Eric Sprott, a veteran fund manager and researcher based in Toronto, believes the buyers are in la-la land when it comes to interpreting economic data emanating from the world’s largest economy. A few of his salient points include:

  • A prolonged U.S. retail sales slump, highlighted by a same-store sales plunge of 32% last month at Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF, news, msgs), shows that consumers are in no mood to buy goods even if factories were ready to make them. A plunge of 5.1% reported by U.S. shopping malls in June was worse than the dire 4.5% forecast.
  • Unemployment is not just the worst since 1983 — 29% of the unemployed have been looking for work more than six months; the number of people taking unemployment benefits has reached a record 6.88 million; and six people are looking for work for every job opening, a fourfold increase from just a year ago.
  • With consumers on the sidelines, U.S. industry is on the brink. Factories used only 68.3% of available capacity in May 2009. The lowest prior level since the Depression was 70.9% in December 1982.
  • Despite the recent uptick in construction, new-home sales are down 73% from their 2005 high, and the cumulative loading of rail cars is down 19.2% from 2008′s depressed levels.
  • Price/earnings multiples on U.S. stocks, reflecting investor sentiment, fell only to a multidecadeaverage at 16 rather than to the single-digit lows seen in prior deep recessions.

The Economic Recovery Puzzle’s Missing Piece – Jon Markman, MSN Money

 

Buying and selling huge volumes of securities in a matter of seconds is just another high-tech form of speculation that is only remotely connected to the fundamental purpose of financial markets, which is to raise and allocate capital efficiently for businesses that need it. Liquidity is certainly good for markets, but we recently learned from painful experience that it is also possible to have too much of it. And though sophisticated computer systems can be powerful tools in plotting trading strategies and managing risk, we also know that these systems have blind spots and can backfire when too many people try to pursue the same strategy at the same time.

Wall Street Creates the Next Crisis – Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post

 

Curiously, as Treasuries were rallying, equities on both sides of the Atlantic were capering to almost their highest levels this year. After moves this week, when bond and equity prices fell together, it has led some to ask whether the traditional relationship between equities and bonds — where bond prices fall as equities rise — has broken down. If true, that might point to the scary conclusion that investors are losing their appetite for risk across the board. More likely, though, is that falls in Treasuries this week simply reflected the market’s struggle to digest the huge issuance.

The rally in equities, meanwhile, has been caused by better-than-expected company results. Apart from Royal Dutch Shell, UK blue-chips BT, BAT, AstraZeneca, BSkyB and Rolls-Royce all offered encouragement yesterday, as did Cadbury and Reckitt Benckiser earlier this week. It was a similar tale on Wall Street, with decent figures yesterday from the likes of Tyco, Motorola and MasterCard.

But investors should not be carried away. Many of these good results were simply due to cost cuts, running-down of stocks or, in the case of AstraZeneca, an unexpected absence of competition.

Equity markets now look to be fully up with events. The FTSE 100 looks set to finish July about 9 per cent higher — its biggest monthly rise since September 1992. It would be surprising if it did not tread water for the rest of the Ashes series.

A Tougher Market for U.S. Treasury Issues – Ian King, Times of London

 

“I think we will probably have to begin raising rates sometime in the not-too-distant future,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser told Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal in an interview.

And listen to what Richard Bernstein, Merrill Lynch’s former chief investment strategist, is now saying, that America is still blowing bubbles with its heavy, excessive borrowing. The US government in a post-bubble environment simply is genetically incapable of waiting for economic growth to rebound to soak up excesses, and instead reflexively acts without thinking in the face of growing voter unease over job losses.

So the US has now embarked on Japan’s post-bubble strategy, which it did during the 1990s, that is, to support excess capacity by reflating the economy via gunning the mints, moves which stymie the post-bubble consolidation forces.

Easy money is like tequila, tasty, but dangerous, another inflation hawk, Dallas Fed official Richard Fisher, has warned

 

Skeptics point out the inherent bias of a government-funded mission to identify human-induced climate change. If you don’t find it, does your funding go away?

Government funding, political agendas and computer models make for a dangerous concoction; just ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A Primer On Cap and Trade – Ashby Foote, Jackson Clarion-Ledger

 

NEW YORK (Fortune) — If the credit markets have been an iceberg over the past year, the private equity business has been frozen as solid as a prehistoric glacier. Buyout giants like KKR, Blackstone, and Bain Capital — who just a couple of years ago were vying to one-up each other on a monthly basis with new mega-deals — have been in a virtual hibernation for months.

In the first half of 2009, just $24 billion in deals were completed globally. That compares to $131 billion last year and an astounding $528 billion in deal volume in 2007. This year’s first-half total is the lowest since 1996, when the buyout industry was much smaller. There were only three loans extended to fund leveraged buyouts through June, the fewest number since 1985 according to Dealogic.

In recent weeks, though, the stock market has begun to rally and the cost of borrowing has begun to fall. So it’s natural to wonder: Is the buyout market about to heat up again?

Don’t be on it, say industry insiders. Private equity is still in the early stages of a long thaw.

