The Zealous Pursuit Of State-Sponsored Collapse

Authored by EconomicPrism"s MN Gordon via Acting-Man.com,

When Bakers Go Fishing

Government intervention into a nation’s economy is as foolish as attempting to control the sun’s rise and fall by law or force.  But that doesn’t mean governments don’t meddle each and every day with the best – and worst – of intentions.  The United States government is no exception.

From the “When the government helps the economy” collection: Breaking a few eggs while baking the bridge to nowhere omelet. [PT]

 

Over the years, layers and layers of interference by various federal, state, and local agencies have built up like grime on a kitchen window.  The grease shines and smells of something fierce.  The layers of government grime also drip and ooze into every crack and crevice of the economy.

These days, for example, it is impossible to carry out a simple private transaction with your barber or barista without some form of government interference.  Has your barber obtained the required license and paid the obligatory fees to be able to legally taper your neck line?  Has your barista’s espresso bean grinder passed city health inspection?

Is the hot Cup of Joe served in a paper cup of appropriate recycled material composition?  Did the hot beverage exceed the legally accepted temperature standard?  Did state and local governments receive their tax exaction upon payment?

 

The licensing racket – left panel: the basic definition of the racket; middle panel: how long it takes and what it costs to obtain licenses for assorted jobs in the US; right panel: the inexorable growth of rules and regulations. One shouldn’t be surprised that the pace of real economic growth has steadily declined since peaking in the late 19^th century (or if one wants to focus on the modern era, since it peaked not too long after WW2). From money supply inflation to regulatory inflation, Leviathan has undermined the economy at every turn by inflating all the stuff we definitely don’t need more of. The pretense is that this is needed to “protect” us (for instance, last year the police courageously protected the citizens of Georgia from the dangers of an unlicensed lemonade stand by arresting its 14-year old female proprietor). Let us be clear: No-one will be allowed to terrorize the community by running an unlicensed lemonade stand or engaging in the high crimes of dispensing unlicensed manicures and haircuts. [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

When it comes to more complicated matters, where real money’s on the line, government interference is an absolute disgrace.  Did you know that it costs 10 times more to have an appendectomy in the United States than in Mexico?  Is the procedure 10 times better?

Obviously, this is nothing new.  Governments have been regulating and impressing their fingerprints all over commerce since society first granted its leaders the opportunity.  People are so accustomed to it that they accept government intervention as necessary to better their lives.

When it comes to price fixing, wage controls, and dictating oil production, things quickly go haywire.  This is because prices, wages, and resources have their own independent relationships beyond what can be legislated.

When the price of a certain good or commodity is artificially fixed below its natural equilibrium, scarcity and shortages follow.  In short, when the price of bread is decreed below the cost of the wheat that goes into it, bakers go fishing.

The scourge of occupational licensing [PT]

 

Credit Market Intervention

Perhaps the most nefarious of all government intervention, is that which directly affects a nation’s money stock.  Many people don’t recognize its occurrence.  But they do misdiagnose its effects.

Wage stagnation, for instance, is often blamed on greedy executives off-shoring their production.  In reality, this is merely a consequence of a forced monetary regime that inhibits genuine capital formation and earned savings in favor of asset price inflation. Of course, only a complete killjoy would bother scratching below the surface to uncover such minutiae.

Without question, the last decade has brought forth some of the craziest monetary policy experiments in human history.  If you recall, the Federal Reserve dropped the federal funds rate to near zero in December 2008, and kept it there until December 2015 – exactly seven years.

Since then, the Fed has hiked the federal funds rate four times – 0.25 percent each time – bringing the federal funds rate up to 1.25 percent. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets on December 12 and 13, and will likely raise the federal funds rate another 0.25 percent.

It is also anticipated that the Fed will raise rates three times in 2018, assuming financial markets and the economy don’t break down before they can accomplish this.

 

Broad true money supply TMS-2 and the federal funds rate – a mountain of money was created, and it is an apodictic certainty that is has not made us one iota more prosperous – quite the contrary. [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

Concurrent with the Fed’s interest rate raising efforts, they’ve also begun to reduce their balance sheet.  They’re selling some of the roughly $3.6 trillion in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities purchased as part of their Quantitative Easing program. This reversal of the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing program reduces the pool of available credit in the financial system.

It doesn’t take much imagination to visualize the effect this will have on an economy and financial markets that are wholly addicted to cheap and abundant credit.  So where does the GOP’s tax bill fall within this landscape?

 

The Zealous Pursuit of State-Sponsored Collapse

Here we turn to David Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan.  Stockman’s more than four decades of in-the-trenches experience, study, and contemplation of taxes, budgets, and deficits, and how these all influence and affect the economy, is unrivaled. As he explains:

“All tax cuts are not created equal.  Their impact for good or ill depends on: (1) which taxes are cut; (2) how the revenue loss is financed; (3) when they occur in the business cycle; and (4) how they impact that nation’s underlying fiscal posture.

 

“Our point today is that the GOP gets an “F” on all four components of the test.  That’s because a deficit-financed tax cut is never a good idea, but is especially counter-productive if done late in the business cycle in the face of a structural deficit that is high and rising (owing to inexorable demographic pressures on entitlement spending); and in the teeth of an unprecedented cycle of monetary contraction, which is exactly what the Fed’s interest rate normalization and balance sheet shrinkage (QT or quantitative tightening) amounts to.”

