Don Draper, Mad Men's master advertiser likes to say "when you don't like what they are saying, change the conversation." When it comes to the current economic weakness, which was confirmed again today by the release of lower than expected GDP data, Washington would love do just that. Fortunately for them, they consistently outdo the master minds of Madison Avenue when it comes to misdirection. If the government doesn't like what people are saying, they don't bother just to change the conversation, they change the meaning of the words.
The latest example of this was revealed earlier this week when the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced new methods of calculating Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that will immediately make the economy "bigger' than it used to be. The changes focus heavily on how money spent on research and development (R&D) and the production of "intangible" assets like movies, music, and television programs will be accounted for. Declaring such expenditures to be "investments" will immediately increase U.S. GDP by about three percent. Such an upgrade would immediately increase the theoretic size of the U.S economy and may well lead to the perception of faster growth. In reality these smoke and mirror alterations are no different from changes made to the inflation and unemployment yardsticks that for years have convinced Americans that the economy is better than it actually is.
Today's data release confirms that the economic "recovery" is weaker than expected and remains heavily dependent on Federal support. Personal spending was indeed up 3.2%, the biggest jump in two years, but real earnings were down by 5.3%, the biggest fall since 2009. Not surprisingly the buying was made possible by a drop in the savings rate, which came in at just 2.6%, the lowest since the 4th quarter of 2007. No doubt, rising home prices and falling mortgage rates (made possible by Fed stimulus) allowed Americans to refinance their homes and to borrow and spend the money that they did not earn. With GDP continuing to disappoint, a statistical make-over couldn't come at a more convenient time.
In the simplest terms, GDP is calculated by combining a nation's private spending, government spending, and investments (while adding trade surplus or subtracting trade deficits). Business spending on R&D, a portion of which comes in the form of salaries, has traditionally been considered an expense that does not explicitly add to GDP. But now, the United States will lead the rest of the world in redefining GDP. Washington has now declared that the $400 billion spent annually by U.S. businesses on R&D will count towards GDP. This equates to about 2.7% of our nearly $16 Trillion GDP. The argument goes that, for example, the GDP generated by iPhones has far exceeded the cost spent by Apple to develop the product. Therefore, Apple's R&D is not an expense but an investment.
The BEA also argues that the cost of producing television shows, movies, and music should count as investments that add to GDP. Supporters of the change often hold up the blockbuster television comedy Seinfeld as an example. Given that the show's billions in earnings far exceeded its initial costs, they argue that the production expenses should be considered "investments" (like R&D) and be added into GDP.
Economists who have staked their reputations on the efficacy of Keynesian growth strategies have argued that such changes will more accurately reflect the realities of our 21st century information economy. But their analysis ignores the failures so often associated with R&D and artistic productions. For every breakthrough iPhone there are dozens of ill-conceived gizmos that never get off the drawing board. For every Seinfeld, there are countless failures and bombs that leave nothing but losses.
In essence, the new methodology is an exercise in double accounting. For instance, suppose a company employs an accountant who works in the sales department, who is then transferred to the R&D department at the same salary. He still counts beans but now his salary will be billed to the R&D budget rather than sales. In the old methodology, the accountant's impact on GDP would come only from the personal consumption that his salary allows. Going forward, he will add to GDP in two ways: from his personal consumption and his salary's addition to his company's R&D budget. The same formula would apply to a trucker who switches from a freight company to a movie production company (for the same salary). If he moves refrigerators, he only adds to GDP through his personal spending, but if he hauls movie lights, his contribution to GDP is doubled. It makes no difference if the movie bombs.
These double shots are different from traditional investments, which inject savings (or idle cash) back into the marketplace. Until money from personal or corporate savings is invested, it is not adding to GDP.
