Saturday, April 25, 2009

Finally, The Mainstream Media 'Get it'....

I have already published two posts recently, but could not resist a further post. I have been reading the Sunday editions and it has become apparent that the mainstream media is finally waking up. The Darling budget has finally persuaded the commentariat of the profound difficulty with which the UK is confronted.

Regular readers can now see many of the views I have long been expressing starting to be mirrored in the press - and it does not make happy reading. Despite this, I read the views with a grim satisfaction. It is not the satisfaction of seeing others coming to share my views, but the satisfaction that the first step in fixing the economy is the recognition of the nature and severity of the problem. With the mainstream media finally confronting the reality of the situation it is quite possible that the politicians will have to start to respond with real plans to address the underlying problems.

One example comes from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph. He is recognising the impossibility of the funding of so many huge government deficits around the world. He points out that many of the previous supporters of Western debt are now turning off the taps, and that the level of debt raising was in any case increasingly impossible. Perhaps the most interesting comment he makes is as follows:
Traders already whisper that some governments are buying their own debt through proxies at bond auctions to keep up illusions – not to be confused with transparent buying by central banks under quantitative easing. This cannot continue for long.
I have long suspected that this has been a part of how the debt has continued to be purchased. When I pressed the Bank of England on the subject of quantitative easing, one of the questions I asked was for them to confirm that they would not be using proxies to purchase bonds in debt auctions (they confirmed that they would not). However, the impossibility of funding such massive debt has kept me questioning how the government might be intervening, and I have recently been trying to find sources for who is buying the gilts at the moment (to no avail). If Ambrose is correct, the government is intervening in the auctions, and my guess that the government is using banks effectively under state control to buy the debt may well be correct.

Perhaps the most vocal in the criticism is another Telegraph commentator, Liam Halligan. His latest article is almost a mirror of my posting on the budget. For example, he notes that the budget does not acknowledge the many forms of off-balance sheet borrowing, and also adds that the bank bailouts are not included:

Remember, also, the hundreds of billions of pounds of off-balance sheet liabilities – not least the bill for public-sector pensions and the utterly dishonest private finance initiative.

For all these reasons, even Darling's outlandish borrowing totals are just the start of the Government's extra debts. Oh – and by the way, much of the cost of the massive bank rescues isn't in these numbers either. The Budget fine print claims officials "haven't yet been able to calculate their impact […] on public sector net debt".

So these borrowing estimates can only rise – as they have after every Labour Budget since 2001. Already, debt service is the fourth biggest item on the Government's balance sheet. Soon we'll be spending more public money on interest payments than on schools and universities combined.

As a final example from the Telegraph, Tracy Corrigan, details the retreat of investors from the UK gilts market:

At least the recently introduced policy of quantitative easing, designed to boost the economy, is helping to support gilt prices. But for how long? The scale of the Bank of England's purchase of gilts under this programme – it is buying £75bn and could return for the same again, if it decides the economic case merits it – is having a powerful effect on the market. But that will be, by definition, relatively short-lived, and at some point that spending, too, will have to be financed.

For the moment, the Bank of England's bulk buying is covering up another unpalatable truth. Other investors are not quite so keen to get involved.

Although UK pension funds hold gilts, they aren't buying much at the moment. Overall, UK fund managers were net sellers last year, and the recession causing lower dividend income this year means they will have less new money to invest anyway. Banks have been buyers, partly to meet new requirements to hold liquid assets, but they now largely have what they need.

Of course, the elephant in the room in regards to the quantitative easing is that, at some point, the gilts being purchased by the Bank of England must be sold back into the market. This will need to be done at a time when investor confidence is diminishing (or disappeared), and the issuance of new debt by the government is exploding. From the FT, there is a leading article which expresses cautious concern over whether the government can continue to finance debt:

Which, of course, is the trick. At the moment, the UK government has little trouble finding lenders, but this can stop on short notice. If gilt investors began to doubt its commitment or ability to close the deficit, the market’s willingness to refinance UK sovereign debt could come to a sudden halt. The government must pre-empt perilously self-fulfilling doubts before it is too late.