 

David Stockman, former budget director in the Reagan administration – which he quit when it ignored his admonishments on its massive spending. [PT]

 

To clarify, if you’ve been out of school for a while, “F” stands for fail.  Most notably, financing tax cuts with money borrowed from the future is doomed to fail.  Hence, the great GOP tax cuts represent but another fail milestone in the zealous pursuit of state-sponsored collapse.

 

As an aside, since last week, when we declared buying bitcoin above $11,000 to be an action for idiots, bitcoin has spiked up above $19,000.  That represents more than a 70 percent increase in just one week.  Nonetheless, we stand behind our claim.  We also stand behind our claim that sometimes idiots get rich – click to enlarge.

 

We should point out that the spike to $19,000+ in BTC was confined to the Coinbase exchange, where a huge premium developed during the trading day. It was not replicated at any of the other exchanges, where BTC peaked just below $16,000. This is mainly a sign of inefficiencies at said exchange (BTC routinely trades at a premium there, but it is usually much smaller). It took a while for arbitrageurs to bring the premium back down, but they succeeded eventually. [PT]

 

We"re Living In The Age Of Capital Consumption

Authored by Ronald-Peter Stöferle via The Mises Institute,

When capital is mentioned in the present-day political debate, the term is usually subject to a rather one-dimensional interpretation: Whether capital saved by citizens, the question of capital reserves held by pension funds, the start-up capital of young entrepreneurs or capital gains taxes on investments are discussed – in all these cases capital is equivalent to “money.” Yet capital is distinct from money, it is a largely irreversible, definite structure, composed of heterogeneous elements which can be (loosely) described as goods, knowledge, context, human beings, talents and experience. Money is “only” the simplifying aid that enables us to record the incredibly complex heterogeneous capital structure in a uniform manner. It serves as a basis for assessing the value of these diverse forms of capital.

Modern economics textbooks usually refer to capital with the letter “C”. This conceptual approach blurs the important fact that capital is not merely a single magnitude, an economic variable representing a magically self-replicating homogenous blob but a heterogeneous structure. Among the various economic schools of thought it is first and foremost the Austrian School of Economics, which stresses the heterogeneity of capital. Furthermore, Austrians have correctly recognized, that capital does not automatically grow or perpetuate itself. Capital must be actively created and maintained, through production, saving, and sensible investment.

Moreover, Austrians emphasize that one has to differentiate between two types of goods in the production process: consumer goods and capital goods. Consumer goods are used in immediate consumption – such as food. Consumer goods are a means to achieve an end directly. Thus, food helps to directly achieve the end of satisfying the basic need for nutrition. Capital goods differ from consumer goods in that they are way-stations toward the production of consumer goods which can be used to achieve ultimate ends. Capital goods therefore are means to achieve ends indirectly. A commercial oven (used for commercial purposes) is a capital good, which enables the baker to produce bread for consumers. 

Through capital formation, one creates the potential means to boost productivity. The logical precondition for this is that the production of consumer goods must be temporarily decreased or even stopped, as scarce resources are redeployed toward the production of capital goods. If current production processes generate only fewer or no consumer goods, it follows that consumption will have to be reduced by the quantity of consumer goods no longer produced. Every deepening of the production structure therefore involves taking detours.

Capital formation is therefore always an attempt to generate larger returns in the long term by adopting more roundabout methods of production. Such higher returns are by no means guaranteed though, as the roundabout methods chosen may turn out to be misguided. In the best case only those roundabout methods will ultimately be continued, which do result in greater productivity. It is therefore fair to assume that a more capital-intensive production structure will generate more output than a less capital-intensive one. The more prosperous an economic region, the more capital-intensive its production structure is. The fact that the generations currently living in our society are able to enjoy such a high standard of living is the result of decades or even centuries of both cultural and economic capital accumulation by our forebears.

Once a stock of capital has been accumulated, it is not destined to be eternal. Capital is thoroughly transitory, it wears out, it is used up in the production process, or becomes entirely obsolete. Existing capital requires regularly recurring reinvestment, which can usually be funded directly out of the return capital generates. If reinvestment is neglected because the entire output or more is consumed, the result is capital consumption.

It is not only the dwindling understanding of the nature of capital that leads us to consume it without being aware of it. It is also the framework of the real economy which unwittingly drives us to do so. In 1971 money was finally cut loose entirely from the gold anchor and we entered the “paper money era.” In retrospect, it has to be stated that cutting the last tie to gold was a fatal mistake. Among other things, it has triggered unprecedented instability in interest rates. While interest rates displayed relatively little volatility as long as money was still tied to gold, they surged dramatically after 1971, reaching a peak of approximately 16 percent in 1981 (10-year treasury yield), before beginning a nosedive that continues until today. This massive decline in interest rates over the past 35 years has gradually eroded the capital stock.

