Central Banks Contribute to Unsound Banking

Modern central banks were & are justified on the grounds that they provide a means to insure economic stability by supporting “sound” money & “sound” banking practices. However, there is considerable reason to believe that central banks create “moral hazards” that undermine both “sound” money & “sound” banking.

Walter Bagehot specified the role of central banks as lender-of-last-resort in response to a liquidity crisis. According to him, they should lend “freely”, but temporarily, against sound collateral & at penalty rates. It is clear that Bagehot did not think much of the argument in insisting on such stringent limits.

But modern central banks do not take Bagehot’s case to heart. His idea of setting a penalty rate was to provide a motivation for commercial banks to pay off emergency loans once financial markets returned to normal conditions. However, central banks tend to provide liquidity at subsidized rates for periods without imposing strict limits on the duration of the loans.

In all events, the role of lend-of-last-resort seems to be made necessary when central banks hold most of the reserves of the banking system so there are few other sources of liquidity.

Concentrating reserves in one place creates a moral hazard that undermines the presumed benefits of central bank interventions to offset liquidity problems so that the banking system will be less stable. As banks scramble for liquidity after a credit crunch, they will all seek funds from a common pool of reserves that can cause the money supply to contract.

As central bankers offer relaxed collateral requirements and lend at subsidized interest rates, insolvent institutions divert resources from solvent ones. As solvent banks will be unable to lend, credit and overall economic activity will be stifled.

At the same time, deposit insurance that replaced the doctrine of “double liability” previously imposed on bank owner-shareholders undermined sound banking practices.

From the end of the Civil War to the Great Depression, stockholders of nationally-chartered banks had to place more capital if the institution was impaired or insolvent. As such, shareholder-owners of US commercial banks were held responsible both for its safety and soundness.

This “doctrine of double liability” meant that they were responsible for a portion of bank debts after insolvency, an amount up to and including the par value of their stock. Despite being contrary to the “limited liability” notion of conventional corporations, the US Supreme Court, lower federal courts and state courts upheld this arrangement.

Double liability meant that if investors engaged in risky activities for their own advantage would bear the burden if the increased risks led to losses. Since many small banks are closely held while most larger banks tend to be controlled by a bank holding company, shareholders will be more likely to be successful in controlling the risk-taking tendencies of banks.

Supporters of deposit insurance insisted that it provided better arrangements for covering risks of losses, while ignoring “moral hazard” issues arising from it as well as the loss of the beneficial effects of the “doctrine of double liability”.

Protectionism Kills … !!!

Most economists oppose government interventions that grant privileges to domestic producers, especially those that create price distortions arising from tariffs or quotas.

Despite this near-consensus, protectionist economic policies are the last domain of scoundrels, usually driven by the venality of the political class that support privilege-seeking trade unionists or industrialists.

Recent events show that these policies are not only economically irrational & counter-productive, they are also often have deadly consequences.

Turkish authorities have been using deadly means in an attempt to curb “smuggling”, an activity that is most often induced by excessive restrictions of access to certain goods or high tax rates on their consumption. A few weeks ago, 25 unaccompanied mules were shot dead by F-16s.

As it is, a more peaceful way to cope with smuggling, especially of harmless goods, is to allow free trade. For their part, Turkish villagers were quoted:

“We do not call it smuggling. “t is trade.”

Meanwhile, it has been reported that customs checks are holding up relief supplies for Nepal quake victims.

What is really at stake is government officials either refusing to relinquish some amount of power they have or their own access to revenue flows.

Protectionism is a cynical & deadly game that has real human costs & sometimes deadly consequences.

Unconventional Monetary Theory & Wealth Destruction

Many economists predicted that unconventional monetary theory, especially “quantitative easing” (QE) would lead to a dramatic rise in price levels, so-called price inflation.

A quick perusal of the normal measures of price inflation, e.g., consumer price indexes (CPI), suggest that nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, most central bankers are engaging in continuous handwringing over price deflation, going so far as to coin a new term, “slowflation” to depict worryingly-low changes in CPI or GDP price deflators.

It turns out there is more to all this than meets the eye.

Economists worry about the effect of excessively-loose monetary policy on rising price levels because it involves an erosion of purchasing power and a decline the value of saving. As it is, zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) has been the cause of a massive collapse in the value of deferred consumption.