Retaining market confidence calls for plausibility: this government must shed its reputation for overly optimistic forecasts. It must also try to avoid the need to roll over a large amount of debt at any one time. The plan to complement auctions with organised syndicates of lenders is a good one. So is the substitution of medium-term bonds for the shortest maturities in sovereign debt issuance. Puzzlingly, however, the government has not increased the share of the longest maturities, despite pension fund demand for more such paper.

These steps, although sensible, do not guarantee safety. Like its biblical namesake, economic original sin differs from ordinary sins: whether you are guilty of it is largely outside your control. Nonetheless, the UK government’s only hope is to stick to the straight and narrow
Willem Buiter likewise expresses concerns in his blog at the FT, although he is broadly positive about the budget:
If the necessary fiscal tightening is not forthcoming because different groups and vested interests are engaged in a war of attrition aimed at shifting the fiscal burden to the other guy, markets could easily panic and Britain could face an emerging market-style “sudden stop”, with the rest of the world withholding financing from its public and private sectors.

To forestall the occurrence of a triple crisis (banking, sterling and sovereign debt), it would behove the UK to apply for an IMF Flexible Credit Line (FCL). Unfortunately, the criteria for qualifying for an FCL arrangement include “ . . . (iv) a reserve position that is relatively comfortable . . . ; (v) sound public finances, including a sustainable public debt position; . . . (vii) the absence of bank solvency problems that pose an immediate threat of a systemic banking crisis; (viii) effective financial sector supervision.” It is questionable whether criteria (iv) and (v) are met. Criteria (vii) and (viii) are obviously not met. In addition, with a £175bn annual borrowing requirement for the next couple of years, the measly $240bn or so the IMF currently has at its disposal is unlikely to make much of a difference.

One of the interesting points is that the IMF is no longer seen as an option to bail out the UK. Quite simply, the demands of the UK are seen as too great for IMF funding, and the possibility of the IMF being a safety net looks increasingly dubious. As it is, the IMF is already confronting problems in raising cash to fund its operations.....

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal is also expressing the view that there are increasing concerns in markets over the ability of the government to finance their borrowing:
The plunge [in output] raised fresh concerns about the U.K.'s ability to handle the mounting costs of its financial and economic bailouts. Compared with a year earlier, the U.K. economy shrank by 4.1%. That cast doubt on an official projection this week that the economy will contract by only 3.5% in 2009 and rebound quickly enough to help the government get its stretched finances under control.
Even the Times is now accepting that we might have reached the limits, and that a funding crisis looms. I have highlighted the point that is tucked away in their leading article today:
For the people of Britain, the consequences of that imprudence will be with us for many years. It will take nearly a decade to get public borrowing to acceptable levels – if the markets allow us that long – and until the 2030s to get government debt back to the 40% “ceiling”. Whoever wins the general election, we can look forward to years of austerity and tax rises.
From the Independent we have another allusion to the problems of financing the government's profligacy (I have again highlighted the point):
There are fundamental questions that all our political leaders – at least those with serious designs on power – need to answer. What services do we want the state to provide? And what can Britain, as a nation reliant on the confidence of international investors, afford?
One of the exceptions to the increasingly gloomy views on the UK Economy is the Guardian, which still sees relatively upbeat commentary. As one example, Ashley Seager has the following to say:

So where is the economy especially weak? Everywhere, it seems. Manufacturing suffered its biggest quarterly fall since records began in 1948, driven by a 50% annual drop in car output, while the much bigger services sector saw the biggest drop since 1979.

Still, there was one bright spot in separate data from the Office for National Statistics that showed an unexpected rise in retail sales in March, driven by higher clothing and food sales. Is that enough to help pull us out of recession? No chance.

At some point, though, the Bank of England's record interest rate cuts, its £75bn of new money for the economy, combined with Darling's recent tax cuts and the big fall in sterling should put the economy back on an even keel. Today's GDP figures, though, suggest that the battle is far from won.