An immediately obvious effect is the decline in so-called “yield purchasing power”. The concept describes what the income from savings, or more precisely the interest return on savings, will purchase in terms of goods. The opportunity to generate interest income from savings has of course decreased quite drastically. Once zero or even negative interest rate territory is reached, the return on saved capital is obviously no longer large enough to enable one to live from it, let alone finance a reasonable standard of living. Consequently, saved capital has to be consumed in order to secure one"s survival. Capital consumption is glaringly obvious in this case.

It is beyond question that massive capital consumption is taking place nowadays, yet not all people are affected by it to the same extent. On the one hand, the policy of artificially reducing the interest as orchestrated by the central banks does negatively influence the entrepreneurs’ tasks. Investments, especially capital-intensive investments seem to be more profitable as compared to a realistic, i. e. non-interventionist level, profits are thus higher and reserves lower. These and other inflation-induced errors promote capital consumption.

On the other hand, counteracting capital consumption are technological progress and the rapid expansion of our areas of economic activity into Eastern Europe and Asia in recent decades, due to the collapse of communism and the fact that many countries belatedly caught up with the monetary and industrial revolution in its wake. Without this catching-up process it would have been necessary to restrict consumption in Western countries a long time ago already.

At the same time, the all-encompassing redistributive welfare state, which either directly through taxes or indirectly through the monetary system continually shifts and reallocates large amounts of capital, manages to paper over the effects of capital consumption to some extent. It remains to be seen how much longer this can continue. Once the stock of capital is depleted, the awakening will be rude. We are certain, that gold is an essential part of any portfolio in this stage of the economic cycle.

 

Andy Xie Warns "The Bubble Economy Is Set To Burst" As Political Tension Soars

Authored by Andy Xie via The South China Morning Post

Central banks continue to focus on consumption inflation, not asset inflation, in their decisions. Their attitude has supported one bubble after another. These bubbles have led to rising ­inequality and made mass consumer inflation less likely.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, asset inflation has fully recovered, and then some. The US household net worth is 34 per cent above the peak in 2007, versus 30 per cent for nominal GDP. China’s property ­value may have surpassed the total in the rest of the world combined. The world is stuck in a vicious cycle of asset bubbles, low consumer ­inflation, stagnant productivity and low wage growth.

The US Federal Reserve has indicated that it will begin to ­unwind its QE (quantitative easing) assets this month and raise the ­interest rate by another 25 basis points to 1.5 per cent. China has been clipping the debt wings of grey rhinos and pouring cold water on property speculation. They are ­worried about asset bubbles.

But, if recent history is any guide, when asset markets begin to tumble, they will reverse their actions and ­encourage debt binges again.

Recently, some central bankers have been puzzled by the breakdown of the Philipps Curve: that falling unemployment rates would lead to wage inflation first and consumer price inflation next. This shows how some of the most powerful people in the world operate on flimsy ­assumptions.

Despite low unemployment and widespread labour shortages, wage increases and inflation in Japan have been around zero for a quarter of a century. Western central bankers assumed that the same wouldn’t happen to them without understanding the underlying reasons.

The loss of competitiveness changes how macro policy works. Japan has been losing competitiveness against its Asian neighbours. As its population is small, relative to the regional total, lower wages in the region have exerted gravity on its ­labour market. This is the fundamental reason for the decoupling between the unemployment rate and wage trend.

The mistaken stimulus has the unintended consequences of dissipating real wealth and increasing inequality. American household net worth is at an all-time high of five times GDP, significantly higher than the bubble peaks of 4.1 times in 2000 and 4.7 in 2007, and far higher than the historical norm of three times GDP. On the ­other hand, US capital formation has stagnated for decades. The outlandish paper wealth is just the same asset at ever higher prices.

The inflation of paper wealth has a serious impact on inequality. The top 1 per cent in the US owns one-third of the wealth and the top 10 per cent owns three-quarters . Half of the people don’t even own stocks. Asset inflation will increase inequality by definition. Moreover, 90 per cent of the income growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1 per cent, partly due to their ability to cash out in the ­inflated asset market. An economy that depends on asset inflation always disproportionately benefits the asset-rich top 1 per cent.

There have been so many theories on why inequality has risen. The misguided monetary policy may be the culprit. Germany and Japan do not have significant asset bubbles. Their inequality is far less than in the Anglo-Saxon economies that have succumbed to the allure of financial speculation.

While Western central bankers can stop making things worse, only China can restore stability in the global economy. Consider that 800 million Chinese workers have ­become as productive as their Western counterparts, but are not even close in terms of consumption. This is the fundamental reason for the global imbalance.

China’s model is to subsidise ­investment. The resulting overcapacity inevitably devalues whatever its workers produce. That slows down wage rises and prolongs the ­deflationary pull. This is the reason that the Chinese currency has had a tendency to depreciate during its four decades of rapid growth, while other East Asian economies experienced currency appreciation during a similar period.

Overinvestment means destroying capital. The model can only be sustained through taxing the household sector to fill the gap. In addition to taking nearly half of the business labour outlay, China has invented the unique model of taxing the household sector through asset bubbles. The stock market was started with the explicit intention to subsidise state-owned enterprises. The most important asset bubble is the property market. It redistributes about 10 per cent of GDP to the government sector from the household sector.