Another change that will artificially boost GDP concerns how government salaries will be counted. Unlike most private sector compensation, wages, salaries, and pension contributions paid to government workers are added directly to GDP. This distinction makes sense and eliminates potentially double accounting. Profits generated by private companies add to GDP when they are ultimately spent or invested by the company. Wages reduce profits, and therefore reduce GDP. But that reduction is cancelled out by the consumption of the employee receiving the wages. Governments do not generate profits, so salaries are the only way that public spending adds back to GDP.
The new system magnifies the GDP impact of government pensions, which are a principal component of public sector compensation. Going forward, the pensions will be calculated not from actual contributions, but from what governments have promised. Under the old system, if a state had a $10,000 pension obligation but only contributed $1,000, only the $1,000 would be added to GDP. Under the new system the entire $10,000 would be counted. So now governments can magically grow the economy simply by making promises they can't keep.
The bottom line is that now certain private sector salaries (in R&D and entertainment) will be counted twice and public pension contributions will be counted even if they aren't made. The economy will not actually be any larger or grow any faster, but the statistics will claim otherwise. With the stroke of a pen, our debt to GDP ratio will come down. Will this soothe the fears of our creditors? Will critics of big government take comfort that spending as a share of GDP may be lower? My guess is that the government is confident that its trick will work, and that distracting attention with a statistical illusion is the sole motivation for the change.
A similar type of hocus pocus has been successfully used to make inflation appear much smaller. A few months ago I produced a video showing how changes in methods used to calculate the Consumer Price Index (CPI) have resulted in a widening gap between increases in real prices and the CPI. The changes, that incorporate such concepts as hedonic adjustments and substation bias, were made to make the CPI more "accurate," but have instead produced consistently lower results. Although I used a basket of 20 goods for that experiment, I gave particular attention to such things as newspaper and magazine prices and health insurance costs. But just recently I came across another data set that leads to the same conclusion.
Since the late 1980's, The Economist Magazine has compiled something called the "Big Mac Index,"(BMI) a global survey of the cost of McDonald's signature hamburger. Although the index is primarily used as a means to compare purchasing power parity around the globe, it also can be used to track the prices of Big Macs in the U.S. over many years.From 1986 to 2003 the U.S. BMI rose roughly in line with the CPI. Although the burger occasionally rose faster or slower, over that 17 year period both indexes increased by about 68% (or about 4% per year). But from April 2003 to January 2013 the CPI Index is up just 25% percent (from 183.8 to 230.28 or about 2.5% per year) while the BMI is up 61% (from $2.71 to $4.37 or about 6.1% per year), or more than twice the rate of inflation.
What could possibly account for the difference? Has the Big Mac gotten bigger, better, tastier, or healthier? As an iconic product, McDonald's has been reluctant to change a proven formula. If the Big Mac hasn't changed, is it possible that our inflation yardstick has?
It has been estimated that if the government used the same methodology to measure inflation that it used during the 1980's, we would be currently dealing with official inflation that would be many times higher than today's official 1.5% rate. The Big Mac appears to confirm this.
But now the government appears ready to distort the figures even further. With little resistance from the media or the public, the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans seem ready to switch the inflation measurements used for Social Security away from the CPI in favor of the even more attenuated "Chain Weighted CPI." This index, which is consistently lower than the CPI, looks to incorporate changes in spending patterns when consumers switch to more affordable products (in other words, it measures the cost of survival, not the cost of living). And while many admit that this is a manipulation, no one really seems to care.
Similarly clumsy tricks have been used to make our unemployment problem appear less severe. Over the years new methods have been introduced to factor out those who have "dropped out" of the labor force or to count part-time or temporary workers as employed.
All this takes us right back to Don Draper. If you can't change the conversation, change the words. If that doesn't work, just change the dictionaries.
Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, best-selling author and host of syndicated Peter Schiff Show.
Subscribe to Euro Pacific's Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, John Browne, and other Euro Pacific commentators delivered to your inbox every Monday!
I first came to national attention back in 2008 and 2009 when the housing and credit markets imploded. I became known as the guy that other market "experts" laughed at when I warned of trouble brewing in the seemingly indestructible American economy. After the wheels ground to a halt in mid-2008, people noticed that my book Crash Proof, originally released in early 2007, read like a detailed preview of many of the events that eventually unfolded.
