Economics

Peter Schiff: Business as usual

In the first of two new video blogs, Peter Schiff discusses why:

  • The Euro will rise against the Dollar
  • US Treasury bonds are in a gigantic bubble
  • The Obama $50 billion Dollar stimulus programme will fail
  • Paul Krugman needs to read more about Bastiat’s broken window fallacy
  • The Soviet Union economy from 1917 onwards was a single gigantic stimulus programme
  • Stimulus will continue in the US, even under Republicans

In his most recent video, Mr Schiff discusses most of the usual things, as above, but concentrates on a recent speech by Obama pre-positioning some upcoming tax rises in the United States:

For hard-core Schiff watchers, you may also be interested in his latest economic commentary, from Friday, August 27, 2010:

Flying Blind
By Peter Schiff

Watching economists and media analysts react to breaking economic news is a bit like looking at a flock of pigeons flying over the New York skyline. A true wonder of the urban landscape, the flocks can include hundreds of individuals who show an uncanny ability to stay in tight formation as the group quickly zig-zags between buildings. What may be even more remarkable than their ability to randomly fly while maintaining cohesion is the flock’s refusal to stick to any particular direction for very long, and their determination to fly feverishly without actually going anywhere. Sound familiar?

Today’s weak GDP numbers have finally caused the mass of economists to revise downward their formerly optimistic recovery forecasts, with many finally entertaining the possibility of a “double dip” recession. It should be obvious by now that these economists only have the capacity to describe where the economy is moving in the short-term…they have no ability to explain the reasons behind the macro trends or make predictions that go beyond the next data release. But economics is not dart throwing. It can be understood and properly forecast.

The major mental block is that most economists believe that an economy grows as a result of spending. Any policy that encourages spending and discourages savings and investment is considered beneficial. Unfortunately, these policies, which only succeed in growing debt and government, act more as an economic sedative than a stimulant.

On the subject of the “recovery,” I’d like to highlight some of my past predictions, and those of my colleague Michael Pento. With the benefit of hindsight, you can see that although these thoughts were widely dismissed as chronic pessimism at the time of their publication, the current situation supports our conclusions. Although some of our predictions, like for higher bond yields, have yet to materialize.

Michael and I may be birds of a feather, but we don’t blindly follow the flock. We believe economics is a scientific discipline with established laws, and that applying those laws will yield fairly accurate predictions over time. Most other economists say what they need to say to do the bidding of their employer (whether Wall Street or Washington) and maintain the respect of their peers. Good for them, but who should you trust when you are making investment decisions?

Selections from my past commentaries:

Monday, June 7, 2010

“Rather than a recovery, the jobs data seems to indicate that we are still mired in the first economic depression since the 1930s. Increased spending, financed by unprecedented borrowing, will prove to be just as temporary as a job opening at the US Census. When the bills come due, the next leg down will be even more severe than the last. The swelling ranks of the government payroll, and the shrinking number of private taxpayers footing the bill, will guarantee larger deficits and a weaker economy for years to come.”

Monday, March 1, 2010

“It is astounding how many economists, government officials, and Wall Street strategists construe the current economic conditions as evidence of a bona fide recovery. … The myopia leads us to enact policies that actually exacerbate our problems. The “remedies” are postponing, perhaps indefinitely, a true recovery.

The oracles who have described the nature of this imminent recovery do so based on their conviction that consumer spending is slowly returning to levels that existed prior to the recession.

However, missing from their analysis is any plausible explanation as to why consumers will be able to sustain such spending given the plunge in income and credit, and the lack of available savings. But most consumers are tapped out, millions are unemployed, and home equity has been wiped out. The only reasonable thing for them to do is to pay down debt and sock away as much money as possible to rebuild their savings.”

Monday, December 14, 2009

“Over the weekend, top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers even pronounced that the recession is now over. …

Obama’s claim of success largely derives from the slowing tally of job losses, the seemingly renewed strength in the financial system, the pickup in home sales and home prices, and the positive GDP figures. But these ‘achievements’ fall apart under close examination.

First, a closer look at the jobs numbers shows that employment improved in sectors that benefited most directly from monetary or fiscal stimulus: government, healthcare, financial services, education and retail sales. Meanwhile, sectors such as manufacturing continued to shed jobs at an alarming rate. These dynamics actually exacerbate our economic imbalances.