Digesting last cycle’s deals

The problem is not that firms don’t have money to spend. In fact, according to private equity research firm PitchBook, the industry is sitting on an estimated $400 billion worth of so-called dry powder, or money raised but not yet invested.

No, the reason that dealmaking isn’t going to come roaring back is that private-equity firms are simply still too busy trying to digest the companies they swallowed during the boom years.

Why Private Equity Is in a Deep Freeze – Telis Demos, Fortune

 

Follow the money: The E.U. has agreed to begin talks with the United States on a pact to share counterterror info on European citizens’ bank transactions, but past CIA covert activities render some wary, The Irish Times tells — while Deutsche Presse Agentur has the very prospect “uniting disparate parts of the German political spectrum in opposition.” The Swiss government has extended a list of individuals and groups linked to al Qaeda or the Taliban who are banned from travelling through Switzerland or having Swiss accounts, Dow Jones Newswires relates. Foreign terrorists’ and insurgents’ “use of third party countries for training, fundraising, and transit is not merely an operational phenomenon, but an economic one as well,” the author of a paper titled “Foreign Fighters and Their Economic Impact” summarizes in The Counterterrorism Blog.. Somali pirates are probably using the ransom money they collect from hijacking western ships to finance Islamic terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has a parliamentary committee reporting.

 

Fear itself: “Swine flu is not the only thing we are neurotic wrecks about. Over at the Home Office, ministers warn about the likelihood of an al Qaeda terrorist attack,” says a Daily Mail op-ed on “today’s culture of fear.” As to which, Prison Planet maintains its drum beat of reporting on pandemic-flu-related mass graves being dug and martial law plans being laid here and abroad — while The Pakistan Daily assures readers it’s not the H1N1 virus we should fear but the pending vaccine. Two thirds of New Zealand travelers now view the world as more dangerous than when they first went abroad — with terrorism, crime and disease topping their worries, NZCity has an insurance company survey showing.

 

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) — In his 2008 bestseller, “Wealth, War and Wisdom,” hedge fund manager Barton Biggs warns that investors must “assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.”

And to prepare for a breakdown of civilization, “your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food … It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc.” Bloomberg Markets suggested that by “etc.” he meant guns, as Biggs added “a few rounds over the approaching brigands’ heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage.”

The end of Wall Street

Chapter Three: This final chapter of the crisis on Wall Street tells the story of the $700-billion bailout, as seen through a reporter’s eyes, and looks at what’s ahead for the global economy.

That warning’s not from a hippie radical. Biggs was a respected Wall Street guru at Morgan Stanley for 30 years. As the chief global strategist Institutional Investor magazine put him on its “All-America Research Team” 10 times. Smart Money said: “Biggs is without question the premier prognosticator on the international scene and a mover of markets from Argentina to Hong Kong.”

Biggs is advising America’s wealthy elite. But what about Main Street Americans? Investors often ask me where to invest today, even Bogleheads and investors committed to the Lazy Portfolio strategy. They see the Goldman Conspiracy manipulating this rally. That worries many.

What do you believe? What value do you give to “the future.” First, answer these three questions: What’s your investment strategy if you know you might die on Dec. 21, 2012, or possibly this year after getting a negative diagnosis from an oncologist or maybe not till 2050 when the United Nations says global population will be 50% higher (from 6 billion now to 9 billion), while demand for energy, oil, gas and coal doubles and the global supply of those commodities remains relatively constant.

Disaster films, terminal illnesses, 2050 and ‘The End’

Behavioral economists have answers. But your gut’s also good at predicting. So here’s what you’ll likely do:

  1. You’ll go see the new disaster film, “2012″ about the end of the Mayan calendar. After all, it’s by the same director who “destroyed” the earth in “The Day After Tomorrow,” “Independence Day” and “Godzilla.” No new investment strategies, but a must-see film, a great catharsis and distraction.
  2. If you had a terminal illness, the future is here, now. There’s no tomorrow. You’re concerned about protecting loved ones and future generations with what you have, and enjoying time with them.
  3. But how to invest for the “End of Civilization” coming around 2050? The next 40 years will be confusing: Accelerating struggles between aging populations and disenchanted youth, soaring commodity prices, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, famine, blackouts, rationing, civil disorder, increasing crime, worldwide jihads, riots, anarchy and other dark scenarios of a tomorrow with “warfare defining human life.”

Yes, that’s how doomsayers label the worst-case scenario. It also must be what Ultra-Conservative-Guru Biggs worries about in his darker moments.

So back to the question: What will Main Street investors do? Here again, even with the planet’s survival threatened, they’ll go watch “2012,” be entertained, experience a catharsis, feel relieved, and afterwards, have dinner, slip back into denial. And later, they’ll vote against anything that offers solutions to future problems, especially if it raises taxes.

Why? Very simple: Our “Brains Aren’t Wired to Fear the Future,” writes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. We’re wired to respond to crises, while pushing off the real big problems (health care, Social Security, etc.)