The levies for subsidising investment keep consumption down and make the economy more dependent on investment and export. The government finds an ever-increasing need to raise levies and, hence, make the property bubble bigger. In tier-one cities, property costs are likely to be between 50 and 100 years of household income. At the peak of Japan’s property bubble, it was about 20 in Tokyo. China’s residential property value may have surpassed the total in the rest of the world combined.

How is this all going to end? Rising interest rates are usually the trigger. But we know the current bubble economy tends to keep inflation low through suppressing mass consumption and increasing overcapacity. It gives central bankers the excuse to keep the printing press on.

In 1929, Joseph Kennedy thought that, when a shoeshine boy was giving stock tips, the market had run out of fools. Today, that shoeshine boy would be a genius. In today’s bubble, central bankers and governments are fools. They can mobilise more resources to become bigger fools.

In 2000, the dotcom bubble burst because some firms were caught making up numbers. Today, you don’t need to make up numbers. What one needs is stories.

Hot stocks or property are sold like Hollywood stars. Rumour and ­innuendo will do the job. Nothing real is necessary.

In 2007, structured mortgage products exposed cash-short borrowers. The defaults snowballed. But, in China, leverage is always rolled over. Default is usually considered a political act. And it never snowballs: the government makes sure of it. In the US, the leverage is mostly in the government. It won’t default, because it can print money.

The most likely cause for the bubble to burst would be the rising political tension in the West. The bubble economy keeps squeezing the middle class, with more debt and less wages. The festering political tension could boil over. Radical politicians aiming for class struggle may rise to the top. The US midterm elections in 2018 and presidential election in 2020 are the events that could upend the applecart.

Japan GDP Surges 4%, Most In Two Years, On Jump In Government Stimulus Spending

Japan"s economy grew by 1% sequentially, and 4% on an annualized basis in Q2, smashing expectations of a 2.5% print and well above the upward revised 1.5% in the first quarter; it was also the the highest quarterly growth since a 5% print in Q2 2015, Japan"s Cabinet Office reported, and the 6th consecutive quarter of expansion for recently embattled Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has plunged in the polls following a series of corruption scandals.

The unexpectedly strong GDP print was driven by a 9.9% jump in private non-residential investment as well as an striking 21.9% annualized surge in public investment as some of the public works spending included in last year’s economic stimulus package starting to emerge; meanwhile exports declined.

On a sequential basis, GDP rose 1.0%, above the 0.6% expected, up from the 0.4% in Q1 and the highest print in just over two years.

Annualized private demand soared by 5.3%, or 1.3% higher compared to the first quarter, an impressive jump from the previous quarter’s rise of 0.2%. Private consumption rose 0.9% in Q2, more than double the 0.4% reported for the first quarter.  Aside from the clearly "one-time" surge in public investment, which in the second quarter exploded by an annualized 21.9% as some of the public works spending included in last year’s economic stimulus package have started to emerge, private non-residential investment climbed 2.4% from 0.9% in Q1, while government consumption grew 0.3%, bouncing from a 0.1% contraction in the prior quarter.

Finally, spoiling the otherwise pristine report was the unexpected drop in exports of goods and services which dropped 0.5% on a quarterly basis and -1.9% annualized, the lowest export number since Q2 of 2016. The plunge in net exports dragged Japan"s headline growth figure down 0.3% points.

Ahead of the number, Goldman"s Japan analyst Naohiko Baba said that "we estimate Apr-Jun real GDP growth of +2.4% qoq annualized, up from +1.0% in Jan-Mar. While we expect net exports to turn to a negative contributor, we think private-sector demand was strong for personal consumption and capex. We also expect double-digit growth for public capital formation, with some of the public works spending included in last year’s economic stimulus package starting to emerge. We think Apr-Jun GDP will show a clearer tilt toward domestic demand led growth. "

Separately, Barclays analysts said that "looking forward, we expect real GDP to rise an annualized 1.3% in Q3, 0.9% in Q4, and 1.0% in Q1 2018 on a q/q basis,” they wrote. “For Q3, we believe external demand will reverse to a positive contribution and anticipate a continued economic boost from last fiscal year’s second supplementary budget of 11 October 2016?.

Considering the absolute non-reaction in markets, where the USDJPY is up barely 20 pips in a delayed response to Japan"s "best" economic report in over two years, either nobody puts any credibility in this number, or just as likely, fundamental economic data no longer matters to any investing decisions.

Finally, as some commentators put it best on Twitter, "yen climbs on nuclear war. yen falls on strong GDP. good"

yen climbs on nuclear war. yen falls on strong GDP. good

— Lee Saks (@Lee_Saks) August 14, 2017

Remembering A Still Falling Hero: Small Business

Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

On this holiday weekend known here in the U.S. as Memorial Day, I would like to make a slight turn in the narrative that many give little to no attention too, yet, is one of the most important underlying principles or fundamentals which helped shape, lift, mold, sustain, and create one of the world’s greatest economic powerhouses bar none.

That “turn” is in remembering: The liberty to create, and own, one’s own business.

As true as holding the principles of liberty close to one’s heart is near-and-dear to every American. What gets forgotten all too easily is what enabled many of those immigrants that fled here during its rocky beginnings, and still continues today, to shape and mold a better life for themselves and their families. That other foundational principle is this:

The ability to create, and pursue, a business idea that could, or would, allow them to acquire economic liberty based on their own self-expression made manifest via perseverance, and sometimes a little luck. And with that – create a foundation which could either be passed on, or sold, by their heirs, giving them possibly one further step-up, or ahead, onto firmer ground to take another. And maybe another, and another, and so forth.