While it is true that home prices have stopped falling, this represents failure, not victory. True success would be a drop in home prices to a level that homebuyers could actually afford. Instead, we have maintained artificially high prices with tax credits, subsidized mortgage rates, low down payments, and foreclosure relief. With 96% of new mortgages now insured by federal agencies, market forces have been completely removed from the housing equation. With so many government programs specifically designed to maintain artificially high home prices, devastating long-term consequences for our economy are inevitable.”

Friday, October 2, 2009

“In recent interviews, Treasury Secretary Geithner has been almost giddy in his descriptions of the recovery – all the while crediting his own policies for averting disaster. Americans are once again taking the government’s bait by spending money they don’t have to buy things they can’t afford…. But depleting savings and increasing borrowing does not a recovery make.

A prerequisite to any real economic expansion is the potential for business owners to earn profits. With increased regulation and higher taxes on the way, these incentives are being diminished. In fact, via a phenomenon called ‘regime uncertainty,’ our current policy path is actually encouraging businesses to contract in order to prepare for a more hostile business environment. There is no “jobless recovery,” only senseless cheerleading.”

Friday, July 31, 2009

“Because of the continued profligacy of the government and Federal Reserve, the imbalances that caused the current recession have actually worsened. We are now in an even deeper hole than when the crisis began. Rather than wrapping up a recession, we are actually sinking into a depression. If things look better now, it’s just because we are in the eye of the storm.

By holding up over-valued home prices, we prevent the prudent or less well-off from snatching them up and, in doing so, creating a new price equilibrium based upon reality. By maintaining artificially low interest rates, we discourage the very savings that are so critical to capital formation and future economic growth. By running such huge deficits, we further crowd-out private enterprise by making it harder for businesses to invest or hire. Since we have learned nothing from past mistakes, we are condemned to repeat them.”

Economics

The market yawns

Where’s the market reaction? Yawns the prophet of Princeton, Paul Krugman in response to the passage of Obama’s health care bill.

In totally separate and completely unrelated news on the same day, the yield of the 10 Year US Government bond rose to 2.5 basis points above the 10 year interest rate swap rate (the rate at which banks can fix their lending rates to each other). (h/t zero hedge).

Allow me to explain how Obama’s passage of trillions of dollars of liabilities onto America’s children has no link at all to the fact that US government debt now requires a higher interest rate than the equivalent rate of interest charged between all of those bankrupt banks.

Er, hold on, something doesn’t quite compute here….

The serious point here, given that uncle Sam needs to pay roughly the same rate as its banks to attract finance, is that the next crisis is likely to be a governmental one (Sovereign risk in market parlance) rather than the banking system that created the risk in the first place.

The banking system is now a fully fledged arm of the state.

Economics

The kindness of geniuses

I once saw an advertisement for a book that would apparently reveal the secret of making a profit in the foreign exchange markets. I did not buy it. Someone who knew such a secret could use it to make billions for himself. He would not sell his secret, and thereby render it worthless (currency trading is a zero-sum game), for £9.99.

You should be sceptical of those who claim to be giving away something very valuable, including their extraordinary knowledge or skills. Yet that is precisely what our political leaders are now asking us to believe of financial regulators.

The big new idea in banking regulation is that regulators should force banks to hold more capital when their lending is causing the price of assets (such as houses) to get too high: that is, to reach levels from which they must crash. The Obama administration now has a similar idea concerning commodities, such as oil. They want regulators to intervene in commodity markets to counteract speculation that they believe is making prices too high or too low.

Let us not argue about whether it makes sense to say that a price can be too high when people are willing to pay it, nor whether any human, even computer-assisted, could possibly know that it is. Suppose that some people really do know such things. Why would they work for the government on a salary of less than £50 million?

Knowing that the market has over-priced oil, for example, is extraordinarily valuable. You could take a massive short position and make a killing when the price falls from the heights it wrongly occupies. Or, if you knew that house prices are too low, you could buy shares in real estate investment trusts and soon be rolling in money. For someone who knows whether tradable assets are over- or under-valued, massive wealth is assured.

Perhaps I underestimate the benevolence of those blessed with such amazing skills, but it is hard to believe that they would forgo great wealth for the sake of working in a government department. My guess is that the people who will end up occupying the envisaged regulatory roles will be ordinary human beings. They will know no more about the proper value of things than any other well informed market participant, such as an investment banker guided by his economic research team.

