it was in reality," the source said.

Confusion over just how much money was pulled out of Cyprus' banks is illustrative of the confusion surrounding the negotiations as a whole. Representing just 0.2 percent of the euro zone economy, Cyprus nevertheless threatened to reignite the bloc's debt crisis. Cyprus' problems began in Greece - it is heavily exposed to the euro zone's first bailout casualty.

No one knows exactly how much money has left Cyprus' banks, or where it has gone. The two banks at the centre of the crisis - Cyprus Popular Bank, also known as Laiki, and Bank of Cyprus - have units in London which remained open throughout the week and placed no limits on withdrawals. Bank of Cyprus also owns 80 percent of Russia's Uniastrum Bank, which put no restrictions on withdrawals in Russia. Russians were among Cypriot banks' largest depositors.

While ordinary Cypriots queued at ATM machines to withdraw a few hundred euros as credit card transactions stopped, other depositors used an array of techniques to access their money.

Companies that had to meet margin calls to avoid defaulting on deals were granted funds. Transfers for trade in humanitarian products, medicines and jet fuel were allowed.

Chris Pavlou, who was vice chairman of Laiki until Friday, said while some money was withdrawn over a period of several days it was in the order of millions of euros, not billions.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the bank closure had limited capital flight but that the ECB was looking closely at the issue. He declined to provide figures.

Two angles here. 

One, people always search for alternatives by exploiting on legal or regulatory loopholes. As indicated above, some took advantage of the London branches of Cyprus banks to withdraw their money.

On the other hand, aside from the controversy where the Cyprus president warned his friends of the imminence of the crisis, in the world of politics, there will always be exceptions to the rule. This applies most especially in favor of the politically connected. What would be needed are "valid" justifications for such actions.

As George Orwell once wrote in Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

Cyprus President Warned Friends of Crisis

Events in Cyprus have been demonstrative of the wide distinction between how the pubic perceives governments are supposed to operate (the romantic view where government looks after the interest of the general welfare) with how governments truly operate (self interests).

In reality governments operates around the cabal of insiders, again take it from the events in Cyprus.

From the Daily Mail, (hat tip lewrockwell.com)

Cypriot president Nikos Anastasiades 'warned' close friends of the financial crisis about to engulf his country so they could move their money abroad, it was claimed on Friday.

The respected Cypriot newspaper Filelftheros made the allegation which was picked up eagerly by German media.

Germans are angry at the way their country has been linked to the Nazis and Hitler by Cypriots angry at the defunct rescue deal which called for a levy on all savings.

The Cyprus newspaper did not say how much money was moved abroad but quoted sources saying the president 'knew about the possible closure of the banks' and tipped off close friends who were able to move vast sums abroad. 

Italian media said the 4.5 billion euros left the island in the week before the crisis.

As an update on the swiftly unfolding events in Cyprus, Russia has rejected a deal with Cyprus.  Also the Cyprus parliament approved of instituting capital controls aside from other measures passed.

From Reuters:

As hundreds of demonstrators faced off with riot police outside parliament late into Friday night, lawmakers inside voted to nationalize pension funds, pool state assets for a bond issue and peel good assets from bad in stricken banks.

We live in very interesting times.

Quote of the Day: How Insiders Use Democracy to Pick on Your Pockets

Napoleon Bonaparte himself was an outsider. He was not French, but Corsican. He didn’t even speak French when he arrived in Toulon as a boy. But there never is one fixed group of people who are always insiders. Instead, the insider group has a porous membrane separating it from the rest of the population. Some people enter. Some are expelled. The group swells. And shrinks. Potential rivals are brought in and bought off. Weak members are pushed out. Sometimes, a military defeat brings a whole new group of insiders into power. Elections, too, can change the make-up of the core group.

The genius of modern representative government is that it allows the masses to believe that they are insiders too. They are encouraged to vote…and to believe that their vote really matters. Of course, it matters not at all. Generally, the voters have no idea what or whom they are voting for. Often, they get the opposite of what they thought they had voted for anyway.

The common man likes the idea that he is running things. And he pays dearly for it. After the insiders brought him into the voting booth, his taxes soared…

In short, the insiders pulled a fast one. They allowed the rube to feel that he had a solemn responsibility to set the course of government. And while the fellow was dazzled by his own power…they picked his pocket!..

By the 20th century, developed countries could afford the cost of maintaining an expensive level of military preparedness, even when there was not really very much to be prepared for. But the common man was skinned again. Not only was he expected to pay for it, still under the delusion that he was in charge, he also was made to believe that he had a patriotic duty to defend the homeland insiders! That is the real reason that the modern democratic system has spread all over the world. It allows the insiders to mobilize more of the resources and energy of the country on their behalf. Nothing can compete with it.

This is from the Daily Reckoning’s Bill Bonner

The Illusions of Technocracy

Professors Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson writes,

In 1979 Paul A. Volcker became chairman of the Fed and tamed inflation by raising interest rates and inducing a sharp recession. The more general lesson was simple: Move monetary policy further from the hands of politicians by delegating it to credible technocrats.

I hope the world operates in such simplicity. We just hire the right persons of virtue and intellect and our problems would vanish.

But that’s not the world we live in.

First of all, too much credit has been given to the actions of ex-US Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker, who may just be at the right place at the right time.

Here is Dr. Marc Faber on Paul Volcker, (bold emphasis mine)

In the 1970s, the rate of inflation accelerated, partly because of easy monetary policies, which led to negative real interest rates, partly because of genuine shortages in a number of commodity markets, and partly because OPEC successfully managed to squeeze up oil prices. But by the late 1970s, the rise in commodity prices led to additional supplies and several commodities began to decline in price even before the then Fed chairman Paul Volcker tightened monetary conditions.

Similarly, soaring energy prices in the late 1970s led to an investment boom in the oil- and gas-producing industry, which increased oil production while at the same time the world learned how to use energy more efficiently. As a result, oil shortages gave way to an oil glut, which sent oil prices tumbling after 1985.

At the same time, the US consumption boom that had been engineered by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s (driven by exploding budget deficits) began to attract a growing volume of cheap Asian imports, first from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, and then, in the late 1980s, also from China.

I would therefore argue that even if Paul Volcker hadn't pursued an active monetary policy that was designed to curb inflation by pushing up interest rates dramatically in 1980/81, the rate of inflation around the world would have slowed down very considerably in the course of the 1980s, as commodity markets became glutted and highly competitive imports from Asia and Mexico began to put pressure on consumer product prices in the USA.

Then, markets had already been signaling the unsustainability of Fed induced inflation which had been underpinned by real market events as oversupply and globalization. Thus, Paul Volcker’s actions may have just reinforced an ongoing development.

In short, lady luck may have played a big role in Mr. Volcker’s alleged feat.

Next, looking at the world in a static frame misleads.

Conditions today are vastly dissimilar from the conditions then, as I recently wrote,

Circumstances during Mr. Volker’s time have immensely been different than today. There has been a vast deepening of financialization of the US economy where the share of US Financial industry to the GDP has soared. In short, the financial industry is more economically (thus politically) important today than in the Volcker days. Seen in a different prism, the central bank-banking cartel during the Volcker era has not been as embedded as today.

Yet how did this came about?

According to Federal Reserve of Dallas Harvey Rosenblum

Banks have grown larger in recent years because of artificial advantages, particularly the widespread belief that government will rescue the creditors of the biggest financial institutions. Human weakness will cause occasional market disruptions. Big banks backed by government turn these manageable episodes into catastrophes

Put differently, public policies or regulations spawn a feedback mechanism between regulators and the regulated through human interactions.

Laws and regulations don’t just alter the incentives of the market participants, they foster changes in the relationship between political authorities and the regulated industry.

More laws tend to increase or deepen the personal connections and communications between authorities and the regulated. This magnifies opportunities to leverage personal relationships where market participants seek concessions or compromises from their regulatory overseers, which leads to political favors, corruption, influence in shaping policies and the ‘captured’ regulators. And such relationships bring about the insider-outsider politics as evidenced by revolving door syndrome.

As human beings we live in a social world. The idea where “virtue” and knowledge are enough to shield political authorities from the influences of the regulated and or the political masters of public officials and or from personal ties, represents a world of ivory towers, and simply is fiction.

The true reason behind the illusions of technocracy as stated by Murray N. Rothbard, (bold emphasis added)

There are two essential roles for these assorted and proliferating technocrats and intellectuals: to weave apologies for the statist regime, and to help staff the interventionist bureaucracy and to plan the system.

The keys to any social or political movement are money, numbers, and ideas. The opinion-moulding classes, the technocrats and intellectuals supply the ideas, the propaganda, and the personnel to staff the new statist dispensation. The critical funding is supplied by figures in the power elite: various members of the wealthy or big business (usually corporate) classes. The very name "Rockefeller Republican" reflects this basic reality.

While big-business leaders and firms can be highly productive servants of consumers in a free-market economy, they are also, all too often, seekers after subsidies, contracts, privileges, or cartels furnished by big government. Often, too, business lobbyists and leaders are the sparkplugs for the statist, interventionist system.

What big businessmen get out of this unholy coalition on behalf of the super-state are subsidies and privileges from big government. What do intellectuals and opinion-moulders get out of it? An increasing number of cushy jobs in the bureaucracy, or in the government-subsidized sector, staffing the welfare-regulatory state, and apologizing for its policies, as well as propagandizing for them among the public. To put it bluntly, intellectuals, theorists, pundits, media elites, etc. get to live a life which they could not attain on the free market, but which they can gain at taxpayer expense--along with the social prestige that goes with the munificent grants and salaries.

This is not to deny that the intellectuals, therapists, media folk, et al., may be "sincere" ideologues and believers in the glorious coming age of egalitarian collectivism. Many of them are driven by the ancient Christian heresy, updated to secularist and New Age versions, of themselves as a cadre of Saints imposing upon the country and the world a communistic Kingdom of God on Earth.

Bottom line: Technocrats are no different than everyone else. They are human beings. They may have specialized knowledge covering certain areas of life, but they don’t have general expertise over the complex world of interacting human beings and of nature.

Technocrats have not been bestowed with omniscience enough to know and dictate on how we should live our lives. Instead, technocrats use their special ‘knowledge’ to advance their personal interests, by short circuiting market forces through politics, and who become tools for politicians or vested interest groups.

And that's why they are technocrats, they are afraid to put their knowledge to real tests by taking risks at the marketplace and rather hide behind the skirt of politics.

Thus, the idea of political efficacies from the philosopher king paradigm through modern day technocratic governance is a myth.

Paul Volcker Warns Ben Bernanke: A Little Extra Inflation Would Backfire

For the second time, Paul Volcker, the predecessor of the incumbent US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke takes the latter’s policies to task.

From Newsmax,

The U.S. economy is recovering "pretty well" and trying to juice it up by allowing a little extra inflation would be disastrous, said Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman known for successfully reining in double-digit inflation.

"I think that is kind of a doomsday scenario," Volcker told an economic summit when asked if the Fed should foster higher inflation to stimulate faster growth.

Higher inflation would backfire by causing interest rates to rise. "You are not going to get any stimulus and you are going to make it much harder to restore price stability," Volcker told the Atlantic magazine conference.

I candidly don’t believe that Mr. Ben Bernanke is entirely clueless on the risks of the policies he has implemented. While part of these may have been ideology based, I don’t think this tells the entire story.

Mr. Bernanke, as an insider, may not just be working around economic and financial theories. My guess is that the directions of policymaking may have been substantially influenced by pressures from entrenched powerful interests group.

While Paul Volcker’s reputation has been built from his inflation fighting stance, I am not sure he would depart from adapting Bernanke’s policies if he is in the latter’s shoes today.

Circumstances during Mr. Volker’s time have immensely been different than today. There has been a vast deepening of financialization of the US economy where the share of US Financial industry to the GDP has soared. In short, the financial industry is more economically (thus politically) important today than in the Volcker days. Seen in a different prism, the central bank-banking cartel during the Volcker era has not been as embedded as today.

This is not to defend Bernanke, but to exhibit the divergence in the degree of political ties between US Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

Bailouts, Quantitative Easings, currency swaps and zero bound rates only reveals of the priorities of team Bernanke which have mostly been designed to protect the banking and financial industry.

And the only way to eradicate these cozy crony relationship which thrives upon policies that “privatize profits, socialize losses” is to end the Federal Reserve and the central banking system.

Quote of the Day: Insider-Outsider Government Theory

Bill Bonner’s theory of government.

Every theory of government we’ve come across is a scam. So we offer a better theory: government is just a way for the insiders to take advantage of the outsiders…

Insiders always use government to transfer power and money from the outsiders to themselves…

There never is one fixed group of people who are always insiders. Instead, the insider group has a porous membrane separating it from the rest of the population. Some people enter. Some are expelled. The group swells. And shrinks. Sometimes, a military defeat brings a whole new group of insiders sweeping into power. Elections change the make-up of the core group.

But the genius of modern representative government is that it cons the masses into believing that they are insiders too. They are encouraged to vote…and to believe that their vote really matters. Of course, it matters not at all. Generally, the voters have no idea what or whom they are voting for. Often, they get the opposite of what they thought they had voted for anyway.