Only through the pursuit of business was the true circumvention of any stigmatized political or economic class, ethnicity, and more so truly held in one’s own hands. Self-actualization, the pursuit of economic riches, the ability to ingratiated oneself by their own means to not only claim to be part of the American experiment, but to actually be American regardless of where one began, either from abroad or born within – was not inconsequential.

Being an American businessman, regardless of ethnicity, political class, economic class, religious persuasion, gender, or anything else, in many ways was the embodiment for something to be cherished and honored by the owner.

Being the sole-owner of one’s own economic future was either unattainable, or unavailable anywhere else.

It embodied everything the American principle was created for and rose upon. Without it – we would have just been another ruled monarchy; socialist; communist; caste; (fill-in-the-blank) or combination of all system under a different name with better topography. It’s the only thing that separates the U.S. from all others that came before and since.

(Note: The gender neutral term “business-person” just doesn’t flow and only emboldens the gender-sensitivity-police and I’m personally sick-and-tired of them. Women with true business fortitude understand there’s no derogatory slight in the term “businessman.” Period. For those wanting more on my thoughts about women in business see my article “The Bull On Bossy” for more insight.)

The term, as well as structure, that has allowed the U.S. to grow as to become such an economic powerhouse is called: Free Market Capitalism (FMC.) And its foundational starting point is the sole-person who decides to either create their own product, or work with (and yes even for) others who are in need of their talent. Then, decide where, and on what agreed upon price commerce takes place. (Examples of such are Family Dr’s., accountants, bakers, tattoo artists, waiters, waitresses, plumbers, electricians, salespeople, and far too many more to list. And yes, even bankers.)

Again, at its foundational point is the solitary person who decides to take matters and consequences under their own purview and either rise, or fall, on their own business prowess upon the battlefield known as business or commerce.

What is taking shape today, and what’s worse – growing – is anything but.

What most have no understanding of, let alone idea, that’s taking place today is the circumvention of Free Market Capitalism, and in its place, the insertion of its hybrid, ever-morphing, evil twin. e.g, Cronyism, aka Crony Capitalism (CC.)

I could go on for days explaining why this insertion of CC into the FMC model is not only egregious, but dangerous. However, all one has to do is look at the current economic landscape with an eye for truth – and its perversions and consequences can be seen everywhere.

It’s like a visible, metastasized cancer encroaching upon economic liberty. i.e., Forget about the “golden egg” its wrapping its hands firmly around the goose’s neck in broad daylight. And never mind those not bothering to look. What’s worse – is those who can’t turn their eyes away seem to think there’s anything wrong with this picture! e.g., Ivory Towered academics, main stream business/financial outlets, et al.

A few years ago I penned the following article, “It’s The Entrepreneur That Saves An Economy – Not The Fed” and in it I made the following point. To wit:

“The problem that’s taking place right now within the economy is exactly what you get when you take a free market economy and try to impose a command and control blanket over it: you smother it.

The Ivory Tower academics have no real understanding of what “free” actually entails when it’s expressed through the economy as a whole. The ability to build a better mouse trap, or, solve a previously unsolvable riddle all while charging a price two parties can both bear, profit by, and have satisfaction in the transaction does not, nor ever will take place within a command and control base. Ever.

Free markets allow for competition to find equilibrium as to provide and deliver a service or good someone will pay a fair price for. And yes, even for such an item such as a stock price.

Command and control fosters either the “State” to be the only provider, or, a fostered crony capitalism styled arrangement which is nothing more than another iteration of some communist system in prettier buildings wearing better suits. Harsh? Yes. Off point? Hardly. And that’s the problem.

The great capital formation experiment and enterprise known as Wall Street and its Exchanges, once the envy of the world, has now been transformed into nothing more than a rigged casino where Fed fueled “hot money” front runs orders in ways so egregious to the principal of fair play; walking into “a den of thieves” would be considered a step up.”

Here’s a bit more from that article directed squarely at the Fed. (or central banks in general) and its interventionist policies. At the time my accusations were excoriated as derisive, uneducated, (fill-in-the-blank.) However, with that said I’ll let you be the judge as to just whom seems to be “uneducated” when it comes to economic theory and practices. Again, to wit:

“Business people know and understand this intuitively. Ivory Tower academics, intellectuals, and economists are not only clueless, it’s their wanton indignation of these facts that move their policies beyond destructive right into outright dangerous territory for any free market based economy.

The only one’s that can benefit from such a business environment are those that gorge and reward themselves via the availability current Fed. policy fosters. And the name for it is: crony capitalism.

Whether the Fed. wants to admit or not, that’s what their current policy and communication fosters and bolsters which is the antithesis of what the Fed. itself states as its primary objective; for there is no wage growth, no true job creation, no sustainable capital formations, and not stable markets.

The Fed. is killing the economy – not helping it. And as de facto proof I point to their own measurements of achievement. The markets, the labor participation rate, small business formation, wage growth, and on, and on. It’s all pathetic.