It seems that he actually believes that it is possible to turn the problems around with interest rates and printing money, but such delusions are increasingly on the retreat. Another similar positive outlook comes from Krugman at the New York Times, who is also positive about the policy of printing money:
So I’m actually fairly hopeful about Britain; right now, the fact that it’s not on the euro is serving it well.
Despite the remaining optimists, there can be little doubt that there is a growing perception amongst the mainstream media that the UK is in very, very serious trouble, and increasing concerns about whether the UK can actually continue to support the proposed levels of borrowing and spending.

I think that, over the coming weeks, there will be considerable interest in gilt auctions, and I would guess that many analysts will looking for cracks in the government financing of debt or the possibility of a gilt strike. Alongside this, there will also be major question marks over the value of the £GB.....

Interesting days are ahead, and increasingly worrying times.

19 comments:

  1. Cynicus, could you in a further post please have a closer look at each budget's post and see where spending might be cut? E.g. if I remember correctly the American budget is so out of whack that only half it is covered by revenue, the rest is borrowed. How does the situation look like for the UK? What effect do you think slashed welfare spending will have on the population? I think you should have a closer look at the programmes some nations went through under the guise of the IMF. The same fate awaits Britain, with the difference of 'entitlement culture' and huge living costs.

    I have to say that the Telegraph's most recent coverage has been top notch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to say that the Telegraph's most recent coverage has been top notch.
    Aside from being a few years too late that is. . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Cynicus,

    Here are my musings for a Sunday morning:

    I am in a hardcore "you know the score" deep, deep, gloom & doom mode this morning.

    Jim Rogers interview with Channel 4, it lasts 28 minutes. It is a UK centric interview. I think Jim has to be the greatest living Thematic investor. He totally nails the UK in this interview:

    http://www.variant-perception.com/2009/03/03/new-jim-rogers-interview/

    =====

    Michael Panzer has a new book out called When Giants Fall. The book explores the decline of the American empire. As we are joined at the hip to the Yanks it has huge implications for our standing in the World. Here is his blog which I have added to the Bear Pit:

    http://www.economicroadmap.com/

    =====

    Jim Puplava looks at "The Path to Insolvency" in his weekly radio show:

    http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

    *3rd hour for broadcast and slideshow.

    If you believe in Capitalism and Liberty then this is an awesomely educational broadcast.

    =====

    The Indie have probably been the best newspaper in understanding that Britain stands on the brink of bankruptcy. Here is a piece by Sean O'Grady:

    'For there is a growing likelihood that, whoever wins the next general election, the economic policies of the UK will be set by gentlemen from the International Monetary Fund. Our parlous public finances – bound to be much worse than even the Budget's terrifying predictions – may soon become simply unsustainable, not because we cannot afford the debt interest burden, though it will be hefty, as much as the defence and schools budget combined.

    The real reason is that the scale of borrowing will stymie attempts by the Bank of England to cut rates and finally dissolve the credit crunch. If the tsunami of gilts heading for the market over the next few years turns out to be as formidable as some are forecasting, then that policy will soon grind to a halt. We will be left with taxes, public spending, public borrowing and interest rates that are all too high for our enfeebled economy to grow. We will soon be unable to borrow much more from the markets; unless we want to abolish the NHS, we will then have no option but to turn to the IMF. It is what it is there for, and we did it to some effect in 1976; but it will always be remembered as something of a humiliation. '

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sean-orsquogrady-only-two-people-can-get-us-out-of-this-mess-and-theyre-both-french-1674162.html

    =====

    The UK is an Undeveloping Nation, with no way back, due to:

    ~North Sea abating.
    ~City a busted flush.
    ~Holed balance sheet - private & public.
    ~Wealth creators (brain drain) leave to a lower tax jurisdiction.
    ~Immense global competition.
    ~Pathetic political leadership.

    One could say that the Brits will get what they deserve. They voted in New Labour and watched it gradually socialise the economy. They loved rising house prices and thought they were righteous by frittering money into public spending. Now it's gone pear shaped they are happy that our wealth creators will be taxed at c.60%, with their pensions being castrated. We, as a country, are so deeply entrenched in the Socialistic mindset that as a country we don't understand how wealth is created. The country is fricking clueless.

    Another reason why I think there is no way back is that culturally we don't understand the basics of capitalism. The country seems to think that the State creates wealth. That free public services are god given.

