Has the Swedish Recovery from the Banking Crisis of the 90s been due to Devaluation?

Here is another claim by an advocate of inflationism: Devaluation kickstarted the recovery of the Swedish economy from the banking crisis of 1990s.

I will quote mainstream references as rejoinder, so as to assume neutrality.

From Wikipedia.org (bold emphasis mine)   

In the 1980s, a real estate and financial bubble formed, driven by a rapid increase in lending. A restructuring of the tax system, in order to emphasize low inflation combined with an international economic slowdown in the early 1990s, caused the bubble to burst. Between 1990 and 1993 GDP went down by 5% and unemployment skyrocketed, causing the worst economic crisis in Sweden since the 1930s. According to an analysis by George Berglund published in Computer Sweden in 1992, the investment level decreased drastically for information technology and computing equipment, except in the financial and banking sector, the part of the industry that created the crisis. The investment levels for IT and computers were restored as early as 1993. In 1992 there was a run on the currency, the central bank briefly jacking up interest to 500% in an unsuccessful effort to defend the currency's fixed exchange rate. Total employment fell by almost 10% during the crisis.

A real estate boom ended in a bust. The government took over nearly a quarter of banking assets at a cost of about 4% of the nation's GDP. This was known colloquially as the "Stockholm Solution". The United States Federal Reserve remarked in 2007, that "In the early 1970s, Sweden had one of the highest income levels in Europe; today, its lead has all but disappeared... So, even well-managed financial crises don't really have a happy ending."

The welfare system that had been growing rapidly since the 1970s could not be sustained with a falling GDP, lower employment and larger welfare payments. In 1994 the government budget deficit exceeded 15% of GDP. The response of the government was to cut spending and institute a multitude of reforms to improve Sweden's competitiveness. When the international economic outlook improved combined with a rapid growth in the IT sector, which Sweden was well positioned to capitalize on, the country was able to emerge from the crisis.

The crisis of the 1990s was by some viewed as the end of the much buzzed welfare model called "Svenska modellen", literally "The Swedish Model", as it proved that governmental spending at the levels previously experienced in Sweden was not long term sustainable in a global open economy. Much of the Swedish Model's acclaimed advantages actually had to be viewed as a result of the post WWII special situation, which left Sweden untouched when competitors' economies were comparatively weak.

The allegation of devaluation as having jumpstarted the recovery seems materially misplaced.

Instead, the devaluation looks to be part of the bubble forming process which ultimately ended with a “run” on the currency.

While “restructuring of taxes” served as the likely catalyst for the ensuing bust, I think this has been more about central bank tightening (whom jacked up rates up to 500%). 

While the Swedish government did intervene to rescue the banking system, overall, the general economic recovery has been mostly the result of the much maligned "AUSTERITY" defined here as cuts in government spending as shown by Sweden’s material decline in government’s debt to GDP, as well as, Sweden’s government’s budget which turned into surpluses, the restoration of trade COMPETITIVENESS and the DECLINE of Sweden’s “Svenska modellen” welfare state. [charts from tradingeconomics.com]

More anecdotal evidence from Johnny Munkhammar, a member of the Moderate Party of the Swedish Parliament, and the author of "The Guide to Reform" (Timbro/IEA 2007)at the Wall Street Journal in January 26, 2012 [bold added] 

But Socialism was fashionable in post-War Europe and Sweden was not immune. The 1970s were a decade of radical government intervention in society and in markets, during which Sweden doubled its overall tax burden, socialized a slew of industries, re-regulated its markets, expanded its public systems, and shuttered its borders. In 1970, Sweden had the world's fourth-highest GDP per capita. By 1990, it had fallen 13 positions. In those 20 years, real wages in Sweden increased by only one percentage point.

Remnants of its earlier success remained, and the idea of following "the Swedish model" had already caught hold around the world. Fine, except the roots of this success were confused with Stockholm's more recent big-government policies, which in fact were destroying the country's enviable prosperity. This confusion also played into domestic debates, stalling reform for too long.

By the late 1980s, though, Sweden had started de-regulating its markets once again, decreased its marginal tax rates, and opted for a sound-money, low-inflation policy. In the early 1990s, the pace quickened, and most markets except for labor and housing were liberalized. The state sold its shares in a number of companies, granted independence to its central bank, and introduced school vouchers that improved choice and competition in education. Stockholm slashed public pensions and introduced private retirement schemes, keeping the system demographically sustainable.

These decisive economic liberalizations, and not socialism, are what laid the foundations for Sweden's success over the last 15 years. After the reforms of the early 1990s, Swedes' real wages increased by roughly 35% in a decade. And, as businesses have become more productive and people's incomes have risen, living standards improved. More people eat at restaurants now, more people travel abroad, more people buy DVDs and new cars. More people get more.

It’s funny or bizarre to see political zealots mistake symptoms of the diseases for medical treatment (which in reality are snake oil nostrums).

