Detroit: US Largest City to File for Bankruptcy

As US stock markets soar to record highs, Michigan’s most populous city of Detroit once the cradle of the US automobile industry files for bankruptcy

From the BBC:

The US city of Detroit in Michigan has become the largest American city ever to file for bankruptcy, with debts of at least $15bn (£10bn).

State-appointed emergency manager Kevyn Orr asked a federal judge to place the city into bankruptcy protection.

If it is approved, he would be allowed to liquidate city assets to satisfy creditors and pensions.

Detroit stopped unsecured-debt payments last month to keep the city running as Mr Orr negotiated with creditors.

He proposed a deal last month in which creditors would accept 10 cents for every dollar they were owed.

But two pension funds representing retired city workers resisted the plan. Thursday's bankruptcy filing comes days ahead of a hearing that would have tried to stop the city from making such a move.

A Wall Street Journal report estimates “Municipal-worker retirees are set to get less than 10% of what they are owed under the plan.” Ouch.

Detroit's riches to rags synopsis from the same BBC article:

The city, once renowned as a manufacturing powerhouse, has struggled with its finances for some time, driven by a number of factors, including a steep population loss.

The murder rate is at a 40-year high and only one third of the its ambulances were in service in early 2013.

Declining investment in street lights and emergency services have made it difficult to police the city.

And Detroit's government has been hit by a string of corruption scandals over the years.

Between 2000-10, the number of residents declined by 250,000 as residents moved away.

Detroit is only the latest US city to file for bankruptcy in recent years.

In 2012, three California cities - Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino - took the step.

In 2011, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania tried to file for bankruptcy but the move was ruled illegal.

But Thursday's move in Detroit is significantly larger than any of the earlier filings.

Detroit ranks 9th in terms of highest taxes based on US cities according to the Marketwatch.com. On the obverse side of high taxes has been unsustainable government spending from bureaucracy to welfare.

From Reuters:

Detroit's state and local tax burden as a percentage of annual family income surpassed the average for other large U.S. cities. For example, the tax burden at the $25,000 income level was 13.1 percent in Detroit versus an average of 12.3 percent.

Buss said that Detroit has seen a significant expansion in deficit spending over the last two years, reaching an accumulated $326.6 million at the end of fiscal 2012 from an accumulated deficit of $196.6 million in fiscal 2011. The city has had a budget deficit every year since 2003…

Total revenue in Detroit has fallen sharply over the last 10 years by over $400 million or 22 percent, according to the analysis. State revenue sharing has also been cut, although the city, which accounts for 7 percent of the state's residents, gets by far the biggest amount on a per capita basis -- $335 per resident -- far more than other Michigan cities with populations over 50,000.

Half of Detroit's top 10 employers are governmental entities, led by the city itself with nearly 11,400 workers, down from 20,800 in 2003, followed by the Detroit Public Schools at 10,951, the report said. Two health care systems and the federal government round out the top five. Chrysler, the only automaker in the group, ranks eighth, employing 4,150 workers, a drop of more than a half from 2003.

Also part of the decline of Detroit has attributed to “raced based” policies which sparked a “White Flight” according to economist Walter Williams.

Local politics shaped by labor activism or labor unions likewise compounded on the loss of competitiveness.

So Detroit seems as the US version of Greece: declining economy predicated on the lack of competitiveness shaped by repressive social policies and by excess political baggage via the welfare and bureaucratic state.

Detroit signifies a harbinger for a world addicted to debt based 'political' consumption spending.

Nonetheless The USA Today lays out “What happens next” or the possible legal steps on the Detroit Bankruptcy 

And furthermore, while Detroit represents the largest city or the largest municipal bankruptcy in history, there are yet other local troubled spots (graphic from New York Times).

Yet if the current inflationary boom in the US morphs into a bust, then we will see even more candidates similar to Detroit. 

Worse, even the US government is at the risk of becoming a Detroit, especially if interest rates (as expressed by the bond markets or of the return of the bond vigilantes) continue with its upside trek.

US States: High Debts and Labor Unionism

Some debt crisis stricken US states could be facing debt downgrades soon.

From Businessweek/Bloomberg,

The debt of 30 California cities, including Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento, has been placed under review for downgrades because of economic pressures in the state, Moody’s Investors Service said.

The examinations may affect $14.3 billion in lease-backed and general-obligation debt issued by the municipalities, the New York-based company said yesterday in a statement.