    Without the wealth creators there are no developing public services.

    How will Britain look in ten years:

    ~NHS heavily rationed.
    ~Taxes higher.
    ~Army cut to the bone.
    ~Crime through the roof.
    ~High unemployment.
    ~Education system in the toilet.
    ~Infrastructure crumbling.
    ~National mood posioned.
    ~Corruption seeping deep.

    Just like Argentina.

    =====

    Thank you

    Death to Bubble Addicts

    ReplyDelete
  4. you might find this interesting
    http://mpettis.com/2009/04/the-death-of-the-asian-development-model/

    ReplyDelete
  5. New Labour Socialists? One could say that the Brits will get what they deserve. They voted in New Labour and watched it gradually socialize the economy. They loved rising house prices and thought they were righteous by frittering money into public spending.The idea that “bubble economics” has anything to do with socialism is laughable.

    Did New Labour ever reverse the major policies of Thatcherism?

    Was abolishing any semblance of financial regulation and letting the city do what it liked “socializing the economy”? Gordon Brown boasted years ago that London had the least regulated financial sector in the world.

    If anything, New Labour’s continuing commitment to neo-liberalism, with its privatization and de-regulation, is at the heart of the present crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Anonymous: April 26, 2009 10:20 AM
    (ryskamp?)

    "The vast majority of website operators don't have the guts to allow this post"The lack of 'takers' for your arguments could have more to do with how they are presented rather than/as well as the content. I started it twice, but it seemed to me a stream of invective, rather than a followable argument. So in that sense it was way too long - just scrolling past it made me tired.

    Perhaps you should set up your own blog? As far as I know, you are free to do that and this kind of post will not be censored.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was struck by this comment column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/26/britain-super-power-will-hutton)in the Observer yesterday.

    The argument is of interest, not because of its Keynesian optimism ("Britain can live with a national debt of around 80% of GDP, putting it a little lower than the post-recession G7 average.") but becuase it is the first attempt I've seen that admits the UK is up the creek without a paddle and moves on seriously to ask the question 'what happenes next?'

    Thus: "The real issue is the evaporation of our economic and political pretensions. ...The problem is that so much economic capacity has permanently disappeared, along with those parts of the economy that used to deliver rich tax revenues; the post-recession economy will only reduce the deficit by a quarter. The rest has got to be found by tax increases or reductions in planned spending...'

    This much is familiar to followers of this blog, of course, but he finishes with: "On Friday 10 October last year, two of our biggest banks - HBOS and RBS - were hours away from collapse. The consequence is not just the biggest recession since the 1930s. It marks a new phase in British economic, political and cultural life. ...It is not just austerity ahead; Britain is not going to matter so much. I'm not sure anybody, least of all our political parties, is ready for this much diminished future."

    This article raises the question, but makes no attempt to answer it. I am amongst the more pessimistic of the commentators here, but I cannot fall to the level of despair in the extensive comment above by "Anonymous". However painful the future is for the UK, life will go on.

    Now that even the MSM have recognised the appalling nature of our situation the important questions are about what form the future will take, and here I remain encouraged by Steve Tierney's positive attitude in his comment on Cynicus' "defeat-is-in-air" post. I cannot believe we are headed into a never ending decline.

    Do you have any thoughts, Cynicus, on how UK politics, economics and society will come to terms with our colossal indebtedness and move on?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I still can't believe that we will have to honour our debts fully: it seems to me that the system is so screwed up that it will have to be 'reset' somehow, otherwise it will never get off the ground again.

    Who knows, maybe a 'swine fever' pandemic will achieve this...

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is no evidence to suggest that debt of 79% of GDP is going to cause any major problems. In fact, I have not heard any arguments why debt could not exceed 100% of GDP or even 300% of GDP.

    It sounds a bit like hysteria that because debt is going to increase we will all be doomed. We may be, but there is no logical reason why such debt would cause any problems beyond the usual principle repayments and interest payments.

