Global bond rout deepens on US fiscal worries

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8190059/Global-bond-rout-deepens-on-US-fiscal-worries.html

Agreement in Washington on a fresh fiscal package has set off dramatic rise in yields of US Treasuries and bonds across the world, threatening to short-circuit any benefits of stimulus. The bond rout raises concerns that the US authorities may be losing control over events.

Game of chicken between fiscal and monetary authorities

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/willem-buiters-game-theoretical-explanation-interaction-between-central-banks-and-treasuries

To sovereign debt holders, the game is more like "musical chairs."

Morgan Stanley: inflation is biggest risk

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Morgan-Stanley-Inflation-Risk--Double-Dip/2010/07/30/id/366105

Inflation is the biggest risk to emerging economies, but it helps reduce the debt burdens of developed countries, including the US.

My investment thesis is that US government monetary officials will declare war on deflation in an attempt to ward off another (deeper) recession and curb high unemployment. This will justify the Fed deploying another round of fiscal and monetary stimulus, Quantitative Easing 2.0. This will stoke inflation globally, even if it could appear dormant in the US for a while longer.

Federal Reserve Governor Fisher warns against Federal Reserve

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/federal-reserve-warns-about-dangers-federal-reserve

A not very long time ago, in a galaxy known as the Milky Way, the member of an occult group of sinister individuals warned that should this group ever get to a point where it believed it could fix fiscal problems through printing money, this would present "a paramount risk to the long-term welfare of the U.S. economy." The group is better known as the Federal Reserve and the individual was Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher. The same Richard Fisher, who recently wrote about the FinReg unaddressed concept of how Too Big To Fail will lead to another massive systemic crash, went as far as saying that "even the perception that the Fed is pursuing a cheap-money strategy to accommodate fiscal burdens" would be disastrous, and that "the Federal Reserve will never let this happen. It is not an option. Ever. Period."

With observations such as that "we know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today’s Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today’s bills leads to much worse problems later on", one may only hope that all those who advocate even more rampant spending and irresponsible money printing to "fix" the economy, will finally see the light. Alas, mired in their own stupidity, they won't. And Fisher's words, so prescient in 2008, yet so ignored, will suffer the same fate today, and the Fed will continue on its way to singlehandedly destroying this once great country.

Sovereign debt and central banker self-delusions

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/just-how-ugly-sovereign-default-truth-how-self-delusions-prevent-recognition-reality

Behavioural psychology applies to central bankers, regulators and politicians as much as it does to investors. In promising to ‘fiscally retrench tomorrow’, finance ministers are exhibiting the behavioural phenomenon of overconfidence in their future self-control. The bitter fiscal medicine required to stabilise debt levels won’t become more palatable today relative to tomorrow until the bond market makes it so. It can only do this through higher yields. Thus, Ireland and perhaps now Greece lead the way. For the Japanese it’s too late.

As the housing bubble inflated, Bernanke in a quite staggering display of logical sloppiness, concluded that the risk of a housing collapse in the future was small because there had never been one in the past ? Weren't they then guilty of "framing" their analysis in a way guaranteed to preclude an uncomfortable conclusion? If you don't expect to see something, you're less likely to see it. Similarly cringe worthy logic was used when sub-prime rolled over, and Bernanke concluded that there was no risk of contagion to the rest of the economy because... er... there had been no contagion to the rest of the economy yet... wasn't this textbook "recency bias" whereby the importance of recent events is over-weighted?

It probably was, and it probably demonstrates that central bankers are as prone to be as systematically silly as the rest of us. Indeed, just last year a study by yet more of Bernanke's "best and brightest" concluded that “monetary policy was not a primary factor in the housing bubble”. I don?t want to pretend I?m any kind of behavioural expert, but isn't this the well documented "attribution bias" by which people attribute positive outcomes to themselves, but negative ones to others?

So here we are today, with regulators rounding on investment banks, hedge funds and tax havens, apparently in denial of the reality that the problem was not the regulations but the regulators. After all, heavily regulated institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the epicentre of the crisis.