Video: F.A. Hayek at BBC (Masters of Money)

Glad to see the great F. A. Hayek go mainstream

  

Somewhere in the video, Paul Krugman (Darth Vader) said that "unregulated banking and financing system is prone to financial crisis". Really? 

 

(the number of banking crisis since the Nixon Shock; chart from the World Bank) 

Jeffrey Sachs (Count Dooku) said that one of Hayek’s “badly failed” predictions is that of Hayek’s claim that “moving to a social welfare society would eat away at the health of democracy”. Really? 

To use the US as example,

chart from Heritage Foundation

from yesterday’s chart of the day

Maybe all these has nothing to do with America’s growing police state?

Or perhaps Professor Hayek had been just too early.

ECB Eases Collateral Rules as Banking System Runs out of Assets

From the Wall Street Journal,

The European Central Bank said Friday it will widen the range of securities it will accept from euro-zone banks in exchange for its loans with the aim of helping boost lending to companies and households.

The ECB will now accept certain mortgage-backed securities, car loans and loans to small and medium-size firms.

The measure is seen as an attempt by the ECB to provide much needed liquidity to Spanish banks, which possess a large quantity of mortgage-backed securities after its real-estate bubble burst. Spain's government is expected to submit a formal request Monday to the European Union for a bailout of up to €100 billion ($125.4 billion) to help recapitalize its distressed banks. On Thursday, two independent consulting firms submitted results of stress tests conducted on 14 Spanish lenders, which put total capital need for the banking sector of Spain at up to €62 billion.

The ECB's step will reignite worries over a deterioration of the ECB's balance sheet, which is already at an all-time high after the ECB injected more than €1 trillion into the region's banking system in December and February to avert a credit crunch.

The German central bank, the Bundesbank, which has repeatedly criticized the ECB for the continued easing of its collateral rules as the euro-zone's debt crisis deepened over the past two years, was quick to respond.

This practically is an admission of the depletion of assets as collateral for loans in the Euro’s banking system.

And this also implies that ECB has been stuffed with ‘toxic’ assets and how rules has been easily changed or altered to accommodate interests of the political class and of the economic interests of the privileged politically protected few.

Eventually, the ECB may resort to directly accepting equities (or even commodities) as collateral.

Also, collateral rule adjustments may be a precursor to a coming 'shock and awe' policy coming from the ECB that would likely have a short lived 'buy another day' outcome.

All these reveals of the extent of desperation by EU officials, and more importantly, the current heavy state of distortions in the global financial markets.

China and Japan to Trade Currencies Directly

Speaking of severe credit dislocations triggered by a quasi collapse of the US banking system in 2008, bilateral trade financing has been a dynamic which emerged to fill in such a void.

Apparently, realizing the risks of another bout of a banking collapse, China and Japan will trade directly with the use of their respective currencies this June, which aims to bypass the US dollar, and the US banking system as well.

From the AFP

Japan and China are expected to start direct trading of their currencies as early as June as part of efforts to boost bilateral trade and investment, according to reports.

With the planned step, exchange rates between the yen and the yuan will be determined by their transactions, departing from the current "cross rate" system that involves the dollar in setting yen-yuan rates, Kyodo News said on Saturday.

The two governments are eyeing setting up markets in Tokyo and Shanghai, the Yomiuri Shimbun said.

The yen-yuan exchange system would help businesses in the world's second- and third-largest economies reduce risks associated with exchange rate fluctuations in the dollar and cut transaction costs, Kyodo said.

It will be the first time that China has allowed a major currency except the dollar to directly trade with the yuan, Kyodo said.

Well, this serves as another painting on the wall that heralds the twilight of the US dollar standard.

How Capital Regulations Contributed to the Current Crisis

At the Wall Street Journal, American Enterprise Institute’s Peter J. Wallison explains how capital regulations are partly responsible for the current mess (bold emphasis mine)

Basel is the Swiss city where the world's bank supervisors regularly meet to consider and establish these rules. Among other things, the rules define how capital should be calculated and how much capital internationally active banks are required to hold.

First decreed in 1988 and refined several times since then, the Basel rules require commercial banks to hold a specified amount of capital against certain kinds of assets. Under a voluntary agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the largest U.S investment banks were also subject to the form of Basel capital rules that existed in 2008. Under these rules, banks and investment banks were required to hold 8% capital against corporate loans, 4% against mortgages and 1.6% against mortgage-backed securities. Capital is primarily equity, like common shares.

Although these rules are intended to match capital requirements with the risk associated with each of these asset types, the match is very rough. Thus, financial institutions subject to the rules had substantially lower capital requirements for holding mortgage-backed securities than for holding corporate debt, even though we now know that the risks of MBS were greater, in some cases, than loans to companies. In other words, the U.S. financial crisis was made substantially worse because banks and other financial institutions were encouraged by the Basel rules to hold the very assets—mortgage-backed securities—that collapsed in value when the U.S. housing bubble deflated in 2007.