Three years later I am now catching heat from many who assume that my predictions actually fell short. They argue that I was able to anticipate the crash but that I severely underestimated the resiliency of the American economy. They admit that we took an "unexpected" blow to the chin, and that it left a lingering bruise, but they argue that we never hit the canvas like I predicted we would.
However, they mistakenly assumed that the crash I was warning about was solely a housing led credit bubble. While that was part of it, I never saw it ending there. The crash that most concerned me was the one that would result from the government's response to the initial crisis. My concern was not that our economy would succumb to the disease that I had diagnosed, but instead would be taken down by the "cure" that the government unleashed to combat it.
When the government's delaying tactic, which involves continuous debt accumulation and money printing is no longer tenable, the dollar could collapse, borrowing costs and consumer prices could soar and the U.S. economy could implode. That's the real crash that I was warning about, and the one we all need to be worried about now.
This is the subject of my new book "The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country." For now it is just a prophecy but as with my first book, it soon may be regarded as history. Unfortunately, the policies of both the Bush and Obama administrations, and the Ben Bernanke led Federal Reserve, have vastly raised the chances that my catastrophic view will come to pass. However, it's not all gloom and doom - I devote a large majority of the book to solutions. The real crash may be inevitable, but what we do in response is not. We can follow on the path that I recommend back to prosperity, or we can continue on our current course which I believe will lead to economic ruin.
When looking back from a point in the future, I believe that the years immediately after the credit collapse of 2008 will stand out as a period of dangerous economic negligence. We have bought ourselves some time by sweeping enormous problems under the rug. Through a combination of political cowardice, economic ignorance, and false confidence, we are digging ourselves into a hole so deep that it may take generations to crawl out.
Most people assume that half way through 2012 we have made some important positive strides since flirting with the brink of economic catastrophe in the dark days of 2008. Although no one is wildly celebrating the below trend 2 to 3 percent GDP growth, we are continuously reminded that we have turned the corner and that our situation is better than many other regions around the world. But what has really changed?
Immediately prior to the crash, the United States economy was experiencing unprecedented consumer debt levels, persistently high trade deficits, historically large government budget deficits, high-energy prices, and a moribund manufacturing sector. Four years later, all of these problems have gotten worse. And unlike four years ago, we are now saddled with the highest unemployment rate in generations and levels of public debt that would have been unimaginable then. Yes we are no longer technically in recession. But I believe that is just an illusion created by perhaps the cheapest, and most obvious, trick ever devised.
I had argued that our economic growth prior to the crisis was largely a function of the real estate bubble. When that bubble popped, I knew that the economy would have to shrink. And that's just what happened. From 2008 to 2009 our national GDP (of around $14 trillion) contracted by $212 billion. To prevent any further dips, the government aggressively spent, borrowing heavily to do so. To the relief of just about everyone, these moves did stop the nominal contraction. From 2010 to 2011 the U.S. GDP expanded by $502 billion, and from 2011 to 2012 it added an additional $508 billion. All told, from the end of 2008 the U.S. economy added a cumulative $798 billion in GDP. But those gains came at a very high price.
The combined federal deficits for the same time frame come in at a staggering $4.2 trillion! In 2009 alone the feds chalked up a chart breaking $1.4 trillion in debt (the deficit was a mere $161 billion in 2007). In other words, we borrowed five times more than we grew. This "strategy" for growth is no different from an individual who loses half his income, but continues to spend by running up credit card debt. Could this be described as economic growth? But that's just how we are describing our current economy, and for the large part, expert economists, politicians, investors, and academics all agree.
I felt certain before writing Crash Proof that the government would never let the economy contract far enough to restore balance and sustainability. I knew the spending and deficits would head off the charts. I thought those realities would push down the dollar and cause foreign creditors to shun American government debt. However, I did not factor in the reprieve we have gotten from the false perception that Europe is in even worse shape than we.
As the curtain eventually falls on the drama unfolding in Europe, the world will refocus its attention on the more spectacular events in the U.S. The sovereign debt crisis that is now playing out in Europe will cross the Atlantic, and when it opens here the Real Crash may indeed finally begin. The average American will have a front row seat but will hardly enjoy the show.
To save 35% on Peter Schiff's new book, The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy - How to Save Yourself and Your Country, order your copy today.
For in-depth analysis of this and other investment topics, subscribe to Peter Schiff's Global Investor newsletter. CLICK HERE for your free subscription.
The economy continues to prove that it didn’t need a stalemate between democrats and republicans over whether or not we should expand our credit limit in order to poop the bed. Gross Domestic Product climbed a paltry 1.3% in the second quarter of this year following a severely downgraded Q1 print of just 0.4%. Growth in the first quarter was revised down from a 1.9% prior estimate. Also today, the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago Inc. said its business barometer fell to 58.8 in July, from 61.1 in the prior month. And the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan final index of consumer sentiment fell to 63.7 this month, which was the weakest since March 2009, from 71.5 in June.
Where are all those shills who assured us last year that 2011 would display a “V” shaped recovery in jobs and the economy? I know, I heard some of them today saying that the second half of this year is going to be great! Their reasoning was the same as it always is. Earnings are going to be wonderful because half of S&P 500 companies' earnings are in foreign currencies. Then, thanks to our crumbling currency, those foreign earnings translate into a ton of U.S. dollars—those dollars don’t buy you very much, but who cares as long as we are able to say we beat Wall St. expectations.
The poor, lonely Tea Party is vilified as being inhuman and behaving as insane children for not allowing the country to bankrupt itself as quickly as possible—even by members of their own party (read here what John McCain had to say for yourself). I guess the philosophy of McCain and his friends is that we should raise the debt ceiling to infinity and beyond and just pay our creditors back with more printed money. After all, the National Debt has grown from $400 billion in 1971 to $14.4 trillion today, so what’s a few more trillion between now and 2013? The dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power in the last 40 years, so why not keep on defaulting on our debt through inflation and destroy the last few vestiges of the middle class. Sounds like a plan to me. It’s just business as usual. They urge us to keep up the spirit of cooperation and goodwill that has served to render this country insolvent.
The only problem is that the Chinese have stopped laughing at Geithner’s so called “strong dollar policy” and are now allowing the Renminbi to rise against the greenback (up nearly 6% in the last year). If we continue down this road much longer the only buyer of U.S. debt will be the Fed. That’s the real down grade to come. Not from the credit rating agencies, but from our foreign creditors. Once we have a failed Treasury auction, it will engender a vicious cycle. Debt service expense will soar, which causes out of control deficits. The Fed will be forced to purchase more of the debt and inflation rates become intractable, thus destroying GDP growth. Runaway debt, interest rates and inflation is what the Tea Party is trying so hard to avoid and it is a cause worth fighting for!
The debt ceiling debate that has dominated the headlines over the past month has been thoroughly infused with a string of unfortunate misconceptions and a number of blatant deceptions. As a result, the entire process has been mostly hot air. While a recitation of all the errors would be better attempted by a novelist rather than a weekly columnist, I'll offer my short list.
After having failed utterly to warn investors of the dangers associated with the toxic debt of entities like Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, as well as the perils of investing in mortgage-backed securities and sovereign debt of various bankrupt countries, the credit ratings agencies (CRAs) have now apparently decided to be more vigilant. Hence, many have offered conspicuous warnings that they may lower U.S. debt ratings if Washington fails to make progress on its fiscal imbalances. But then, just in case anyone was getting the impression that these rating agencies actually cared about fiscal prudence, Moody's suggested this week that its concerns would be lessened if Washington were to make a deal on the debt. The agency has even suggested that America's credit could be further improved if Washington would simply eliminate the statutory debt limit altogether. In other words, Moody's believes that our nation's problems are more a function of squabbling politicians rather than a chronic, unresolved problem of borrowing more than we can ever hope to repay.
With or without a deal, the CRAs should have already lowered their debt ratings on the $14.3 trillion of U.S. debt. In fact the rating should be lowered again if the debt ceiling IS raised. And it should be lowered still further if we eliminated the debt ceiling altogether. To lower the rating because the limit is NOT raised is like cutting the FICO score of a homeless person because he is denied a home equity loan.
Republicans are making a different misconception about the debt ceiling debate in their belief that they can dramatically cut government spending without pushing down GDP growth in the short term. In a recent poll from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed 53% of G.O.P. and 65% of Tea Party members said there would be no economic crisis resulting from not raising the debt ceiling.
They argue that leaving money in the private sector is better for an economy than sending the money to Washington to be spent by government. That much is undoubtedly true. But a very large portion of current government spending does not come from taxing or borrowing, but from printed money courtesy of the Fed. If the Fed stops printing, inflation and consumption are sure to fall. While this is certainly necessary in the long run, it will be nevertheless devastating for the economic data in the near term.
Over the last decade and a half our economy has floated up on a succession of asset bubbles, all made possible by the Fed. Our central bank lowers borrowing costs far below market levels. Commercial banks then expand the money supply by making goofy loans to the government or to the private sector. As a consequence, debt levels and asset values soar and soon become unsustainable. Ultimately, the Fed and commercial banks cut off the monetary spigot, either by their own volition or because the demand for money plummets. The economy is forced to deleverage and consumers are forced to sell assets and pay down debt. Recession ensues. That's exactly what could happen if $1.5 trillion worth of austerity suddenly crashes into the economy come August 2nd. Although they don't seem to realize it, this will create huge political problems for Republicans.
And then there is the deception coming from Democrats who argue that we need to raise taxes in order to balance our budget. This is simply not possible. The American economy currently produces nearly $15 trillion in GDP per annum but has $115 trillion in unfunded liabilities.With a hole like that, no amount of taxes could balance the budget. Raising revenue from the 14% of GDP, as it is today, to the 20% it was in 2000 would barely make a dent toward funding our Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Therefore, we need to cut entitlement spending dramatically. But the Democrats refuse to face the obvious facts.
With the Tea Party gaining traction in Congress, and causing nightmares for incumbents, Republicans have little incentive to raise the debt ceiling (although they raised it 7 times under George W. Bush). Democrats aren't going to reduce entitlements without raising taxes on "the rich" and Republicans aren't going to raise taxes when the unemployment rate is 9.2%. There's your stalemate and anyone expecting a significant deal to cut more than $4 trillion in spending by the August 2nd deadline will be severely disappointed. Although there has been some movement by the so-called "Gang of Six" centrist senators in recent days, a substantive deal may be more unlikely than most people think. And even if a much smaller deal can be reached in time, the credit rating agencies may follow through on their promise to downgrade our sovereign debt. The fallout could be devastating to money market and pension funds that must hold AAA paper. But an even worse outcome will occur when the real debt downgrade comes from our foreign creditors, when they no longer believe the U.S. has the ability to pay our bills.
In my opinion, the best news for the long term future of this nation is the Republican "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan that just passed the House. It now heads to a much harder hurdle in the Democrat controlled Senate, and if it passes that, to a certain veto from President Obama. At least something so promising got to the table at all. However, I think the country needs some more tastes of brutal reality before such bitter medicine has a chance of going down.
The U.S. trade deficit soared 15% month over month in May to $50.2 billion, which was the highest amount of red ink since October of 2008. Despite what some claim, we don’t have a diversified manufacturing base in this country and the percentage of our economy that is devoted to manufacturing has progressively slumped in the last 6 decades to the lowest level ever (11%). Year over year the trade gap widened 19% from the previous reading of $42.3 billion.
However, this data will not deter the economic geniuses to proclaim that a lower dollar can save the U.S. economy from hemorrhaging its wealth to foreigners. The fact is that the greenback has lost 12% of its value Y.O.Y. and the trade deficit has surged. That’s because the lower dollar increases the prices of everything sold in dollars. So foreigners can’t buy more of the stuff we make; but the lower dollar does make everything we still need to buy overseas more expensive. And the trade gap widens!
Is that a problem? Well, only if you care about selling away the future productive output of the economy with interest to people other than Americans or worry about the chronic weakness of the U.S. currency that could eventually lead to its total collapse.
Those who take issue with the outlook of Austrian economists in general, and Euro Pacific Capital in particular, have pointed to the persistence of low bond yields as proof that our philosophy does not hold water. We argue that as the United States takes on ever more debt and prints greater quantities of dollars, that buyers of our debt will demand higher rates of interest to compensate for greater risk. In fact, our philosophy leads us to believe that rates would currently be spiking as Washington debates whether to raise the debt ceiling yet again or default on existing debt. Instead, rates are hitting close to multi-year lows. As a result, our critics have found a seemingly valid issue. However, we believe that there are strong market reasons that are holding rates low for now that do not invalidate our central thesis.
Looked at objectively, there are a litany of reasons why rates should be much higher than they are. Official government data from the Labor Department has year over year consumer inflation rising at 3.4%. With the Ten year note offering a paltry 3.1%, negative real interest rates now extend out over a decade! At the same time, total non-financial debt as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level on record and in our view there are no credible projections that show the trend reversing anytime soon. In addition, with the end of quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve will apparently no longer be soaking up 75% of all new Treasury issuance. Given this, does it make sense that yields on Ten Year Treasuries are trading 60% lower than their 40-year average? Forget the flowers, where have all the global bond vigilantes gone?
But, what makes these low yields on U.S. debt even more unfathomable is the current debate over raising the debt ceiling. If a deal to lower the trajectory of debt isn't reached by August 2nd, we are being told that America could enter into default. But you wouldn't know it from looking at the bond market. It seems that everyone is convinced the U.S. will never renege on her obligations and that the Democrats and Republicans will come to an agreement with time to spare.
Peter Schiff subscribes to this logic. He believes the bond market is pricing in an increase in the debt ceiling that temporarily lays to rest any fears of default. As a result, he believes that traders are buying bonds now so they can sell into the "positive" news that will result from a debt deal in Washington. However, Peter believes, as I do, that an increase in the debt ceiling is actually very negative for bonds. That means that after the dust settles he expectsinterest rates to rise dramatically. But that won't stop the traders from booking a quick profit.
However, I believe there is little to support the belief that a deal will be made. Republicans have very little incentive to agree on a deal that includes tax hikes, which are an essential prerequisite for Democrats to assent to dramatic spending cuts. The Republicans want spending cuts without any tax increases and that's exactly what they will get if the August 2nddeadline comes and goes. In fact, the Republicans will force a severe dose of austerity upon the American economy, which could be a double-win for the GOP. They may simultaneously balance the budget without increasing revenue and engender a recession that will force the current party out of the White House.
I believe that bond investors may be hedging their bets. If an agreement is not reached there will be a huge reduction in borrowed money that is printed by the Fed. The result will be a severe reduction in the money supply. This forced deleveraging will bring about a needed round of dramatic deflation like we experienced in the fall of 2008. From my perspective that is the best justification for the current low yields on U.S. debt. Maybe the bond market has it right after all; but reasons completely contrary to those offered by market bulls who see low yields as a sign that all is well on the economic front.
Peter and I may differ on the current psychology of bond investors, but we do believe that once the economy slows in earnest once again, the authorities will not hesitate to reignite the monetary madness thereby punishing bond investors with weaker dollars.
The artificially engineered U.S. recovery is already starting to falter as a continuous procession of disappointing data continues to confirm the sad truth. Recent numbers on GDP, durable goods, housing, regional manufacturing, initial unemployment claims and leading economic indicators all indicate a sharp slowdown in GDP growth. Just today the ADP Employment report showed that the private sector added a paltry 38,000 jobs in May, down from 177,000 jobs in April, significantly below expectations, and the weakest number since September 2010. Just yesterday Case Shiller announced that the U.S. housing market had officially achieved a "double dip," in that national home prices have given up the entire 5% bounce that they had achieved after the May 2009 lows. These signs of continuing malaise comes at a time when the government is contemplating ways to dramatically cut spending. But given the economic weakness, is America really ready to accept the short term consequences that a government spending cut would cause?
Free market disciples (like me) believe that government intervention is anathema to a healthy economy. In contrast, we believe genuine government stimulus comes from low taxes, stable prices, reduced regulation and low debt. Our economic policy makers have scrupulously avoided such remedies. However, in the short term, it is possible for government central-planning to artificially boost GDP. But as the short term has come and gone, Washington's heavy hand is now inflicting lasting demand on the economy.
When a country spends in order to stimulate growth it gets the money from three sources: taxing its citizens; borrowing from the existing pool of capital, or borrowing newly created money from its central bank. All three options are economically poisonous.
The act of taxing one sector of the economy in order to redistribute wealth to another is not a net economic benefit. To think that taking money from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B improves the outlook for both assumes that the government knows the best way to allocate resources. But everything I have ever seen tells me that this is not so.
A government could instead distribute money borrowed from the private sector's existing pool of capital into targeted areas of the economy. But this type of "stimulus" is simply a deferred tax with interest. Any money borrowed by government could have been utilized by the private sector to expand business and grow the economy. Instead, money spent by government makes no lasting economic impact.
Some liberal economists argue that funds left in the private sector would likely be saved, rather than spent, during an economic downturn-thus exasperating the recession. This may be true, but necessity, in the form of weak balance sheets, is the factor that usually drives the private sector to save. Any interference with that deleveraging process can have dire consequences in the long term. Government borrowing only delays the eventual pain because a significant tax increase will eventually be needed to pay down the added debt. If the private sector is prevented from paying down debt, the debts will simply be transferred, with interest, to the public ledger.
Finally, a government can acquire spending power from outside the existing domestic savings pool by borrowing newly printed money that enters the economy in the form of deficit spending. However, the inflation created by the central bank printing has its downside. At first, the economy experiences a combination of higher prices and growth. Producers raise prices as the domestic currency loses its value, while others are deceived into believing the value of money has remained unchanged; and so they increase their production and expand real GDP. However, the more the central bank prints, the less real growth and the more inflation the economy will experience.
This is precisely the recipe that we are currently following. Between 2008 and 2010, the Federal government borrowed over $3.1 trillion. It is expected to run-up another $1.5 trillion in debt this fiscal year. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has increased their balance sheet by nearly $2 trillion in order to accommodate the massive increase in public sector borrowing.
By borrowing printed money, the government has been able to perpetuate our consumption driven economy, while simultaneously raising most asset prices-even home prices have been prevented from falling to a level that can be supported by the free market. The Fed's desire to create inflation and support prices has at last driven up industrial commodity prices like copper to all-time nominal highs. But once oil prices crashed through the $100 per barrel level, the Fed was forced to ratchet down its inflationary rhetoric. The question now is whether actions will follow.
The Fed and the Administration have now reached the point of diminishing returns. Whatever anemic and temporary growth that was generated by borrowing and spending printed money is now being superseded by rising prices. Any further monetary stimulation will only send aggregate price levels surging, even as GDP growth falls.
The government's window to artificially drive real GDP growth by borrowing and spending has closed. The U.S. economy now faces another recession head-on, as the private sector deleveraging process resumes and the public sector deleveraging process begins. Alternatively, the Fed can keep expanding their balance sheet and sending the economy deeper into stagflation. The only question for investors is whether the next recession will be accompanied by inflation or deflation. But only Mr. Bernanke can answer that.
Based on many pronouncements by economic policy makers, reams of articles by the top financial journalists and near continuous discussion on the financial news channels, it appears that the quantitative easing juggernaut that has steamed the high seas of macroeconomics for the last three years is finally pulling into port...supposedly for the last time. According to the dominant narrative, QEI and QEII helped stabilize the economy during the Great Recession and now the Federal Reserve is ready to take the training wheels off. If so, the economy may need a helmet because there is virtually no chance that it can avoid major contractions without central banking support.
It is ironic, but there is no doubt that the proposed removal of artificial stimulus would be the best thing for the country in the long term. But very few observers understand how it will inflict short term pain. So confident is the Fed that earlier this week, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard indicated that any notion of additional quantitative easing is off the table. In fact, he said the central bank may tighten policy in 2011 by allowing its balance sheet to shrink. Investors would do well to remember that Bullard was the first Fed official to support the second round of bond purchases now known as QEII. It is likely that he will make a similar reversal if the economy shows any signs of weakening in the months ahead.
Fed policy makers like Bullard are guilty of reckless optimism if they believe the economy has truly healed. The evidence of a pending slowdown is abundant. The Empire State's business conditions index decreased 10 points from April to just 11.9 in May. Meanwhile, the prices paid index rose sharply, with about 70% of respondents reporting price increases for inputs, and none reporting price reductions. That inflation index advanced 12 points to 69.9, its highest level since mid-2008. And things are even worse in Philadelphia. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's general economic index fell to 3.9 in May from 18.5 a month earlier.
Turning to the labor front, the four week moving average of initial jobless claims rose to 439,000 last week, from 437,750 in the week prior. Of course, the real estate market continues in its malaise. According to the National Association of Realtors, April existing home sales dropped to an annual rate of just 5.05 million. Prices continue to set new post crash lows, with prices down 5% YOY. Despite the fact that the government still accounts for nearly the entire mortgage market and the Fed has rates near zero percent, inventory of existing homes jumped from 3.52 to 3.87 million units and the months' supply climbed from 8.3 to 9.2. Does it sound like the economy is ready to get up on its own two feet?
But the Fed is under pressure to do something about the growing inflation threat. Year over year increases of CPI, PPI and Import prices are 3.2%, 6.8% and 11.1%, respectively. As price increases hit middle class consumers, the Fed is facing intense pressure to push down inflation by draining the balance sheet and raising interest rates. It's a dangerous game.
In its simplest terms quantitative easing is nothing more than the government's attempt to boost consumption by borrowing trillions of dollars. Over the long haul this is no way to run an economy, and a sustainable recovery will be impossible as long as such borrowing continues. But in the short term, a cessation of government borrowing will lift the veil on our artificial economy, and reveal how dependent we have become. U.S. fiscal and monetary austerity will cause GDP to fall as the deleveraging process that was interrupted in 2009 returns with a vengeance. I do not believe the Fed or the Administration has the intestinal fortitude to let that happen.
A bona fide Fed exit from interest rate manipulation means that both nominal and real interest rates would rise significantly. The ten year note yield is less than half its average over the past 40 years. Normalization of rates would provide a serious headwind to markets and the economy.
The high leverage that brought on the Great Recession has not been addressed in the slightest. U.S. household, corporate and government debt as a percentage of GDP has never been greater. So, if interest rates were to rise, why should we expect a different result from what occurred in 2008?
Whether or not the Fed is bluffing has dramatic implications for investors and the country. Mr. Bernanke will eventually have to choose whether he wants another depression or more of the inflation the Fed is so adept at causing and then denying.
Nothing discussed on the show is an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security or instrument or to participate in any particular investing strategy. All securities involve varying amounts of risk, and their values will fluctuate, and the fluctuation of foreign currency exchange rates will also impact your investment returns if measured in U.S. Dollars. Dividend yields change as stock prices change, and companies may change or cancel dividend payments in the future. Investments may increase or decrease in value and you may lose money. International investing may not be suitable for all investors.
