There never really could be much doubt that the current experiment in competitive global currency debasement would end in anything less than a total war. There was always a chance that one or more of the principal players would snap out of it, change course and save their citizenry from a never ending cycle of devaluation. But developments since September 13, when the U.S. Federal Reserve finally laid all its cards on the table and went "all in" on permanent quantitative easing, indicate that the brainwashing is widely established and will be difficult to break. The vast majority of the world's leading central bankers seem content to walk in lock step down the path of money creation as a means to economic salvation. Never mind that the path will prevent real growth and may ultimately lead off a cliff. The herd is moving. And if it can't be turned, the only thing that one can do is attempt to get out of its way.
The details of the Fed's new plan (which I christened Operation Screw in last week's commentary) are not nearly as important as the philosophy it reveals. The Federal Reserve has already unleashed two huge waves of quantitative easing (purchases of either government securities or mortgage-backed securities) in order to stimulate consumer spending and ignite business activity. But the economy has not responded as hoped. GDP growth has languished below trend, the unemployment rate has stayed north of 8%, and the labor participation rate has fallen to all-time lows. In the meantime, America's fiscal position has grown significantly worse with government debt climbing to unimaginable territory. Despite the lack of results, the conclusion at the Federal Reserve is that the programs were too small and too incremental to be effective. They have determined that something larger, and potentially permanent, would be more likely to do the trick.
However, in making its new plan public, the Fed made a startling admission. At his press conference, Ben Bernanke backed away from previous assertions that printed money would be effective in directly pushing up business activity. Instead he explained how the new stimulus would be focused directly at the housing market through purchases of mortgage backed securities. He made clear that this strategy is intended to spark a surge in home prices that will in turn pull up the broader economy. Such a belief requires a dangerous amnesia to the events of the last decade. Despite the calamity that followed the bursting of our last housing bubble, economists feel this to be a wise strategy, proving that a poor memory is a prerequisite for the profession.
But now that the Fed is thus committed, the focus has shifted to foreign capitals. Not surprisingly, the dollar came under immediate pressure as soon as the plan was announced. In the 24 hours following the announcement, the Greenback was down 2.2% against the euro, 1.6% against the Australian Dollar, and 1.1% against the Canadian Dollar. A week after the Fed's move, the Mexican Peso had appreciated 2.7% against the US dollar. Many currency watchers noted that more dollar declines would be likely if foreign central banks failed to match the Fed in their commitments to print money. On cue, the foreign bankers responded.
It is seen as gospel in our current "through the looking glass" economic world that a weak currency is something to be desired and a strong currency is something to be disdained. Weak currencies are supposed to offer advantages to exporters and are seen as an easy way to boost GDP. In reality, weak currencies simply create the illusion of growth while eroding real purchasing power. Strong currencies confer greater wealth and potency to an economy. But in today's world,no central banker is prepared to stand idly by while their currency appreciates. As a result, foreign central banks are rolling out their own heavy artillery to combat the Fed.
Perhaps anticipating the Fed's actions, on September 6th the European Central Bank announced its own plan of unlimited buying of debt of troubled EU nations (however, the plan did come with important concessions to the German point of view - see John Browne's commentary). On September 17th, the Brazilian central bank auctioned $2.17 billion of reverse swap contracts to help push down the Brazilian Real. The next day, Peru and Turkey cut rates more than expected. On September 19th, the Bank of Japan increased its asset purchase program from 70 trillion yen to 80 trillion and extended the program by six months. It's clear we are seeing a central banking domino effect that is not likely to end in the foreseeable future.
Although the Fed is directing its fire towards the housing market, the needle they are actually hoping to move is not home prices, but the unemployment rate. Until that rate falls to the desired levels (some at the Fed have suggested 5.5%), then we can be fairly certain that these injections will continue. This will place permanent pressure on banks around the world to follow suit.
All of this simultaneous money creation will likely be a boon for nominal stock and real estate prices. But in real terms such gains will likely not keep pace with dollar depreciation. Inflation pushes up prices for just about everything, so stocks and real estate are not likely to prove to be exceptions. Even bond prices can rise in the short term, but their real values are the most vulnerable to decline. In fact, even nominal bond prices will ultimately fall, as inflation eventually sends interest rates climbing. But prices for hard assets, precious metals, commodities, and even those few remaining relatively hard currencies should be on the leading edge of the upward trend in prices.
While I believe the Fed's plan will be a disaster for the economy, the silver lining is that it provides investors with a road map. As the policy of the Fed is to debase the currency, those holding dollar based assets may seek alternatives in hard assets and in the currencies of the few remaining countries whose bankers have not drunken so freely from the Keynesian Kool-Aid. We believe that such opportunities do exist. Some broad ideas are outlined in the latest edition of my Global Investor Newsletter, which became available for download this week. I encourage those looking for ways to distance their wealth from the policies of Ben Bernanke to start their search today.
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!
With yesterday's Fed decision and press conference, Chairman Ben Bernanke finally and decisively laid his cards on the table. And confirming what I have been saying for many years, all he was holding was more of the same snake oil and bluster. Going further than he has ever gone before, he made it clear that he will be permanently binding the American economy to a losing strategy. As a result, September 13, 2012 may one day be regarded as the day America finally threw in the economic towel.
Here is the outline of the Fed's plan: buy hundreds of billions of home mortgages annually in order to push down mortgage rates and push up home prices, thereby encouraging people to build and buy homes and spend the extracted equity on consumer goods. Furthermore, the Fed hopes that ultra-cheap money will push up stock prices so that Wall Street and stock investors feel wealthier and begin to spend more freely. He won't admit this directly, but rather than building an economy on increased productivity, production, and wealth accumulation, he is trying to build one on confidence, increased leverage, and rising asset prices. In other words, the Fed prefers the illusion of growth to the restructuring needed to allow for real growth.
The problem that went unnoticed by the reporters at the Fed's press conference (and those who have written about it subsequently) is that we already tried this strategy and it ended in disaster. Loose monetary policy created the housing and stock bubbles of the last decade, the bursting of which almost blew up the economy. Apparently for Bernanke and his cohorts, almost isn't good enough. They are coming back to finish the job. But this time, they are packing weaponry of a much higher caliber. Not only are they pushing mortgage rates down to historical lows but now they are buying all the loans!
Last year, the Fed launched the so-called "Operation Twist," which was designed to lower long-term interest rates and flatten the yield curve. Without creating any real benefits for the economy, the move exposed US taxpayers and holders of dollar-based assets to the dangers of shortening the maturity on $16 trillion of outstanding government debt. Such a repositioning exposes the Treasury to much faster and more painful consequences if interest rates rise. Still, the set of policies announced yesterday will do so much more damage than "Operation Twist," they should be dubbed "Operation Screw." Because make no mistake, anyone holding US dollars, Treasury bonds, or living on a fixed income will have their purchasing power stolen by these actions.
Prior injections of quantitative easing have done little to revive our economy or set us on a path for real recovery. We are now in more debt, have more people out of work, and have deeper fiscal problems than we had before the Fed began down this path. All the supporters can say is things would have been worse absent the stimulus. While counterfactual arguments are hard to prove, I do not doubt that things would have been worse in the short-term if we had simply allowed the imbalances of the old economy to work themselves out. But in exchange for that pain, I believe that we would be on the road to a real recovery. Instead, we have artificially sustained a borrow-and-spend model that puts us farther away from solid ground.
Because the initials of quantitative easing - QE - have brought to mind the famous Queen Elizabeth cruise ships, many have likened these Fed moves as giant vessels that are loaded up and sent out to sea. But based on their newly announced plans, the analogy no longer applies. As the new commitments are open-ended, quantitative easing will now be delivered via a non-stop conveyor belt that dumps cheap money on the economy. The only variable is how fast the belt moves.
Fortunately, the crude limitations of the Fed's only policy tool have become more apparent to the markets. If you must stick with the nautical metaphors, QE3 has sunk before it has even left port. The move was explicitly designed to push down long-term interest rates, but interest rates spiked significantly in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. Traders realize that an open-ended commitment to buying bonds means that inflation and dollar weakness will likely destroy any nominal gains in the bonds themselves. To underscore this point, the Fed announcement also caused a sharp selloff in Treasuries and the dollar and a strong rally in commodities, especially precious metals.
Given that 30-year fixed mortgages are already at historic lows, there can be little confidence that the new plan will succeed in pushing them much lower, especially given the upward spike that occurred in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. Instead, Bernanke is likely trying to provide the confidence home owners need to exchange fixed-rate mortgages for lower adjustable rate loans - which would free up more cash for current consumer spending. He is looking for homeowners to do their own twist. If he succeeds, more homeowners will be vulnerable to increasing rates, which will further limit the Fed's future ability to increase rates to fight rising prices.
The goal of the plan is to create consumer purchasing power by raising home and stock prices. No one seems to be considering the likelihood that unending QE will fail to lift bond, stock, or home prices, but will instead bleed straight through to higher prices for food, energy, and other consumer staples. If that occurs, consumers will have less purchasing power as a result of Bernanke's efforts, not more.
The Fed decision comes at the same time as the situation in Europe is finally moving out of urgent crisis mode. While I do not think the ECB's decision to underwrite more sovereign debt from troubled EU members will work out well in the long term, at least those moves have come with some German strings attached [For more on this, see John Browne's article from earlier this week]. As a result, I feel that the attention of currency traders may now shift to the poor fundamentals of the US dollar, rather than the potential for a breakup of the euro.
In the meantime, the implications for American investors should be clear. The Fed will try to conjure a recovery on the backs of currency debasement. It will not stop or alter from this course. If the economy fails to respond to the drugs, Bernanke will simply up the dosage. In fact, he is so convinced we will remain dependent on quantitative easing that he explicitly said he won't turn off the spigots even if things noticeably improve. In other words, the dollar is screwed.
This past Friday, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered his annual address from Jackson Hole - the State of the Dollar, if you will - I couldn't help but hear it as an incumbent's campaign speech. While Wall Street was hoping for some concrete announcement, what we got was a mushy appraisal of the Fed's handling of the financial crisis so far and a suggestion that more 'help' is on the way.
It is important to remember that it's not just President Obama's job on the line in this election; in two years time, the next President will have the opportunity to either reappoint Bernanke or choose someone else. So we must understand what platform Bernanke is running on, as his office has an even greater effect on global markets than the President's.
Bernanke has been the perfect tag-team partner for George W. Bush and then Barack Obama as they have pursued an economic policy of deficits, bailouts, and stimulus. Without the Fed providing artificial support to housing and US debt, Washington would have already been shut out of foreign credit markets. In other words, they would have faced a debt ceiling that no amount of bipartisan support could raise. Fortunately for the politicians, Helicopter Ben was there to monetize the debts.
As far back as his time as an academic, Bernanke made clear that when the going got tough, he wouldn't hesitate to fire up the printing presses. He specialized in studying the Great Depression and, contrary to greater minds like Murray Rothbard, determined that the problem was too little money printing. He went on to propose several ways the central bank could create inflation even when interest rates had been dropped to zero through large-scale asset purchases (LSAPs). Sure enough, the credit crunch of 2008 gave the Fed Chairman an opportunity to test his theory.
All told, the Fed spent $2.35 trillion on LSAPs, including $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, $900 billion in Treasury debt, and $200 billion of other debt from federal agencies. That means the Fed printed the equivalent of 15% of US GDP in a couple of years. That's a lot of new dollars for the real economy to absorb, and a tremendous subsidy to the phony economy.
This has bought time for President Obama to enact an $800 billion stimulus program, an auto industry bailout, socialized medicine, and other economically damaging measures. In short, because of the Fed's interventions, Obama got the time and money needed to push the US further down the road to a centrally planned economy. It is also now much more unlikely that Washington will be able to manage a controlled descent to lower standards of living. Instead, we're going to head right off a fiscal cliff.
The Fed Chairman even admitted to this reality in his statement. Here are two choice quotes:
"As I noted, the Federal Reserve is limited by law mainly to the purchase of Treasury and agency securities. ... Conceivably, if the Federal Reserve became too dominant a buyer in certain segments of these markets, trading among private agents could dry up, degrading liquidity and price discovery." [emphasis added]
"...expansions of the balance sheet could reduce public confidence in the Fed's ability to exit smoothly from its accommodative policies at the appropriate time. ... such a reduction in confidence might increase the risk of a costly unanchoring of inflation expectations, leading in turn to financial and economic instability." [emphasis added]
So we all agree that the prospect of inflationary depression was made worse by the Fed's actions - but at least Ben Bernanke has pleased his boss. As a guaranteed monetary dove, Ben Bernanke appears to be a shoo-in if Obama is re-elected.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has pledged to fire Bernanke if elected. While I am not confident that Mr. Romney has the economic understanding to appoint a competent replacement - let alone pursue a policy of restoring the gold standard or legalizing competing currencies - he may well be seen as a threat not only to the Fed Chairman's self-interest, but also to his inflationary agenda.
Given this background, let's look at Bernanke's quotes that have been the focus of media speculation for the past week: the US economy is "far from satisfactory," unemployment is a "grave concern," and the Fed "will provide additional policy accommodation as needed." These comments seem designed to reassure markets (and Washington) that there will be no major shift toward austerity in the near future. The party can go on. But they also hint that Bernanke might be planning to double down again. I have long written that another round of quantitative easing is all but inevitable. It now seems to be imminent.
In reality, when the money drops may have more to do with politics than economics. The Fed may not want to appear to be directly interfering in the election by stimulating the economy this fall, but there are strong incentives for Bernanke to try to perk up the phony recovery before November and deliver the election to Obama. However, if Romney wins, Bernanke can at least fall back on his appeal as a team player as he lobbies for another term.
For gold and silver buyers, either scenario is likely to continue to stoke our market in the short- and medium-term. As the past week's rally indicates, there is no longer a fear that the Fed has had enough of money-printing - in fact, it looks prepared for much more.
Peter Schiff is CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Precious Metals.
If you would like more information about Euro Pacific Precious Metals, click here. For the fastest service, call 1-888-GOLD-160.
For much of the past few generations, the debate over balancing the federal budget has been a central feature of every presidential campaign. But over time, the goalposts have moved. As the amount of red ink has grown steadily larger, the suggested time frames to restore balance have gotten increasingly longer, while the suggested cuts in government spending have gotten increasingly shallower. In recent years, talk of balancing the budget gave way to vague promises such as "cutting the deficit in half in five years." In the current campaign, however, it appears as if the goalposts have been moved so far that they are no longer in the field of play. I would argue that they are completely out of the stadium.
It says a great deal about where we are that the symbolic budget plan proposed last year by Congressman Paul Ryan, the newly minted vice presidential nominee, has created such outrage among democrats and caution among republicans. The Obama campaign warns that the Ryan budget is a recipe for national disaster that will pad the coffers of the wealthy while damning the majority of Americans to perpetual poverty. The plan is apparently so radical that even the Romney campaign, while embracing the messenger, is distancing itself from the message (it appears that Romney wants to bathe himself in the aura of fresh thinking without actually offering any fresh thoughts). In interview after interview, both Romney and Ryan refuse to discuss the details of Ryan's budget while slamming Obama for his callous "cuts" in Medicare spending.
(It is extremely disheartening that the top point of contention in the campaign this week is each candidate's assertion that their presidency could be the most trusted not to cut Medicare. Mindful of vulnerabilities among swing state retirees, Republicans have also taken Social Security cuts off the table as well. What hope do we have of reigning in government spending when even supposedly conservative Republicans refuse to consider cuts in the largest and fastest growing federal programs?)
So what was the Ryan Budget's radical departure from the status quo that has caused such uproar? If enacted today, the Ryan budget would so drastically upend the fiscal picture that the U.S. federal budget would come into balance in just... wait for it.... 27 years! This is because the Ryan budget doesn't actually cut anything. At no point in Ryan's decades long budget timeline does he ever suggest that the government spend less than it had the year before. He doesn't touch a penny in current Social Security or Medicare outlays, nor in the bloated defense budget. His apocalypse inducing departure comes from trying to limit the rate of increase in federal spending to "just" 3.1% annually. This is below the 4.3% rate of increase that is currently baked into the budget, and farther below what we would likely see if Obama's priorities were adopted.
Because there are no actual cuts in his budget, Ryan hopes that fiscal balance can be restored by 2040 only because he assumes that we achieve returns to the annual economic growth that are equal to levels averaged for much of the last century. In other words, he sees slow growth of the last four years as the aberration, not the new normal. As with all other government projections, this is on the extreme optimistic end of the spectrum. In truth, there is nothing on the horizon that should make anyone think these growth figures will be achieved. America's crushing debt, burdensome regulations, political paralysis, and nagging demographic problems bode poorly for the return to trend line growth anytime soon. More likely, based on the speed towhich republicans will shrink from popular backlash, is that the "cuts" that Ryan proposes will be abandoned as soon as they prove to be politically unpopular.
In fact, among his other overly-optimistic assumptions are that the unemployment rate falls to 4% by 2015 and an unprecedented 2.8% by 2021, another real estate boom begins almost immediately, and there is an average inflation and ten-year treasury rate for the next ten years of 2.04 and 4.15 respectively. These are assumptions that would make even the most rabid economic cheerleaders sit on their pompoms. Despite these pollyannish economic growth and record low unemployment projections, Ryan still assumes interest rates will remain near historic lows and that none of the cheap money showered onto the economy will ever find its way into the CPI. In other words, it's the economic equivalent of winning the lottery twice in a row while failing to account for the higher taxes that accompany such good fortune.
Like all other government forecasters, Ryan never considers how rising interest costs on the many trillions of dollars of outstanding government debt holdthe potential to completely upend budget projections. For more on this, see my recent commentary "The Real Fiscal Cliff."
More likely, the continued accumulation of unsustainable levels of debt under the Ryan plan will eventually cause our creditors to lose confidence in our ability to repay. It will cause interest to spike, the economy to tank, unemployment to soar, spending to rise, revenues to decline, and the budget deficit to spiral out of control. Rising interest rates hold the potential to spark a sovereign debt and currency crisis that willrender the entire plan irrelevant anyway.
While I appreciate that Ryan has the courage to take a position at the vanguard of his party in the campaign for fiscal responsibility, the modesty of his plan is just the latest reminder of how utterly divorced from reality Washington politicians remain. Like all of his brethren, Ryan is pinning his budget battling plans on the pain free "grow your way out of it plan." But as long the government consumes so much of the nation's productivity, the conditions to create that growth will never occur. Hope is not a strategy.
The reliance upon the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and "safe haven" asset has created a perverse, but deeply entrenched, mindset among global investors. In fact, many believe the major financial players have no alternatives to owning U.S. debt and dollars. They argue that the market for U.S. dollars and Treasuries is the only financial pool large enough to handle the massive liquidity that sloshes around the globe on a daily basis. This idea makes a mass exodus from U.S. debt holdings seem impossible. This provides a nice explanation why the U.S. Treasury bonds can rally even while the government openly flirts with default and ratings agencies issue downgrades. But just because an illogical event occurs habitually does not mean it is logical or tenable.
The sophomoric reasoning behind the dollar "exceptionalism" argument is like assuming a stock can never fall unless a significant portion of shareholders decide to sell. In reality, a buyers strike is all that is needed to puncture a market. If the U.S. experienced just one disastrous Treasury auction, prices could nose-dive and yields could skyrocket across the board on all U.S. debt.
But the problem doesn't just lie with the United States. Investors around the world are finally beginning to understand that central bank's thirst for creating inflation, in order to keep their banks and governments solvent, will never be quenched.
This week, the Swiss government took action to weaken the surging franc by lowering interest rates and printing currency. The franc was pushed down briefly, but then snapped back. It's hard to keep a good currency down. Similarly, the Bank of Japan announced that it won't stand for Yen appreciation much longer and would likely soon intervene to buy dollars and weaken the Yen.
Meanwhile, problems at the overly indebted countries just get worse. Italian and Spanish debt yields are now following the upward spiral of Greek bonds (and hitting multi year highs). Italian ten-year notes have surged from just above 3% in late 2010 to well over 6% today. For a country whose debt to GDP ratio is currently over 120%, a doubling of interest rate expenses spells disaster.
Enter Jean Claude Trichet who will certainly use his printing press to buy much of the weakening Italian debt that is now festering on the balance sheets of the biggest European banks. But the size of the bailouts needed to deal with Italian and Spanish debts will be several orders of magnitude greater than those needed for Ireland or Greece. Anticipating a massive increase in the Euro money supply, investors are flocking to gold to protect themselves from currency debasement.
Adding fuel to the gold fire is the recent debt deal reached in Washington. The disgusting agreement virtually assures that over the next decade the U.S. will add an additional $8 trillion in public debt, an increase of nearly 80% in ten years! The back-end-loaded deal will cause the amount of deficit reduction to be just $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013.
But even this modest debt reduction depends on rosy assumptions from Washington that are always wrong. For example, the Obama administration predicts GDP growth will average well over 3% for the coming decade. But the annualized GDP growth in the first half of 2011 was just 0.9%. That means the actual deficit and debt figures will be far greater than the projections. Given the immediate increase in borrowing needs, and the obvious slowing of the tepid "recovery," there can be little doubt that the next round of quantitative easing will be launched sooner rather than later.
The incompetency of U.S. credit rating agencies has long been suspected. But their actions in the wake of the debt ceiling agreement now confirm them as liars. After threatening to downgrade U.S. credit if Washington failed to cut $4 trillion in spending, neither Moody's, Fitch nor S&P had the courage to carry through, despite the fact that the total cuts would amount to only half their requirements. But a credit rating downgrade on Treasuries did come-from China. The Dagong Global Credit Rating agency cut the credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt to A from A+, 5 notches below AAA. And since the Chinese are the biggest foreign buyer of Treasuries, their opinion counts.
This week, more evidence of U.S. stagflation emerged. The ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing reports showed a slowdown in new orders and employment and the ADP report showed that the U.S. lost 7,000 goods-producing jobs in July. Other data releases showed that layoffs surged 60% last month to a 16-month high. Meanwhile, YOY consumer prices are up 3.6% and M2 money supply is up 7.5% YOY and rising at a 14.6% annual rate in the last quarter. As the problem with stagflation becomes worse, international investors will avoid the U.S. dollar and U.S. debt at an ever increasing rate.
With soaring debt-to-GDP ratios in Japan, Western Europe and America, the desirability of owning precious metals will grow as investors realize the fiat currency system's days are numbered. Those holding U.S. dollars and U.S. debt will feel the biggest brunt of the change. But it is always darkest before the dawn. As a result of the carnage the re-establishment of gold as the world's reserve currency is, hopefully, only a few years away.
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.
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.