Today's European crisis illustrates the problem even more dramatically. Under the Basel rules, sovereign debt—even the debt of countries with weak economies such as Greece and Italy—is accorded a zero risk-weight. Holding sovereign debt provides banks with interest-earning investments that do not require them to raise any additional capital.

Accordingly, when banks in Europe and elsewhere were pressured by supervisors to raise their capital positions, many chose to sell other assets and increase their commitments to sovereign debt, especially the debt of weak governments offering high yields. If one of those countries should now default, a common shock like what happened in the U.S. in 2008 could well follow. But this time the European banks will be the ones most affected.

In the U.S. and Europe, governments and bank supervisors are reluctant to acknowledge that their political decisions—such as mandating a zero risk-weight for all sovereign debt, or favoring mortgages and mortgage-backed securities over corporate debt—have created the conditions for common shocks.

I have explained here and here how Basel capital standard regulations does not address the root of the crisis—fiat money and central banking—and will continue to churn out rules premised on political goals, knee jerk responses to current predicaments (time inconsistent rules) and incomplete knowledge.

A manifestation of the institutional distortions as consequence to regulations which advances political goals can be noted at the last paragraph where US and European governments and bank supervisors are “reluctant to acknowledge that their political decisions”, which have not only “created conditions for common shocks”, but has existed to fund the welfare state and the priorities of political leaders in boosting homeownership ownership which benefited or rewarded the politically privileged banks immensely.

Capital regulation rules will continue to deal with the superficial problems of the banking system which implies that banking crises will continue to haunt us or won’t be going away anytime soon despite all model based capital ratio adjustments. It's been this way since the closing of the gold window or the Nixon shock (see above chart from the World Bank)

US Federal Reserve Acts on Concerns over Europe’s Funding Problems

The whack a mole strategy being applied by officials of crisis stricken doesn’t seem to work.

Now the US officials are getting increasingly concerned over the escalating banking problems at the Eurozone.

Reports the Wall Street Journal (bold highlights mine)

Federal and state regulators, signaling their growing worry that Europe's debt crisis could spill into the U.S. banking system, are intensifying their scrutiny of the U.S. arms of Europe's biggest banks, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which oversees the U.S. operations of many large European banks, recently has been holding extensive meetings with the lenders to gauge their vulnerability to escalating financial pressures. The Fed is demanding more information from the banks about whether they have reliable access to the funds needed to operate on a day-to-day basis in the U.S. and, in some cases, pushing the banks to overhaul their U.S. structures, the people familiar with the matter say.

Officials at the New York Fed "are very concerned" about European banks facing funding difficulties in the U.S., said a senior executive at a major European bank who has participated in the talks…

Regulators are trying to guard against the possibility European banks that encounter trouble could siphon funds out of their U.S. arms, these people said. Regulators recently have ramped up pressure on European banks to transform their U.S. businesses into self-financed organizations that are better insulated from problems with their parent companies, a senior bank executive said.

In one sign of how European banks may be having trouble getting dollar funding, an unidentified European bank on Wednesday borrowed $500 million in one-week debt from the European Central Bank, according to ECB data. The bank paid a higher cost than what other banks would pay to borrow dollars from fellow lenders. It was the first time for that type of borrowing since Feb 23.

Anxiety about European banks' U.S. funding comes amid broader concerns about whether Europe's struggling banks will be able to refinance maturing debt in coming years. Investors, wary of many European banks' holdings of debt issued by troubled euro-zone governments, are shunning large swaths of the sector. While top European banks already have satisfied about 90% of their funding needs for 2011, they still need to raise a total of roughly €80 billion ($115 billion) by the end of the year, according to Morgan Stanley.

Part of the $500 million loan was said to have been funded by the US Federal Reserve via $200 million currency swap lines to the Swiss National Bank (!), according to Zero Hedge. There goes another stealth QE.

This partly validates my earlier suspicion that SNB’s intervention in the currency markets has been mostly about providing liquidity to the distressed equity markets which has been symptomatic of the banking sector’s woes.

I would suspect that part of this intervention, aside from publicly wishing for a weaker franc, is to flood the system with money to mitigate the losses being endured by European equity markets.

Nonetheless the wild swings in global markets seem to suggest that the recent measures undertaken by the US Federal Reserve or the ECB have been deemed as ‘inadequate’.

Remember, since 2003, global financial markets have increasingly been dependent on central bank policies, where the 2008 crisis has made financial markets essentially stand on the crutches of the Fed’s money printing policies. In short, global equity markets have been mostly dependent on the combination of QEs and an extended low interest rate environment.

And as stated earlier, given Europe’s funding problems which may spillover to the US, it is very likely to expect that the US Federal Reserve will eventually conform to the desires of markets addicted to central bank steroids with aggressive dosages.

And this is being signaled by record gold prices.