    I have a hunch that government debt in the UK will exceed anything that anyone thought was imaginable. Government bonds will have huge demand because they will become almost like a product. Bonds could be come a de facto currency of the financial world, being traded instead of cash. This would create a demand for them allowing goverment debt to sky rocket!!

    I would expect sutle laws in the future making trading bonds more efficient that using currency!! Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For those of you without the time or tenacity to read "Anonymous"'s polemic - I have edited it down to the major points (minus the shouting and repetition):

    "We are in much more serious trouble than we have been told by any public figure. Don't be fooled by fluctuating economic indicators or short term market stability. The entire foundation of our economy is crumbling.

    The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of all world wealth. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the currency looses value, the middle class slip further into debt, and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to pay all the bills or sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transferred to the richest 1%. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems.

    I’m not discounting other factors like China, subprime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Predatory lending: their plan was to give easy credit to millions while the housing market was high, inflate the market even higher in the process, reap a few years worth of payments from unsuspecting buyers, allow them to accumulate little or no equity, lie in wait as those homes increased in value, then jack up their rates making it near impossible for those buyers to make the payments on time. At which time, those buyers would be evicted, their dreams shattered, and their homes forfeited. Which by then, from the mid '90's until mid '07', would be even higher in value and re-sold for a higher price. The plan was to be executed primarily while the market was strong.

    America's richest 1 percent keep getting richer. As a group, their net worth is over $20,000,000,000,000. That’s over twenty trillion dollars. Another all time high. Which by the way, is much more than the entire middle and lower classes combined. Their incredible wealth was not ‘created’, ‘generated’, grown in their back yard, or printed up on their command. The lion's share was transferred FROM US TO THEM. This drives up the cost of living, shrink the middle class, concentrate the world’s wealth and resources, create a domino effect of socio-economic problems, and wreak havoc on society. All of which have been created and endorsed by celebrities, athletes, executives, investors, developers, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians.

    Albert Einstein tried to make people understand. Unbridled capitalism absolutely can not work. Top heavy economies can not be sustained. They always collapse.

    So what can we do about it? Well, not much. Unfortunately, we are stuck on a runaway train. The problem has gone unchecked for too many years. The US/global depression is coming thanks to the 1% club. It would take a massive effort by the vast majority to prevent it. Along with a voluntary sacrifice by the rich. THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

    We need a compromise. A relatively free market system with a minimum wage, a maximum wage, a progressive tax policy, and caps on personal wealth.

    They ramble on about 'subprime', 'toxic debt', 'junk bonds', and 'risky investments'. As if somehow all of this could have been avoided if those transactions had never taken place to begin with. What a joke. Those factors don't represent the underlying cause of this global economic crisis. They represent the effect of a shrinking middle class and massive consumer debt. Caused by greed. A massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a market for subprime to begin with. The debt wouldn't have been 'toxic'. The bonds wouldn't have been 'junk'. The investments wouldn't have been so 'risky'. By focusing on such factors, they attempt to divert our attention, limit our hindsight, disregard the OBSCENE concentration of wealth and capital, that shrinking middle class, the high cost of living, and the particular form of evil responsible for almost all of it. Remember: Our national debt was way up BEFORE subprime. Consumer debt was way up BEFORE subprime. The cost of living was up BEFORE subprime. Wall Street profits were obscene BEFORE subprime. The middle class were losing free and clear assets BEFORE subprime. Our infrastructure was in bad shape BEFORE subprime. Loans from China were taken out BEFORE subprime. The dollar was loosing value BEFORE subprime. All of this took place over a period of many years under both Republican and Democratic rule. All of it coincided with a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

    What kind of incredible moron could possibly hope to sustain an economy based on a constant transfer of wealth from poor to rich? What the hell did they expect to happen when the middle class finally ran low on money to spend on over-priced crap?

    When you concentrate the world’s wealth, you also concentrate its capital, and shrink the middle class along with the potential market for every major industry. Homes go unsold. Bills go unpaid. Jobs are lost. Banks fail. More products go unsold. More jobs are lost. More banks fail. and so on. It happened 80 years ago in that order beginning with a concentration of wealth. It will happen again. This time on a catastrophic global scale.

    The bailout won’t work. IT WON’T WORK. The plan fails to address the fundamental problem. The middle class don’t need more credit. They need a reasonable share of the economic pie. They also need a lower cost of living and a chance to catch their breath. They need a break from all of the psychological marketing tricks and mass market BS. Most of all, they need to wake up, see the truth, and take a stand.

    Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry.

    The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transferred back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. At the time, the richest 1% reaped about 10% of all private income and held about 20% of all United States wealth. Far less than previous levels. The middle class had home equity, free and clear assets, and money in the bank. Most American households were secure with a single full time provider. Most retirees could enjoy their lives, live in their own homes, afford basic health care, and not have to worry about going bankrupt. THATS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

    The tide began to change in 1976. Jimmy Carter was blamed for a recession that was actually caused by a number of global circumstances including greed. Then a short sighted little pig by the name of Arthur Laffer came along. Known for his famous 'Laffer Curve'. A simple and short sighted equation whipped up to increase tax revenues and profit margins without the slightest regard for ANYTHING ELSE. He convinced Ronald Reagan to campaign on and grant massive tax breaks to the rich and their respective industries. His half-baked theory was that by doing so, unprecedented levels of economic growth and revenue could be achieved. He was right. Unfortunately, he failed to see or acknowledge the big picture. He failed to understand or admit what should have been incredibly obvious after the first Great Depression. That 'economic growth' and 'actual prosperity' are two very different things. Jobs don't necessarily 'create' wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the most part, they only transfer it from one party to another. The devil is in the details. Reaganomics, gave the rich and their respective industries the incentive to 'expand' and 'create jobs'. But those products and services were misrepresented, over-priced, and then sold or billed right back to the people. Often, without their knowledge, understanding, or consent. Certainly without a clue about how the economy REALLY works. All of this resulted in higher profits for those at the top and stagnant wages for almost everyone else. The cost of living went up right along with those obscene profit margins. The American people ended up working more hours just to maintain their standard of living. So with Reaganomics, the transfer of wealth from poor to rich was kicked back into high gear.

    Here we are 27 years later. Trillions in wealth and capital have been concentrated all over again. National and consumer debt are both at an all time high. The middle class are weak, the lower class flat broke, and the cost of basic living higher than ever before. The dollar is weak because too many of them have been hoarded and the government left with no choice but to print billions more backed up by loans from China. Its another perfect storm. THE BIG ONE.

    The world's richest one percent are now so incredibly rich that there simply isn't enough wealth circulating beneath them to sustain the global economy. Its finally on the brink of collapse. It will collapse.

    The majority can no longer afford to pay all of their bills and sustain their share of the economy. In fact, they are in debt to the tune of almost $2,000,000,000,000. Thats almost two trillion dollars.

    We are being fed a constant line of BS from the media about 'lost' market wealth. Similar to the line of BS we have been fed for years about wealth 'creation'. Corporate stock values are not 'phantom'. They actually represent past profit margins, current profit margins, accounting scams, bailouts, and the potential transfer of more dollars FROM US TO THEM. The only 'phantom' elements involved are the shady speculation and accounting scams. Which do effect those values but they still result in a transfer of dollars from one party to another. Otherwise, those fluctuating values are based on real world events. In the meantime, they are traded like an alternative form of currency. Eventually cashed in for market value. Just like gold and silver. Like any other form of currency, the richest one percent hold the lion's share.

    The market has finally crashed. Those artificially inflated stock values have fallen on average by about 50% in the past two years. They are down worldwide. Which may lead one to believe that America's richest 1% are finally taking a loss. They are not. Those values are down not only because they were artificially inflated. But primarily because so many people are finally running out of money to give them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the global economic crisis. Unfortunately no public figure has the guts to acknowledge it. Actual wealth doesn't just float away. Stock values fluctuate but they still represent a transfer of actual wealth from one party to another.

    Another word about wealth 'creation'. That term is horribly over-used. 90% of the time, it is a LIE. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. Actual wealth can't be 'created' without harvesting a new resource or making more efficient use of one.

    Every major economy in the world will be in depression by 2015.

    We don't need a bigger economy. We need a more fair, ethical, moral, and just economy. We need a more reasonable distribution of income, bottom line wealth, and resources. Here in the US and also worldwide. If you agree, then spread the word.

    There is a profound fundamental difference between simple regulation, higher taxes, and full blown socialism or communism."


    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Lemming
    "I still can't believe that we will have to honour our debts fully"

    Apart from the effect on foreign holders and confidence in future issuances in general not honouring the debt would cause domestic pension funds and insurance companies to suffer tremendous losses as they're the ones mostly holding the bonds.
    You can imagine the damage from insolvent insurance companies and broke pension funds.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Lord Keynes

    While I don't want to give too much credence to Anonymous' mega-rant, it's really not that difficult to make a case for New Labour having a Socialist agenda.

    The British Public hates the idea of Socialism. It's a political bogeyman. In order for a government to move towards socialism in a climate like we have it would need to be done very stealthily indeed and over a long period.

    The sort of things a government making quiet, stealthy moves towards Socialism might do is:

    (1) to try and employ ever-increasing numbers of people by the State.

    (2) To increase bureaucracy so that it interferes with capitalism and its workings.

    (3) To "water down" the anti-socialist base by bringing in as many people from outside the system as it can to skew the political landscape.

    (4) To undermine major capitalist projects and institutions and bring them under the control of the state.

    (5) To undermine traditional independent freedoms of individuals and the authority of parliament.

    I could go on, but I'm sure you understand the point I'm making. There's no way that New Labour, even in its current mess, can be called Socialist. But I do think its prime movers have socialist sympathies (in fact we KNOW they do, as they were socialists in their earlier years.)

    Whether their actions are the result of deliberate manipulation or just subconscious bias coming into play is obviously debateable. Personally, I think it unlikely they were that devious, clever or strategic. But its not the outlandish assumption you claim it is really. It's certainly not impossible to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Reply to Steve TierneyWhile I don't want to give too much credence to Anonymous' mega-rant, it's really not that difficult to make a case for New Labour having a Socialist agenda.That New Labour mave a mild social democratic agenda is indisputable.

    The idea that they have followed anything resembling serious Western democratic socialism (or Old Labour) policies is laughable.

    If New Labour had completely nationalised the banks and taken direct control over their management, nationalised the commanding heights of the economy, introduced serious industrial policy, imposed capital controls, ended tax havens, increased corporate taxes, and massively expanded welfare, then you could talk about them being "socialist."

    As for ending civil liberties and reducing freedom of speech, conservative governments are perfectly capable of doing that.

    There is nothing inherently "socialist" about attacks on civil liberties (unless by "socialist" you mean "communist"), as this is a feature of both the extreme right and left.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Gina

    Well done in editing down a convincing essay. If I was to sum it in one line it would be:

    Capitalism does not work for the majority, it works for the tiny minority.

    And he is right.

    Current forms of capitalism (monopoly-capitalism, hyper-capitalism, call it what you will) are a particularly dramatic form of wealth centralisation, but the 'free-market capitalism' of the type described by Adam Smith, romanticised by many, and defended by Cynicus Economicus has never existed in the West and its imposition on developing nations (in the form of IMF 'conditionalities) has been disastrous for both the global majority and the environment.

    As the current crisis plays itself out, the 'middle class' that Anonymous describes will become desperate and angry. They will then force either a movement back to forms of isolationism and totalitarianism, or forward to newer, more democratic forms of organisation, and global collectivism.

    @ Steve Tierney

    "The British Public hates the idea of Socialism."

    I'm not so sure this is true: they certainly like the idea of the NHS; but assuming for a moment that it is true, I think it's probably because they suffer from a one-dimensional idea of what 'socialism' is and what it could mean.

    The process of 'state-socialism / communism' - you outline is certainly nightmarish as it represents a slide into totalitarianism which (I hope) would be resisted by the British public. However there are other paths to follow (though the MSM may not choose to remind us) and the theories of socialism did not begin with Soviet Russia, nor did they die with it.

    I think the 'socialism' of the future will most probably be that of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others - what may have been described as 'anarchism' 150 years ago (before the term was debased and came to mean its opposite) but what people now call 'syndicalism', 'participatory-economics (parecon)', etc.

    The growth in communication technologies is highly conducive to this kind of non-centralised yet highly organised societal structure, and, as these technologies continue to improve, so too will the complexities and efficiencies of non-hierarchical organisations. Whether Britain will be at the forefront of this evolution is another matter, all indications are that it will be Latin America who'll lead the way towards a more democratic economic future.

    @ Lord Keynes

    "As for ending civil liberties and reducing freedom of speech, conservative governments are perfectly capable of doing that."

    True, but I think governments with 'left cover' to do it better . Since 'socialist' regimes tend to have more resources, more of a popular mandate, and more media control, they often manage to build the prison-state apparatus around their citizens before they notice it, whereas conservative governments having (by definition) less resources, and less popular control, are always going to be treated more sceptically by the public. It's why I think some form of US-totalitarianism is far more likely under Obama then it was under Bush.

    But again, this has nothing to do with 'socialism' in the original sense, and you're right to make the distinction with communism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks Gina. The edited post from Anon. actually made some good points.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Briefly, so no one has to "edit down" ...

    Is there any reality to the Chinese making an example of the £ by halting gilt purchases, in order to send a message to the US?

    p.s. the verification word for this post was "jacta" - alea est!

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Gone

    "Apart from the effect on foreign holders and confidence in future issuances in general not honouring the debt would cause domestic pension funds and insurance companies to suffer..."You seem to be suggesting that we borrow money from foreigners so that we can pay off previous debts to other foreigners, in the hope they don't lose confidence in us and stop lending to us. I have to ask, are we really serious about getting out of debt?

    In this blog I have read that as a result of letting the Chinese 'join the club', we are now competing against them for raw materials and energy, so that we will eventually have no choice but to work a 72 hour week, like they do, and leave accident victims to die in the street if they don't have the means to pay for hospital treatment. It kind of makes one nostalgic for the old days!

    "Mexico's Mystery: Why Is Swine Flu Deadlier There?"http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1894534,00.html

    Here's a strictly hypothetical question: just supposing a virus had a particular characteristic that meant it affected some ethnic groups more than others, and that it wiped out, say, 95% of Chinese people and only 5% of Westerners, would this be 'good' for the West economically or not?

    On the one hand we would no longer have an army of extraordinarily dedicated workers making our cheap plasma TVs, but on the other, we would no longer be competing with them for oil, copper etc. and our massive debts could be quietly shelved. It would be back to how things used to be, in other words.

    Would this be 'good' for the West, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Lemming
    Britain does borrow from foreigners to pay off previous debts, whether it's mostly to foreigners or locals depends on the structure of the previous debt intake. As long as people in the market have confidence that they can sell the bond on (not that they get the principal when it matures) people will be buying and trading those bonds.
    It won't be as bad as you make it out to be, but yes, people in Britain will have to work longer for 'less'. But if you think about it, in terms of material wealth even people in the lower brackets have never had it so well. It's just that the entitlement mechanism is wrong, capitalism is not about equal distribution, capitalism is about maximum wealth creation. And it did a damn good job at this.

    China already has too many people, some might suggest that they'd be 'glad' about having that problem taken care of. As they have too many people too many are doing unproductive work as manpower is cheap, had they less people they'd in terms of gdp/head be a much richer nation.
    Have to go now, needed to keep it short.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Anonymous (3rd post) - Just watched the Jim Rogers interview you posted here and it's great. Completely agree with everything he said and he is pretty much echoing what Cynicus has been saying since day one!!

    ReplyDelete

You are more than welcome to comment on the posts, but please try to stay on topic....I will publish all comments, excepting spam and bad language, and my moderation of the comments is just to exclude these.

Please allow up to two days for the comment to appear.

I have had a request for an email address for the site and have created the following:

cynicuseconomicus[at]yahoo.com

I have ommitted the @ symbol to avoid spam....

For general purposes I would suggest using the comment form, but will occasionally look at this email account. Please be clear what is for publication and what is not, though I will also not guarantee publishing of email comments, unlike the comments through the form! Thanks.