That’s basic behavioral economics: Over tens of thousands of years, evolution has programmed our brains so that collectively we will behave counter-productive with the future, making an “End of Civilization” scenario inevitable, a foregone conclusion, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why? Because our brains are handicapped, we are literally incapable of acting soon enough to solve the problem.

Six simple rules

But there must be a very small percentage of you out there with a desire to make your remaining days on Earth as pleasant as possible for you and your loved ones. So here are “Six New Rules till the End of Civilization 2050.” If they don’t scare you, hopefully they’ll amuse you. Or better yet, wake you up, maybe get you into action … before it’s too late … before your grandkids are fighting over what little is left:

Read the rest Investing Rules For the “End of Civilization” – Paul Farrell, MarketWatch

 

Just yesterday, for instance, the Commerce Department reported that new-home sales grew at an annualized rate of 11 percent last month, which was much better than people were expecting.

And if you look under the covers, the annualized rate actually understated the sales pace of 36,000 new dwellings that were bought last month.

Sales of previously owned homes are also improving, although, in the case of both new and used homes, prices are suffering a dramatic drop.

But whether housing is really making a comeback still carries a very big question mark.

What people are failing to realize, says Chris Whalen, who tracks the banking industry for Institutional Risk Analytics, is something that’s being called the “shadow inventory” of homes.

Put simply, these are the homes on which banks and other mortgage holders have foreclosed but which still haven’t worked their way through the courts.

Whalen says that it takes from three to four months for a house to be out of the foreclosure process and ready for sale.

In the case of New York State, he says, the length could be six months.

Experts are apparently concerned that houses are being taken away from delinquent homeowners in much larger numbers than what is now being put up for sale.

In other words, there’s a logjam of foreclosed properties that should hit the market next fall.

And when those properties do come up for sale, banks will unload them as quickly as possible and at whatever price they can get.

That’s where the question (and the question mark) comes in — if the number of houses sold in the fall increases dramatically because of this shadow inventory, is that really a good thing?

And what effect will this flood of foreclosed properties have on solvent people who might just want to move to a different residence?

Will solvent homeowners suddenly be more willing to put their homes on the market at a reduced price?

And banks will feel the shadow’s effect, too — they will finally have to admit that mortgages they are holding aren’t nearly as valuable as they are letting on.

Banks would then have to take additional writedowns.

*

“Smoooch!!”

President Obama used a lot of words yesterday when he talked about the relationship between China and the US. He was kicking off an economic summit between our two countries.

But what Obama was really doing was planting a big fat rhetorical kiss on the cheek of China’s President, Hu Jintao.

President Hu seems like a sweet guy, but the niceties probably had more to do with the fact that the guy owns the US.

Our president told their president that our two countries need each other. This co-depend ence goes something like this — China has a lot of money it needs to get rid of, and we’ll gladly take it.

“If we advance those interests through co operation, our people will benefit and the world will be better off . . ,” said our president.

No tirade on human rights? No speech on free elections? How about a little lesson on how China should allow people to protest?

Nope, President Obama was the perfect gentleman and gracious host. He even called China a “great country” without even a smirk.

And why not? This is the busiest week for US debt sales in 24 years.

The US Treasury is selling more than $235 billion in various government securities, and we’d certainly like our friends, the Chinese, to buy more than their fair share even if Beijing has been a little nervous about the lack of fiscal responsibility in Washington.

*

We are coming up to the month’s end, when professional traders try their best to get stock prices higher.

The same thing happens during options expiration week — the week that contains the third Friday of the month.

Same old story, same old scam. Don’t get trapped.

Analyzing Those Great Housing Figures – John Crudele, New York Post

 

srael has become one of the most important economies in the world, and is second only to the United States in its pioneering of technologies benefitting human life, prosperity, and peace.

Like the Jews throughout history, Israel poses a test to the world. In particular, it is a test for any people that lusts for the fruits of capitalism without submitting to capitalism’s imperious moral code. Because capitalism, like the biblical faith from which it largely arises, remorselessly condemns to darkness and death those who resent the achievements of others.

At the heart of anti-Semitism is resentment of Jewish achievement. Today that achievement is concentrated in Israel. Obscured by the usual media coverage of the “war-torn” Middle East, Israel has become one of the most important economies in the world, second only to the United States in its pioneering of technologies benefitting human life, prosperity, and peace.

But so it has always been. Israel, like the Jews throughout history, is hated not for her vices but her virtues. Israel is hated, as the United States is hated, because Israel is successful, because Israel is free, and because Israel is good.

As Maxim Gorky put it: “Whatever nonsense the anti-Semites may talk, they dislike the Jew only because he is obviously better, more adroit, and more capable of work than they are.” Whether driven by culture or genes—or like most behavior, an inextricable mix—the fact of Jewish genius is demonstrable. It can be gainsaid only by people who do not expect to be believed.

Charles Murray distilled the evidence in Commentary magazine in April 2007. The Jewish mean intelligence quotient is 110, ten points above the norm. This strikingly higher average intelligence, however, is not the decisive factor in overall Jewish achievement.

The three-tenths of 1 percent of the world population that is Jewish has contributed some 25 percent of notable human intellectual accomplishment in the modern period.