Capital Flows, Financial Liberalization and Bubble Cycles

Professor Arnold Kling excerpted the latest edition from the classic Charles Kindleberger book, “Manias, Panics, and Crashes”

One of the themes of this book is that the bubbles in real estate and stocks in Japan in the second half of the 1980s, the similar bubbles...in the nearby Asian countries in the mid-1990s, and the bubble in U.S. stock prices in the second half of the 1990s were systematically related. The implosion of the bubble in Japan led to an increase in the flow of money from Japan; some of this money went to Thailand and Malaysia and Indonesia and some went to the United States....When the bubbles in the countries in Southeast Asia implode, there was another surge in the flow of money to the United States...

The increase in the flow of money to a country from abroad almost always led to increases in the prices of securities traded in that country as the domestic sellers of the securities to foreigners used a very high proportion of their receipts from these sales to buy other securities from domestic residents...It's as if the cash from the sale of securities to foreigners was the proverbial 'hot potato' that was rapidly passed from one group of investors to others, at ever-increasing prices.

Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff places the culpability of the global banking crises on financial liberalization

They write

Periods of high international capital mobility have repeatedly produced international banking crises, not only famously as they did in the 1990s, but historically.

There are vast dissimilarities between political economic conditions of today and the yesteryears to simplistically impute the causal relationship of capital mobility and banking crises.

For instance, the pre-20^th century had mostly operated from precious metal based monetary system and had largely been without central banks compared to the 20^th century. Also today’s era can be characterized as having assimilated the Bismarckian welfare structured state than the pre-20^th century, which implies of a starkly different operating political system.

The economic environment had also been different. The pre-20^th century hallmarked the transition of the agricultural epoch to the industrial age. The 20^th century was the culmination of the industrial era which currently has been transitioning to the information age. There are so many many many more variables to consider.

For me, correlations like this should be meticulously scrutinized rather than just taken as “given”.

Although I won’t deny that liberalization could have been one of the many factors which may have contributed to historical episodes of banking crisis, perhaps this has not been the principal one.

However going back to the chart, one can note of the huge concentration in the incidences of banking crises (green circle) during the post-Bretton Woods; the de facto US dollar standard system of today. This comes after the Nixon Shock, a monumental event eponymous to President Nixon’s closing of gold convertibility in 1971.

The degree of concentration of banking crisis has been unprecedented when compared the cumulative interspersed banking crises of 1800-1970.

This lends credence to the “hot potato” dynamic as narrated by Robert Aliber co-author of the Charles Kindleberger’s classic.

As I have been saying here, the gamut of modern day or contemporary global bubble cycles represent as mainly the consequences of the central banking induced business cycles, the welfare state and the intensifying frictions or strains from the Triffin Dilemma that continues to plague the global fiat money system founded on the US dollar.

This “deficit without tears” paper money system which has privileged the US for the past 40 years has been unsustainable and won’t likely last (unless there would be drastic reforms on the political system).

The trend of gold prices has been showing the way.

QE 2.0: It’s All About The US Banking System

``But the administration does not want to stop inflation. It does not want to endanger its popularity with the voters by collecting, through taxation, all it wants to spend. It prefers to mislead the people by resorting to the seemingly non-onerous method of increasing the supply of money and credit. Yet, whatever system of financing may be adopted, whether taxation, borrowing, or inflation, the full incidence of the government's expenditures must fall upon the public.” Ludwig von Mises

It’s time for a little gloating.

Last week we noted how global financial markets would likely respond to two major events that just took place in the US this week.

Globalization Versus Inflationism

We noted that while the outcome of the US elections would matter, it would be subordinate to the US Federal Reserve’s formal announcement of the second phase of the Quantitative Easing or QE 2.0.

Nevertheless we mentioned that in terms of the US Midterm Elections, still the odds greatly favoured a rebalancing of power from a lopsided stranglehold by left leaning Democrats towards the conservative-libertarian right that could result to what mainstream calls as “political gridlock”.

Such stalemate would thereby reduce the chances of government interventionism, which should have positive implications for both the markets and the US economy[1].

Figure 1: The Drubbing Of Keynesian Policies (USA Today[2])

Of course, what the surveys earlier conveyed had been merely translated into actual votes-Americans largely repudiated the highhanded Keynesian spend and tax policies adapted by the Obama administration. This also signifies as a decisive defeat for President Obama’s illusory “Change we can believe in”.

Except for the Senate which had only 37 seats, out of the 100, contested, Republicans swept the House (239-188) and the Governorship position (29-18). Yet, even in the Senate, the chasm in the balance of power held by the Democrats had been significantly narrowed (from 57-41 to 51-46).

To rub salt into the wound, even President Obama’s former seat at Illinois was won by a GOP candidate[3], Mark Kirk.

The burgeoning revolt against interventionist Keynesian policies has likewise been an ongoing development in Europe[4].

And as we have repeatedly been pointing out, two major forces have been in a collision course: technology buttressed globalization (represented by dispersion of knowledge and the deepening specialization expressed through free trade) and inflationism (concentration of political power).

The rising tide against Keynesianism, which translates to a backlash from these two grinding forces, can be equally construed as a manifestation of an evolving institutional crisis or strains from traditional socio-political structures adjusting to a new reality.