The Fed’s QE program has adulterated valuations so much it will be a wonder if we ever get back to a more normalized set of business values let alone their valuations and away from this calamity.

There are entrepreneurs along with CEO’s of companies who are quite literally chomping at the bit to try new or improved innovations – yet don’t dare for either their competitors are being kept alive via cheap money afforded them under current ZIRP policy, or worse, don’t dare hire or spend for who knows if the Fed. will raise out of the blue or announce some new program that runs anathema to basic sound monetary policies.

You don’t invest in cap-ex or hiring for the long-term if you don’t know what the rules might be tomorrow never-mind next year. Period.”

If you gauge the current economy via the abomination now known as “markets” (which the Fed. clearly does) this “success” is all but missing its own “Mission Accomplished” banner. However, if you measure the economy via its true measurements of health like jobs, small business creation, cap-ex, and more? You go from banner to tombstone. Yet – the epitaph reads the same as “banner.” It only depends on perspective as to what the words mean. Think about it.

To make my point even further on just how far economic “thinking” has gone off the rails. I was reminded of it by none other than Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook™ via his latest speech or commencement address.

Nowhere in my recent memory has the idea of small business, along with what it means for the economic health (e.g. Free market Capitalism) been so avoided, so adulterated, so perverted in its messaging and delivery than what I witnessed when viewing Mark Zuckerberg’s address to this year’s graduating class at Harvard University.

In my opinion: It was the epitome of everything going wrong in business today. I also viewed it as one of the most tone-deaf, quasi-political speeches ever given at a commencement speech via someone who should be the embodiment of this time in history’s most celebrated and espousing Free Market Capitalism entrepreneurs.

It was so dreadful, and full of what I view as socialistic laced mumbo-jumbo, I couldn’t listen to much more than a few minutes. Again, via my interpretations; it was agonizingly void of anything resembling free market business principles.

Only a speech delivered by Hilary Clinton compared for substance and delivery. And that’s being kind.

This so-called “address” was anything but “uplifting” for those who are supposedly about to enter the work force and help create the next wave of dynamism for economic growth for the U.S. and subsequently the global business environment.

No, instead, after listening about such themes as “guaranteed universal basic income”, “we are the world”, “save the planet”, and more; it would make perfect sense after receiving their diplomas they simply returned home to their parents basements and waited for the world to offer them a corner office, 7 figure starting salary, trophy-spouse, 2.2 children (gender to be determined) and world peace. Just make sure you’re logged into FB as you wait. Because that’s how Mark gets paid, even if you don’t.

It seemed when listening that in a Zuckerberg vision of the world: Don’t pull on your own bootstraps. Wait! Sooner or later they’ll be able to offer you Utopia. And you’ll thank him for it. Just remember to vote “Like” to show your support behind him if, or when, he decides to run for office. Because for what that speech lacked in spoken words of business ideals, it was laced with more unspoken terms of the political which could not be ignored even when trying. i.e., I couldn’t help but think at any moment I would hear something to the effect of: “And be on the lookout for Zuckerberg for (fill in the blank) in 20??”

Compare Mark’s recent with the one delivered in 2005 by the late Steve Jobs at Stanford University. The two could not be more striking in both tone, as well as delivery. The difference is utterly remarkable and is clearly visible:

One is a businessman explaining via his own words and experiences how one may go about changing the world for the better via FMC principles and ideas eschewing anything to do with the political. The other? The antithesis of the former, delivering a speech more in-tune as if it were written by Mrs. Clinton’s former speech writers.

Don’t take my word for it, view both of them yourself and come to your own conclusions. The differences couldn’t be more striking.

The only way forward for this nation (e.g., U.S.) is for the rebirth of quest and zeal for small business America. It is what built this nation, continues to support it (although it is being waged war upon by crony capitalist benefactors and devotees daily) and is the only way to reassert and preserve the foundations of the Free Market Capital system.

What we are experiencing today is an adulterated, ever-growing, Frankenstein perversion of those once pristine principles that is growing ever-the-more unstable with each passing day and is showing signs that it’s about to break loose of its creators (The Federal Reserve) control at any time.

The current “market” is nothing more than a bull looking for a china shop. Ironically, it may be China that subsequently puts the “bull” into a place which no one “thinks”, let alone, believes.

For those of the newly minted “graduate class” let me offer you an example of just how cronyism works and is prevalent at the very core of what many of you use and treat almost as sacrosanct for entrepreneurialism in today’s business and “market” climate. e.g., Social media, and the companies that fuel it.

If you are one of the few that believed (or still does) Snapchat™ was possibly the next Facebook and invested in its stock, only to see your profits or initial investment go “poof” much like its core product? And yet – have watched simultaneously as FB shares rise and think there must be some “business” reason as to why this happens or “business acumen” you don’t fully yet comprehend? Hint: Welcome to central bank manipulation for picking winners and losers 101.

As I’ve stated too many times to count over the years: This is why having (or picking) a company with a stock price which has a central bankers “bullseye” on it is the only thing that matters. And guess what – Facebook does and Snapchat doesn’t. Want proof. Fair point. To wit:

“Swiss National Bank’s U.S. Stock Holdings Hit A Record $63.4 Billion”

The real issue here as I’ve reiterated time, and time again, is this:

When your investment loses value – you lose money and net worth. When a central banks “investment” loses value – they just print more, and buy more, allowing the pretense of “health” to perpetuate inducing even more to buy alongside them furthering the charade of a “market” based price or demand. Rinse, repeat.