What matters in human accomplishment is not the average performance but the treatment of exceptional performance and the cultivation of genius. The commanding lesson of Jewish accomplishment is that genius trumps everything else. Whatever the cause of high IQ, as Murray explains, “the key indicator for predicting exceptional accomplishment (like winning a Nobel Prize) is the incidence of exceptional intelligence… The proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else” and rises at still higher IQs.

The great error of contemporary social thought is that poverty must result from “discrimination” or “exploitation.” Because Jews tend to be overrepresented at the pinnacles of excellence, a dogmatic belief that nature favors equal outcomes fosters hostility to capitalism and leads inexorably to anti-Semitism.

The socialists and anti-Semites have it backwards. Poverty needs little explanation. It has been the usual condition of nearly all human beings throughout all history. What is precious and in need of explanation and nurture is the special configuration of cultural and intellectual aptitudes and practices—the differences, the inequalities—that under some rare and miraculous conditions have produced wealth for the world. Inequality is the answer, not the problem.

Israel is hated, as the United States is hated, because Israel is successful, because Israel is free, and because Israel is good.

In his book Human Accomplishment Murray focused on the fact that the three-tenths of 1 percent of the world population that is Jewish has contributed some 25 percent of notable human intellectual accomplishment in the modern period. Murray cites the historical record:

In the first half of the twentieth century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology.

He then proceeds to more recent data:

In the second half of the twentieth century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure [of Jews awarded Nobel Prizes] rose to 29 percent. So far in the twenty-first century, it has been 32 percent.

The achievements of modern science are heavily the expression of Jewish genius and ingenuity. If 26 percent of Nobel Prizes do not suffice to make the case, it is confirmed by 51 percent of Wolf Prizes in Physics, 28 percent of the Max Planck Medailles, 38 percent of the Dirac Medals, 37 percent of the Heineman Prizes for Mathematical Physics, and 53 percent of the Enrico Fermi Awards.

Jews are not only superior in abstruse intellectual pursuits, such as quantum physics and nuclear science, however. They are also heavily overrepresented among entrepreneurs of the technology businesses that lead and leaven the global economy. Social psychologist David McClelland, author of The Achieving Society, found that entrepreneurs are identified by a greater “need for achievement” than are other groups. “There is little doubt,” he concluded, explaining the disproportionate representation of Jews among entrepreneurs, that in the United States, “the average need for achievement among Jews is higher than for the general population.”

Because Jews tend to be overrepresented at the pinnacles of excellence, a dogmatic belief that nature favors equal outcomes fosters hostility to capitalism and leads inexorably to anti-Semitism.

“Need for achievement” alone, however, will not enable a person to start and run a successful technological company. That takes a combination of technological mastery, business prowess, and leadership skills that is not evenly distributed even among elite scientists and engineers. Edward B. Roberts of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School compared MIT graduates who launched new technological companies with a control group of graduates who pursued other careers. The largest factor in predicting an entrepreneurial career in technology was an entrepreneurial father. Controlling for this factor, he discovered that Jews were five times more likely to start technological enterprises than other MIT graduates.

For all its special features and extreme manifestations, anti-Semitism is a reflection of the hatred toward successful middlemen, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, lenders, bankers, financiers, and other capitalists that is visible everywhere whenever an identifiable set of outsiders outperforms the rest of the population in the economy. This is true whether the offending excellence comes from the Kikuyu in Kenya; the Ibo and the Yoruba in Nigeria; the overseas Indians and whites in Uganda and Zimbabwe; the Lebanese in West Africa, South America, and around the world; the Parsis in India; the Indian Gujaratis in South and East Africa; the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire; and above all the more than 30 million overseas Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution reports that in Indonesia the Chinese were 5 percent of the population, but they controlled 70 percent of private domestic capital and ran three-quarters of the nation’s top 200 businesses. Their economic dominance—and their repeated victimization in ghastly massacres—prompts Sowell to comment: “Although the overseas Chinese have long been known as the ‘Jews of Southeast Asia,’ perhaps Jews might more aptly be called the overseas Chinese of Europe.”

Judaism favors capitalist activity and provides a rigorous moral framework for it.

As Sowell writes, these “middlemen minorities,” their “wealth inexplicable, their superiority intolerable,” typically arouse hatred from competing intellectuals. “It is not usually the masses of the people who most resent the more productive people in their midst. More commonly, it is the intelligentsia, who may with sufficiently sustained effort spread their own resentments to others.”

Capitalism overthrows theories of zero-sum economics and dog-eat-cat survival of the fittest. Thus, as in the United States (outside the academic arena), anti-Semitism withers in wealthy capitalist countries. It waxes in socialist regimes where Jews may arouse resentment by their agility in finding economic niches among the interstices of bureaucracies, tax collections, political pork fests, and crony capitalism.

Socialist or feudal systems, particularly when oil-rich and politically controlled, favor a conspiratorial view of history and economics. Anti-Semitism is chiefly a zero-sum disease.

