Philippine Politics: South Korean War Jets Means Bigger Taxes and More Financial Repression

From Today’s Inquirer headlines

Move over. The big boys are coming.

President Benigno Aquino III said the Philippines was close to finalizing a deal with a state-owned Korean aerospace firm to buy a squadron of FA-50 fighter jets worth P18.9 billion—a move seen to bolster the country’s aerial power and defend its territory in the disputed West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

Mr. Aquino said he discussed the procurement of 12 brand-new multirole combat aircraft from the Korea Aerospace Industries Inc. (KAI) when he met with South Korean President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House, South Korea’s seat of power.

He said it was part of the commitment of both countries to improve their military cooperation, in line with a memorandum of understanding they entered into on Thursday.

The first statement should have read 

Filipino taxpayers beware. The big taxes are coming

Funny how media glamorizes what has been sold by political agents to the public as patriotic mirage of defending domestic territories. In reality, the territorial dispute has served as smoke screen for expansionist government via bigger deficit spending, more political control (lesser civil liberties), promoting US bases and the military industrial complex (here and abroad)

As the recent Zamboanga City crisis has revealed, superiority and capability plays little in the way the Philippine military operates. The sordid Zamboanga episode exhibits how the much 'superior' Philippine military bungled their operations relative to a much ill equipped, inferior in numbers and in training insurgents (Wikipedia note; MNLF participants 500, Philippines army participants 5,000 with tanks personnel carriers, and air support—attack aircraft, helicopters). 

Yet it took 16 days for the military to crush the insurgents (casualties Philippine military: 25 dead 184 wounded, MNLF: 183 dead, 292 captured). This is hardly an example to justify the government's claim to increase defense spending.

And it seems no more than wishful thinking for anyone to believe that new ‘modern’ armaments will serve to neutralize the far superior nuclear and drone equipped Chinese army. A chart comparing the US and Chinese military in Asia, I have previously posted here.

The reality is that invoking nationalism to defend “insignificant scrubby rocks” (John Keller) which supposed ‘rich’ resource reserves will only be beneficial to politically connected allies (cronies) via service contract permits issued by the government.

Societies hardly get rich from resources, they get rich from free trade, the market economy or economic freedom. 

Natural resources have in fact been a blight to many countries. This has been known as the resource curse. Resource revenues tend to cover up on government's mismanagement. Also the ruling elite who control these resources tend to pushback on economic reforms.

Yet politicians have been agitating for war, whose benefits will accrue to a few and whose costs will be distributed and paid for by the productive agents of the Philippine society.

Spurious nationalism will be funded by bigger taxes and by more financial repression (inflationism, negative rates, deposit caps and other capital controls)

Of course in case of actual shooting encounters, it won’t be the politicians life whom will be at stake but the lowly foot soldier, who either earnestly believe they are fighting for a righteous cause or out of the lack economic opportunities. Unfortunately they serve as unwitting pawns of grandstanding politicians.

But the best way to resolve such impasse will be to deepen trade and commercial relationships that will promote deeper social interactions that would empower the citizenry rather than brinkmanship politics from politicians.

As I have been saying, all these has partly been about promoting the return of the US military bases—a legacy the incumbent administration wishes to fulfill which had been terminated in 1992 during the incumbent’s mother’s administration. 

Despite denials by the US to seek permanent presence, the US wants extended access to Philippine bases. The rehashed US-Philippine military relationship has been framed in the context to become palatable to public opinion.

The Left has alleged that the Philippine government has spent Php 500 million in building base infrastructure in Palawan to accommodate US military. If true, then this has been foreordained as popularity ratings will be used to formally bring back US bases. Except of course, the pork barrel scam has frayed into these populist ratings.

While it is true that Philippines will be buying these jets from a Korean state defense industry, what has not been revealed is that the FA-50 has essentially been powered, equipped and armed by mostly the US-Israel military industrial complex 

From the Wikipedia (bold mine)

The FA-50 is the most advanced version of the T-50. It is equipped with a modified Israeli EL/M-2032 pulse-Doppler radar with further Korean-specific modifications by LIG Nex1, and has more internal fuel capacity, enhanced avionics, a longer radome and a tactical datalink The radar selected for the FA-50 has a range two-thirds greater than the TA-50's radar. The EL/M-2032 was initially chosen over Lockheed Martin's preferred AN/APG-67(V)4 and SELEX Vixen 500E AESA radars. Other AESA radars such as Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar and Northrop Grumman's Scalable Agile Beam Radar are options for future production, and will likely be shared with the same AESA radar chosen for the USAF and ROKAF F-16 fighters. Samsung Thales is also independently developing a domestic multi-mode AESA radar for FA-50/ In December 2008, South Korea awarded a contract to Korea Aerospace Industries to convert four T-50s to FA-50 standards by 2012. In 2012, The Republic of Korea Air Force has ordered 20 FA-50 fighters to be delivered by the end of 2014 The maiden flight of FA-50 multirole fighter variant took place in 2011. The 60 FA-50 aircraft are to be produced from 2013 to 2016. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) received a 1.1 trillion won ($1 billion) order for FA-50 fighter aircraft in May 2013.

The T-50 is the proposed base for the more advanced F-50 fighter with strengthened wings, AESA radar, more internal fuel, enhanced electronic warfare capability, and a more powerful engine. The proposal is designated as T-50 Phase 3 program by KAI. Wing strengthening is required to support three underwing weapons pylons, compared to two underwing pylons on the TA-50 or FA-50. The AESA radar was expected to be RACR, which has 90% commonality with the AESA radar of the Super Hornet, or SABR, both of which are competing for KF-16's AESA radar upgrade program. Samsung Thales' AESA radar is also a possible option. The aircraft was altered to a single-seat configuration to allow more space for internal fuel and electronic warfare equipment. The engine could be either Eurojet EJ200 or General Electric F414, upgraded to 20,000 lb or 22,000 lb thrust, which is about 12-25% higher than the F404's thrust. The engines are already being offered for the baseline T-50 for future customers. A similar Korean-led international fighter program exists named the KAI KF-X.

TA-50/FA-50 armaments again from Wikipedia

The TA-50 version mounts a three-barrel cannon version of the M61 Vulcan internally behind the cockpit, which fires linkless 20 mm ammunition. Wingtip rails can accommodate the AIM-9 Sidewinders missile, a variety of additional weapons can be mounted to underwing hardpoints. Compatible air-to-surface weapons include the AGM-65 Maverick missile, Hydra 70 and LOGIR rocket launchers, CBU-58 and Mk-20 cluster bombs, and Mk-82, −83, and −84 general purpose bombs.

FA-50 can be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the fighter's electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities. Other improved weapon systems over TA-50 include SPICE multifunctional guidance kits, Textron CBU-97/105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon with WCMD tail kits, JDAM, and JDAM-ER for more comprehensive air-to-ground operations, and AIM-120 missiles for BVR air-to-air operations. FA-50 has provisions for, but does not yet integrate, Python and Derby missiles, also produced by Rafael, and other anti-ship missiles, stand-off weapons, and sensors to be domestically developed by Korea

The South Korean army has also essentially been supported (28,000 troops) by the US, as well as armed and equipped (from army, navy, air force to marine corps mostly by the US military and US defense contractors. 

So the Korean defense industry represents a token of real defense spending $31.7 billion (2013), where according to Wikipedia arms exports totaled $183 million (2012) compared to imports at $1.131 billion (2010). 

In July 2013, the South Korean military appealed to the Parliament for an increase 13.7% of the military budget which translates to $38.5 billion to beef up the nation's missile defense. 

The point is South Korean defense industry has been deeply tied with the US military complex. So this reflects on the dynamics behind the Philippine government's proposed buying of South Korean jets.

Bottom line: The fantasy of arming for defense by the Philippine government to protect against the far more powerful China serves as economic privileges for the US-Israel defense industry (also Korea’s KAI), the Philippine bureaucracy and the Philippine military as well as the US military. 

The first three will be charged to us, the Philippine taxpayers. The US military base/s will be charged to the American taxpayers but whose subsequent social and environmental costs will a burden to local communities in the Philippines who will serve as host/s to the base/s.

China Bubble Indicator: Chinese Buying of High Profile US Properties

While I often refer to the skyscraper indicator as one important gauge to appraise the whereabouts or the stages of the bubble cycle, there seems another potential bubble indicator: foreign buying of US high profile properties.

Recently a Chinese firm reportedly bought JP Morgan’s 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza

From the Bloomberg:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) has agreed to sell 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, the tower built by David Rockefeller, to Fosun International Ltd., the investment arm of China’s biggest closely held industrial group, for $725 million.

Fosun, which invests in properties, pharmaceuticals and steel, is buying the 60-story, 2.2 million square-foot, lower Manhattan tower, according to a statement it filed to Hong Kong’s stock exchange.

China’s developers and companies are expanding in overseas property markets as the government maintains curbs on housing at home to cool prices. Greenland Holding Group Co., a Shanghai-based, state-owned developer, this month agreed to buy a 70 percent stake in a residential and commercial real estate project in Brooklyn.

We have seen this phenomenon before, particularly, during the "Japan Inc" bubble era of the late 1980s. 

Japan's asset bubble eventually imploded in 1990

This 1996 article on Japan's US property acquisition from the Chicago Tribune resonates on today’s buying spree of US properties by the Chinese. [bold mine]

No property epitomizes failed Japanese investment in U.S. real estate more than New York landmark Rockefeller Center.

Mitsubishi Estate Co. paid the Rockefeller family $1.4 billion for an 80 percent stake in the complex in 1989 and 1990. By early 1995, Mitsubishi had lost more than $600 million on its investment and put the property under bankruptcy protection. Late last year, it decided to hand the property over to its lenders.

Aoki Corp. of Japan, which bought the Westin Hotels and Resorts chain in 1988, hasn't fared much better. In 1988, it paid United Air Lines' parent Allegis Corp. $1.35 billion for the company. It ended up selling the chain's North American and European operations and some other assets to two U.S. investment firms for $561 million in December.

Japanese real estate developer Minoru Isutani's purchase of the Pebble Beach golf resort is another famous case. In 1990, he bought the California championship golf course for $841 million. Isutani sold the property about 18 months later to two Japanese companies at a $340 million loss.

Again as one would note that during the peak of Japan’s bubble 1988-1990, Japanese investors went into a shopping binge similar to Chinese investors today. And 'Rockefeller' properties seem like a coincidence or has been a prominent feature of extravagant transactions.

More from a 1992 LA Times article (bold mine) 

The drying up of Japanese real estate money in California was even more dramatic. Total investment tumbled 83% to $976 million, a trend the study attributes to the state's steep recession. For the first time in four years, Hawaii attracted more Japanese real estate money than California. Los Angeles was eclipsed by New York and Honolulu as the cities of choice for Japanese real estate funds.

Orange County, once one of the top 10 locations in the country, fell 95% to $32 million. Los Angeles dropped 65% to $590 million as a city of choice for Japanese funds. Japanese real estate investment fell 87% to $138 million in San Diego, and 74% in San Francisco to $127 million.

The results signal an end to a shopping spree that began in 1985 when cheap capital, the yen's exceptionally strong buying power, and loose lending standards by Japanese banks prompted scores of Japanese to pay record prices for some of the most famous office buildings and hotels in California, New York and Hawaii.

Today we have a strong Chinese yuan and massive expansion of credit in China's formal and informal banking system that has been fueling a domestic property bubble.

Yet paying for “record prices for some of the most famous office buildings and hotels” in the US seems like a variant of the skyscraper curse. Instead of the building of grandeur projects to showcase overconfidence, foreigners buy signature edifices.

Again the sale of JPM’s 1 Chase Manhattan to a Chinese investor could signify a manifestation of such symptoms.

And paying for “record prices for some of the most famous office buildings and hotels” in the US, reminiscent of the 1980s, has been a du jour dynamic or trend, not limited to 1 Chase Manhattan.

From the New York Times last June [bold mine]

And yet in recent weeks, several big deals in New York City have set real estate circles abuzz. Zhang Xin, a Chinese business magnate and chief executive of the largest commercial real estate developer in Beijing, joined forces with the Safra family of Brazil to buy a large piece of the General Motors Building in Midtown. Dalian Wanda Group, a big Chinese developer, said it intended to build a luxury hotel in Manhattan. (Wanda is also planning to build a hotel in London.)…

For the moment, the Chinese government is encouraging the investments and even helping to finance them. The state-owned Bank of China has become the largest foreign lender in commercial real estate deals in the United States, replacing big European banks. Beijing is eager to diversify its investments…

The Chinese aren’t limiting themselves to megadeals. Some purchases have been relatively small by the standards of commercial real estate. Ms. Zhang, who is the chief executive of SOHO China and one of the richest women in the world, paid about $600 million in 2011 for a 49 percent stake in the Park Avenue Plaza, a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper. That same year, the real estate arm of the HNA Group, a Chinese airline company, saved an office building at 1180 Sixth Avenue from foreclosure for $265 million. HNA also bought the boutique Cassa Hotel in Times Square.

Chinese investors or firms have also bought large hotels in California, including the Sheraton Universal in Universal City; the Crowne Plaza in Burlingame, near the San Francisco airport; and the Hilton Ontario in Ontario. They have also purchased a riverfront parcel in Toledo, Ohio, and, earlier this year, an office building in Morristown, N.J.

Chinese firms and investors are also betting that the potential returns in American commercial property markets will be higher than in other areas of the world. The market for office, industrial and retail property appears to have bottomed out. Office vacancy rates have fallen and rent prices have stabilized amid signs of economic improvement. And while competition is heating up — three Manhattan office buildings have sold for more than $1 billion so far this year — many of the big bidders and lenders from Europe have pulled back as their home economies struggle.

So we see China’s homegrown bubbles spilling over in the form of diversification through increasing exposure on US properties. And these manic buying activities has been partly bankrolled by China’s state-owned bank. 

Finally, the Chinese property buying spree appears to be contributing to the Fed inspired reflation of the US property bubble.

A case of Déjà vu?

 

Yet there seems another angle from which the JPM property deal may have been made.

Since JP Morgan’s 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza has one of the “world’s largest bank vault” which houses the company’s gold holdings. This could be related to the Chinese government’s attempt to secure gold vaults worldwide.

The Zero Hedge speculates (bold original)

So, what the real news of today is not that JPM is selling its gold vault, we knew that two months ago, or that it is outright looking to exit the physical commodities business, that too was preannounced. What is extremely notable is that in one very quiet transaction, China just acquired the building that houses the world's largest gold vault.

Why? We don't know. We do know that China's gross gold imports from Hong Kong alone have amounted to over 2000 tons in the past two years. This excludes imports from other sources, and certainly internal gold mining and production.

One guess: China has decided it has its fill of domestically held gold and is starting to acquire gold warehouses in the banking capitals of the world.

For now the reason why is unclear but we are confident the answer will present itself shortly.

While the gold aspect has been interesting, the Chinese buying of high profile US properties seems as increasing, deepening and worrying signs of bubbles that are about to mature or are likely to burst soon.

More Parallel Universes: Spain’s Bond Markets and EU Macro

Europe has been a showcase for the falsification of what seems as conventional relationships between financial markets and fundamentals or what I call as "parallel universes".

For instance, in Spain instead of the bond markets reflecting on credit quality, where soaring non-performing ‘bad’ loans should have prompted a bond selloff (higher yields), we get to see the opposite, rallying bonds (falling 10 year yields)…

From the Zero Hedge… (bold-italics original)

Despite the onslaught of confidence-inspiring flim-flam from leadership in Europe and a Spanish Prime Minister (and finance minister) desperate to distract with "soft" survey based data, the hard numbers keep coming in and keep getting worse and worse. The latest, seemingly confirming the IMF's fearsome forecast that European banks face massive loan losses in the coming years, is Spain's loan delinquency rate. Bad loans across Spanish banks amounted to $247 billion in August - a new record-breaking 12.12% of all loans outstanding (now 30% higher than any previous crisis in the history of Spain). Credit creation continues to implode with a 12.3% plunge in total loans outstanding but of course, none of that matters (for now), as Spanish bond spreads (and yields) press back towards pre-crisis lows...

This has been a product of entwined manifold political factors.

One, ECB’s Mario Draghi’s “do whatever it takes to save the euro” via a bond buying guarantee program [the unused Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT)] as well as the previous or OMT’s predecessor Long Term Refinancing Operations (LTRO). The LTRO has also functioned as credit subsidies to the banking system. The LTRO, the ECB learned lately, has entrenched the dependence of the banking industry, where the latter can hardly wean away from the LTRO without disorderly adjustments.

Also the Spanish government via Social Security Funds and other public pensions, as well as, the banking (€225bn in March) and financial sectors have been made to support sovereign bond prices. The banks likewise use these bonds as collateral to draw loans on the ECB. By keeping rates low, banks and the Spanish government benefits from these political subsidies financed by the economy.

International politics have also been a factor. For instance, Abenomics has spurred Japanese buyers to buy international bonds, including Europe, where Spain's bonds could have been a part of. 

Zero bound rates has also spurred a yield chasing dynamic for private sector funds.

As one will note politicization of markets results to a vast distortion of relationships between market prices and the orthodox view of fundamentals. 

Yet the mainstream who largely frames the above as 'recovery' either has blinded by such developments or deliberately twist or spin them to justify their actions

Such parallel universe applies to Europe's stock markets relative to ‘fundamentals’, which I have repeatedly been pointing out such as here and here

Again from another Zero Hedge article: (bold and italics original)

Goldman has, in the past, indicated how little forecasting power the soft survey data has in Europe and yet still, day after day we are treated to the herd of mainstream media types proclaiming that Europe is recovering and that their fundamentals have turned a corner. The problem with that "story" is that is that is a lie. In fact, European macro data has been sliding since the start of September and has plunged recently to 3 month lows. Of course, the reality is that a record high for European stocks is all that matters to the fast-money charging momo players and betting against divergences from fundamentals is for dummies...

Are these divergences 'This time is different'?

Video: Peter Schiff on The Myth Surrounding Janet Yellen's Forecasting Record

Mainstream media glorifies incoming Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen's forecasting track record for supposedly having warned against the 2008 crisis. 

Using Ms. Yellen's speeches and public pronouncements as basis, financial analyst Peter Schiff, in the following video, debunks such claims as inaccurate and an exaggeration.

This is important because the consensus seems to have massively build their hopes and optimism around Ms. Yellen's leadership. In reality, what the mainstream  has been cheering about has been the prospects of bigger inflationist policies, which signify as subsidies to Wall Street and politicians at the expense of main street. This also means that the mainstream expects Ms. Yellen to accommodate bigger and bigger systemic debt.

Worst, should Ms. Yellen's administration oblige to Wall Street's desires, then we should expect a bubble bust under her watch. 

Again as pointed out in the past, outgoing Fed chief Ben Bernanke must have been cunning enough to have bailed out and passed the burden of bubbles to his successor.

(hat tip Zero Hedge)

Markets In Everything: Invest in your Star Athlete

How about investing in a financial security linked to the income stream of financial performance of your favorite professional athlete? 

From Deal Book New York Times: 

First, there was old-fashioned gambling on football. Then came the fantasy leagues. And now, thanks to Wall Street, fans can buy a stake in their favorite player.

On Thursday, a start-up company announced a new trading exchange for investors to buy and sell interests in professional athletes. Backed by executives from Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the sports world, the company plans to create stocks tied to an athlete’s financial performance.

After considering a number of possibilities for its inaugural initial public offering, the company found a charismatic candidate in Arian Foster, the Pro Bowl running back of the Houston Texans. Investors in the deal will receive stock linked to Mr. Foster’s future earnings, which includes the value of his playing contracts, corporate endorsements and appearance fees.

The company, Fantex Holdings, has grand ambitions beyond a Foster I.P.O. — it hopes to sign up more football players and other athletes, as well as celebrities like pop singers and Hollywood actors.

This is demonstrative of the market’s innovative process at work. Entrepreneurs think up ways and means to profit from what they see as economic opportunities by taking risks through the introduction of new instruments, products or services.

Innovation is a common feature of capitalist societies. As Austrian economist Robert Higgs pointed out

In his justly famous 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph A. Schumpeter described the dynamics of a market economy as a process of “creative destruction.” In his view, innovation—“the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates”—drives this process. Its most important result is that for the first time in history, the mass of the population in developed countries enjoys a standard of living that even the aristocrats of past ages could scarcely have imagined, much less have actually had.

In the above case, stocks linked to celebrities seem like a new form of entertainment.

Quote of the Day: There is now No Limit in government borrowing

Last night, after more than two weeks of utterly embarrassing theater, the government in the Land of the Free inked a deal to kick the can down the road a few more months. And in doing so, they set a very dangerous precedent.

As part of the bargain codified in HR 2775 (which President Obama signed into law), the Treasury Department is authorized to SUSPEND the debt ceiling. In other words, for all intents and purposes, there is now NO LIMIT government borrowing.

This limitless borrowing authority will expire on February 7, 2014. But it sets the precedent that dismissing the debt ceiling is a perfectly viable course of action.

Congress has effectively removed their handcuffs… so you can almost assuredly bet down the road that this provision will be extended, and ultimately become permanent.

This is from Simon Black of the Sovereign Man. The details of the slippery slope towards the unshackling of the debt handcuffs via HR 2775 can be found here; a summary can be found at Wikipedia. This reinforces my view that all the coming political debate on restraints on government spending will be about grandstanding, horse trading and theatrics.

The Virtue of Failure: Billionaire Sara Blakely’s Success Recipe

In the realm of capitalism, failures serve as stepping stones to success as I pointed out here here and here

Take for example, billionaire Sara Blakely, founder and owner of garment company Spanx, who in a CNBC interview said that a key ingredient to her career success emerged from her string of initial misfortunes.

CNBC’s Robert Frank reports

"What have you failed at this week?" Blakely recalled in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" n Wednesday. "My dad growing up encouraged me and my brother to fail. The gift he was giving me is that failure is (when you are) not trying versus the outcome. It's really allowed me to be much freer in trying things and spreading my wings in life."

Blakely's embrace of failure has helped make her the youngest self-made female billionaire in America. The 41-year-old Florida native was selling fax machines door-to-door before she came up with the idea for Spanx, the body-shaping undergarments that have become a global sensation.

Her string of early career failures eventually led Blakely to the Spanx idea. She said wanted to be a lawyer but "basically bombed the LSAT twice," she said. "I ended up at Disney World trying out to be Goofy. They wanted me to be 5' 8", but I was 5' 6". They wanted me to be a chipmunk."

Ms. Blakely's determination in the face of the lack of knowledge and experience...

Like many entrepreneurs, Blakely said that not knowing industry practices—and the things that supposedly can't be done—is critical in starting a business.

"The fact that I had never taken a business class, had no training, didn't know how retail worked," she said. "I wasn't as intimidated as I should have been."

And a memorable gaffe...

Her rise was filled with little failures—some of them humorous. When she went to London in an early sales trip to promote the product, she was interviewed by the BBC. She described the benefits of Spanx by saying, "It's all about the fanny. It smooths your fanny, lifts and separates your fanny."

Suddenly, the interviewer lost all color in his face.

"I had no idea," Blakely said, "but fanny apparently means vagina in England."

The tolerance of or the virtue of failure is founded on learning and building from them

As American industrialist and founder of the Ford Company Henry Ford wrote as one of his Principles of Business

An absence of fear of the future or of veneration for the past. One who fears the future, who fears failure, limits his activities. Failure is only the opportunity more intelligently to begin again. There is no disgrace in honest failure; there is disgrace in fearing to fail. What is past is useful only as it suggests ways and means for progress.

On the other hand, in the world of politics, failure has frequently been used as an excuse for political agents to grab control of society.

Video: Milton Friedman on Inequality and Minimum Wage

One aspect where the late illustrious economist Milton Friedman impresses me much has been with his lucid and eloquent defense of many aspects of the free markets in public. 

The video video on inequality and minimum wage is a good example. (hat tip Cafe Hayek)

But the Austrian economic school has had many issues with Mr. Friedman (income tax, monetarism, school vouchers, anti-trust laws, flexible exchange rates, opposition to gold standard and etc...) see F.A. Hayek here, Murray Rothbard here, Walter Block here debating Friedman, Roger Garrison here, and David Stockman who accuses Mr. Friedman of opening the door to monetary central planning. 

Although Mr. Friedman in the later phase of his life seem to have changed his mind on his monetarism to eventually call for the abolition of the US Federal Reserve here and here in public.

US government’s Slippery Slope towards Capital Controls

Even as US stock market booms, the US government appears to be desperately corralling resources of their constituency by the escalating use of capital controls to prevent internal funds from flowing out of the country.

Sovereign Man’s Simon Black explains (Daily Paul.com)

The path to tyranny is almost always paved with good intentions.

And so, enter stage left, the innocuously named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

These government agencies with the catchy, high-sounding names are always the most dangerous. After all, it was the 'Committee for Public Safety' that was responsible for wanton genocide during the post revolution Reign of Terror in France.

Recently, the CFPB 'encouraged' retail banks in the Land of the Free to 'help' their customers regarding international wire transfers. And by 'help', they mean prohibit.

Of course it's all for 'consumer protection'.. So under the guise of safety and security, several banks will curtail retail customers' abilities to send international wire transfers.

Chase, for example, will start to limit cash withdrawals and ban business customers from sending international wire transfers from November 17 onward.

And starting October 20th, HSBC USA's Premier clients will have to wait a minimum of five days before transferring funds to their OWN international accounts!

This is the very nature of capital controls-- restricting the free flow of capital across borders until it is trapped inside the country and forcibly denominated in a rapidly devaluing currency.

And this is exactly how it starts... making it more difficult to move money abroad.

We've been writing for years that this would happen. This isn't some tin-foil hat conspiracy. This is reality.

Throughout history, bankrupt governments have almost always resorted to these same desperate tactics.

As the US government is hours away from crossing the fiscal Rubicon, it only seems appropriate. They are bankrupt, and they are desperate.

US Politics: Despite the all the Theatrics the GOP Sells out, Debt Ceiling Raised

Today's US debt ceiling drama reminds me of a favorite Filipino proverb by my best friend and foreign client “Pagkahaba-haba man daw ng prusisyon, sa simbahan din ang tuloy” (“No matter how long the procession, it still ends up in church”)

Despite all the rhetoric, drama and theatrics about supposed "principles", the end game, as expected, has been to accommodate the perpetual propagation of debt.

As I previously noted

This means that despite the hullabaloo in the US Congress, which really is just a vaudeville, as congress people will fear the wrath of (the voting public-added Benson), losing political power and privileges from entitlement dependent-parasitical voters, eventually the debt ceiling will be raised. (charts from the Heritage Foundation).

Like actions of central banks led by the US Federal Reserve, America’s welfare state will be pushed to the brink of a crisis or will fall into a crisis first, before real reforms will be made.

In the world of politics, cost-benefit tradeoffs has been reduced to short term expediencies.

Now the compromise fires up the debt starved stock markets again, from the Bloomberg

U.S. stocks rallied, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) toward a record, as the Senate crafted a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling before tomorrow’s deadline.

The reported Senate deal: (bold mine)

The bipartisan leaders of the Senate reached an agreement to end the fiscal impasse and to increase U.S. borrowing authority. The Senate and House plan to vote on it later today, and the White House press secretary said President Barack Obama supports the deal.

The framework negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would fund the government through Jan. 15, 2014, and suspend the debt limit until Feb. 7, setting up another round of confrontations.

The agreement concludes a four-week standoff that began with Republicans demanding defunding of Obama’s 2010 health-care law, and objecting to raising the debt limit and funding the government without policy concessions. House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement that Republicans won’t block the Senate compromise.

With no deal, the U.S. would exhaust its borrowing authority tomorrow and the government may start missing payments at some point between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Fitch Ratings put the world’s biggest economy on watch for a possible credit downgrade yesterday, citing lawmakers’ inability to agree.

UPDATE the House of Representatives has reportedly acquiesced to the US Senate compromise.

And as I previously anticipated the GOP will sellout

And the fear of the wrath of the public which means losing political power have become a potent force in the shaping of the supposed deal…the American public has been putting the blame on the GOP (Republicans).

Here is House Speaker John Boehner statement on the Senate deal (hat tip Zero Hedge) [bold mine]

The House has fought with everything it has to convince the president of the United States to engage in bipartisan negotiations aimed at addressing our country's debt and providing fairness for the American people under ObamaCare.  That fight will continue.  But blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by the members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us.  In addition to the risk of default, doing so would open the door for the Democratic majority in Washington to raise taxes again on the American people and undo the spending caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act without replacing them with better spending cuts.  With our nation's economy still struggling under years of the president's policies, raising taxes is not a viable option. Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president's health care law will continue.  We will rely on aggressive oversight that highlights the law's massive flaws and smart, targeted strikes that split the legislative coalition the president has relied upon to force his health care law on the American people.

 

So the debt ceiling compromise will mark the 19th increase since March 1962. 

This also means that there will hardly be any reform until a crisis eventually hits.

At the end of the day, US politics end up where they started or from the default position of steadily raising debt. 

The Poker Bluffing circus never ends. The more things change...

A History of US Debt Defaults

Many mainstream pundits have been saying that the US hasn’t ever defaulted. This hardly represents the accurate picture of reality.

Austrian economist Joseph at the Mises Blog cites a work of another economist who noted of the previous US experience.

Ohio State economist J. Huston McCulloch actually challenges the conventional wisdom that the U.S. government has never, ever defaulted on its debts. McCulloch points out that the U.S. did indeed default on its debt in 1861 and again in 1933.  In 1861, the U.S. Treasury issued “United States Notes” to aid in financing the Civil War. These Treasury notes, known colloquially as “Greenbacks,” promised to pay the  bearer in “lawful money,” gold or silver at the government ‘s discretion, on demand. At the end of 1861, however, the government renounced its promise and suspended redemption as of January 1, 1862, putting it technically in default until 1879 when the notes were again made redeemable in gold. In 1933, President Roosevelt reneged on the promise to pay the interest and principal on Treasury bonds in gold at the rate of $20.67 per ounce, which once again put the government in technical default. In 1935, the right to redeem the bonds in gold was restored to foreign bondholders only, but at the depreciated rate of $35.00 per ounce, an option which was never offered to U.S. bondholders.

More important, the whole notion that an honest and explicit debt default by the U.S. government is an unprecedented event and the worst possible outcome in the current situation is ludicrous given that the U.S. has been continually and surreptitiously defaulting on its debt since World War 2 via inflationary finance. As McCulloch argues:

Governments often effectively default on their debts through inflation. Under a fiat money regime, they can always print enough legal tender money to pay off their debts. The only catch is that the money will not be worth as much as it was before. If it tries to cover too much deficit spending in this manner, more than a few percent of GDP, the inevitable result is hyperinflation in which money quickly becomes virtually worthless.

Disastrous though an explicit Treasury default would be, bringing down the entire economy with a hyperinflation or even a partial inflationary default would be even worse. But if we keep charging current deficits to future taxpayers at our current rate, the inevitable result will be a revolt in which they either explicitly repudiate all or part of the debt, or, worse yet, inflate it away.

Even the Wikipedia, as shown above, has an account of the history of US debt defaults as I previously posted here

Of course relationships have materially changed. This means that the effects of the previous defaults may or may not be the same as today.

However populist politics, which has been deeply immersed in the culture of debt, have used the default bogeyman as leverage to spook the markets in order to impel for the raising of the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling means to persist on the path of a debt financed spending splurge. 

But this would be tantamount to playing with fire.

As I previously pointed out, the likelihood is that a debt deal will be struck perhaps in the last minute of the deadline, as politicians will hardly be fighting for principle, but for social standings and the maintenance of political privilege. Importantly a default would likely mean the end of the US dollar hegemony.

Proof of this can be seen in the recent editorial by the Chinese state press agency, Xinhua, which even called for the de-Americanization of the world where they claim that “effective reform is the introduction of a new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar”

Nonetheless given the path of unsustainable debt absorption by the US government…

…which has also been reflected on the entire US political economy, the issue of default, directly (restructuring or repudiation) or indirectly (via massive inflation) is a question of when and not an if. 

This means that US politics should reform the system even at the cost of temporary instability, to prevent the day of reckoning.

Thomas Sowell on the Yellen’s Keynesianism

Thomas Sowell addresses the prospective Keynesian economic policies from incoming Fed chief Janet Yellen.

Writes Mr. Sowell at the Townhall.com

Ms. Yellen asks: "Do policy-makers have the knowledge and ability to improve macroeconomic outcomes rather than making matters worse?" And she answers: "Yes."

The former economics professor is certainly asking the right questions -- and giving the wrong answers.

Her first question, whether free market economies can achieve full employment without government intervention, is a purely factual question that can be answered from history. For the first 150 years of the United States, there was no policy of federal intervention when the economy turned down.

No depression during all that time was as catastrophic as the Great Depression of the 1930s, when both the Federal Reserve System and Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt intervened in the economy on a massive and unprecedented scale.

Despite the myth that it was the stock market crash of 1929 that caused the double-digit unemployment of the 1930s, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months that followed the 1929 stock market crash.

Unemployment peaked at 9 percent in December 1929 and was back down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first major federal intervention took place under Herbert Hoover. The unemployment decline then reversed, rising to hit double digits six months later. As Hoover and then FDR continued to intervene, double-digit unemployment persisted throughout the remainder of the 1930s.

Conversely, when President Warren G. Harding faced an annual unemployment rate of 11.7 percent in 1921, he did absolutely nothing, except for cutting government spending.

Keynesian economists would say that this was exactly the wrong thing to do. History, however, says that unemployment the following year went down to 6.7 percent -- and, in the year after that, 2.4 percent.

Under Calvin Coolidge, the ultimate in non-interventionist government, the annual unemployment rate got down to 1.8 percent. How does the track record of Keynesian intervention compare to that?

So expect more bubbles, a build up of systemic fragility from a pileup of debt and more Wall Street friendly policies such as implicit guarantees and (explicit) bailouts at the expense of main street.

Why the Pork Barrel Will Unlikely be Abolished

From today’s headlines:

In face-to-face interviews with 1,200 respondents aged 18 and above who were randomly selected nationwide, Pulse Asia also found that 67 percent believed that corrupt practices during the Arroyo administration involving the PDAF continued under the Aquino administration.

Most Filipinos, thus, approved of President Aquino’s announcement that the time had come for the scrapping of the pork barrel.

For about one in three Filipinos (32 percent), politicians were using the PDAF to get themselves and their relatives elected, while another 27 percent said the pork had given lawmakers an opportunity to receive bribes and commissions.

A fundamental reason why the Pork Barrel will unlikely be abolished (but will likely be transformed into another Pork with a lipstick) can be deduced from the consensus perspective which views the problem of Pork as having been based from personality virtues rather than an institutional-structural disease 

 

And media and their experts reinforce the populist belief that nirvana will be achieved (or the Pork will be of merit) once “angels” would run the government. 

But as 4^th President of the United Sates and “Father of the Constitution” James Madison Jr. warned in the Federalist papers (Federalist 51),

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Government is about political power or the control of people and of resources by a few. Or political power is about the rule of men over men.

This means political power is hardly about righteousness for the simple reason that political power is about organized force. And to acquire and wield political supremacy means political agents will resort to all forms of manoeuvrings (which includes unethical means) for the purpose of acquiring the privilege of control over men.

The principle of economics tells us too that politicians and bureaucrats, like all the rest, are mere mortal human beings who are driven by self-interests (Public choice) and thus will be subject to the frailties and temptations of the common men.

