Archive for the ‘Keynesianism’ Category
FT Reveals Orszag Resigns Over Inability To Persuade Summers And Obama Keynesianism Leads To Suffering
Submitted by Tyler Durden
As we speculated previously, the sudden and unprecedented departure of Peter Orszag, the day prior to the US Budget’s formalization (which incidentally never happened as now the US will likely not have a 2010 budget at all, for fear of disclosing to most Americans just how broke the country is ahead of mid-terms) was due to Orszag’s disagreement with the administration’s, and particularly Larry Summer’s, inability to fathom that reckless spending is a recipe for bankruptcy. As the FT reports: “Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, resigned this week partly in frustration over his lack of success in persuading the Obama administration to tackle the fiscal deficit more aggressively, according to sources inside and outside the White House.” And so, as any remaining voices of reason realize they are dealing with a group of deranged Keynesians, soon there will be nobody left in the administration who dares to oppose the destructive course upon which this country has so resolutely embarked, which ends in one of two ways: debt repudiation, or war. And with the only remaining economic “advisers” being the trio of Summers, Romer and Geithner, you know America will somehow hit both of these mutually exclusive targets.
More from FT:
Mr Orszag, whose publicly stated reasons for leaving were that he was exhausted after years in high pressure jobs and also that he wanted to plan for his wedding in September, is seen as the guardian of fiscal conservatism within the White House.
Other members of Mr Obama’s economic team, notably Lawrence Summers, the head of the National Economic Council, have placed more emphasis on the need for continued short-term spending increases to counteract what increasingly looks like an anaemic economic recovery in the US.
Although Mr Orszag agrees with the need to push short-term spending, particularly in the Senate, which again this week failed to pass a measure extending insurance to the unemployed, the budget director has become increasingly frustrated with the administration’s caution on longer-term fiscal restraint.
Mr Orszag, whom Mr Obama has dubbed a “propeller-head” because of his brilliant facility with projections and spreadsheets, has tried but failed to convince his colleagues to “step up the action”, according to one insider.
In particular, he has collided with the political team, led by Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, over Mr Obama’s 2008 election pledge not to raise taxes on any households earning less than $250,000 a year – a category that covers more than 98 per cent of Americans.
Economists say that would put all the fiscal emphasis on draconian – and highly unrealistic – spending cuts, or else pushing the marginal tax rates on the very rich to confiscatory levels. “Peter feels strongly that this is a pledge that has to be broken if the President is to take a lead on America’s fiscal crisis,” says an administration official not authorised to speak on the matter.
And after Barney Franks’s disastrous appearance earlier on, where the market did a shot and an uptick for every lie uttered, we can safely say that this bankrupt country truly deserves all of its elected individuals.
AEP Chokes On His Neo-Fraudesian Beer
By Karl Denninger
There is nothing more amusing than watching the Neo-Fraudesian economists (that’s what so-called “Keynesians” actually are) run into the wall of reality at 120 mph:
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is waging an epochal battle behind the scenes for control of US monetary policy, struggling to overcome resistance from regional Fed hawks for further possible stimulus to prevent a deflationary spiral.
Really? A “deflationary spiral”? Is that really deflation in your pocket or is it withdrawal and mean-reversion of the outrageous hyperinflationary credit policies of the previous 20 years that is FORCED when the scam runs its course and can’t find any more participants for the Ponzi Scheme?
Ambrose continues:
Key members of the five-man Board are quietly mulling a fresh burst of asset purchases, if necessary by pushing the Fed’s balance sheet from $2.4 trillion (£1.6 trillion) to uncharted levels of $5 trillion. But they are certain to face intense scepticism from regional hardliners. The dispute has echoes of the early 1930s when the Chicago Fed stymied rescue efforts.
Really? What “key members” are those Ambrose?
The fun part of writing fiction pieces is that you never have to name your non-existent sources. The even more-fun part of it is that you can write about things that violate the laws of thermodynamics and physics, such as, for example, faster-than-light travel.
Here’s the problem with “further expansion of The Fed balance sheet” – there’s no evidence that the previous expansion did anything good. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that it did a lot of harm by permitting institutions to claim “value” where none existed. This sort of fraud is particularly corrosive to both society and general business conditions as it is not possible for anyone to know whether their business will get “collateral relief” from such a fraudulent orgy in any future move – or whether your (correct) wager on asset prices will be turned into a loss by regulatory or legislative fiat and handout.
The capital markets serve two essential purposes in an economy: Capital formation and price discovery. They can perform neither job when the government will come in and declare the results of a race that has been run different than the actual order of the horses across the line.
“We’re heading towards a double-dip recession,” said Chris Whalen, a former Fed official and now head of Institutional Risk Analystics. “The party is over from fiscal support. These hard-money men are fighting the last war: they don’t recognise that money velocity has slowed and we are going into deflation. The only default option left is to crank up the printing presses again.”
The problem is that you can’t.
This is the fallacy of the Neo-Fraudesians – that if we just “expand M3″ all will be well.
No it won’t.
0% interest rates means that it is essentially free to borrow short duration money. Buying down the long end and the marketplace has driven “long money” to under 5% (30 year mortgages) but it hasn’t mattered.
It doesn’t matter because the ability of consumers to take on more debt is exhausted – they can’t afford it, no matter how low the interest. Without employment and income you can’t pay the debt service.
Businesses refuse to hire into an unstable regulatory and monetary environment, as well they should. If you’re Honda, do you hire into the possibility that Government Motors will literally gift every American a GM car? Of course not.
Is that an extreme example? Maybe. But maybe it’s somewhat like reality too, when the government will hand people thousands of dollars of other people’s money (borrowed money at that!) not go build a bridge or road, but to sit on their hands and watch television!
Credit-based economies require recessions to maintain balance. This is a trivial mathematical proof – since nobody will lend money at less than the zero-risk return, and the zero-risk return is typically somewhere near GDP growth, it therefore follows that if you maintain monetary balance (that is, credit and monetary aggregates expand at roughly GDP) it will soon become impossible to make the interest payments (since mathematically any two exponential functions will run away from one another if one exponent is larger than the other.)
There are only two ways to prevent this:
-
Generate (through intentional mismanagement of credit aggregates) insane inflationary “boosts”, which typically result from tampering with liquidity so that someone is effectively paid to borrow. This always generates asset bubbles.
-
Permit the economy to go through a recession when the credit capacity is exceeded in aggregate. This causes the borrowers and lenders who made unsupportable loans (that is, to the weakest economic actors) to go bankrupt.
In the first case you create a credit chart that looks like this:
The second prevents such a chart, and looks more like the chart through the early 1970s – specifically:
Note that the problem starts to get out of hand in the 1970s…. but the damage isn’t immediately apparent.
There are those who will argue that Nixon’s closure of the Gold Window was responsible. Nonsense. The presence or absence of a gold window and currency peg has nothing to do with whether credit aggregates are allowed to grow beyond reason.
Indeed, the debt-to-GDP numbers spiked enormously during the 1920s and 30s – even though we were on a “gold standard.”
The problem with papering over recessions is that you don’t really avoid them – you just compound and defer their effects. When the economy starts to run into credit-capacity problems you’re then driven to embed structural deficits into government spending to keep the Ponzi Scheme going. And when that fails you become Iceland or Greece.
That it will fail is mathematically certain. We argue only over the when, not the what.
“This does nothing to expand the broad money supply. The trouble is that the Fed does not understand broad money and ascribes no importance to it,” he said. The result is a collapse of M3, which has contracted at an annual rate of 7.6pc over the last three months.
M3 is irrelevant. There’s plenty of credit available but no capacity to take it down and do anything productive with it. Attempting to force-feed more credit into the system in this circumstance only causes more damage to be compounded into the system.
AEP and the other Fraudesians are attempting to fight the laws of physics and mathematics.
It’s a fight they are mathematically destined to lose, with the only remaining question being how quickly they will throw in the towel and thus stop the accumulation of damage, choosing instead to accept the harm that has thus far been accrued.
The Keynesian Comeuppance
During the current economic crisis, most of the major countries have tried to spend their way out – either with government programs funded with new debt or by forcing debt directly into the private economy through guarantees, regulations and action by quasi-government bodies. We discussed the implications for China in Command and Control and for the US in The Federal Funhouse. These initiatives were based on Keynesian economic theory – that government should make up for any shortfall in private demand by spending (likely
incurring deficits) sufficient to stabilize aggregate demand.
This is a temporary band aid at best and the governments and central banks were hoping to buy time and convince everyone that things were OK so they should go out and spend. This was doomed to fail as prior private demand was based on nearly universal lending at suicidal risk levels. One of the key objectives of Financial Jenga was to document the extent of the madness in credit. Enough people have seen through the wishful thinking so that there will be greater caution on the part of both borrowers and lenders for the foreseeable future.
The massive deficits that various governments have run can only be sustained as long as there are lenders out there willing to finance them. Several bond auctions have failed or nearly failed in the last several weeks. Now we see the appetite for debt drying up and some key nations beginning to talk about austerity. A good example is this statement from the G-20 Meeting Communique:
The recent events highlight the importance of sustainable public finances and the need for our countries to put in place credible, growth-friendly measures, to deliver fiscal sustainability, differentiated for and tailored to national circumstances… We welcome the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal frameworks and institutions.
Clearly, the finance ministers are signaling a new mood of fiscal responsibility here – in sharp contrast to the “stimulus” measures that have previously reigned. This change in emphasis is further reinforced by the recent statements from two key European governments. From the UK we have (Prime Minister) “Cameron warns of painful cuts to tackle debt” as a headline. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel is cutting the budget by nearly $100 billion according to Bloomberg. This is not only a sharp contrast with the Keynesian program here in the US, it is a direct slap in the face of Tim Geithner at Treasury and the entire Obama Administration:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet approved levies on banks, air travel and nuclear-power plants as part of what she called an “unprecedented” round of budget cuts, rejecting U.S. calls to spur growth.
Bux Populi
Austerity is the new watchword and it is showing up first in places where governments either have their backs to the wall or are less under the influence of the banks. Yet even here in the US, where we have the best government the bankers’ money can buy, things are starting to change. Actual voters concerned about the rapidly growing deficit seem to be a stumbling block to Congressional spending with less than 6 months until the elections. Web-based My Way News reports:
Obama’s proposed $250 bonus payment to Social Security recipients was killed by the Senate. Also gone is an $80 billion-plus Senate plan that promised money to build roads and schools, help local governments keep teachers on the payroll and stimulate hiring in the home improvement industry with rebates for homeowners who make energy-saving investments.
Just last month, deficit concerns killed $24 billion in fiscal relief to prevent state workers from being furloughed. It was a measure that earlier had won initial votes in both the House and Senate.
The battle over extending jobless benefits for up to 99 weeks for the long-term unemployed typifies how the Democrats’ jobs agenda has foundered. What originally was a $200 billion measure combining the jobless benefits with renewing popular business and family tax breaks was cut to $115 billion by House leaders after moderate Democrats who are particularly vulnerable in November refused to support it.
The Federal Government has been able to finance large deficits so far. Partially this results from capital flight as Europe’s problems become more apparent. Part of the equation is an increased preference for Treasury bonds over stocks and lower-grade private bonds. Finally, there is the large-scale purchases of MBS by the Fed, which has indirectly funded Treasury auctions by putting more money into the hands of bond buyers and Primary Dealers. Despite a very favorable environment for Treasury bond demand, huge issuance pushed yields upward until the recent resurgence of Europe’s problems.
The difficulty financing our debt led the Obama Administration to float several proposals for major tax increases in an effort to convince bond buyers that there would be enough tax revenue to support the debt. This included a VAT. Notice how little we have heard about that and other taxes since the Euro crisis made the dollar and Treasuries the only game in town. Even so, the easy period of debt finance is coming to an end – even for the US government. Washington had best not expect to fund large deficits easily into the indefinite future.
A lot of bankers have to be asking themselves a question. If governments are cutting back, who is going to bail me out?