Central banks forcing of nominal interest rates ever closer to (or exceeding!) zero around the world has had the same corrosive effect on living standards as out-of-control increases in consumer prices. Collapsing yields on financial assets has much the same effect as price inflation since lower earnings on a stock of saving requires more capital or a longer time to accumulate earnings to maintain a given living standard.

Consider that you have $100 in capital assets earning 10% such that this yield allows you to consume goods worth $10 at current prices. Even if price levels remain unchanged, an impossibility in a fiat-money world, yields of .01% would require 100 years of accumulated earnings to buy $10 worth of goods. Alternatively, you would need to have $10,000 in capital.

Clearly, this is no different in effect than if there had been (hyper) inflation.

Looking back over the past 40 years, interest rates have been on a downward trend that has continuously undermined the value of saving, especially in the hands of the middle class.

Interest Rates 10yr Treasuries

Ending “financial repression” arising from ZIRP & associated central bank policies may be the most important first step to bring an end to the slow-growth recovery that has been underway since 2009.

With “friends” like this; markets do not need enemies … !!!

In a recent McKinsey report (“Harnessing the power of markets“), Martin Neil Bail supposedly speaks on behalf of how markets

Typical of mainstream economists, Baily gets the conclusion right:

The biggest opportunity for future growth is for policy makers and the citizens who elect them to take advantage of market forces.

Alas, he then mutters & mumbles through apologetics that provide ammunition for Statists & interventionists to undo all the good that he attributes to markets (NB: after a few remarks about the virtues of markets, the rest is about “market failure”!!!?!!!) …

Concerning his remarks:
1st, markets generate far more POSITIVE externalities than negative ones … market players also face incentives to find ways to mitigate negative externalities using localized information that is not available to centralized planners … .

2nd, there is ample evidence that severe recessions/depressions are not the logical outcome of markets but occur due to exogenous factors (i.e., actions taken by fiscal or monetary authorities) … as it is, markets tend to be stable due to the balancing forces of “bulls” & “bears” … the primary source of “herding” is when most market players react to the same information that eventually proves to be faulty … in terms of asset “bubbles”, this is most likely to be artificially-low interest rates conjured up by central bankers … .

3rd, recent widening of inequalities of income & wealth can be traced to “monetary central planning” whereby interest rates have been fixed at historically/hysterically-low levels creating incentives for banks to divert lending away from real sector where jobs might be created to more speculative activities that have benefited the 1% … .

In sum, this is a rather pathetic attempt to extol the beneficence of markets that becomes a paean to government intervention … !?!

Reaping the Whirlwind of Central Bank Malfeasance & Fiscal Profligacy

News that Monetary Authority of Singapore cut its benchmark interest rate sent the Singapore $ to a 4-year low against the US $.

This is another sign of the endgame of so many years of central bankers complicity with suppressing interest rates to boost the temporary feel-good effects of credit-driven growth. A plunging euro along with downdraft for currencies of many of Asia’s industrialized economies signals a skirmish in what is shaping up to be a full-blown currency war & a tit-for-tat cycle of depreciating currencies.

As it is, the “best” way for governments to repudiate debts without outright default is to trigger domestic price inflation and/or to rely on currency depreciation.

All this has come to pass due to artificially-low interest rates arising from “monetary central planning” that punished savers while allowing governments to go on excessive borrowing-and-spending binges.

Of course, America’s central bankers are the primary villain in this tale. However, most central bankers chose to set their own policies in tandem & in response to move by the FED. In turn, these choices removed the disciplining effect of international inflows & outflows that would normally accompany growing public-sector debts & the flood of liquidity sent into financial markets.

Instead of price inflation, the tsunami of credit-driven liquidity brought an endless array of “bubbles” even as central bankers pretended to be innocent of such events.

Now it will become increasingly clear that “anything that cannot go on forever, won’t” … !

Credit-driven growth will soon reach its logical end as burdens of repayment of interest obligations become unsupportable at current interest rates, likely to lead to the “Mother of All Liquidity Crunches”.

Batten down the hatches, maties … it ain’t gonna be pretty … !!!

Climate Change Models … Always Wrong, For What Purpose … ?

Gordon Tullock once suggested that when models predict incorrectly & always in the same direction of error, it is fair to assume that it reflects intent of the modelers to deliver a message rather than to seek out some scientific “truth” … .

With claims of a new historical record (without noting clearly that means from 1840 for ground temps & much less for satellite measurements) being walked back, one has to wonder.

In the end, politicians queue to crow in unison about a “scientific consensus” (partly based on nearly all public funds going to support research with the same message) … the intent … ?

It is about providing a good cover story in the never-ending quest for more political power & more resources … in the end, citizens will have fewer freedoms & less control over their earnings.

This alone is a good reason to be a skeptic … !!!

Democracy: The God That Failed … more evidence

Ironies of ironies.

The outcome of recent elections in Greece, the “Birthplace of Democracy”, provides more tragic evidence of the failings of democracy.

The dominant party, Syriza, utilized raw populism tainted with nationalistic overtones so that emotions & venality triumphed over common sense.

The Greek economy, already smothered by regulations & burdened by overbearing public-sector unions, is likely to face more of the same if Syriza keeps it promises,

As for “democracy”, while media reports noted that this was a “sweeping win” or “unequivocal victory” or “historic victory”, few mentioned that Syriza won with less than 40% of votes cast (i.e., maybe 25% of voting age population. Despite this smallish plurality, Syriza is but a whisker away from an absolute majority.

No doubt public-sector workers & their families as well as others receiving largesse supported this coup against economic realism.

Policy Choices Determine Prosperity or Poverty

While there are many competing explanations for widespread & persistent poverty (e.g., lack of education, absence of democracy, overpopulation, etc), none of them strikes at the heart of what keeps people from improving their own lives. As it is, no poor person awakes each day with the desire to remain poor. Presumably, if given the chance, they will do what they can to improve their own lives & that of their families.

People are poor because they do not have jobs (or cannot engage in income-earning trades, usually due to regulations).

There are not enough jobs because there are too few new businesses being created to employ more people.

There are too few businesses being created because there is insufficient capital accumulation (or the taxation/regulation regime is too burdensome).

There is insufficient capital accumulation due to government policies.

And so, people are poor because governments make the wrong choices.

I have developed an instinct that whenever there are persistent economic or political or social imbalances, I look for a government policy that stops people from solving problems.

Zero-Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) & Quantitative Easing (QE) Support Increased Deficits & Debts to Fund America’s Wars

The American government is fighting multiple wars that are both endless & costly. Any sort of government spending tends to provide incenctives for thos groups that prosper from that spending to engage in strong lobbying pressure to maintain or increase spending levels, even if there is evidence that that few, if any, of the objectives are met.

Consider the “War on Poverty”:
America spent $22T on “War on Poverty” (in constant 2012 dollars), when adjusted for inflation, the amount is 3 times more than spent on all wars after 1776
More than 100 million Americans, about 1/3 of the US population, received aid at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.

US Census data indicate that 14% of Americans remain poor, i.e., the present poverty rate is about same as in 1967 just after the beginning of the “War on Poverty”.

Global spending for drug law enforcement, i.e., the “War on Drugs”, exceeds $100 billion each year. Drug use continues unabated & has increased over the entire time in the USA.

From FY 2001 – FY 2014, spending on the Overseas Contingency Operations, i.e., the “War on Terror”, to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was $1.492T

Much of this spending depends on the capacity of the US Federal government to borrow funds at near-zero interest rates to support fiscal deficits that continue to add to a massive amount of public-sector debt.

If you hate wars, military or otherwise, something must be done to rein in monetary mischief undertaken by the US & other central banks.

AbeNomics: More of the Same & Continued Failures of Mainstream Economics

Japan’s central bank (BOJ) has been fighting a Quixotic battle against an imaginary nemesis: price deflation (data suggests stable prices, NOT a trend for falling prices!!!).

As part of ultra-loose monetary policy, BOJs policy interest rate has not been above 1% for nearly 18 years.

During the 1990s, there were 10 fiscal stimulus packages worth more than 100T yen that aimed to cure recession & fight “deflation” (note to USA: most of the spending was on “shovel-ready” public works!) … .

Stimulus packages (i.e., fiscal deficits) have remained the policy du jour in Japan until now … .

AbeNomics is more of the same old tired Keynesian recipes, including a dose of yen devaluation that did not achieve its desired effect. What happened was that there was no rise in exports while Japan’s trade & current account surplus have decreased … !

Meanwhile, Japan’s economic growth remains far BELOW trend since 1989 … all of the above are consistent with the playbook of conventional, mainstream economic policies … this suggests a fundamental failure of economic models to grasp the nature of recession, bubbles, etc