But instead of promoting equality through opportunity and law, political power is about unjust coercive redistribution, as the illustrious economist Thomas Sowell says it best

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.

The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. When politicians discover some group that is being vocal about not having as much as they want, the “solution” is to give them more. Where do politicians get this “more”? They rob Peter to pay Paul.

After a while, of course, they discover that Peter doesn’t have enough. Bursting with compassion, politicians rush to the rescue. Needless to say, they do not admit that robbing Peter to pay Paul was a dumb idea in the first place. On the contrary, they now rob Tom, Dick, and Harry to help Peter.

In a related separate but related issue we see a variant of the Pork Barrel in action… (from another Inquirer article today)

In spite of widespread public outrage, the presidential body tasked with overseeing the pay and perks of state corporations justified Monday the bonuses that the Social Security System (SSS) had rewarded its managers while ramping up contributions of members, noting that 19 other state corporations have also handed out such management windfalls.

Paolo Salvosa, the spokesman of the Governance Commission for Government Owned or Controlled Corporations (GCG), talked to reporters after the panel members went to Malacañang to defend the much-maligned P1 million that the SSS board, headed by Emilio S. de Quiros as president and vice chair, ordered for each of its directors.

De Quiros announced at the same time that employees’ contributions to the SSS would be increased by 0.6 percent, raising their monthly salary contributions from 10.4 to 11 percent.

He said this would stretch pension funding capability “to perpetuity.” He indicated further increases in premiums were forthcoming.

The SSS chief has been roundly criticized, among others, for taking trips abroad, first class, all expenses paid, every two months since he took over the pension agency.

One may not be “corrupt” in the sense of 'kickbacks' and directly from pocketing of taxpayer funds, but the principle has been the all the same…

The politics of coercive redistribution is about the spending other of people’s money through the predation of Juan to pay Pedro and from the intermediation of political agents, who likewise benefits by getting a cut from such forcible transfer process. 

And Pork Barrel represents an element of the politics of coercive redistribution. It has been always easy to spend the toils and savings of other people in order to get elected or to maintain populist approval or for personal perks.

And in defense of the system, politicians run circles on the public by emitting smoke screens of putting the blame on previous administrations rather than to come clean by being transparent or by proving to the public of their alleged moral excellence by opening their earmarks (past and present) for scrutiny. 

Politicians also resort to legal technicalities to prevent such happening.

Bottom line: for as long politicians will be able to persuade their constituencies of the supposed necessity of spending other people’s money, the Pork barrel won’t likely be abolished.

The constituency should demand to scrutinize the Pandora’s Box as I earlier wrote

Yet the public should clamor for an independent non-partisan audit on earmarks (Pork barrel) of all incumbent officials (which should include previous tenures or positions) beginning with the highest to the lowest ranking.

This means abolishing the Pork may only happen from a radical reformation or transformation of public opinion. Or said differently, only when the public will be thoroughly convinced that the Pork is an incorrigible institutional defect will abolishing the Pork become a reality.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote (bold mine)

What determines the course of a nation's economic policies is always the economic ideas held by public opinion. No government, whether democratic or dictatorial, can free itself from the sway of the generally accepted ideology.

Quote of the Day: Experience is a continuous exit exam

Experience is not much of a teacher; it is, rather, a continuous exit exam. For we are not very good at "learning" from events.

- You are told that experience is accumulated knowledge when it is largely a survival filter, a fitness test. Those we call "experienced" are simply those who had the traits that allowed them to survive in a given function in order to be able do it for a long time: what we call on this forum absence of fragility.

- This confusion is similar to mistaking the Lamarckian for the Darwinian. There is some direct learning (Lamarckian) in experience, but it has to coexist with a stiff selection test.

- The consequence is that "experienced" people should limit their teaching to avoidance of fragility.

- And our preferences show that we get the point (intuitively): we tend worship old people when they are successful, and despise (and neglect) them when they are ordinary. Yet both have, technically, the same "experience".

This is from my favorite iconoclast theorist, mathematician-philosopher and author Nassim Nicolas Taleb at his Facebook page

I think that this "experience is not a teacher" observation seems highly relevant to the stock market industry. 

Many (if not most) "experienced" industry participants (veterans) never really seemed to have learned from their "experience". They are often swayed by other matters, particularly social influence (status signaling) or industry interest (principal-agent problem). 

While they have "survived" the sharp vacillations of the marketplace over the years (experience), their survival "filter test" must have come or emanated from other means or source for them to disregard or become oblivious to the lessons of their previous episodes of life. In short, they lack the skin in the game.

And yes, in general, the public loves winners or the "visible" and almost completely disregards the "unseen" alternatives. That's because the survivorship bias, which aside from the innate impulse to adhere to the law of least efforts has largely been ingrained to us by media. 

Survivorship bias effuses an aura, or even a delusion of hope. Such hope feeds on the optimistic 'feel good' bias of the general public.

Unfortunately much of the optimism channeled via the survivalship bias are bereft of real circumstances. And this is why superhero themes (one or a few protagonists saving the world) have constantly been a bestseller whether in the movies or in politics. Superhero themes embodies the visible, emotive values and short term gratification.

Note: I made additions (in italics) to my original comment