Oscar Wilde said he could resist anything but temptation. But doing something you know you shouldn't is easier if you can convince yourself that this will be the last time you indulge, that you won't do it again. So we convince ourselves that since we'll be strong in the future, we can still indulge today. Whether it?s smoking, eating too much or going to the pub instead of the gym, we delude ourselves into thinking that we will take the more difficult path next time.

Apparently heroin addicts can become so drug dependent their bodies cannot withstand the shock of withdrawal, and failure to continue taking the drug triggers multiple organ failures. I just wonder how apt that analogy is to our governments' debt dependency today. As long as governments think that taking these difficult decisions to end the addiction will be easier in the future than it is today, they will never take the decision "today." At the very least, there will have to be a sufficiently large bond market "event" to force the issue.

At some point, sovereign governments and central bankers will have to withdraw stimulus programs. Will they have the political will?

Niall Ferguson on sovereign debt

I won't chastise Niall Ferguson for teaching Economics at Harvard (sarcasm intended), since he is completely dialed into the sovereign debt problem among developed, westernized countries. I saw him in a Bloomberg TV interview last week, but couldn't find the video clip. Thanks to my friend Dick, here is an article which captures his main points on the default risk of the Club Med countries--and of the US.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df-bf44-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies. For this is more than just a Mediterranean problem with a farmyard acronym. It is a fiscal crisis of the western world. Its ramifications are far more profound than most investors currently appreciate.

That leaves just three possibilities: one of the most excruciating fiscal squeezes in modern European history – reducing the deficit from 13 per cent to 3 per cent of gross domestic product within just three years; outright default on all or part of the Greek government’s debt; or (most likely, as signalled by German officials on Wednesday) some kind of bail-out led by Berlin. Because none of these options is very appealing, and because any decision about Greece will have implications for Portugal, Spain and possibly others, it may take much horse-trading before one can be reached.

Yet the idiosyncrasies of the eurozone should not distract us from the general nature of the fiscal crisis that is now afflicting most western economies. Call it the fractal geometry of debt: the problem is essentially the same from Iceland to Ireland to Britain to the US. It just comes in widely differing sizes.

What we in the western world are about to learn is that there is no such thing as a Keynesian free lunch. Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect

For the world’s biggest economy, the US, the day of reckoning still seems reassuringly remote. The worse things get in the eurozone, the more the US dollar rallies as nervous investors park their cash in the “safe haven” of American government debt. This effect may persist for some months, just as the dollar and Treasuries rallied in the depths of the banking panic in late 2008.

Yet even a casual look at the fiscal position of the federal government (not to mention the states) makes a nonsense of the phrase “safe haven”. US government debt is a safe haven the way Pearl Harbor was a safe haven in 1941.

Greece continues to make the headlines

Greece's imminent danger of default on its sovereign debt continues to make the headlines every time the German-led European Central Bank denies rumors they will bail out the troubled Mediterranean country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7095818/Funds-flee-Greece-as-Germany-warns-of-fatal-eurozone-crisis.html

What isn't so well-published is the state of California has similar dire finances as the country of Greece. And as blogged earlier, Greece's GDP output is 3% of the Euro Union's GDP, while California makes up 13% of US GDP. The markets are waking up to the Greek problem--when will the financial press address California's fiscal challenges?

von Mises vs. Keynes

John Maynard Keynes has more followers (inside the US government and its banking cartel), and has an economic theory named after him. Ludwig von Mises is largely forgotten by the mainstream financial press, even though his track record of predictions has been much better. A disciple of the Austrian School of Economics, von Mises was a libertarian who predicted in the 1920's that government intervention created distortions in credit and financial markets, causing asset bubbles that would eventually burst. Does that sound familiar?

In any case, his prediction came true in 1929, yet he was marginalized yet again with the emergence of Keynes in 1936, who espoused printing currency and running deficits in order to escape the throes of a Great Depression. Again, does that sound familiar?