As Walter Lippmann eloquently explained in The Good Society, capitalism opened a vista of mutually enriching enterprise with the good fortune of others creating opportunities for all. The Golden Rule was transformed from an idealistic vision of heaven into a practical agenda. From Poor Richard’s Almanack to rich Andrew Carnegie’s autobiographical parables, all were rediscovering the edifying insights of the author of Proverbs.

Judaism, perhaps more than any other religion, favors capitalist activity and provides a rigorous moral framework for it. It is based on a monotheistic affirmation that God is good and will prevail through transcending envy and hatred and zero-sum fantasies. Judaism can be plausibly interpreted as affirming the possibilities of creativity and collaboration on the frontiers of a capitalist economy.

The incontestable facts of Jewish excellence constitute a universal test not only for anti-Semitism but also for liberty and the justice of the civil order. The success or failure of Jews in a given country is the best index of its freedoms. In any free society, Jews will tend to be represented disproportionately in the highest ranks of both its culture and its commerce. Americans should celebrate the triumphs of Jews on our shores as evidence of the superior freedoms of the U.S. economy and culture.

The real case for Israel is as the leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance.

In a dangerous world, faced with an array of perils, the Israel test asks whether the world can suppress envy and recognize its dependence on the outstanding performance of relatively few men and women. The world does not subsist on zero-sum legal niceties. It subsists on hard and possibly reversible accomplishments in technology, pharmacology, science, engineering, and enterprise. It thrives not on reallocating land and resources but on releasing human creativity in a way that exploits land and resources most productively. The survival of humanity depends on recognizing excellence wherever it appears and nurturing it until it prevails. It relies on a vanguard of visionary creators on the frontiers of knowledge and truth. It depends on passing the Israel test.

Israel is the pivot, the axis, the litmus, the trial. Are you for civilization or barbarism, life or death, wealth or envy? Are you an exponent of excellence and accomplishment or of a leveling creed of frenzy and hatred?
This essay is based on George Gilder’s new book, The Israel Test.

George Gilder is author of 15 books, including the best seller Wealth and Poverty. He is a contributing writer for Wired and Forbes magazines.

Why Israel’s Economy Is So Important – George Gilder, The American

 

T. Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others are extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. What’s taking hold, however, is renewable reality.

Renewable Energy’s Sad Reality – Paul Driessen, Investor’s Business Daily

 

In late 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) changed the definition of mark-to-market accounting rules as they applied to the U.S. financial industry. The board forced financial firms and auditors to use “observable,” market prices to value securities rather than models or cash flow. Within a year, the U.S. was in the middle of the worst pure financial panic in a hundred years. Coincidence? We think not.

On its surface, market-to-market or “fair value” accounting makes some superficial sense. Markets usually provide transparent and verifiable prices, so companies can’t just contrive numbers to make their earnings look good.

The problem with mark-to-market is its failure to recognize that market prices for securities often deviate–sometimes substantially, but always ultimately temporarily–from the underlying fundamental value of the assets. Since markets are forward looking, mark-to-market forces financial firms to take hits to capital over something that “might” happen in the future, but has not happened yet. It’s like forcing homeowners to come up with more capital when the weather man forecasts a hurricane because their homes might be destroyed.

This, in turn, can create a vicious downward cycle as capital constraints hurt banks, undermine the economy and drive prices lower, and then destroy more capital. In 2008, when markets for mortgage-backed securities became extremely illiquid, the financial crisis intensified. This drove away private capital and enticed government to flood the system with liquidity. This government activity helped cause panic and a recession. But all of these government programs were just a way to work around the accounting rules.

As former FDIC chairman William Isaac has repeatedly said, if mark-to-market rules had been in place in the early 1980s, the Latin America debt crisis would have destroyed every money center bank–large banks that borrow and lend to governments and large companies–in the U.S. Thank goodness that did not happen. Instead, the system was given time to heal. That’s what should have happened in 2008. Instead, FASB stubbornly stuck to its guns over MTM accounting.

Finally, in mid-March 2009, with stocks at new lows, Congress started to twist arms on the issue, a rare and unheralded moment of bipartisan action. FASB was forced to loosen up its rules and allow cash flow to be used when markets were illiquid. Just this small change did the trick. Banks were finally able to raise new capital, $100 billion or so, and the stock market surged. In fact, things have improved so much that the Federal Reserve and Treasury are finding less and less interest in the programs they designed to “save” the financial system.

Suspend Mark-to-Market–Now – Brian Wesbury & Robert Stein, Forbes

 

July 28 (Bloomberg) — The Queen of England recently heard from her nation’s economic experts, who wrote to apologize for their profession’s inability to predict the financial crisis.

It’s different in the U.S. Here, economists don’t apologize to the throne. They sit on it.

The throne in the U.S. is the post of chairman at the Federal Reserve. As currently configured, this office is more powerful than Elizabeth II’s, with almost unlimited discretionary authority to intervene in the world economy.

The Fed was created in 1913. Lawmakers strengthened its powers in the 1930s and then again after World War II by effectively charging it with watching over not only money but economic growth generally.