Intelligent, informed people disagree about the value of things. Market prices reflect the balance of disagreement between those willing to put their money where their mouths are. If you think a panel of government employees with no “skin in the game” can do a better job … well, I wonder if you would like to buy this sensational new book …

Economics

The Error of Government Spending by Way of the Magic & Mythical Multiplier

One of the most persistent economic fallacies that permeates economics and politics is the notion that by government spending money, there will be more prosperity.

It is said that if one man spends a £1 the other man who gets this £1 may save £0.10 and spend £0.90. We now have £1.90 of spending. This chain of events can go on forever and a day until the final penny is spent. £1 can become like magic: £10.

When this is said to you by journalists, media people, economists, politicians and other monetary quacks, you should ask them, if the multiplier works, why do we not eliminate world poverty today by just spending lots of money and letting the multiplier do its work?

The theory, simply put, is that if someone spends, say, £1m on building a new restaurant, the money will go to the contractors , so consumption will rise , aggregate demand in the whole economy will rise. The contractors will spend money on their suppliers and so-on-and-so-forth.  If the economy is not performing well, it is held that the government can step in and spend money where the private sector is not spending. This will lift back up aggregate demand and hey presto! we will go back to a satisfactorily performing economy.

Most economists will argue that the multiplier is greater than 1 x, therefore it is the role of government to boost aggregate demand. This can be done as a fiscal stimulus as proposed by all governments around the world at present.

There is a whole great series of maths behind this notion that is used to justify a fiscal stimulus even by way of deficit spending . See the notes section [i].

The enclosed document is a typical statement of affairs by the respected Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy.com. It is the testimony he gave before the US House Committee on Small Business on July 24, 2008. Via http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf:

I strongly support efforts for a second fiscal stimulus plan designed to help the economy by early 2009. Like the first stimulus plan, it should be temporary and not raise the long-term budget deficit. The plan should also be targeted to help lower- and middle-income households and smaller businesses that will use the help quickly and aggressively to stimulate the economy.

Highlights

Mark Zandi argues in support of the second big USA fiscal stimulus plan of that year and says:

Extending food stamps is the most effective way to prime the economy’s pump. A $1 increase in food stamp payments boosts GDP by $1.73. People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. Because these programs are already operating, increased benefits can be quickly delivered to recipients.

And

On the face of it, increased infrastructure spending appears to be a particularly efficacious way to stimulate the economy. The boost to GDP from each $1 spent on building bridges and schools is estimated to be a large $1.59, and who could argue with the need for such infrastructure? The overriding limitation of such spending as a part of a stimulus plan, however, is that it generally takes a substantial amount of time for funds to flow to builders and contractors and into the broader economy.1 Many infrastructure projects can take years from planning to completion. Even if the funds are used to finance only those projects that are well along in their planning, it is difficult to know just when the projects will get under way and when the money will be spent. Another complication arising from infrastructure spending is the politics of apportioning these funds across the country in a logical and efficient way. Despite these caveats, if projects that could be started quickly can be identified, they could prove to be an efficacious stimulus.

He even supplies a table of the multiplier rates.

Fiscal Bang for the Buck

One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending

Tax Cuts

Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02

Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts

Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29

Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03

Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts

Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48

Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29

Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37

Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases

Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64

Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73

Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36

Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody’s Economy.com

So faced with this weight of applied maths expounded by the majority of economists, why are we just not spending and spending as they suggest?

If I have £100 and I spend it on goods and services, my demand to hold cash or my money demand goes down by £100 and I receive goods and services in exchange. The person(s) who sold me the goods and services receives the £100 in exchange for those goods and services and his demand for a cash balance, or money demand has gone up. Where is the multiplier in this? It does not exist.

Money has passed from one participant in the economy to another participant in the economy in exchange for goods and services.

What we must be clear to watch here is this physical exchange that money facilitates.

Following Mark Zandi and the table above where he asserts, for example, that spending on food stamps will raise expenditure for every dollar spent by an extra $0.73 cents. Here he asserts the impossible: that when $1 of taxation is levied (and this means one $1 less of exchange for goods and services has taken place in the private sector), then this dollar, now given to a welfare recipient, will command $1.73 of expenditure on goods and services!