Many from the intelligentsia mistakenly believe we are in the midst of a war of ideaologies, i.e., GOP vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, etc. In regards to financial policies, it's partially true, but not completely, because Administrations and legislators from both sides of the aisle have run up enormous budget deficits, while resorting to printing currency to fund the deficits. They have borrowed trillions from foreign sovereign funds, and contributed to the insolvency of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. We are simply a country that spends money we don't have.

In short, our government's fiscal and monetary policies have been reckless and irresponsible. President Obama and Congress are following the wrong playbook.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692.html (you may need a subscription to read this article)

G-20 summit: was anything concrete accomplished?

With media outlets now reporting green shoots are turning brown, and that fiscal responsibility still rules the day, I'm finding fewer reasons to blog. Now I can just include links to articles exposing the short-sighted economic policies of the US and other cash-starved countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/6234947/No-reform-just-a-cosmetic-patch-for-a-discredited-flawed-regime.html

The case for owning gold...

Monetary inflationists from the Austrian School of Economics are in direct opposition to Keynesian economics largely accepted by our Administration, Congress, bankers, central bankers, academics, and mainstream economists.

Hence, the vast majority believe the only escape out of a financial meltdown is to flood the markets with liquidity. Essentially, they mistakenly believe solving a debt crisis with even more debt is the corrective action. It's analogous to offering greater amounts of booze to an alcoholic, and hoping that somehow cures him of his alcoholism. Our current and previous Fed Chairmen, Secretaries of Treasury, Presidents and Congressmen have all espoused these fiscal and monetary policies--some more than others.

So guess who wrote this in their essay back in the day--before he climbed several pay levels within our government:

But the opposition to the gold standard in any form – from a growing number of welfare-state advocates – was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale… Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which – through a complex series of steps – the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold…
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold… The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirade against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

Ready for the answer? It was former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is commonly roasted today for causing the real estate bubble by implementing easy-money policies earlier this decade. With hindsight, his critics point out that Greenspan caused the mortgage crisis by artificially creating a bubble in real assets, while our country amassed billions in deficit. What those same critics don't mention is that Bernanke, Geithner, Obama, and Congress are all colluding to construct those same deficits--only on a much larger scale. After all, deficits of a few trillion here or there are minor inconveniences, right?

Age and power seem to have corrupted the former Fed Chairman. Although his critics are quick to denounce his policies of the past, they are advocating the same strategy which they are criticizing. The difference this time is that the numbers are horrifically astronomical.

Ludwig von Mises--why you should know him

The great Austrian School Economist, Ludwig von Mises wrote, "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The question is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

In other words, Mises, unlike the followers of economist John Maynard Keynes, is of the opinion that governments (and central banks) should stop trying to interfere with market forces. Government intervention via fiscal and monetary policy cannot "control" markets, and cannot prevent booms or busts--they occur naturally, and hence, should be allowed to run their course. All intervention will do is compound and exacerbate said credit expansions and subsequent busts. In other words, they not only create bubbles--they make them bigger, and when they pop, they create bigger busts.

Obama, as bright and insightful as he is, is naturally bending to human nature--the consensus is to solve this huge private, corporation, and institutional debt crisis by replacing it with much larger government debt. In other words, we are compounding a billion dollar debt problem into a trillion dollar debt problem.

While stimulative short-term (public and private works, for instance), it is detrimental long-term, as our generation and future generations are saddled with huge debts and high taxation. Despite cosmetic rhetoric, we are merely deferring out debts into the future, letting them compound at an alarming rate.

The resulting inflation reduces that debt amount into the future, but inflation also punishes savers and investors. Eventually, investors will demand higher rates of return. The combination of capital flooding the markets, and said capital chasing fewer resources (commodities, crops, oil, basic metals, and precious metals), will also cause interest rates to rise.

Inflation is the furthest worry of policymakers and the general public right now, but it will eventually rear its ugly head.

In the immortal words of the recently mortal Milton Friedman: "Inflation is taxation without legislation."