Until 1971, there existed a mechanism that served as a check on the Fed’s discretion, at least theoretically. It was the gold standard (later, the gold exchange standard). If the Fed created too much money, capital went abroad to less inflationary venues. That in turn forced the economy to contract. Central bankers controlled money creation because they didn’t want to be blamed for a recession.

President Richard Nixon broke that mechanism when he took the country off the gold exchange standard in August 1971. Since then, the economy has been in the hands of the king — the Fed chairman — and his counts and barons, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee.

The record of central bankers suggests that they aren’t deserving of their royal status.

Awful Choices

Central bankers always argued that there was a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation: the country had to pick one of the two poisons. Then the 1970s brought both poisons — joblessness with inflation.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, current Chairman Ben Bernanke and many of their economic colleagues all failed to predict the current crisis. Worse, they may have helped cause it by keeping interest rates too low this decade.

Why did the Fed keep rates low? We can guess that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the start of the Iraq War in 2003 are part of the answer. The U.S. didn’t want economic trouble at home while it was fighting abroad. What’s clear is that rates were kept low in part for an arbitrary reason: because Greenspan, then Bernanke, felt like keeping them there.

Bernanke’s Promise

In 2002, when Bernanke was still a mere count in the Fed court, he spoke at an event honoring his fellow economist, Milton Friedman. Bernanke recited the errors of the Depression- era monetary authorities, errors Friedman himself had first pointed out: they forced an epic deflation and banking credit crisis on Americans.

Bernanke then promised that he and his Fed colleagues “won’t do it again.”

Fast forward to Sunday in Kansas City, where Bernanke, now chairman, said the current crisis might already be worse than the Great Depression. In other words, the Fed policy of the current decade has worked insufficiently, or hasn’t worked, or has made matters worse. Hardly the festive results both Bernanke and the late Friedman hoped for. Yet the more trouble their arbitrary policy causes, the more ennobled our central bankers seem.

Washington has the power to end this monarchy. It can replace economists with economics — rules-based mechanisms that automatically curtail Fed discretion. This offers the possibility of experimenting with economic models and letting Congress keep or toss them, according to performance.

Follow the Formula

One such experiment could involve the Taylor Rule, named for Stanford University economist John Taylor. It says the Fed should aim to set short-term interest rates following a formula that measures inflation, employment and the pattern of interest rates.

In a damning book released in February, Taylor showed that interest rates diverged from his rule for much of this decade. Had the Fed followed the Taylor Rule, it wouldn’t have loosened rates as much as it did, and that might have slowed the housing boom.

Friedman himself was skeptical about too much discretion and sought a legislated rule on monetary policy. He “wanted the rate of growth for money to be fixed to the rate of growth of the economy,” recalls Don Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University.

Let Markets Rule

Others advocate a new gold standard, which would make the movement of money more automatic, even to the point of “free banking.” Such a system would have no central government bank. The market, not Washington, would determine the survival or death of financial institutions. It’s not a new idea: George Selgin of West Virginia University wrote a book about how British manufacturers in the early 19th century successfully challenged the Crown for control of their country’s money.

Right now, thousands of pages are being typed in hundreds of summer houses in an effort to blame Greenspan or Bernanke, or perhaps their colleagues at the Treasury Department, another imperial institution.

The trouble is not Bernanke or Greenspan or even their respective courts. The trouble is that the throne exists in the first place.

(Amity Shlaes, author of “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Dethrone King Ben Bernanke and His Court – Amity Shlaes, Bloomberg

 

It’s hard to imagine that the monetary policy talk can get any nuttier, but we’ve likely only just begun. After all, despite the Federal Reserve growing its balance sheet by 140 percent and dropping rates essentially to zero, the bankruptcies just keep on coming. Ex-Fed governor Wayne Angell told Larry Kudlow’s CNBC audience, “monetary policy always works!” Although Angell does stipulate that it takes time before the tromping on the monetary gas pedal will spin the economic tires and spray the prosperity gravel.

But good grief, the Fed started cutting rates in September 2007, dropping the federal-funds rate from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent, and it was cut, cut, cut until daddy set the target rate at 0 to .25 percent in December of last year. In the meantime, one trillion dollars has been added to the M-2 money supply.

Despite all this money creation, Circuit City, Sharper Image, Goody’s, Gottschalk’s, Comp USA, Levitz Furniture, Chrysler, General Motors, General Properties, and — most recently — Eddie Bauer have filed for bankruptcy protection. And personal bankruptcy filings are up in every state and soaring in Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Michigan.

In May, forty-eight states had more people out of work than in the previous month or year, with the national unemployment rate increasing from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent. Moreover, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina had their highest rates of unemployment on record. Maybe Mr. Angell will change his mind when he gets laid off. Just how long are we supposed to wait for this monetary magic to work?