As Alvin and Heidi Toffler presciently wrote[5],

``Bureaucracy, clogged courts, legislative myopia, regulatory gridlock and pathological incrementalism cannot but take their toll. Something, it would appear will have to give...

``All across the board –at the level of families firms industries national economies and the global system itself—we are now making the most sweeping transformation ever in the links between wealth creation and the deep fundamental of time itself. (italics mine)

For now, the forces of globalization appear to be the more influential trend.

Validated Anew: QE 2.0 Is About Asset Price Support

However, as we also noted, Keynesianism hasn’t entirely been vanquished[6]. They remain deeply embedded in most of the political institutions represented as unelected officials in the bureaucratic world. Importantly, they are personified as stewards of our monetary system.

Here is what I wrote last week[7],

``The QE 2.0, in my analysis, is NOT about ‘bolstering employment or exports’, via a weak dollar or the currency valve, from which mainstream insights have been built upon, but about inflating the balance sheets of the US banking system whose survival greatly depends on levitated asset prices.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, in a recent Op-Ed column[8] Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke justifies the Fed’s QE 2.0,

``This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion. (bold highlights mine)

Once again I have been validated.

The path dependency of Ben Bernanke’s policies has NOT been different[9] from his perspective as a professor at Princeton University in 2000 when he wrote along the same theme.

``There’s no denying that a collapse in stock prices today would pose serious macroeconomic challenges for the United States. Consumer spending would slow, and the U.S. economy would become less of a magnet for foreign investors. Economic growth, which in any case has recently been at unsustainable levels, would decline somewhat. History proves, however, that a smart central bank can protect the economy and the financial sector from the nastier side effects of a stock market collapse. (bold emphasis mine)

Figure 2: stockcharts.com: Global Equity Markets Explode!

The net effect of QE 2.0 has been almost surreal.

Global equity markets (DJW), as expected, skyrocketed to the upside from the higher than expected $600 billion or $75 billion a month (for 8 months) of US treasury long term security purchases that the Federal Reserve will be conducting with new digital dollars. Markets reportedly estimated the QE program at $500 billion[10].

And the Federal Reserve made sure in their announcement that $600 billion will not be a limiting condition. The FOMC said that they “will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability”[11].

It’s simply amazing how the Fed’s QE 2.0 transmission mechanism has been worldwide. Whether in Asia (P1DOW-Dow Jones Asia), Europe (E1DOW-Dow Jones Europe) or Emerging markets (EEM-iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index), the story has all been the same—markets breaking out to the upside.

I’d like to add that such bubble blowing policies has NOT been limited to the Federal Reserve.

Immediately after the Fed’s announcement, the Bank of Japan voted unanimously to support the domestic stock market by engaging on their own version of QE that would include “exchange-trade funds linked to the Topix index and Nikkei Stock Average, and Japanese real-estate investment trusts rated at least AA, the bank said. It said it would begin buying Japanese government bonds under its new program next week.[12]” (bold emphasis mine)

Add to these the inflation of global central banks international reserve position to the tune of $ 1.5 trillion over the past 12 months[13].

Hence the consequences of massive inflationism are likely to be fully felt yet in the markets.

The False Premise: Aggregate Demand Story

The substantiation of our analysis isn’t limited to Bernanke’s statements alone. Markets have likewise bidded up the major beneficiaries of the QE 2.0 program—the banks and the financial industry (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Financial Industry: From Laggards to Leaders (charts from US global Investors and stockcharts.com)

The mainstream wisdom goes this way: Money printing does not create inflation. With low inflation, printing money is, therefore, needed to generate demand that would spur inflation. This form of circular reasoning[14], which characterizes Keynesian economics, is what is sold to public as rationalization for the current policy. The mainstream sees it as an aggregate demand problem that can only be addressed by money printing.

The mainstream fails to see that there is NO such thing as a free lunch or that prosperity cannot be conjured or summoned by the magic wand of the printing presses.

All these so-called technocratic experts refuse to learn from history or deliberately distort its lessons, where debasing money has always been meant to accommodate for the political goals or interests of the ruling class.

Yet monetary inflation eventually crumbles to nature’s laws of scarcity for the simple reason that it is unsustainable. Printing of money does NOT equate anywhere to the same degree as producing goods and services. Printing of money can be limitless, while production of goods and services are limited to the available scarce resources.

Unknown to many, printing of money is subject to the law of diminishing returns (getting less for every extra output or a law affirming that to continue after a certain level of performance has been reached will result in a decline in effectiveness[15]) and law of diminishing marginal utility (general decrease in the utility of a product, as more units of it are consumed[16]).

And it is why repeated experiments with paper money throughout the ages of human affairs have repeatedly failed[17]. And I don’t see why the grand US dollar standard experiment today as likely to succeed either. The QE programs fundamentally reflect on the same symptoms of any degenerating or festering de facto money regime. We should expect more QE programs to happen.

Yet the aggregate demand story is basically premised on debt. To promote aggregate demand is to promote debt. Debts either incurred by the private sector or by governments in lieu of the private sector. While productive debt and consumption debt are hardly distinguished, consumption debt is promoted. Savings are disparaged as economically harmful. And the promotion of debt is the essential or critical element to fostering bubbles.

Figure 4: World Bank: Banking Crisis Since the 1970s

Hasn’t it been a wonder that since the closing of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar window in 1971, bubbles became a permanent fixture worldwide?

Yet, the public hardly can see through who the major beneficiaries from the debt based aggregate demand story. Obviously, it is the banking and the financial industry as they represent as the major funding intermediaries or financiers to both the private sector and importantly to the government.

And the banking system had been structurally incented to hold (or buy or finance) government debts into their balance sheets as they have been classified as less risky assets and thus requires less capital in accordance to the Basel Accord[18].

During the last crisis the unholy alliance of the central banking-banking industry cartel had been exposed as seen by the trillions worth of bailouts by the US Federal Reserve[19].

Yet the politicized nature of central banking (everywhere) obviously leads to cartel structured relationships, as survivability depends not on profitability based on market forces, but from the privileged conditions bestowed upon by the political strata.

And the QE 2.0, which I argued as having been unmoored from the prospects of the US or global economy, but rather aimed at safeguarding the balance sheets of the banking system has successfully boosted the prices of financial equity benchmarks, such as S&P Bank Index (BIX), the Dow Jones Mortgage Finance Index (DJUSMF), the S&P Insurance (IUX) and the Dow Jones US General Financial Index (DJUSGF), all along the lines of Bernanke’s design.

The industry that had miserably lagged[20] the recent stock market recovery in the US has in one week suddenly outclassed the rest.

Of course people who argue about the success or failure of policies frequently look at the effects depending on the time frame that support their bias.

For instance, policies that induce bubbles will benefit some participants, during its heydays. Hence, policy supporters will claim of its ‘success’ seen on a temporary basis as the bubble inflates. Yet overtime, an implosion of such bubbles would result to a net loss to the economy and to the markets. The overall picture is ignored.

And the same aspects would also apply to those arguing that the Fed’s rescue of the banking system has been worthwhile. They’re not. The benefits of a temporary reprieve from the recent crisis envisages greater risks of a monumental systemic blowup. If Fed policies had been successful, then why the need for QE 2.0?

So for biased people, the measure of success is seen from current activities than from the intertemporal tradeoffs between the short term and long term consequences of policies.

In other words, yes, the QE 2.0, which constitutes the continuing bailout of the US banking industry, seems to successfully inflate bubbles, mostly overseas. But at the end of the day, these bubbles will result to net capital consumption, if not the destruction of the concurrent monetary regime.

The next time a major bubble implodes there won’t likely be free lunch rescues as these will be limited by today’s massive debt overhang.

The Effects of QE 2.0: Promotes Poverty And A Shift To A New Monetary Order

Of course while the equity price performance of the US financial industry stole the limelight the next best performers have been the Energy and the Materials Index.

In other words, as I have long been predicting, the accelerating traction of the inflation transmission channels are presently being manifested in surging prices of commodities and commodity related equity assets aside from global equity markets.

While this should benefit equity owners and producers of commodity related enterprises, aside from the financial sector, those who claim that inflationism is justifiable and a moral policy response to the current conditions are just plain wrong. Such redistributive policies to the benefit of the banking sector come at the expense of the underprivileged.

What is hardly apparent or seen is that the current government structured inflation indices have been vastly underreporting inflation.

Yet surging agricultural and food prices would not only harm a significant percentage of financially underprivileged by reducing their money’s purchasing power but also promote poverty in the US and elsewhere.

Figure 5: Food Expenditures By Income Level

Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge quotes a JP Morgan study[21], (bold emphasis mine)

When the Fed considers the possible consequences of a falling dollar resulting from QE2, it should perhaps focus on food and energy prices as much as on traditionally computed core inflation. First, the food/energy exposures of the lower 2 income quintiles are quite high (see chart). Second, the core CPI has a massive weight to “owner’s equivalent rent”, which suggests that the imputed cost of home occupancy has gone down. Unfortunately, this is not true for families living in homes that are underwater, and cannot move to take advantage of it (unless they choose to default and bear the consequences of doing so). Due to the housing mess, there has perhaps never been a time when traditionally computed core inflation as a way of measuring changes in the cost of things means less than it does right now.

Figure 6: ADB[22] Asia’s Share of Food Expenditure to Total Expenditure

And as said above the effects are likely to hurt the underprivileged of the emerging markets more than the US.

So inflationism or QE 2.0 poses as a major risk to global poverty alleviation and prosperity, a blame that should be laid squarely on these policymakers and their supporters.

Of course as the ramifications of inflationary policies worsen, the subsequent scenario would be for political trends to shift towards holding the private sector responsible for elevated prices and for ‘greed’ in order to institute more government control and inflationism.

As the great Ludwig von Mises once wrote[23],

``They put the responsibility for the rising cost of living on business. This is a classical case of the thief crying "catch the thief." The government, which produced the inflation by multiplying the supply of money, incriminates the manufacturers and merchants and glories in the role of being a champion of low prices. While the [the government] is busy annoying sellers as well as consumers by a flood of decrees and regulations, the only effect of which is scarcity, the Treasury [and the Fed] go on with inflation”

Here free trade will likely give way to protectionism; that is if public remains ignorant of true causes of inflation and if the world would stubbornly stick by the US dollar as preferred global medium of exchange.

Of course Asian nations were hardly receptive to the unilateral actions by the Federal Reserve. The conventional recourse in dealing with QE 2.0 has been via currency appreciation, tightening of domestic liquidity by raising bank reserves or increase policy rates or lastly ‘temporary’ capital controls. So far some countries as South Korea have threatened to impose some variation of capital controls.

Yet we should expect the world to shift out of the US dollar regime once inflationism becomes rampant enough to pose as a meaningful hurdle to national economic development and global trade. The Bloomberg quotes China’s Central Bank adviser Xia Bin[24],

``China should counter the U.S. through regional currency alliances, speeding international use of the yuan and seeking stability in exchange rates through the Group of 20, which holds a summit next week”

A currency from a political economy that engages in significantly less inflationism, has deep and developed sophisticated markets, has a convertible currency and hefty geopolitical exposure is likely to challenge the US dollar hegemony, whether this would be the yuan (which for the moment is unlikely) or the Euro, only time will tell.

Of course, we can’t discount gold’s role in possibly being integrated anew in the reform of the monetary architectural system.

Figure 7: Virtual Metals[25]: Central Bank Gold Holdings and Sales

Global Central banks appears to be rediscovering gold as possibly reclaiming its role as money in a new monetary order. A new monetary order is not question about an if, but a when.

Once as net sellers, central banks seem to be transitioning into potential net buyers.

So again, our peripheral insight seems being validated with the ongoing process of shifting expectations by authorities on the functions of gold.

As I pointed out last year[26], gold is presently seen by an ECB official as a form of economic security, risk diversification, a confidence factor and an insurance against tail risks. Once these factors become well entrenched, a store of value role would likely be the next step. And more QE’s would only serve to push gold towards such a path.

Those who obstinately relish the bias that gold is nothing but a barbaric relic will likewise suffer from taking on the wrong positions. But they eventually will succumb to the shifting expectations as with many monetary authorities today. The reflexive process of having prices influence fundamentals has clearly been taking shape.

With gold prices at $1,390 mainstream economists like celebrity Nouriel Roubini[27], who last year debated savvy investor Jim Rogers and declared “Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense”, must be squirming on his seat for the likelihood to be proven wrong once again.

---

[1] See US Midterm Elections: Rebalancing Political Power And Possible Implications To The Financial Markets, October 31, 2010

[2] USA Today, 2010 Elections: Live Results

[3] Politico.com Roland Burris will serve in November, November 5, 2010

[4] See An Overextended Phisix, Keynesians On Retreat And Interest Rate Sensitive Bubbles, October 25, 2010

[5] Toffler, Alvin and Toffler, Heidi Revolutionary Wealth Random House p.40

[6] See Trick Or Treat: The Federal Reserve’s Expected QE Announcement, October 31, 2010

[7] Ibid

[8] Bernanke, Ben What the Fed did and why: supporting the recovery and sustaining price stability, Washington Post, November 4, 2010

[9] Bernanke, Ben A Crash Course for Central Bankers, Foreign Policy.com or wikiquote Ben Bernanke

[10] Macau Daily Times Asian markets rise, dollar falls, November 5, 2011

[11] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2010 Press Release

[12] Marketwatch.com Bank of Japan holds steady, details asset plans, November 4, 2010

[13] Noland, Doug QE2 Credit Bubble Bulletin, Prudent Bear.com

[14] See Thought Of The Day: The Keynesian Circular Thought Process, June 22, 2010

[15] Wordnetweb.princeton.edu law of diminishing returns

[16] Wiktionary.org law of diminishing marginal utility

[17] See Surging Gold Prices Reveals Strain In The US Dollar Standard-Paper Money System, November 1, 2010

[18] See The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds, June 9, 2010

[19] See $23.7 Trillion Worth Of Bailouts?, July 29 2010

[20] See The Possible Implications Of The Next Phase Of US Monetary Easing, October 17, 2010

[21] Durden Tyler, How Ben Bernanke Sentenced The Poorest 20% Of The Population To A Cold, Hungry Winter, Zerohedge.com November 5, 2010

[22] Asian Development Bank: Food Prices and Inflation in Developing Asia: Is Poverty Reduction Coming to an End? April 2008

[23] Mises, Ludwig von The Truth About Inflation

[24] Bloomberg.com Asians Gird for Bubble Threat, Criticize Fed Move November 4, 2010

[25] Virtualmetals.co.uk The Yellow Book September 2010

[26] See Is Gold In A Bubble? November 22, 2009

[27] See Jim Rogers Versus Nouriel Roubini On Gold, Commodities And Emerging Market Bubble, November 5, 2009

Ireland’s Fiscal Austerity Seen From The Big Picture

One of the popular rejoinders or justifications made by mainstream economists has been to refer to Ireland as an example of the perils of having to impose fiscal austerity.