“California cities operate under more rigid revenue- raising constraints than cities in many other parts of the country,” Eric Hoffmann, who heads Moody’s California local government ratings team, said in a statement. “Combined with steeply rising costs, these constraints mean that these cities will likely recover more slowly than their peers nationally, even if the state’s economic recovery tracks the nation’s.”

Communities in California have struggled to stay afloat by cutting staff and services to make up for a drop in sales and property tax revenue in the wake of the recession. Stockton, San Bernardino and Mammoth Lakes have gone into bankruptcy court since June.

Moody’s said it identified the credits as part of a broader review started in August of 95 rated cities in California.

The general-obligation bond ratings of Los Angeles, now Aa3, fourth-highest,and San Francisco, Aa2, third-highest, are on review for upgrades, Moody’s said.

Such developments merely reminds us that the US remains highly fragile to lingering debt problems.

Also, the prospective downgrades reminds me of an article that I recently came across which associates high levels of debt with high levels of ‘forced’ unionization.

From DScoundrels.com (hat tip Charleston Voice)

After discovering that the Top 10 states with the highest tax rates were all Forced Union states, it comes as no surprise that the top states with the worst debt trouble are also Forced Union states. Back in January Forbes tallied up several factors to identify which states were in the worst debt trouble (50 being the worst). The ‘Debt Per Capita and Unfunded Pensions Per Capita’ number is how much is owed per person in the state. Forbes looked at the following:

The metrics we looked at for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit agency ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a moocher ratio that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

Forced Union vs Right-to-Work States:

Of the top 15 states with the worst debt troubles every one listed is a Forced Union state other than Mississippi and Louisiana. These states are outliers because they have assumed larger debt due to rebuilding after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Of the top 15 states with the least debt troubles, all but 4 (New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado and Indiana) are Right-to-Work states. Note that in 2005 Governor Daniels of Indiana revokedthe collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.  It is also notable that the Forced Union states have a higher percentage of unionized government workers than the Right-to-Work states.

Read the rest here.

Due to the mass production and centralized organization structure which characterized the industrial age, labor unions used to represent highly influential vested groups. 

Chart from the conservative Heritage Foundation 

They still are politically influential but a lot less than what had been.

Proof of this is that some of President Obama’s policies have been conspicuously pro-union e.g. auto bailouts.

However due to globalization and the deepening of the information age, labor union trends have been on a decline worldwide.

Governments in the past has implemented inflationism to pacify US labor union groups.

As the great Ludwig von Mises narrated,

The very essence of the interventionist politicians' wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. Many of our contemporaries look upon people who are foolhardy enough "to cross a picket line" as primitive tribesmen looked upon those who violated the precepts of taboo conceptions. Millions are jubilant if such scabs receive their well-deserved punishment from the hands of the strikers while the police, the public attorneys, and the penal courts preserve a lofty neutrality…

Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check this undesired result of their interference by resorting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment policy: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.

I believe that a lot of the advocates for the mercantilist-inflationists dogma are those bearing a nostalgia for big labor union days.

Unfortunately for them, today’s political priorities have shifted. Governments, along with their central banks, have been supporting mostly the crony banking system (through asset prices) whom has served as key financier to welfare-warfare based political institutions.

Worse, the era of labor union, welfare-warfare and big government are being seriously challenged by growing forces of decentralization and by internal atrophy from unsustainable government spending-debt dynamics.

Signs of Bond Bubble: Clashing Price Dynamics of US State CDS And The Treasury Market

Here is an example of the market’s current cognitive dissonance.

In the US, as many as 5 states appear to be having serious credit problems and are presently being reflected on the Credit Default Swaps (CDS) or the cost to insure a bond.

One might say that they are the US equivalent to Europe’s version of the PIIGS. We made an earlier similar observation here.

According to Bespoke Invest (chart also from them),

The number next to each state represents the cost per year to insure $10,000 worth of state bonds for 5 years. The higher the price, the higher the default risk. As shown, Illinois has the highest default risk of all states at 303.2 bps -- even higher than California. California ranks 2nd, followed by Michigan, New York, and New Jersey. Not to anyone's surprise, these are basically the five states in the country with the biggest fiscal problems at the moment. States that appear to be in pretty good shape include Texas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

As you can see the credit problems are NOT being reflected on US treasury yields (10 year TNX), which seem to ignore the developments in the CDS markets.

In contrast, the Eurozone recently had a fit of convulsion over the Greece-led PIIGs episode.

And instead, the US sovereign papers are seen “safety” assets where an ongoing onrush appears to be taking place as the mainstream hollers about “deflation (!)”.

In short, you have two markets seemingly headed for a collision course. This means one of them is decisively wrong.

For me, this represents part of the massive distortions engendered by interventionism. And vastly skewed prices have been misleading investors (led by the retail-dumb money). The treasury markets increasingly look like a time bomb, in the perspective of a ‘bond bubble’, set to implode.

The other way to say it is that if those credit woes exacerbate, then eventually, they will be vented on the treasury markets.

Caveat emptor.

Credit Default Risk: From PIIGS To The 4 US States

Four US states, particularly California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, has been in a race with the European "PIIGS" in terms of credit risks or default risk as measured by CDS (Credit Default Risk).

As Bespoke Invest notes,

``All four states are closer to the top of the list than the bottom in terms of default risk. As noted earlier, Illinois has the highest default risk at 368.6 bps. The state sits between Dubai and Bulgaria. California ranks second out of the four at 352.9 bps, while New York and New Jersey are both right around the 290 bp level. Illinois and California are both at higher risk than Portugal, while all four are in a worse situation than Spain. In terms of year-to-date change, Illinois default risk is up 117%, New York and New Jersey are both up about 87%, and California is up 35%."

The difference is that the European PIIGS constitute about 18% of EU's GDP while the US contemporary is about 29% of the US GDP. Incidentally, the 4 states are among the biggest (in terms of share of GDP): California (ranked 1st), New York (3rd), Illinois (5th) and New Jersey (8th).

Yet financial markets seem to be singing contrasting tunes which seem inconsistent: jump in the Euro, firming CDS of 4 US states while new lows in 10 year US treasury yields. If there is a shift in concerns towards the 4 US states then treasuries yields are suppose to go higher.

I'd like to add that the gap between the PIIGS and the US-4 relative to the ASEAN-4 led by Indonesia and the Philippines seems to have widened. This partly explains the signs of 'decoupling'.

Three More Reasons Why The Euro Rally Should Continue

``Inflation is not the result of a curse or a tragic fate but of a frivolous or perhaps even criminal policy.” -Ludwig Wilhelm Erhard

Lady Luck seems to smile at us, given that our forecasts of last week appear to have been serendipitously realized. The Euro surged by 2.4% over the week and risk assets turned materially positive, exactly as we spelled out[1].

But of course, we hardly ever talk about ONE week, we allude to near to medium term which may cover the outcome for the rest of the year. Perhaps the Euro may recover to the 1.30 to 1.32 level by the yearend?

There are three more reasons why the Euro should persist to rally and why risk asset markets are likely to gain momentum.

First of all, emerging markets continue to lead the way in terms of economic growth[2], whereby EM economies may do some heavy weightlifting to buttress developed economies.

And the cyclical broad based EM led global economic recovery, as a result of the expansive monetary policies and from globalization friendly policies, will likely expand global trade.

By cyclical recovery we allude to the bubble cycle.

Yet considering what mainstream calls as ‘global imbalances’, seen in many ways as ‘savings glut’, ‘dearth of investments’ or ‘Bretton Woods II’, instead we see this in terms of the Triffin Dilemma, where an international reserve currency, particularly the US dollar, would need to run large deficits in order to finance this burgeoning global trade from the cyclical recovery.

The Triffin Dilemma, according to Wikipedia[3], ``was first identified by Belgian-American economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s, who pointed out that the country issuing the global reserve currency must be willing to run large trade deficits in order to supply the world with enough of its currency, to fulfill world demand for foreign exchange reserves.”

``The use of a national currency as global reserve currency leads to a tension between national monetary policy and global monetary policy. This is reflected in fundamental imbalances in the balance of payments, specifically the current account: to maintain all desired goals, dollars must both overall flow out of the United States, but dollars must at the same time flow in to the United States. Currency inflows and outflows of equal magnitudes cannot both happen at once.”

This is one explanation mainstream can’t accept because it puts into the light or magnifies the inherent flaws of the current monetary standard, which the theory projects as unsustainable. Of course, homemade or national policies exacerbate such conditions.

But the point is, mainstream sees that the de facto currency reserve standard as an entitlement that must never be compromised, hence espouse theories even where water, in its natural state, can move upstream.

For instance, some see monetary policies will be engineered to promote exports.

Figure 7 BCA Research: Bearish On US Dollar

According to BCA Research[4], ``The U.S. also needs strong exports and an improving trade balance to add to GDP growth. Last week’s news on the U.S. trade front was not encouraging, with the deficit widening again in April. Furthermore, cyclical and structural factors are pointing to even wider trade and current account deficits ahead. In turn, with the unemployment rate still near 10%, U.S. policymakers are also unlikely to tolerate significant strength in the dollar and the consequent drag on growth.”

This outlook sees the application of monetary policies as a ‘one way street’ or where the policy actions of the other pair (or the other nation which is represented by the opposite currency) may not offset those of the US. This is pretty much one sided because monetary policies are not only relatively dynamic but also has relative impacts from perpetually evolving policy actions.

Secondly, the implication is that export growth can only be achieved by devaluation. Hence the kernel of this mercantilist leaning view is that every nation will try to out-export each other by competitive devaluation, or the race to devalue via inflationism which presumptively leads to prosperity.

Yet this outlook could lead to fatal results, as Ludwig von Mises warned[5], (bold emphasis added)

``they depend on the condition that only one country devalues while the other countries abstain from devaluing their own currencies. If the other countries devalue in the same proportion, no changes in foreign trade appear. If they devalue to a greater extent, all these transitory blessings, whatever they may be, favor them exclusively. A general acceptance of the principles of the flexible standard must therefore result in a race between the nations to outbid one another. At the end of this competition is the complete destruction of all nations' monetary systems.”

In other words, nations don’t trade people do. Yet people don’t trade to generate economic growth, people trade to have a need fulfilled and or to obtain profits. Nations only account for the cumulative actions of individuals. Hence inflationism isn’t an optimum way to meet such goals.

Besides, merchandise trade (exports and imports) for the US is only about one-fourth of the economy, such that the call to devalue in order to support the export industry, which is only 12% of the economy at the expense of the 88%, would seem absurd. Moreover, US unemployment from the 2008 crisis has been less related to the export industry as most of the job losses has emanated from the bubble areas (e.g. mortgage, construction etc...).

For me, the Triffin Dilemma has played the biggest role in shaping the underlying trend of the US dollar. And a global recovery translates to a weaker US dollar.

Next, the credit risks seem tilted towards US states than from the Eurozone economies (see figure 8)

Figure 8: The Economist: American states' finances are worse than those of some euro zone countries

According to the Economist[6], (bold emphasis mine)

``RECENT comparisons made between some American states' finances and those of Greece are exaggerated. But credit-default-swap (CDS) spreads, which measure investors’ expectations of default, are wider for some American states than for some of the euro zone’s other peripheral economies. On June 17th the cost of insuring Illinois’ bonds against default hit a record high, rising above that of California, America’s largest municipal borrower. Both considered riskier than Portugal’s debt. New York and Michigan are higher than Ireland’s. Like euro-zone members, American states may not declare bankruptcy and cannot be sued by creditors. And like many European governments, legislators are reluctant to impose the pain necessary to close budget deficits.”

As we pointed out last week, the downtrodden state of the Euro has emanated mostly from overly depressed sentiment. This has constrained demand for the Euro and has been more than the problem of relative structural issues, which seem to lean against the US. Thus, when finical sentiment shifts, structural issues will come into play.

Importantly as the Economist explains, fiscal discipline may not be stringently observed by both the affected parties in the Eurozone and in the US states. That’s because this may not be politically palatable for politicians. This serves as euphemism more inflationism.

Lastly, if the Euro is soon destined towards disintegration, as alleged by some, then she is probably looking towards the inclusion of more nations to join her death leap.

That’s because the Eurozone has enlisted Estonia as her newest member. Estonia will be the 17th country to carry the Euro by January 1, 2011.

Earlier we dealt with Estonia’s free market leaning approach even towards dealing with the recent crisis[7]. And perhaps such accomplishment has been recognized by the Euro bureaucracy.

According to the New York Times[8], ``Meeting in Brussels, Europe’s 27 governments hailed the “sound economic and financial policies” that had been achieved by Estonia in recent years. They said Estonia would shift from the kroon to the euro on Jan. 1, 2011.”

And unlike Greece who fudged their data to foist herself into the EU membership, Estonia seems more qualified.

Or perhaps could it be that Euro officials have been desperately looking for an agitprop to buttress their position? This from the same New York Times articles[9],

“The door to euro membership is not closed because we are going through a sovereign debt crisis,” said Amadeu Altafaj, a spokesman for Olli Rehn, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs. “Estonia’s admission is a sign to other countries that our aim is to continue enlarging economic and monetary union through the euro.”

“Continue enlarging economic and monetary union through the euro” even when the Euro is in the death throes? Hmmm.

In my view, these three factors, specifically, growing global trade which should expand US trade deficits and amplify the effects of the Triffin dilemma, the credit risks slanted towards US states more than the EU and Estonia’s as the Euro’s newest member should all add up to boost the Euro vis-a-vis the US dollar.

Of course, a better bet in place of the Euro should be Asian currencies, including the Philippine Peso.

---

[1] See Buy The Peso And The Phisix On Prospects Of A Euro Rally

[2] See Another Reason Not To Bet On A 2010 'Double Dip Recession’

[3] Wikipedia.org, Triffin Dilemma

[4] BCA Research Currencies: Still Broad U.S. Dollar Bears

[5] Mises, Ludwig von The Objectives of Currency Devaluation, Human Action, Chapter 31 Section 4

[6] The Economist, Risky business, June 18, 2010

[7] See Estonia’s Free Market Model And The US 1920-1921 Depression

[8] New York Times, What Crisis? The Euro Zone Adds Estonia, June 17, 2010

[9] Ibid

Federal Bailout For US States In 2010?

In spite the seemingly sanguine outlook radiated by the key markets, which appears to be reflected on many economic indicators as to signify a 'recovery', fiscal conditions of US states continue to languish.

That's because the profligate spending during the boom days haven't not been filled by falling tax revenues amidst the recent recession until the present. And this has resulted to huge budget deficits for US states.

The chart below by Casey Research shows of the dramatic fall of State revenues over the last 12 months.


According to Casey's Bud Conrad, ``The important point is that the revenues are still in decline, indicating that we are not yet out of the recession."

State fiscal conditions are lagging indicators.

Nevertheless last year's collapse in State revenues, which appears to have bottomed, still reflects on the fragile state of the US economy.

Moreover, the enormous deficits will likely entail a drastic austerity (cut in social services and bureaucratic personnel) or raise taxes or entreat for a Federal bailout in 2010 or a combination of these measures.


The Center on Budget and Policy expects budget shortfalls for the 48 States at an estimated $193 billion for 2010 and $180 billion for 2011, or some $350 billion for the next two years.

Possibly compounded by the deficits haunting the US public pension system and the still struggling real estate industry whose next wave of resets [see 5 Reasons Why The Recent Market Slump Is Not What Mainstream Expects],may further place additional strains on the crisis affected States, the Federal government may likely to opt for a bailout route.

And in accord with Minyanville's Todd Harrison who recently wrote,

``States across the union -- particularly those that benefited from the housing bubble and the taxable income associated with it -- are now experiencing a massive reversal of those golden years. The decline is so swift that it will take several years for the real estate reset to flush its way through municipal budgets.Additionally, The US public pension system -- one of our 2009 themes -- faces a higher-than-expected shortfall of $2 trillion that will increase pressure on strained finances and further crimp economic growth, according to the chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund, as quoted in the Financial Times.

``This evolution should lead to a comprehensive Federal bailout package in 2010. TARP money returned to the government will likely be funneled back to the states, including but not limited to Arizona, California, and New York, as taxpayers shoulder the load and bear the burden of our outsized societal largesse."

Finally, while authorities appear to be engaged in a rhetorical deliberation towards a transition to an "exit" mode, where administrative (but political) therapy is supposed to pave way for organic growth dynamics, it is my view that 2010 will continue with policy accommodations (a euphemism for inflationism).

Nonetheless the string of prospective interventions will also likely put pressure on US savings, as shown in the chart below from Bloomberg's chart of the day...


...where government expenditures have more than offset accrued savings from individuals and corporations.

To quote the Bloomberg article,

``The savings shortfall widened to negative 2.3 percent in the first three quarters of last year from negative 0.2 percent in all of 2008. Before 2008, there hadn’t been a full-year drop since 1934, the last year of a four-year period when rates were below zero.

``Deficit spending by the federal government reduced net savings at an annual rate of $1.33 trillion during last year’s third quarter. State and local government deficits widened the gap by another $14.9 billion. At the same time, personal and corporate savings increased by a record $983 billion."

The grand question is who gets to finance this shortfall? The answer of which is likely to determine the fate of the markets for 2010.

The Growing Dependence On US Government’s Inflationary Mechanism

``Inflation, in brief, essentially involves a redistribution of real incomes. Those who benefit by it do so, and must do so, at the expense of others. The total losses through inflation offset the total gains. This creates class or group divisions, in which the victims resent the profiteers from inflation, and in which even the moderate gainers from inflation envy the bigger gainers. There is general recognition that the new distribution of income and wealth that goes on during an inflation is not the result of merit, effort, or productiveness, but of luck, speculation, or political favoritism. It was in the tremendous German inflation of 1923 that the seeds of Nazism were sown.”-Henry Hazlitt, What You Should Know About Inflation p.130

Despite signs of recovery in the US stockmarket which most have imputed as “green shoots” of economic recovery, the immense inflationary policies, the unwinding of huge short positions, adjustments in accounting standards to accommodate financial statements of the banking sector, huge oversold levels, the PTSD effects and ‘positive’ earnings from the financial sector have all been significant factors which may have contributed to the recent rally.

Nonetheless here’s the message we’d like to repeat: inflation is a political and not a market process. When governments chooses the winners over the rest, through subsidies, loans, guarantees, bailouts, transfers, market maker or buyer of last resort or through fiscal spending-these are actions decided not by the marketplace but by the political authority. Price inflation as manifested in the markets or in consumer prices signifies as symptoms or the consequences emanating from the accrued policies of the past.

Today’s inflationary process has been driven by the promulgated desire by the global political authorities to cushion or jumpstart markets or economies from the recent crisis based on the economic ideology that governments can substitute for markets during “market failures”. In their ideology, it is assumed that markets always needs to go forward and should never falter- a misplaced perception of capitalism which is actually a profit and loss system.

The political process to inflate the market is seen as the only antidote against the market process, which had been recoiling based on natural economic laws against systemic over indebtedness or overleverage, overvaluation and a system built on excess capacity which produced supply surpluses against an artificially constructed debt inflated demand.

The most recent global collapse in the markets and economies simply reflected the natural state of markets which overwhelmed the untenable imbalances accreted in the system.

Yet by government’s opting to duke it out with market forces works to only delay and worsen the impact on the day of reckoning. Even more so are the policies which have been aimed to perpetuate the same unsustainable paradigm which had been at the root of the crisis.

We never seem to learn that the more imbalances built into the system, the bigger the impact of the next crisis.

And while inflationary policies appear to be gaining traction, which has managed to juice up the activities in marketplace or parts of the US and global economy over the interim, the ongoing market driven deflationary forces will most likely result to outsized volatility, especially in areas plagued by the recent bubble bust.

So those aspiring for “market timing” won’t likely get the same expected conventional patterns because the operational structure of the marketplace has been unprecedented in terms of the scale of government intervention and unparalleled in the scope of massive inflationary measures applied.

The same global inflationary process has apparently been manifesting its presence in the equity and commodity markets.

And that’s why most of the mainstream analysts have apparently been perplexed by the present developments, as economic figures and market signals have been in a deep disconnect. For the bulls, present market actions seem reflexive, they read today’s signals as signs of recovery, for the bears, market actions signify as overreaction and rightly the effects of manipulation. For us, today’s market action has been anticipated and represents as principally a function of inflationary dynamics.

Diminishing Federalism And The Emergence Of Centralized Government

Nonetheless, we expect that global governments to continue to use their “limitless” power to churn money from their printing presses to counter the adverse reactions from market forces.

The financing of US states could be an example why inflationary policies will persist. Presently, revenues in 45 out 47 states in the US have been sharply falling as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Rockefeller Institute: Across The Board Slump in Taxes

And falling revenues against present level of expenditures implies of huge state budget deficits, this also translates to rising risks of state bankruptcies, if not the loss of the autonomous “federalist powers” from a deepening trend of dependency on Washington.

According to the USA Today, ``In a historic first, Uncle Sam has supplanted sales, property and income taxes as the biggest source of revenue for state and local governments.

``The shift shows how deeply the recession is cutting. Federal stimulus money aimed at reviving the economy and a sharp drop in tax collections have altered, at least temporarily, the traditional balance of how states, cities, counties and schools pay for their operations…

``Federal grants — early stimulus money plus conventional federal aid — soared 15% in the first quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $437 billion, eclipsing sales taxes, which fell 2%.”

Incidentally, California will hold a “special election” or plebiscite aimed at addressing the largest ever state budget gap next week (May 19^th). The electorate will vote on several proposed measures as raising taxes, paring down several social service programs, selling state landmarks and laying off some state workers. However, polls suggest that Californians will likely to vote down on the proposed measures which could translate to a credit rating downgrade or higher costs of financing.

Given the high chances of voter’s disapproval, the state of California will possibly have a harder time borrowing, which means that the odds for a bailout from the Federal Government loom larger, otherwise a state bankruptcy .

California could be a precedent for other states. And state bailouts by the US Federal government should translate to expanded deficits which will likely be met with more money printing, especially if the borrowing window shrinks (Financial Times). Yet if we look for signs from the recent actions in the auction market of US Treasury bonds, then government borrowing does not seem like a promising option.

So aside from inflationary costs, the other costs from state dependency on Washington, according to Conn Connell of the Heritage Foundation (bold emphasis mine) are, ``The costs of the loss of federalism to the American people are real. As Reagan outlined above federal aid to states blurs the lines of government accountability, making it easy for politicians to sneak in government-growing legislation and hard for voters to hold those politicians accountable. Moreover, as states become more dependent on federal funding, they begin to lose their ability to set priorities and make policy decisions that are best-suited to their specific needs. Finally, sending money to Washington, only so that it can later come back to the states, creates a fiscal detour of inefficiency and inequity.”

The point is: The Federalist structure of the US government appears to be evolving into a centralized platform gravitating around Washington, which has been using deficit financing as the primary instrument to shore up or consolidate power.

Entitlement Imbalances + Deficits From Present Crisis = Risk Of New Crisis

We may further add that recent developments have point to the imminence of the possible entitlement crisis encompassing the welfare programs of the US Social Security and Medicare as discussed in US Presidential Elections: The Realisms of Proposed “Changes”, see figure 3.

Figure 3: Heritage Foundation: Entitlement Crisis Dwarfs Current Spending

According to a report from Bloomberg (emphasis added), ``Spending on Medicare, the health insurance plan for the elderly, will reach a legal limit by 2014, the same year predicted in 2008, the trustees’ report said. It’s the third year in a row that Medicare’s trustees have pulled the so-called trigger, a law mandating that the president introduce legislation the following year to protect the program’s financing.

``The trustees’ annual report also estimated that Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago. The trust fund will need an additional $13.4 trillion to meet all its obligations over the next 75 years…

``Spending on Social Security is expected to exceed revenues in 2016, one year earlier than last year’s forecast, the report said. The trust fund will need an additional $5.3 trillion over the next 75 years to meet all scheduled benefits, the trustees said. The retirement-assistance program can continue to pay full benefits for about 30 years, the report said.”

In short, growing payments to beneficiaries are likely to be unmatched by revenue collections which should lead to expanded deficits. Again according to the same Bloomberg article,`` The government retirement system faces a cash shortfall because the number of retirees eligible for benefits will almost double to 79.5 million in 2045 from 40.5 million this year. By 2045, there will be 2.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree, compared with 3.2 workers this year.”

This implies another major source of pressure to raise financing.

Author and former Treasury Department economist Bruce Barlett in Forbes recently posited that the US may require taxes to rise by some 81% just to meet these coming budgetary shortfalls.

And considering the degree of deficit financing arising from today’s crisis, which if present programs don’t succeed to rekindle an immediate return to growth “normalcy” for the US economy, and combined with the growing risks of the entitlement crisis, all these could translate to a jarring future for Americans-the risks may not be one of deflation but one of bankruptcy or at worst hyperinflation.

On the same plane, the former comptroller general of the US David Walker recently warned at the Financial Times of a prospective downgrade of America’s AAA credit rating should current trends persist.

Hence it seems to be much ignored by the mainstream or by policymakers how the structure of the US political economy has been evolving to apparently increase dependence on the US government’s inflationary mechanism to support the status quo, as currently depicted by evidences of the diminishing Federalism and from the huge intractable welfare programs which looks increasingly like a Ponzi financing model.

As famed economist Herb Stein once said ``If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”