Now the word is that zero-percent interest rates are just too darn high. That’s why we haven’t seen a reinflation of bubble America. The Financial Times reports the existence of a Federal Reserve staff memorandum that makes the case for a negative-five-percent federal-funds rate. Meanwhile, Japanese authorities are toying with the idea of outlawing cash in their country. Despite using every fiscal trick in the book and keeping interest rates at zero percent for a decade, that economy has been mired in a postbubble depression. So the current theory “would suggest that nominal interest rates of [negative four] percent might be closer to what is required to rescue the economy from another deflationary spiral,” reported the Times Online.

The talking heads and policy wonks are trying to tell us that we’re not borrowing enough, and that’s why we’re in a depression and why the Japanese economy has been depressed for more than a decade.

However, the real reason we’re in a depression is because businesses and individuals borrowed too much and invested it poorly. Economist Murray Rothbard explained that a depression is the recovery stage: “The liquidation of unsound businesses, the ‘idle capacity’ of the malinvested plant, and the ‘frictional’ unemployment of original factors that must suddenly and en masse shift to lower stages of production — these are the chief hallmarks of the depression stage.”

That’s why monetary policy isn’t working and won’t work. People must save and pay off their debts. The malinvestments of the boom must be liquidated. New liquidity and zero-percent interest rates will only create new malinvestments, not a sound economy.

But you won’t hear that on TV or read it in the New York Times. The Nobel Prize–winning economist and Gray Lady columnist Paul Krugman is now worried about the “paradox of thrift,” the theory that, when consumers save too much en masse, the economy is worse off because there is not enough consumption.

But as economist Frank Shostak explains, it is savings — not demand — that enables the expansion of production of goods and services. “In short, no effective demand can take place without prior production,” Shostak writes. “If it were otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time ago.” In other words, you can’t print production and prosperity, much as the Fed may try. And Ben Bernanke is trying.

For those not familiar with Krugman’s policy suggestions, he wrote back in August 2002 that “[t]o fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Sir Alan followed Krugman’s advice, and look where we are now. More of the same will only create more financial pain.

Douglas French is president of the Mises Institute and author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply. See his tribute to Murray Rothbard. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

 

Walking Away When You Can Pay By Kelsey VanOverloop

Homeowners are turning to the “strategic default” — walking away from a mortgage even when there are funds available to keep paying. “Increasingly, the determination of when to default is not guided by the moral question: Is this the right thing to do? It is guided by the pragmatic concern: Am I too far underwater on my mortgage?” writes Kelsey VanOverloop. Read more »

 
New York Fed President William C. Dudley served 10 years as Goldman Sachs's chief economist.

New York Fed President William C. Dudley served 10 years as Goldman Sachs’s chief economist. (By Kevin Clark — The Washington Post)
By

Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 20, 2009

NEW YORK — The low-slung cubicles wrap around the ninth floor of a building three blocks from Wall Street, each manned by a young staffer staring at flashing numbers on a flat-screen computer monitor and working the phones to gather the latest chatter from financial markets around the world.

It could be any investment bank or hedge fund. Instead, it is the markets group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has been on the front lines of the government’s response to the financial crisis. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials make the major decisions, but the New York Fed executes them. The information gathered there provides crucial insights into the financial world for top policymakers. But the bank is so close to Wall Street — physically, culturally and intellectually — that some economic experts worry that the New York Fed puts the interests of the financial industry ahead of those of ordinary Americans. “The New York Fed sticks out as being not just very, very close to Wall Street, but to the most powerful people on Wall Street,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at MIT. “I worry that they pay too much deference to the expertise and presumed wisdom of a sector that screwed up massively.” Even some former insiders at the Fed say the bank does not pay enough attention to the fundamental flaws in the country’s financial system or to the risks associated with bailing out financial firms — for instance, the chance that banks will be encouraged to take more unwise gambles. These experts worry that the New York Fed has adopted the mindset of a trading floor: well attuned to ripples in financial markets but not to long-term trends and dangers. Last month, for instance, Wall Street bond traders wanted the central bank to ramp up its purchase of Treasury bonds, which would help the traders by driving up prices. But Fed officials in Washington and around the country concluded that such a move would be counterproductive in the longer run, in contrast to some New York Fed staffers, whose views more closely mirrored those on Wall Street. New York Fed employees “play a very valuable role, day in, day out, with detailed contacts with the big financial firms,” said William Poole, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis who is now at the Cato Institute. “What I think is missing is a longer-run perspective. They tend to be sort of short-term in their outlook, which is true of a lot of the financial firms. Traders have a horizon of a few hours or a few weeks, at most.” The New York Fed’s home is a fortresslike building, with bars securing the windows on lower floors. Its main lobby resembles a Gothic cathedral: dim, quiet, with stone walls, as if to inspire a mix of fear and awe. Like the other 11 regional Federal Reserve banks, the New York Fed is a curious mix of public and private, part of a system Congress created in 1913 to avoid concentrated power in Washington or New York alone. Its board of directors is composed of bankers, businesspeople and community leaders, who select the bank president with approval from Fed governors in Washington. Banks in New York, Connecticut and parts of New Jersey own shares in the New York Fed, though its profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury. The man in charge is a soft-spoken economist named William C. Dudley, who took over as president in January, replacing Timothy F. Geithner when he became Treasury secretary. With a proclivity for button-down Oxford shirts and rumpled suits, Dudley does not fit the mold of a Wall Street executive. He has won fans across the Federal Reserve System for a collaborative style, as well as a talent for explaining complicated problems in the financial world and drawing up solutions to them. It is his résumé that alarms some critics, who see an example of a too-cozy relationship between financial firms and their lead regulator. One of several bank officials who have worked in the private sector, Dudley was at Goldman Sachs for two decades, including 10 years as chief economist, before joining the New York Fed in 2007. Some Fear N.Y. Fed Too Influenced by Wall Street – Washington Post
 