Hint: Facebook is on that “Bullseye” list. Along with a few other notables. Snapchat? See latest stock price for clues. And that’s just the SNB. You still have the Fed’s proxies, ECB, BoJ, PBoC and their proxies buying who knows what else.

Is it any wonder why small businesses are having such a hard time competing with these new-found business behemoths of today? For others, its having to compete with companies which are clearly “over.” e.g., See Sears™ for clues and why it has been able to stay open via cheap capital facilitated via Fed. policies unavailable to small businesses.

So with that all said: Long live small business! It may be badly banged up, battered, and bruised. But it’s far from dead just yet. We only need to remember its importance too all of us. Our nations health, and very survival depends on it. It’s a too often overlooked part of our fundamental liberties. Brave men and women of all stripes have, do, and hopefully will, continue to fight for its preservation along with our other sacred liberties.

To all of them: past, present, and future – you have my sincere gratitude. Both military, as well as business people.

Are 401K Holders About To Feel A Savers Pain?

Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

There’s an old truism people forget all too often. It has many variations and is attributed to even more, its core meaning goes something like this:

“If the government can give it to you, than it can also take it away.”

Some of you might be wondering if I’m talking about the current “tax” advantages that have made these vehicles so popular over the years. To that I’ll say no, not at this current time. But I feel that will be the least of worries coming down the pike in the not so distant future.

No, what I’m directly addressing is what is now emanating from the one and only non-government, privately held institution, directed by a consortium of non-elected, Ivory Towered, policy wonks: The Federal Reserve.

And those emanations are anything but 401K holder friendly. Let me explain…

I know many are wondering how a government inspired quote, a private institution, their retirement account, or savings account fits under one banner, or are some how all connected. Well, that’s easy:

The Federal Reserve has been the sole entity that dictates what any of them are currently worth. And if you don’t like their choices or decisions? Tough. There’s nothing you can do about it. Period.

Maybe that’s not quite correct: It’s not that there’s “nothing you can do.” The problem is – there’s nothing you’ll want to do. Hence where the real issues lie.

The following is for those who know of no other “investing” world (or 401K holder) other than after the financial crisis of 2007/08. Or put differently – if you’ve been working and saving only for the last decade or so. i.e., in the 35ish – 40-year-old bracket and younger.

Back in ancient history before algorithmic HFT parasites roamed the trading world (circa 2008 A.D.) One could retire comfortably with a modest sum of money and find relatively safe places to hold their assets receiving some form of interest payment for its usage. CD’s (certificates of deposit) bonds (such as U.S. Treasuries) and others were some of the most popular.

That was until the Fed. decided interest rates and everything that was connected to them was secondary (and even expendable) as to subjugate the financial markets and bring them into such a reflexive corollary that even if a Fed. official whispered- the effect on Wall Street was a realtime example of that other adage “When a butterfly flaps its wings…”

That’s what pumping (and printing) $4+TRILLION dollars via differing iterations of QE, Twist and a relentless death grip for years at the Zero-bound will buy you.

For those who don’t remember, it used to be when understanding investing prowess people used to say (or was advertised) things like, “When E.F. Hutton speaks – people listen.” Now it’s: “When The Federal Reserve whispers – Wall Street jumps!”

That’s what the greatest expression for capital formation the world has ever known has now become. i.e., Nothing more than a trained jumping flea circus. And again – all in less than 10 years.

Does a “Mission Accomplished” banner come with that? But I digress.

One of the reasons I can attest to much of what has been thrust upon (or taken from) retirees and others is that I actually am one, became one right at the beginning of the financial crisis. I was fortunate enough (via hard work and forethought) as to retire at the age of 45. A “dream” or ‘brass ring” many find elusive if not near impossible back in 2005.

It was a dream come true. However – it was also smack-dab right before, and squarely into the teeth of the “out of the blue” financial shock and market melt down for the ages that would transform everything. And I do mean: everything!

Suddenly the idea of diversifying one’s financial assets into relative safety was gone – and I do mean just that – gone. Which is, by-the-way, why I detest and so adamantly stand against all this over-simplified drivel once again appearing from so-called financial “expert” landscape. It’s going to hurt far more people than it’ll ever help.

The Federal Reserve decided in its infinite “wisdom” that interest rates were now to be considered a “poison” to the economy and not only cut – but slashed them, and held them at the Zero-bound for years. What this meant was one could no longer expect to receive any interest bearing accounts to live. i.e., Eat, pay bills, et cetera. And I won’t even get into what it has done to pensions and insurance companies.

But no one has cared – especially the Fed. Let me use the following for demonstration purposes…

Let’s say you were an entrepreneur and sold your business, or were able to some how via thrift or shrewd business acumen, and were able to amass a nest egg of let’s say $3Million dollars for the entrepreneur, and $1Million for the shrewd. Both scenarios are quite feasible for the prudent minded.