You can hopefully see that all that has happened is that, in the private sector, the money demanded has fallen by a dollar by way of the taxing of this wealth and the goods and services that would have been bought are now being bought by the welfare recipient.  Even if, in the private sector, this $1 was not going to be spent, but saved, it is only being saved to be spent on a good or a service in the future. Nothing new is ever going to happen other than one dollar exercising a command over goods and services in the private sector or, if taken by taxation, then in the public sector. 

If the private sector is deprived of its savings, then no investment will take place leading to an impoverishment of society.

As I have said before, here, the only way to create wealth is by saving a portion of our production, investing in more productive ways of doing things and focusing or reorganising those factors of production in better ways and combinations to produce more goods and services that people want at better prices than before.

There is so much error concerning Alice in Wonderland concepts such as the spending multiplier, that few people can see the wood from the trees.  I despair!



[i] Notes (Taken from Wikipedia for easy reference here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier )

Ct = c0 + cYt-1

so present consumption is a function of past income (with c as the marginal propensity to consume). Investment, in turn, is assumed to be composed of three parts:

It = I0 + I(r) + b (Ct – Ct-1)

The first part is autonomous investment, the second is investment induced by interest rates and the final part is investment induced by changes in consumption demand (the “acceleration” principle). It is assumed that 0 < b . As we are concentrating on the income-expenditure side, let us assume Ir = 0 (or alternatively, constant interest), so that:

It = I0 + b (Ct – Ct-1)

Now, assuming away government and foreign sector, aggregate demand at time t is:

Ytd = Ct + It = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (Ct – Ct-1)

assuming goods market equilibrium (so Yt = Ytd), then in equilibrium:

Yt = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (Ct – Ct-1)

But we know the values of Ct and Ct-1 are merely Ct = c0 + cYt-1 and Ct-1 = c0 + cYt-2 respectively, then substituting these in:

Yt = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (c0 + cYt-1 – c0 – cYt-2)

or, rearranging and rewriting as a second order linear difference equation:

Yt – (1 + b )cYt-1 + b cYt-2 = (c0 + I0)

The solution to this system then becomes elementary. The equilibrium level of Y (call it Yp, the particular solution) is easily solved by letting Yt = Yt-1 = Yt-2 = Yp, or:

(1 – c – b c + b c)Yp = (c0 + I0)

so:

Yp = (c0 + I0)/(1-c)

The complementary function, Yc is also easy to determine. Namely, we know that it will have the form Yc = A1r1t + A2r2t where A1 and A2 are arbitrary constants to be defined and where r1 and r2 are the two eigenvalues (characteristic roots) of the following characteristic equation:

r2 – (1+b )cr + b c = 0

Thus, the entire solution is written as Y = Yc + Yp

  1. It should be noted that Table 1 estimates the change in GDP one year after the spending occurs and says nothing about how long it may take to cut a check to a builder for a new school. []
Economics

Barack Obama accused of making ‘Depression’ mistakes – Telegraph

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are “troubling similarities” between the US President’s actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

via Barack Obama accused of making ‘Depression’ mistakes – Telegraph.

Economics

Financial reform in America: Wobbling | The Economist

Via Financial reform in America: Wobbling | The Economist:

“IN THESE efforts we seek a careful balance,” Barack Obama declared as he unveiled his financial reforms on June 17th. Not equitable enough for some, it seems. With lawmakers, regulators and bankers blowing raspberries at crucial parts of the package, the odds are moving against its becoming law by the end of the year, as originally envisaged. Worse, passage looks increasingly dependent on the most contentious bits being rewritten.

The Treasury’s work rate cannot be faulted. It has sent hundreds of pages of proposed legislation to Congress in recent weeks on pay, securitisation, hedge funds, rating agencies and more. The final piece, on derivatives, is expected soon. The House of Representatives was expected to approve the compensation bill, curbing egregious pay-offs and giving shareholders a vote on pay, on July 31st.

Economics

FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy – Obama urged to ‘make the case’ for free trade

Via FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy – Obama urged to ‘make the case’ for free trade:

The US’s largest trade and business groups will on Wednesday call on Barack Obama to “make the case” for international trade agreements following what many believe has been months of dangerous drift in Washington.

“The United States cannot stand still in the international economic sphere,” the groups say in a joint letter to the president obtained by the Financial Times. “We need to revitalise our export and international trade leadership by moving forward on multilateral, regional and bilateral market-opening opportunities.”