Despite making promises of relief to homeowners desperate to keep their homes, FedMod and other profit making loan modification firms often fail to deliver, according to a New York Times investigation based on interviews with scores of former employees and customers, more than 650 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau, and documents filed by the Federal Trade Commission in a lawsuit against the company.

A Second Act Begins in the Mortgage Disaster – New York Times

 

How to Turn a Recession Into a Depression – Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute
Upgrading Our China Outlook – Wang, Yam & Zhang, Morgan Stanley
Weekly Economic & Financial Commentary – Wells Fargo Economics
Weekly Economic Report – Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

 

Over the decades, “garbage in, garbage out” has been shortened to its acronym, GIGO. In politics, one of the places where you’re most likely to run across the GIGO phenomenon is in the construction of a survey sample. Read more

 

Arrests include Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt, Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell and Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini

Get more on the story, including video, photos and more at www.nj.com

 

Today, settled as a professor at Columbia, Stiglitz occasionally finds himself welcomed in the nation’s capital, though usually at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to testify before Congress. While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn’t come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this. As for the invitation to dinner at the White House, there were a few theories kicked around the spacious Stiglitz household on Manhattan’s Upper West Side as to why it came at the last minute: one was that Obama, in an interview posted online that week by The New York Times, had cited Stiglitz as one of the critics he listens to, so it would have seemed strange if he hadn’t been invited to the dinner. While Stiglitz was flattered by the discussion over a dinner of roast beef and Michelle Obama’s homegrown lettuce, he can’t stop himself from complaining that an occasional meal with dissidents is not the best way for the president to formulate policy. “Some of the most difficult debates and judgments can’t really be hammered out in an hour-and-a-half meeting covering lots of topics,” he says. Stiglitz may a prophet without much honor in Washington, but he seems to be determined to keep the prophecies coming.

The Most Misunderstood Man in America – Michael Hirsh, Newsweek

 

Jamie Dimon has won big.  JP Morgan Chase now stands alone, both in financial position and political clout – including special access to the White House and, as explained in today’s NYT, Rahm Emanuel’s likely attendance at his next board meeting tomorrow.

Dimon’s semiotics have been brilliant throughout the crisis – it wasn’t his fault, he was forced to take TARP money, and – in phrasing that will make the history books – bankers should not be “vilified”.  But now he has a problem.

Larry Summers forcefully stated Friday that high recent profit levels for big banks (i.e., JPMorgan and Goldman) are based on the support they received and still receive from the government (listen to his answer to the second question, from about the 6:10 to 10:30 mark).  At that level of generality, in a period of financial stabilization and consequent reduction in executive branch discretion, this statement does not threaten Dimon or anyone else.

And Summers’ statement on the dangers of “too big to fail” was “too vague to succeed”.  Dimon saw this one coming and is very much aligned with Tim Geithner on the technocratic fixes that will supposedly take care of this – the mythical “resolution authority”, which will not actually achieve anything because it has no cross-border component, so the next time a major multinational bank (e.g., JP Morgan) fails, the choice again will be “collapse or bailout” (as Summers put it in the same Q&A Friday).  Yes, I know the G20 is supposedly working on this; no, I don’t think they are making progress.

But Summers also drew a line in the sand on consumer protection.

Reformists within the administration really need a new consumer protection agency for financial products – there is little else they will be able to point to as an achievement on banking issues.  Summers did not, for example, on Friday even mention the need for stronger regulation over derivatives; Dimon has likely already prevailed on this.

Consumer protection is easy for people to understand.  If the banking lobby really defeats or defangs it this year – as it almost certainly can – won’t that make meaningful re-regulation of banking a big issue for the midterm elections in 2010 and beyond?

And does Dimon really want to publicly confront and defeat Larry Summers?

It must be tempting for Dimon to now press home his advantage, including at the White House.  But as JP Morgan Chase stands alone at the top of our banking hierarchy, how far should he push his luck?

Summers has an unparalleled ability to move the consensus.  And if he is now running from the left to become chair of the Fed – which was my impression on Friday – this will shift all candidates, including Ben Bernanke, towards being tougher on banks.

Why doesn’t Dimon instead seize on greater consumer protection as a way to rebuld legitimacy for finance – and to shape the new rules so as to create barriers to entry and growth for future rivals?

What would John Pierpont Morgan have done?

Jamie Dimon vs. Larry Summers – Simon Johnson, Baseline Scenario


© 2012 New Jersey CFO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha