Monday, December 22, 2008

The Slow Slide Continues and the Strange Affair of Bernie Madoff

By Simon Davies and Donald Hunt

The markets last week saw alarming signs of global deflation. Oil prices continued their fall, closing the week down 7% in dollars and 11% in euros. The three-month U.S. Treasury bill closed the week with a negative yield (-0.01%). The gold/oil ratio closed at a startling 19.53, significant because it reflects gold's role as money gaining ground on its role as a commodity. For a while, gold and oil moved in tandem, but not recently.

We are told the reason oil is dropping so sharply is plummeting world demand. World demand is plummeting because the bottom is falling out of the world economy, which until recently was propped up by massive amounts of unsustainable debt.

The Madoff affair seems to us just too scripted and convenient to be true which leads us to speculate as to what is really going on.

United States

California housing prices dropped 38% in November compared to a year ago. That translates to a drop in the median price from $414,000 to $258,000.

The U.S. retail sales this holiday season, already weak, has been dealt a further blow by severe winter storms over the past week and a half.

A U.S. auto industry bailout plan was agreed upon last week as General Motors and Chrysler will get $13.4 billion of emergency government loans in exchange for "substantially restructuring their business". The plan stinks, one aspect being linked to the banking rescue plan know as TARP although the connection can only be political, while Bush focused much of the blame on the workers who as a result are expected to suffer severe pay and benefit cuts. Workers will also see their retirement fund being funded 50% by their employer's shares; a structure that has proved disastrous for millions of workers across the US.

It emerged in Canada that employees of General Motors and Chrylser are expected to face a cut in their hourly wages of between C$15 and C$25.

In an example of just how much deflection is going on in the US media, one commentator was moved to see the political battle over the bailout as being a North vs South struggle, claiming that southern politicians are keen to see the US firms collapse so as to advantage the Japanese, Korean and German owned factories in the south.

It seems to us that the target in the struggle over whether and how to rescue or restructure the US auto-industry are the workers, their retirement and health benefits and the unions that represent them. Most American's do not understand that employment terms in the US are among the worst in the developed world, many being so egregious as to be illegal in the European Union. That the long term aim is to remove even the limited rights and benefits that US workers have is quite possible. This is "badtux" on the topic:-
So what's the endgame?

That's a question asked below. What's the endgame of the current plan of our most evil oligarchs to turn America into Mexico North, with a small handful of filthy rich people (them) and the rest of Americans being impoverished peasants in the mud? And why don't our oligarchs realize that they'll be poorer if they impoverish the rest of America?

Well, my answer there is threefold: a) Some oligarchs don't care, because impoverished peasants will give them a servant class to relieve them of the burdens of child care, dressing themselves, cooking for themselves, etc. and the fact that they'll have only 1/10th the money after the Mexico North plan succeeds... well. They already have 100 times the money that they really need to live a good life, so why should they care? b) Some oligarchs (the majority) are simply stupid. They got their money the old fashioned way -- they inherited it. Paris Hilton is the smart one there, she at least figured out a way to make a few bucks of her own by being famous for being famous, but most of her compatriots haven't a clue. And c) Some oligarchs simply enjoy cruelty and feeling superior to other people, and don't care whether they're poorer under the Mexico North plan than they currently are.

The problem with Mexico North is that it's not a stable situation. People do not willingly starve to death. And with most arable farmland controlled by megacorporations today, it's impossible to send them off to be subsistence farmers. If you look at the real Mexico, you will see the instability. The only reason Mexico has not completely collapsed is that so many Mexicans fled to the U.S. and sent remittances home to keep their relatives from starving to death. But now that the U.S. economy is slowing, Mexico is disintegrating - the drug gangs are taking over and executing judges and police officers and buying army brigades and threatening school children and even kidnapping kidnapping experts. And if you think Americans are too fat and lazy and complacent... well. When they're starving on the streets and desperate for their families' survival, when they have nothing to lose, they'll do the same things. And like the Roman aristocracy once the supply of grain to feed the masses of Rome was cut off, the aristocrats will be the ones who end up hanging from the neck amongst the ruins of American civilization.

So anyhow, that is why the goal of economic policy has to be close-to-full employment. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And that's why the U.S. must have a thriving middle class rather than the Mexico North situation of a few super-rich and tons of impoverished people -- as I've pointed out previously, that's the only way to get sufficient consumption to keep everybody employed. Mexico North simply does not work if your goal is to create a stable wealth-creating society. You can prop it up with petrodollars for a while, as Saddam did, as Mexico did for many years, but the U.S. doesn't have petrodollars anymore... meaning that the Mexico North plan is not only bad for the majority of Americans. It's bad for the people who are trying to put into place. But will they see that? Probably not. They've never had to work for a living, they've never been hungry a day in their lives, they simply have no clue. So it goes...
Europe

In a classic reflection of the narrowness of perspective developed through years of education and work within the existing system, a French economist said, "You need some big symbolic measure to break the circle of pessimism among manufacturers and households." There is no mention of reality, of how to help people survive, of changing the system, no, what is needed is a "big symbolic measure", damn these people are heartless and stupid!

France will officially be in recession in 2009; French car-makers are already cutting jobs and idling plants even after receiving €779 million of government loans to their financing units and €220 million in sale incentives on new cars from the government; the government itself is already discussing expanding the €26 billion "stimulus package" even as it is set to borrow a record €145 billion in 2009 with a projected budget deficit of €79 billion.

In its continued expansion in global nuclear power France's EDF, having paid ₤12.5 billion for British nuclear power producer British Energy Group plc, looks set to buy half the nuclear power business of Constellation Energy Group Inc of the US. It is ironic to note that Nicloas Sarkozy has established a fund to protect French companies from predations similar to those being practiced by EDF. EDF itself needs no such protection being 85% stated owned already.

In unrelated but interesting news Britain sold the remaining one third it owned in its own atomic weapons manufacturing and maintenance facility Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). AWE is now owned 1/3rd by Lockheed Martin, 1/3rd by Serco plc and 1/3rd by Jacobs Engineering. The British government now has no ownership interest in the production and maintenance of its own nuclear weapons. The technology used by AWE is primarily from the US, most notably the Trident missile system. It remains highly questionable whether such arrangements are legal or in fact demonstrable and flagrant breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations of the US and UK.

The UK Post Office is to be part privatised, through a sale of a 1/3rd stake to Dutch group TNT, as part of new EU rules opening local postal delivery to competition; yet another public service being sliced and diced for the benefit of large corporations.

In one of the more spectacular pieces of political theatre the leader of the Conservative party in the UK, David Cameron, has called for bankers to be held responsible for their part in the financial crisis. He does not of course mean the bankers that run the UK and pay for him and his cronies, he means a few of the smaller fry, the "bad apples" that those in power find so expendable at times like these. No doubt there are those in the UK who remain so inured in the myths of party politics and class divides that they will be satiated with the blood of a few city bankers while the real criminals will remain in firm control of the country and David Cameron.

Angela Merkel is starting to look like she will toe the line and buy into the EU bailout package but clearly not enough as a new opinion poll showed her "popularity slumped last week amid criticism that the leader of Europe's biggest economy is doing too little to stem the country's slide into recession."

Further east, the Czechs seem to be a sensible bunch as their enthusiasm to join the Eurozone is waning; Belarus may devalue its currency as it seeks a $2 billion IMF "rescue package"; Latvia is said to have reached 'broad agreement' with the IMF on "an international aid package"; and Russia is reporting a cash shortage such that wage arrears doubled in November.

Oil

With the oil price looking more reasonable for those that use it but not so rosy for the profits of the corporations that control it nor the revenues of the countries that own it, OPEC restated its commitment to record cuts in production with the intent of pushing prices higher.

Just how far oil producers wish to push the price has not been stated but Brasil's Energy Minister believes "Oil prices must rebound to about $75 a barrel to maintain the investments in petroleum production needed to provide adequate supply to world markets." How this fits with a research paper that says spare production capacity will more than double through to 2012 remains to be seen.

It seems China is applying advanced capitalist dogma with it's announcement of an eight fold increase in fuel-oil consumption tax "to conserve energy use."

Banks and Banking

According to Bloomberg financial firms worldwide are seeking to raise a staggering $900 billion. In this context the $700 billion allocated to the US banking sector and the $2 trillion in other 'aid' should raise some eyebrows at the very least.

The Bank of Japan has been busy trying to keep the Japanese economy functioning amid a shortage of cash in the economy and an ever strengthening currency. It reduced its benchmark interest rate to 0.1% and expanded the ways it is using to pump cash into the financial system including lending directly to large companies, what it called an "exceptional step taken by a central bank". It also plans to buy up to ¥20 trillion ($223 billion) of shares held by banks so as to increase bank capital and support the stock market. Amidst all this propping up of the "free market" it was also announced that the Japanese government is expected to borrow $1.27 trillion in 2009.

Similarly, the Fed is using its balance sheet as a monetary policy tool buying all manner of bank assets including $200 billion of consumer and small business loans and $600 billion of Mortgage Backed Securities. The details of these asset purchases remain shrouded in secrecy as the Fed is refusing, despite its legal obligations, to divulge the details. It should be causing a global uprising that central banks across the planet are using the same methodology yet claiming to be independent; it is blindingly obvious that they are acting in concert and to a plan that they are not divulging.

The news for the big banks was not good this week. In a long overdue move, Standard & Poor's rating agency cut the ratings of many leading banks citing expectations that banks face more uncertainty in funding markets and a higher level of stress than in a "typical business-cycle trough.", rating agency speak for "the financial crisis still has a long way to go". Among them Goldman Sachs whose rating was dropped two levels and remains on "negative outlook". Goldman Sachs also reported losses of over $2 billion in the last three months and fired ten percent of its staff last month.

HSBC had its rating maintained but placed on "negative outlook"; perhaps one of the motivations behind news that the bank may seek to raise $14 billion, most likely through the issue of shares, to strengthen its balance sheet. Other unhappy news for HSBC is that it may lose $1 billion in the Madoff affair while Christen Schnor, it's head of insurance for Europe and the Middle East was found hanged in the closet of a five star hotel in west London a short distance from his apartment.

In Japan, Daiwa Securities plans to raise as much as ¥100 billion ($1.1 billion) in fresh capital, Nomura is seeking ¥410 billion and the banking sector is set to raise nearly $40 billion in total.

In further surprise news, reflective of just how tight the market for bank capital is at present, Deutsche Bank failed to exercise its right to "Call" or early redeem €1 billion of its Capital Bonds. It is expected that banks will exercise these "Call" rights so Deutsche's action has rattled the markets being described as, ".. a setback for the stabilization of banking markets and is likely to increase funding costs for banks generally". One of the world's biggest investors saying that it won't buy any new bonds Deutsche issues in the future.

By now it is obvious that corruption is the rife throughout the financial system so it should come as no surprise to us when yet another banker has to resign having been caught up to no good. So it was that Sean Fitzpatrick, chairman of Anglo Irish, an Irish mortgage lender he built from a tiny lending operation to a very substantial bank in the course of 25 years, resigned having been caught hiding loans from the bank to himself totaling €87 million. He took the CEO down with him too as the trick they used, while technically not a breach of the law, was a flagrant violation of its principles.

In an example of the interconnectedness of people within the various Circles of Power, Fitzpatrick has also resigned from his non-executive roles in Smurfit Kappa Group Plc, Greencore Group Plc, Aer Lingus Group Plc, Experian Plc and Gartmore Irish Growth Fund Plc.

In October Irish billionaire Sean Quinn, whose family bought a 15 percent in the Anglo Irish in July, stepped down as chairman of Quinn Insurance Ltd. after the regulator fined the company for making a 288 million-euro loan to a related company without disclosing it.

The Markets

The markets this week
Previous week's close This week's close Change% change
Gold (USD) 820.50838.6018.102.21%
Gold (EUR)613.60602.8810.721.75%
Oil (USD) 46.2842.943.347.22%
Oil (EUR)34.6130.873.7410.81%
Gold:Oil17.7319.531.8010.16%
USD / EUR0.7478 / 1.33720.7189 / 1.3910 0.0289 / 0.05383.86% / 4.02%
USD / GBP0.6693 / 1.49410.6706 / 1.4912 0.0013 / 0.0029 0.19% / 0.19%
USD / JPY91.125 / 0.0110 89.310 / 0.0112 1.815 / 0.00021.99% / 1.82%
DOW8,6308,579510.59%
FTSE4,2804,28770.15%
DAX4,6634,697330.71%
NIKKEI8,2368,5893534.28%
BOVESPA39,37439,1312430.62%
HANG SENG 14,75815,1283692.50%
US Fed Funds 0.12%0.06%0.0650%
$ 3month 0.01%-0.01%0.02200%
$ 10 year 2.58%2.12%0.4617.83%


The Madoff Affair

The Madoff Affair developed some interesting features this week. Jerry Reisman, a prominent New York lawyer, described Madoff as, "utterly charming. He was a master at meeting people and creating this aura. People looked at him as a superhero."

"People didn't want to know what he was doing. If it's too good to be true, it isn't true. But people didn't care. They were greedy."

The extent of this greed is all too apparent as leading European and Japanese banks seem to have not bothered with the normal "know your client" requirements (these are the myriad questions and checks that we all have to submit ourself to when doing business with a bank) instead preferring to lend to funds that "fed into" the Madoff money machine. They didn't even check who his auditors were; so desperate were they to get a slice of the action, for themselves and their clients, that was Bernie Madoff. It is notable that at this stage there is not one single US bank on the list of losers.

"Feeder Funds" are typically created to circumvent rules or to allow for far greater returns for investors. They are essentially a means for smaller investors to invest where they otherwise wouldn't be allowed and for all investors to achieve higher returns as the funds borrow as well as take the investor's money so that the size of the bets taken by the investor are effectively multiplied. The idea works well in a market where the fund manager makes money but are disastrous when they lose money.

Needless to say there are conflicting reports all of which add to the surreal nature of the entire episode. There is obviously a lot of paperwork, or lack of it, to go through, one report suggesting it would be six months before any solid details were known. They say a week is a long time in politics but a day is a long time in finance so the prospect of a six month hiatus will certainly have made for some nervous investors and lenders. Now we are told that Bernie himself will be providing US regulators with "a verified written accounting" of his firm's records by New Year's Eve.

Stephen Harbeck, president of SIPC, said Mr Madoff had left behind a trail of "falsified" and "unreliable" records, and it could take at least six months to "get a handle" on the situation, while the entire liquidation process - including collection of any remaining assets - could take "several years".

Mr Madoff kept "several sets" of books and false documents and provided false information involving his advisory activities, according to Christopher Cox, SEC chairman, who this week admitted the regulator had not responded to "credible and specific allegations" of alleged wrongdoing dating back to 1999.
Harbeck is also quoted:-

"We do not seem to be dealing with a traditional Ponzi scheme alone,"

"The length of time we are dealing with - which by Madoff's own admission is at least a decade but probably more like two - is just incredible. A Ponzi scheme might usually last a year or so, but it is usually impossible to keep it going for long periods of time."
The story of the regulators keeps morphing. Last weekend it was being claimed that the SEC hadn't "dropped the ball" while this weekend we are told that "investigators have been on Bernard Madoff's case for nearly a decade".

Regulators have already found "evidence of misconduct stretching back to the 1970s". As reported in the UK's Daily Telegraph:-

As long ago as 1999, an independent investigator, Harry Markopolos, concluded that Madoff's success could not be legitimate. In 1995, he sent the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the financial watchdog, a 17-page statement: "The World's Largest Hedge Fund Is a Fraud".

Two years later, the commission found no evidence of fraud after an investigation that seems to have involved little more than asking Madoff whether he was a crook, and accepting his answers.
This investigation is 2005 occurred while Eric Swanson was a senior compliance official at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Swanson later married Madoff's niece who was a compliance officer at Madoff Investments. The SEC naturally denies any connection.

It seem that even Bernie's bail conditions have been morphing also. The original bail bond was $10 million which was to have four bond signatories and be secured against Madoff's Manhattan apartment, valued at $7 million. By mid-week it was reported that Madoff had been unable to meet these conditions and was therefore under house arrest. The court subsequently accepted new bail provisions with just two bond signatories, Madoff's sons it seems being unwilling to co-sign the bail bond.

Technically, US law requires investors who have made money from fraudulent schemes to repay their gains to compensate the victims so it is going to be a long and fascinating battle to see how this aspect of the Madoff affair plays out.

Side benefits

As we have stressed in the past, the New Economic World Order is seeking new powers for the multilateral agencies, in particular the IMF and World Bank. Under the umbrella of developing a new economic model, at the peak of which will be the IMF as titular head, we are to be inundated with new regulation. This new regulation, as always, will be justified as the righting of a wrong or the prevention of crime but will actually be aimed at ever greater control of ordinary people. It should not surprise us then that we read in Bloomberg:-

Madoff's case will be at the center of planned congressional hearings on reforming the SEC, a senior Senate official said this week, declining to be identified. Obama said yesterday the scandal "has reminded us yet again of how badly reform is needed when it comes to the rules and regulations that govern our markets."
The SEC is obviously destined for an early grave as it is also the chosen whiping post for those outraged at its apparent failure to regulate Wall Street bonuses. The reality is that the SEC was deliberately and systematically emasculated to ensure that it could not regulate.

We should also acknowledge that there were and there remain numerous 'names' on Wall Street that any SEC investigator knows are to be left alone for to seriously investigate such people would be career limiting at best and quite possibly terminal at worst. With two decades of seeming invincibility and untouchability behind him, Bernard Madoff might well be one of those 'names'.

Tying up the loose ends?

The Madoff scandal is a true life crime of immense proportions. Like all crimes there is a need for a detective, so let us play that part for a while, let us, in the fine traditions of Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes and Columbo, speculate a little. Here are the facts so far:-
- Bernard Madoff, long time fraudster, woke up on Thursday 11th December, met his sons at his Manhattan apartment and decided to confess to them that his world renown investment business is "a lie", a giant Ponzi scheme. His son's, being good citizens, then called the New York Police and had their father arrested.

- Madoff confessed to the police that he had defrauded investors of $50 billion. He will no doubt have been read his "rights" so this confession is admissible in court. This was immediately reported to the regulators and the international media where, naturally, a storm broke over such an immense fraud. This is truly bizarre; think about it, think about how the US legal system works and ask yourself if a man in Madoff's position, a man who must be facing the rest of his life in prison, is going to confess!

- The necessary court hearings took place at which bail was set with conditions.

- Investigators moved into Madoff's offices where they found that the financial records are in disarray and that there are multiple sets of books. So far no comment has been made as to whether one or any of these books show the operation of a Ponzi scheme.

- Within a few days Madoff couldn't meet his bail conditions so these were adjusted and he was placed under house arrest.

- By Friday 18th December the total of all parties claiming to have been defrauded by Madoff, or as part of the interconnected web of loses, reached $28.1 billion, $21.9 billion short of Madoff's total of $50 billion.

- Some of the biggest names in European and Japanese banking find themselves exposed via their lending to funds that invested with Madoff directly or via other funds that invested in Madoff. Amazingly there is not one US bank in the list.

- Have you noticed how few photos there are of Bernard Madoff? This is a man who headed one of the most successful investment businesses in the world, was treasurer of a Jewish university in New York, gave to numerous charities, and head the Nasdaq exchange yet do a google search and you find just 7 photos of the guy.
This is all just too convenient. Madoff is a very prominent New York Zionist who, as we speculated last week, is highly likely to have a relationship, and probably a close one at that, with the foreign policy wing of the Israeli government, Mossad. He works with his brother and his two sons who it seems are the most senior people in his companies.

Madoff managed to run a multi-decade fraud of considerable complexity covering numerous investor accounts with billions of dollars successfully accounted for, albeit entirely falsely yet has no apparent accomplices.

Madoff could easily have jumped a plane to Israel where he would have been afforded a high level of protection. Yet he confesses to his sons who don't flinch for an instant, immediately calling the police. This just doesn't compute so it must be that Madoff meant to stay in the US and meant to confess and that everything we are seeing was planned.

The overall structure of how so many banks and funds were lured into the Madoff trap, the exclusivity, and particularly the fact that few investors were allowed to invest directly with Madoff but via "funds of funds" so missing out essential due diligence, smacks of true charlatanism and the actions of a man who knew exactly what he was doing. The lack of US banking names in the list of 'victims' suggests that many others also knew what he was doing.

The question that come to mind is this - is it possible that Bernard Madoff's entire operation, from the outset with his $5,000 seed money, was closely linked to some other party or parties with whom he worked or to whom he answered? As a vast but highly secretive money churning operation, with numerous client and trading accounts Madoff Investments would have made the perfect money laundering operation. It is also a near perfect means to facilitate wholesale theft; money that was stolen years ago by all manner of people operating the funds that made investments through or with Madoff is now conveniently accounted for, "oops, sorry we lost your money, Madoff you know", case closed.

The next strange thing is the timing. Madoff just popped up and confessed smack bang in between the presidential election and the swearing in of a new US President. There is some very obvious tidying up and tying up of loose ends by the Bush administration at present. Notably, the extremely convenient plane crash that killed Michael Connell who was about to make a full public disclosure relating to the vote rigging in the 2000 and 2004 US elections. We are also seeing the last desperate grasping of banking and corporate America for taxpayer dollars as the sun sets on the Bush Reich. Where does Bernard Madoff sit within all this? Experience tells us that we can be sure he is connected and most likely a big piece of the puzzle. But which piece?

The last eight years have demonstrated to all but the most deluded that US foreign policy and much of the domestic agenda is controlled by and for the benefit of the state of Israel. This has in fact been the case since Woodrow Wilson but these last eight years have made a mockery of every illusion that it is otherwise.

Madoff is a committed Zionist and can therefore be safely assumed, given his wealth and influence, to be part of the inner circle of American Zionists that call the shots in New York and Washington. He is therefore not a man working alone; his business was made on electronic trading and advanced computerization, an area where Israel is a world leader; his business is a perfect money laundry, a service that Mossad has great demand for, as do the Bush family and their criminal associates as a result of their narcotics income; he seems to have spirited away a vast sum of money that must have gone somewhere and could have been used to pay for all manner of nefarious activities including whole mercenary armies and weapons systems, not to mention the funding of innumerable politicians; and last but certainly not least he made no attempt to run but confessed just six weeks before the new President takes office. The idea that this is another loose end being tidied up and tied off before the new administration takes office, an administration that will be just as infiltrated as the last but from different sources and by different agents, certainly seems to fit the facts as we see them today.

That many of Madoff's fellow Jews seem to have been victims of his scam does not mitigate against our speculations, for Zionism and its practitioners have been the real enemy of the Jews for a very long time indeed. That Zionists have made victims of Jews in order to profit both directly and indirectly is well established in history although much of that history is of course "off limits".

We should also be very wary of falling for the whole "Ponzi Scheme" explanation given by Madoff as part of his confession to his son's and police. It is highly probable that this is deliberate misdirection and misinformation. The mainstream media have of course picked up the Ponzi scheme theme and are running with it as hard as they can, with pretty diagrams and all. There will no doubt be books found in Madoff's offices that support the Ponzi scheme thesis and his explanation to be provided to police by year end will match perfectly with those books. We would not be at all surprised to hear, after a suitable investigative period, that it was indeed a Ponzi scheme but that it is impossible to trace the funds etc and all is effectively lost. This is just too convenient, too smooth and just too much of a set up to be ignored. It will be ignored of course as that it the deliberate intent of the minds behind the Madoff affair.

If Bernard Madoff disappears before standing trial or at anytime before serving a serious amount of time in prison, particularly if it is through ill health or even death, we should all smell the obvious rat. He will have served his purpose or purposes, being spirited away to live out the rest of his days in anonymity.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Economy, Markets and Finance - December 9th

By Simon Davies and Donald Hunt, SOTT.net

The markets last week reacted in a deflationary mode, spurred by the stunning loss of a half million jobs in the United States in November. Commodities were down, stocks were down, and US bonds were up (driving yields down) while Japanese bonds dropped on fears of increased government borrowing next year. Oil dropped sharply (23%), gold fell 7.5% and interest rates are falling closer and closer to zero. How close? The yield on the 3-month U.S. Treasury Notes, for example, is now 0.01%. In other words, if prices are going down, you are better off having money rather than things.

It's not looking out in the real economy but it's all roses for the banks as the EU began approving the various European bank bailouts. Hedge Fund news is dire with many, including the once mighty Fortress, stopping or severely limiting investor withdrawals while being reported to be "crumbling".

With the crisis in the auto sector, Ford is looking to sell Volvo the Swedish carmaker it bought ten years ago in a bid to raise cash.

China

China has been a big focus recently with the US and China holding the fifth Strategic Economic Dialogue on December 4th and 5th in Beijing. The US Treasury Press Release is of course couched in careful diplomatic language but still gives a hint at the ebb and flow of the struggle for position and dominance of those in the Circles of Power.

The propaganda writers need to take a holiday for nearly every economic press release now starts the same way, "agree to continue their close communication on systemically significant macroeconomic policies, and reaffirm their commitment to continue to take material measures as necessary to maintain financial market stability, promote sustained global growth, and continue their cooperation on issues related to global economic and financial stability, and consider ways to further enhance the exchange of information on regulatory issues".

As regular readers know, this means, "we are all in the same club and are working together to a New Economic World Order. All that follows is part of our trading between ourselves of your lives, your wealth, your income and your future. We're telling you straight so you can't complain later."

Chinese banks are to get greater access to the US as long as they sign up to being run like US banks while US banks get to trade bonds in China and support that trading with capital from outside China thereby circumventing China's capital controls. Just who gains most from this will have to be seen but we suspect that while Chinese concessions may seem to confer advantage to the US the Chinese are far smarter than to be fooled by US investment bankers. This may be suggestive of a high level of cooperation behind the scenes.

Talking of behind the scenes cooperation, US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the US and China "are confident that the seven-year Doha round of global trade talks can be completed by the end of this year". Given where the Doha round left off, with entrenched positions being defended, this seems a remarkable piece of insight.

The usual sop to the environment was offered up with the US and China agreeing "to continue their close communication and extensive collaboration in addressing the challenges of environmental sustainability, climate change, and energy security." While a series of commercial agreements relating to energy, logging and fisheries were either signed up or progressed towards "greater understanding". With the Bush Administration's environmental record and that of China one wonders why they bother with the fig leaf of environmental respectability and responsibility.

Both countries agreed to additional government backing for trade to a total of $20 billion.

The announcements in relation to "International Economic Cooperation" strongly suggest that China is being brought publicly into the inner club for the development and implementation of the New Economic World Order. The US agreed that China (and other important emerging economies) should be given more weight "in international financial institutions" and be members of the Financial Stability Forum.

Not to be left out Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan and Trade Minister Simon Crean were in China at the weekend "for talks on growing commerce between the two nations and the response to turmoil in global economies".

Canada

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a cynical move to prevent being ousted by opposition parties, has suspended parliament until January 26th. The sheer cynicism of the man is incredible especially when the issue he is stonewalling is the speeding up of infrastructure spending and aid to manufacturing, automotive and forestry businesses which he calls "socialist economics". Canada is therefore left with no sitting government for the next six weeks. Job losses in November were 70,600, the Canadian dollar is at C$1.30 to the US dollar having been at parity just six months ago and Royal Bank of Canada is taking more losses to its bottom line. One can tell where Mr Harper's loyalties lie.

We had to chuckle when Marc Dreier, founder and managing partner of the 250-lawyer New York firm Dreier LLP, was arrested, detained and subsequently bailed for C$100,000 on charges of criminal impersonation. It seems he broke the cardinal rule, "don't get caught".

Europe

Unsurprisingly, the European Union decided, to bend its rules on state financing of business with the approval of the French bank rescue plan. Approval for the Austrian plan is expected shortly while the details of the German plan are being negotiated. Approval of the German plan will allow a "massive injection of state capital into Commerzbank".

Italian Minister of Welfare, Maurizio Sacconi, said "The threat of bankruptcy of our national economy should be considered real," while an unnamed leading member of the governing party, Forza Italia, said " The collapse of the world financial system may cause the Italian state to be unable to pay pensions and salaries to government employees". The minister responsible for the economy, Minister of Economy and Finance, Giulio Tremonti, countered that the economic situation was not dire.

Just two months ago Italy announced a 'stabilisation package' of €20 billion for the banks with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi promising that, "No bank will go bankrupt". A week later Italy joined Germany, France, Spain, Holland and Austria in the €1,500 billion "greatest bank bailout in history" which included €40 billion in equity for banks on a "case by case" basis, said Giulio Tremonti.

So it looks like ordinary Italians, just like everywhere else, will have to take the pain so that the bankers can take the gain.

Jerome Kerviel, the so called "rogue trader" blamed for French bank Societe Generale's record trading losses lost his bid to meet with his former chairman Daniel Bouton in a move that smacks of judicial cooperation in the scapegoating of Kerviel.

In Marseille oil workers exercised their right to strike against new French laws that are a backdoor privatization of cargo handling operations and port services.

Dark Pool

In an interesting development, ICAP, one of the world's largest inter-bank brokers is set to establish a "dark pool" share exchange. A "dark pool" is an exchange that does not disclose the details, including price, of trades allowing investors to act anonymously and for trades to be matched on an undisclosed basis. In a world of "free and open" markets and in which private citizens are being tracked in their every move we find this development noteworthy to say the least.

Also this week, rumours circulated that Deutsche Boerse is in merger talks with the world's biggest owner of stock markets NYSE Euronext signaling even further consolidation in this often misunderstood but important sector.

Talking of consolidation, Qantas Airways CEO Alan Joyce and British Airways counterpart Willie Walsh met in Hong Kong this weekend for talks on a potential merger. A move that would make sense for the airline management teams and perhaps enable the combined airline to negotiate better pricing from Airbus and Boeing enabling it to compete with Singapore Airlines and Emirates Airline.

Deflation

So we're in a recession?

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Duh.

Now credit card issuers are sucking $2 trillion out of the economy, adding yet more deflationary pressure to the economy. Deflation is bad for people who owe money because they can't repay their loans, yet the credit card companies appear intent to cause deflation. Deflation is also bad for merchants because they bought their goods at the old cheap dollar higher price and now can only sell them at the new expensive dollar lower price, meaning they lose money on their goods. Capitalism only works with a little bit of inflation to "prime the pump", so that debts get paid off in cheaper dollars and goods get sold off at a higher price than what they were bought for. So deflation, if it continues, is going to be a b**ch.

The current response of the Federal Reserve and Treasury constitutes pushing on a string -- pushing money into the banking system in hopes that the banking system will lend it out. But a) the banking system is showing no sign of lending the money out, and b) even if they wanted to lend the money out, there's a shortage of people who can afford to repay loans, so they'd have trouble lending it out. You'd be better off dropping bales of $100 bills out the back of a fleet of helicopters if your intent is to re-inflate the economy, at least those $100 bills would go to buy stuff and thus provide jobs.

But in the end Congress is going to have to vote for a major jobs program, one which removes tax incentives for outsourcing and adds tax incentives for creating jobs right here in the USA, one which offers direct hiring CCC-style to work on repairing our crumbling infrastructure and clean up our roads and parks and etc., i.e., a new New Deal. Either that, or we face the potential of the recession deepening even further into a new Great Depression, and unlike the 1930's, we don't have the infrastructure or social capital in place to deal with a Depression -- no extended families anymore, no large number of factories that can be put back to work to employ people anymore, no experience with "living rough" anymore, etc. You can't keep pushing on a string and expecting the other end of the string to move. People need money and jobs to pull on their end of the string before pushing on the string will have significant effects. Otherwise, all you're doing is shoving one end of the string around -- and getting nowhere.

While a government-funded massive infrastructure rebuilding program would be a good thing right now, the bigger problem will remain unresolved and that is that the government has to borrow money from the bankers to fund the program and then we get taxed to pay interest to the bankers. Why should the government, which should have the right to create money, cede that right to private bankers, then pay them for it? Usually a party has to pay to gain a valuable privilege from another party. Who is in charge? To whom do governments owe their allegiances to? The people or the Money Power (banks)?

The free-marketers, those who define 'free' as meaning no government interference, frighten the public with scary words like socialism, inflation, government-controlled, and nationalization to keep us from asking these questions. They control the economics departments and the bankers control the media conglomerates, so they can do this.

After Enron, Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps, why is nationalization such a horrible idea? Because they have taught us to be afraid of government. And there are many reasons to be afraid of government power, but really what we need to be afraid of is the power of governments controlled by the Money Power. If governments actually functioned as instruments of the collective good will, what would there be to be afraid of?

It is worth asking that question to drive home the extent to which our whole existence has been ponerized, corrupted by an evil power that has limited not only our actions but our very ability to imagine anything better.

Steve Fraser asks why not nationalize, starting with the banks?
Under the present dispensation, the bailout state makes the government the handmaiden of the financial sector. Under a new one, the tables might be turned. But who will speak for that option within the limited councils of the Obama team?

A real democratic nationalization of the banks -- good value for our money rather than good money to add to their value -- should be part of the policy agenda up for discussion in the Obama era. As things now stand, the public supplies the loans and the investment capital, but the key decisions about how they are to be deployed remain in private hands. A democratic version of nationalizing the financial system would transfer these critical decisions to new institutions created by Congress and designed to pursue public, not private, objectives. How to subject the flow of credit and investment capital to public control ought to be on the drawing boards if we are to look beyond the old New Deal to a new one.

Or, for instance, if we are to bail out the auto industry, which we should -- millions of jobs, businesses, communities and what's left of once powerful and proud unions are at stake -- then why not talk about its nationalization, too? Why not create a representative body of workers, consumers, environmentalists, suppliers and other interested parties to supervise the industry's reorganization and retooling to produce, just as the president-elect says he wants, new green means of transportation -- and not just cars?

Why not apply the same model to the rehabilitation of the nation's infrastructure; indeed, why not to the reindustrialization of the country as a whole? If, as so many commentators are now claiming, what lies ahead is the kind of massive, crippling deflation characteristic of such crises, then why not consider creating democratic mechanisms to impose an incomes policy on wages and prices that works against that deflation?

...If original thinking doesn't find a home somewhere within this forming administration soon, it will be an omen of an even more troubled future to come, when options not even being considered today may be unavailable tomorrow. Certainly, Americans ought to expect something better than a trip down (the grimmest of) memory lanes into the failed neo-liberalism of yesteryear.
David Graeber explains the reasons for this lack of hopeful, creative imagination:
The first question we should be asking is: How did this happen? Is it normal for human beings to be unable to imagine what a better world would even be like?

Hopelessness isn't natural. It needs to be produced. If we really want to understand this situation, we have to begin by understanding that the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a kind of giant machine that is designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, to flourish, to propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police, various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as they create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy. Maintaining this apparatus seems even more important, to exponents of the "free market," even than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain, for instance, what happened in the former Soviet Union, where one would have imagined the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and KGB and rebuilding the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around? This is just one extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, this apparatus is pure dead weight; all the guns, surveillance cameras, and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and really produce nothing, and as a result, it's dragging the entire capitalist system down with it, and possibly, the earth itself.

The spirals of financialization and endless string of economic bubbles we've been experience are a direct result of this apparatus. It's no coincidence that the United States has become both the world's major military ("security") power and the major promoter of bogus securities. This apparatus exists to shred and pulverize the human imagination, to destroy any possibility of envisioning alternative futures. As a result, the only thing left to imagine is more and more money, and debt spirals entirely out of control. What is debt, after all, but imaginary money whose value can only be realized in the future: future profits, the proceeds of the exploitation of workers not yet born. Finance capital in turn is the buying and selling of these imaginary future profits; and once one assumes that capitalism itself will be around for all eternity, the only kind of economic democracy left to imagine is one everyone is equally free to invest in the market - to grab their own piece in the game of buying and selling imaginary future profits, even if these profits are to be extracted from themselves. Freedom has become the right to share in the proceeds of one's own permanent enslavement.

And since the bubble had built on the destruction of futures, once it collapsed there appeared to be - at least for the moment - simply nothing left.

Markets

The markets this week
Previous week's close This week's close Change% change
Gold ($) 819.00757.1061.907.56%
Gold (€)645.59594.6450.957.89%
Oil ($) 54.4341.7612.6723.28%
Oil (€)42.9132.8010.1123.55%
Gold:Oil15.0518.133.0820.49%
$ / €0.7883 / 1.26860.7855 / 1.2732 0.0028 / 0.00460.36% / 0.36%
$ / ₤0.6507 / 1.53680.6779 / 1.4751 0.0272 / 0.0617 4.18% / 4.01%
$ / ¥95.400 / 0.0105 92.870 / 0.0108 2.53 / 0.00032.65% / 2.86%
DOW8,8298,6351942.19%
FTSE4,2884,0492395.57%
DAX4,6694,3812886.17%
NIKKEI8,5127,9185956.99%
BOVESPA36,59635,3471,2483.41%
HANG SENG 13,88813,846420.30%
US Fed Funds 0.50%0.06%0.4488.00%
$ 3month 0.04%0.01%0.0375.00%
$ 10 year 2.92%2.71%0.217.19%

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 24, 2008

Signs of the Economic Apocalypse, 3-24-08

From SOTT.net:

Gold closed at 920.00 dollars an ounce Thursday (markets were closed Friday for Good Friday), down 8.6% from $999.50 for the week. The dollar closed at 0.6480 euros last week, up 1.5% from 0.6382 at the close of the previous Friday. That put the euro at 1.5432 dollars compared to 1.5670 the Friday before. Gold in euros would be 596.16 euros an ounce, down 7.0% from 637.84 at the close of the previous week. Oil closed at 101.84 dollars a barrel Thursday, down 8.1% from $110.06 for the week. Oil in euros would be 65.99 euros a barrel, down 6.4% from 70.24 at the close of the week before. The gold/oil ratio closed at 9.03, down 0.6% from 9.08 for the week. In U.S. stocks, the Dow Jones Industrial Index closed at 12,361.32 Thursday, up 3.4% from 11,951.09 at the close of the previous week. The NASDAQ closed at 2,258.11 last week, up 2.1% from 2,212.49 at last week’s close. In U.S. interest rates, the yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note closed at 3.33 Thursday, down 11 basis points from 3.44% for the week.

Looking back on last week, it is safe to say that the Fed’s odd rescue of Bear Stearns was a success. The price of gold fell the most it has in any week since 1990, almost 9%. The dollar gained on the euro. Oil was down 8%. The Dow rose 3.4%. Not to say there isn’t a whole lot to criticize in the Bear Stearns action. Don Harrold does a great job of that here if you haven’t seen it yet. But it did what it was supposed to do: stop the bleeding.

Now what? Were the recent run-ups in the prices of commodities (gold, other metals, oil, wheat, corn, etc.) just another bubble or were they part of a longer term trend? Will commodity prices go down as the world enters a recession, or will we suffer stagflation (higher prices and low growth)? By “just another bubble” I mean that it could be that the higher prices for commodities represent the lower value of all world currencies, that currencies were inflated by easy credit and there are more dollars, euros, yen, etc. chasing the same amount of commodities and that when a crash comes, we will see a deflationary reduction in commodity prices. Or, it could be that we are reaching limits in the production of commodities, that there is a limited amount of gold, oil, arable land, etc. and that economic growth in Asia means higher prices.
Deflation or Inflation? Money for Nothing

Kenneth Couesbouc

March 21, 2008

The harder they come, the harder they fall one and all.
-- Jimmy Cliff.

There are currently two contradictory forecasts for the times to come, deflation and inflation. Are rising commodity prices mere speculation, a bubble amongst bubbles that will burst as bubbles do? Will the credit crunch lead to a liquidity crisis that must push prices down? Or is legal tender losing its face-value? Is OPEC to blame for the rising price of crude oil, or should the major central banks be held responsible for flooding the market with "money for nothing"?

Trading in commodities is always a speculative business, as it demands a continual anticipation of future prices. But this also applies to stocks and real estate. And these, as shown by recent events, can inflate without inflating currency. However, the price of stocks and real estate only affects the price of stocks and real estate, whereas the price of commodities affects the price of just about everything else. It is also true that company shares and land are practically eternal, whereas commodities are destined to enter the production/consumption process. A barrel of oil is not continuously coming back on the market to be bought and sold. At some stage its value is determined once and for all (without, of course, prejudicing the price of future barrels of oil). Commodities and their value are destined to be consumed and must be produced again. Company shares (as long as the company exists) and land (a part of the Earth's surface) cannot be consumed. Their market value may fluctuate but their material existence persists unchanged. The persistence of stocks and real estate allows the formation of speculative bubbles that drain money from other employment, but do not otherwise affect the prices on the market. Whereas inflated commodity prices inflate all other prices.

The direct effect of a liquidity crisis is that banks hesitate in lending to each other and to the world at large. This means that the biggest banks will take control of the smaller fry, probably after substantial government bail-outs (vis. Bear Stearns). The next to suffer are the market operators on the stock exchange and in real estate, who need regular injections of extra credit to keep their buoyancy. Then come home-buyers, car-buyers, buyers of sofas and TVs, right down to the ordinary overdraft. Less liquidity means less buying power all round. Will this bring prices down generally, or will it reduce spending to the essentials of life, at whatever price? A shrinking demand for non-essential goods and services will push the weak to the wall, and the big companies will swallow the small.

Like the Roman god Janus, money is two-faced. It can be the intermediary of exchange and it can be the finality of exchange. As K. Marx explained long ago, the perpetual chain of exchanges, commodity - money - commodity - money - C - M - C - M - etc., is made up of two separate series of events. One is C - M - C, and the other is M - C - M. The first series concerns the exchange of goods and services, with money as their intermediary. The second series concerns the exchange of money, with goods and services as its intermediary. Selling the produce of labour to buy the produce of different labour is a consequence of the division of labour. Buying the produce of labour to sell it again at a profit is a consequence of the monetary system. Through the intermediary of money, goods and services are exchanged for consumption (productive or not). Use and exchange value changes hands, and the intervening money is a simple formality. Whereas buying to sell at a profit means that the object of the exchange between money and more money is of secondary importance and that, ultimately, everything is bought and sold.

Buying to sell instead of selling to buy means available credit instead of available goods and services, capital instead of labour. It is no longer the product of labour that is sold to buy the product of other labours. It is labour that is bought, and its product is sold at a profit. And the question arises of the nature of profit. Is labour bought at less than its value, or is the product of labour sold at more than its value? This is a moot-point. But the value of a product is the sum of the values that go into its production, and its market price must cover this plus profit. Profit is the difference between the market price and the production costs. This means that profit depends on a market price that is superior to the value of the product. And profit increases as the gap between price and value widens. If the market price of a product is unchanged (if supply matches demand), and its value is reduced by productivity gains (new technology), or by reducing the price of labour (outsourcing), then profit will increase accordingly. But the exchanges on the market are exchanges of value that do not take into account the difference between an excessive and an insufficient price of labour. The value of labour is the price paid for it. Profit means that the market price is in excess of value, and that the currency measuring the price is devalued. And the larger the profit margin, the more currency is devalued.

…The price of non-renewable commodities is entering a new phase. So far, abundance has been the rule, and this may still be true. But the growth curve of supply has been crossed by the growth curve of demand, which is much steeper. Market prices are but a reflection of this new relation, where the planet's resources are pushed to the limit. However, demand must be solvent, and increasing demand depends on increasing amounts of liquidity. And that seems to be in contradiction with the present situation. Unless liquidity is being drained onto the commodity market, thereby accentuating the lack of liquidity elsewhere. Either demand for commodities slackens and the world economy stagnates or recedes, or this demand is sustained by credit and banks will fall like dominoes. Or, and this is the case so far, central banks change their status of ultimate lenders to that of primary lenders. Instead of backing short term discounting and inter-bank lending, central banks are doing the lending themselves at a bargain rate. This is not quite the same as printing larger and larger denomination bank-notes, because credit returns to the creditor, whereas bank-notes stay in circulation. But the principle is the same. The loans granted by central banks will have to be renewed and increased. Renewed to keep the banks afloat, and increased to compensate the liquidity drawn on to the commodities market. And also to compensate the liquidity that is withdrawn to be consumed. As rising commodity prices are passed on to the consumer, the credit squeeze forces him to fall back on his savings. He too needs cash and must sell his stocks and bonds, maybe even his life insurance or his home. This also must be compensated by central bank loans.

It seems that 2008 will be an up and down year, as central banks regularly intervene on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis with increasing amounts of credit. The real test will come when governments try to fill their abysmal budget deficits by borrowing on the money market. With banks on the verge of asphyxiation and savings being spent on consumption, this will be difficult and costly and will depend on more central bank lending. Handing out swaths of money at close to zero interest, backed by little or no collateral, may be different from printing bank-notes but the result will be just as inflationary. So inflation wipes out debts and borrowing can increase again, drawing growth along with it. Inflation will greatly alleviate government, corporate and all fixed interest debts. But the holders of these debts will loose out. So will wage earners and fixed incomes in general. And the consequence of these recurrent inflationary peaks is always proportionate to the size of the debt. With inflation, the amount of value destroyed is necessarily a percentage of the total sum of all values.

What does Couesbouc mean when he says that central banks are becoming primary lenders? It means the Fed now is lending money directly to to investment firms, rather than what they traditionally did as ultimate lenders, lend money to banks and their own national governments.

Investment firms tap Fed for billions

Jeannine Aversa

March 20, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - Big Wall Street investment companies are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's unprecedented offer to secure emergency loans, the central bank reported Thursday.

The lending is part of a major effort by the Fed to help a financial system in danger of freezing.

Those large firms averaged $13.4 billion in daily borrowing over the past week from the new lending facility. The report does not identify the borrowers.

The Fed, in a bold move Sunday, agreed for the first time to let big investment houses get emergency loans directly from the central bank. This mechanism, similar to one available for commercial banks for years, got under way Monday and will continue for at least six months. It was the broadest use of the Fed's lending authority since the 1930s.

Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley said Wednesday they had begun to test the new lending mechanism.

On Wednesday alone, lending reached $28.8 billion, according to the Fed report.

The Fed created a way for financially strapped investment firms to have regular access to a source of short-term cash. This lending facility is seen as similar to the Fed's "discount window" for banks. Commercial banks and investment companies pay 2.5 percent in interest for overnight loans from the Fed.

Investment houses can put up a range of collateral, including investment-grade mortgage backed securities.


The Fed, in another rare move last Friday, agreed to let JP Morgan Chase secure emergency financing from the central bank to rescue the venerable Wall Street firm Bear Stearns from collapse. Two days later, the Fed back a deal for JP Morgan to take over Bear Stearns.

Thursday's report offered insight on how much credit was extended to Bear Stearns via JP Morgan through the transaction the Fed approved last Friday. Average daily borrowing came to $5.5 billion for the week ending Wednesday.

Separately, the Fed said it will make $75 billion of Treasury securities available to big investment firms next week. Investment houses can bid on a slice of the securities at a Fed auction next Thursday; a second is set for April 3.

The Fed will allow investment firms to borrow up to $200 billion in safe Treasury securities by using some of their more risky investments as collateral.

By allowing this, the Fed is hoping to take pressure off financial companies and make them more inclined to lend to people and businesses.

The housing collapse and credit crunch have led to record-high home foreclosures and forced financial companies to rack up multibillion losses in complex mortgage investments that turned sour.

In the past day and weeks, the Fed has taken extraordinary moves aimed at making sure that problems in credit and financial markets do not sink the economy.


One of the things this new lending means is that the Fed will begin to regulate investment firms like they have regulated banking. This is generally a good thing and long overdue. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which separated commercial banking from investment banking, opened up a whole world of unregulated credit. That will always lead to a speculative bubble then a crash.

Partying Like It’s 1929

Paul Krugman

March 21, 2008

If Ben Bernanke manages to save the financial system from collapse, he will — rightly — be praised for his heroic efforts.

But what we should be asking is: How did we get here?

Why does the financial system need salvation?

Why do mild-mannered economists have to become superheroes?

The answer, at a fundamental level, is that we’re paying the price for willful amnesia. We chose to forget what happened in the 1930s — and having refused to learn from history, we’re repeating it.

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market crash of 1929 wasn’t the defining moment of the Great Depression. What turned an ordinary recession into a civilization-threatening slump was the wave of bank runs that swept across America in 1930 and 1931.

This banking crisis of the 1930s showed that unregulated, unsupervised financial markets can all too easily suffer catastrophic failure.

As the decades passed, however, that lesson was forgotten — and now we’re relearning it, the hard way.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand what banks do.

Banks exist because they help reconcile the conflicting desires of savers and borrowers. Savers want freedom — access to their money on short notice. Borrowers want commitment: they don’t want to risk facing sudden demands for repayment.

Normally, banks satisfy both desires: depositors have access to their funds whenever they want, yet most of the money placed in a bank’s care is used to make long-term loans. The reason this works is that withdrawals are usually more or less matched by new deposits, so that a bank only needs a modest cash reserve to make good on its promises.

But sometimes — often based on nothing more than a rumor — banks face runs, in which many people try to withdraw their money at the same time. And a bank that faces a run by depositors, lacking the cash to meet their demands, may go bust even if the rumor was false.

Worse yet, bank runs can be contagious. If depositors at one bank lose their money, depositors at other banks are likely to get nervous, too, setting off a chain reaction. And there can be wider economic effects: as the surviving banks try to raise cash by calling in loans, there can be a vicious circle in which bank runs cause a credit crunch, which leads to more business failures, which leads to more financial troubles at banks, and so on.

That, in brief, is what happened in 1930-1931, making the Great Depression the disaster it was. So Congress tried to make sure it would never happen again by creating a system of regulations and guarantees that provided a safety net for the financial system.

And we all lived happily for a while — but not for ever after.

Wall Street chafed at regulations that limited risk, but also limited potential profits. And little by little it wriggled free — partly by persuading politicians to relax the rules, but mainly by creating a “shadow banking system” that relied on complex financial arrangements to bypass regulations designed to ensure that banking was safe.

For example, in the old system, savers had federally insured deposits in tightly regulated savings banks, and banks used that money to make home loans. Over time, however, this was partly replaced by a system in which savers put their money in funds that bought asset-backed commercial paper from special investment vehicles that bought collateralized debt obligations created from securitized mortgages — with nary a regulator in sight.


As the years went by, the shadow banking system took over more and more of the banking business, because the unregulated players in this system seemed to offer better deals than conventional banks. Meanwhile, those who worried about the fact that this brave new world of finance lacked a safety net were dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned.

In fact, however, we were partying like it was 1929 — and now it’s 1930.

The financial crisis currently under way is basically an updated version of the wave of bank runs that swept the nation three generations ago. People aren’t pulling cash out of banks to put it in their mattresses — but they’re doing the modern equivalent, pulling their money out of the shadow banking system and putting it into Treasury bills. And the result, now as then, is a vicious circle of financial contraction.

Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed are doing all they can to end that vicious circle. We can only hope that they succeed. Otherwise, the next few years will be very unpleasant — not another Great Depression, hopefully, but surely the worst slump we’ve seen in decades.

Even if Mr. Bernanke pulls it off, however, this is no way to run an economy. It’s time to relearn the lessons of the 1930s, and get the financial system back under control.


It is clear that the game has changed in the financial capitals of the world. To one degree or another we will see closer regulation of financial markets, if only because there was hardly any regulation at all in the last decade.

The four ‘new sheriffs’ of Wall Street

Francesco Guerrera, Krishna Guha and Gillian Tett

March 21 2008

The Federal Reserve and Treasury are playing a dominant day-to-day role in overseeing Wall Street following this week’s rescue of Bear Stearns, raising the prospect that the central bank might be given more permanent authority over securities firms.

Bankers say the greater authority is a direct consequence of the Fed’s extraordinary decisions to extend a $30bn credit line to help JPMorgan Chase’s takeover of Bear and to lend emergency funds to securities houses for the first time in more than 70 years.

“There is a new sheriff in town,” said a senior banker. “The Bear situation changed everything: people saw death before their eyes. The Fed and Treasury are in charge now and are not going to let go”.

Under a regulatory regime dating back to the 1930s, the Fed oversees commercial banks, but investment banks are primarily regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But as the credit crunch deepened, Ben Bernanke, Fed chairman, Tim Geithner, president of the New York Fed, Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, and Robert Steel, his number two, have been in unusually close contact with Wall Street executives.

People close to the situation said the Fed and Treasury feared further problems among securities firms could destabilise the financial system and expose US taxpayers to sizeable losses on the new Fed loans.

Their stance has triggered talk of new financial services legislation, with bankers and politicians, including Barney Frank, House financial services committee chairman, asking whether investment banks should be regulated by the SEC or the Fed.

An extension of the Fed’s powers to investment banks might force them to reduce risk and leverage in order to comply with the tougher requirements faced by deposit-taking banks.

However, any change would require legislative action, which looks increasingly difficult ahead of the November presidential election, and could be even more problematic under a new Administration.

The SEC said different agencies were functioning as “equal partners at the regulatory forefront”.


Whatever happens it is clear that we have reached the end of an era. The end of both the neoliberal era and the era of U.S. hegemony.

Labels: , , , ,