The general idea is the lack of aggregate private demand as measured by a decline in private spending should be substituted for by the government, in order to boost the economy. This is premised on the assumption that every variable in the economy are homogenous and subject to the same sensitivity from interventionist policies.

Yet we understand Ireland as having an ongoing crisis with her banking industry such that her government has undertaken massive recapitalizations of Allied Irish Bank and Anglo Irish Bank to the tune of “some €50 billion ($68 billion) this year and will push Dublin's budget deficit to an estimated 32% of GDP” according to Wall Street Journal.

Ireland’s banking woes continues to be reflected on her sovereign spreads as with the other crisis affected Euro nations classified as the PIIGS. (chart courtesy of Danske)

If the focus is plainly on unemployment, then the mainstream is right, high unemployment continues to plague the country. (chart courtesy of tradingeconomics.com)

However, unemployment will always be a lagging indicator. In a market economy as Ireland, profitability will be the primary gauge for investments, which eventually will be reflected on the job market.

First of all, despite the selective nature of evidence brought by the mainstream, Ireland isn’t in all that deep funk.

Ireland appears to be emerging from a deep recession and is expected to continue to grow through 2011 in spite of the fiscal tightening measures.

According to Finfacts

IBEC, the business group, said today the economy will return to growth in 2011 despite the greater than anticipated scale of the fiscal adjustments needed over the coming four years. GNP (gross national product) will grow 1.2% in 2011 and 3.4% in 2012 while GDP (gross domestic product with no adjustment for the profits of multinational operating in Ireland) will grow 2.2% and 3.1%. The forecasts for 2012 can be only guesswork and the outturn depends on the robustness of the international recovery in rich countries.

The business group says the final national accounts data for 2009 show that the nominal size of the economy was much lower than the Department of Finance had originally estimated while the global economic recovery has lost steam in recent months and Government’s growth forecasts for the 2011 to 2014 period now appear too optimistic.

The full accounting of the banking costs means that the debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 100% this year and will peak at about 115% in 2014. While this represents a rapid escalation from the pre-crisis debt ratio it is not exceptional in international terms - - IBEC says it is just above the debt level of the Eurozone and the US, about the same as that in Belgium and below that in Italy.

Second, deflation hasn’t been a persistent scourge as the mainstream paints it to be.

True, the unravelling of the global crisis has brought about a bout of deflation, but this appears to be on the mend.

Third, for the mainstream to argue that politics always favours government intervention, this report from the BBC, (bold emphasis mine)

Despite public sector cuts averaging more than 15%, and a further huge bank bail-out, making Ireland the EU's most indebted nation, the popular backlash against the government's fiscal tightening has never really materialised.

Bottom line: All these add up to demolish the myth that adapting fiscal discipline will be a bane to the economy.

The Myth Of Risk Free Government Bonds

Bruce Krastings at the Zero Hedge has an interesting story to tell.

It's essentially about the sordid fate of Hungary's bearer bonds of 1924.

"Fifty years later the $500 of principal and the $1,250 of accrued interest were worth $40.", says Mr. Krastings.

Read the rest here

Yet the global banking system have been designed to hold government bonds as risk free assets and core holdings on their balance sheets. This bias towards "risk-free" government bonds effectively translates to subsidies to governments.

As Cato's Mark Calabria explains,

``Under Basel, the amount of capital a bank is required to hold against an asset is a function of its risk category. For the highest risk assets, like corporate bonds, banks are required to hold 8%. Yet for those seen as the lowest risk, short term government bonds, banks aren’t required to hold any capital. So while you’d have to hold 8% capital against say, Ford bonds, you don’t have to hold any capital against Greek debt. Depending on the difference between the weights and the debt yields, such a system provides very strong incentives to load up on the highest yielding bonds of the least risky class. Fannie and Freddie debt required holding only 1.6% capital. Very small losses in either Greek or GSE debt would cause massive losses to the banks, due to their large holdings of both." (bold emphasis added)

So unless we see a change in the mandated treatment of government bonds, which implies that subsidies to governments will need to be slashed, we will only keep jumping from one crisis to another, as shown in the chart below from the World Bank, where the incidences of banking crisis has ballooned post-Bretton Woods US dollar-gold standard.

In short, crisis are products of the inflationary central banking based-fiat money standard.

As Ludwig von Mises reminds us, ``It is always an inflationist policy, not economic conditions, which bring about the monetary depreciation. The evil is philosophical in character."