Just 10 years ago it was also not only feasible, but rather probable, one could safely allocate their resources finding returns of 5% (and higher, depending) in such mundane vehicles as CD’s, Treasuries, and more.

So, using nothing more than napkin math, one could easily calculate using the $1MM example that money would generate approximately $50,000.00 per year without touching the principal for one to live on. This was also a relatively accurate proposition because there was precedent going back decades. Sure, $50K ain’t what it used to be, but it’s sure a hell of a lot more than Zero – which is precisely what interest rates have been now going on years. And on $3MM? It’s the same. i.e. Zero, as in zip, zero, nada.

“But wait! There’s more!!!” as they say, but it’s not a bonus anyone wants to hear about. What is that you say? Glad you asked…

Not only does having a $Million dollars get you nothing at a bank (correct, not even a lousy toaster) if you are one of the fortunate (or unfortunate depending on perspective) who wants to put that hard-earned money safely under “lock and key” via the auspices of some bank – it’s going to cost you! And in some instances – they might not even want your deposit at all. Why?

Why else – it’ll cost them, and that’s a no-no in banking. Costs are something you pay – not them. And if enough profits can’t be made on legitimate transactions? See Wells Fargo™ for clues.

So what was the flip side? Here’s my opinion…

Welcome to the “markets” (or should I say casino) of today. Where 401K holders, and corporate buy-backs supported via the Fed’s balance sheet accrual, and zero interest rate financing meet the front running, algorithmic, headline reading HFT parasites which enabled the BTFD phenom to appear time, after time, after time, after time. Which, by its very nature and existence has allowed “investing” to be the equivalent of nothing more than following the strategy of a chimp hurling darts at ETF symbols backed by a central banks “bulls-eye.”

Ah, but what a difference an election does make, no? For that was then – and this is now. And “now” seems to be that the Federal Reserve is hell-bent as to raise interest rates regardless of what the “markets” desire.

Can you say, “Oh-oh?”

For years the cries of savers, pension plans, insurance companies and more have fallen on deaf ears. Actuary tables that prove these bedrocks of society can not sustain or endure under a Fed. policy such as what has been thrust upon them was relegated to the, “Who cares the “markets” up – deal with it!” status.

Now – That all seems to have changed.

Suddenly (as in the last few months) interest rates not only need to go up. They need to go up stat!

The Fed. via its differing speakers in public comments are signaling that not only is the raising of rates further, and quicker on the table, but so too is the balance sheet as to begin down sizing it.

If the above is to be taken at face value (and why shouldn’t it, after all, isn’t this why the Fed. makes public comments to begin with?) with signaling (via the Dot Plot and more) now stating 3 rate hikes for 2017 and some Fed. speakers signaling the possibility of even 4. Along with the abrupt metamorphosis of doves turning into hawks (using Ms. Yellen, and Ms. Brainard as examples) the “markets” are going to find fuel to propel them higher using what precisely?

The only fuel that has enabled the “markets” to propel this high has been all Fed. funded. And now this same Fed. is in no uncertain terms professing they’re out of the “hopium” business. Or at least – want to appear that way.

If this is true, taking them not just at their words, but rather via their actions – we now have 2 rate increases in 90 days with near shouting (as compared to prior discussions) that the Fed. is far more interested in raising further, and faster, than previously discussed. All while remembering it was only a few short weeks prior the Fed. Chair herself was touting the need for running a “high pressure economy” and has now flipped to jettison anything of the such – and is now the undisputed leader of “hawks are us.”

The issue here is – the “markets” have been levitated via the “wings of doves.” Suddenly – those “doves” have all but vanished. And if that’s true? What’s vanished with it may just be the BTFD genius along with it. And that will turn into a very big problem indeed if correct.

When savers were (and still are) getting crushed, no one cared, not even the Fed. The problem?

It seems just as the Fed. turned its back on savers pain all these years – they might be signaling how they’re going to feel about any 401K holders losses that may appear via their new-found policy stance. To Wit:

ZeroHedge: “What is the biggest S&P drop the Fed will accept before intervening?”

Minneapolis Fed. president Neel Kashkari: “Don’t care about stock market fall itself. Care abt potential financial instability. Stock market drop unlikely to trigger crisis.”

And with that, only one last saying comes to my mind:

Dear 401K holders – welcome to a savers world. Oh yeah, and buckle up. For things might get a little “bumpy” as that other saying goes.

America Is Hardly A Bastion Of Free Trade

Rhetoric has recently trumped reality. It has become a misconceived bit of common “knowledge” that the United States of America is a bastion of free trade. Little could be further from the truth. The “freest” nation on earth, as we are taught to believe, imposes a staggering number of tariffs, import and export bans, sanctions and embargoes. Yet somehow “free trade” is blamed for the financial ills of the unemployed in the formerly industrial Midwest. Instead of taking a serious look at our existing trade policies, and maybe reducing some of the regulations, President Trump promised Midwesterners that their inefficient factor jobs that have been outsourced to the “right to work” south and overseas will be brought back by imposing new import taxes on specific companies. It is a naïve and ignorant notion that singling out countries and taxing the goods they import into the US will somehow help the unemployed while having absolutely no effect on the country’s general productivity and standard of living. Besides, we’ve already been doing that for far too long.

The US imposes tariffs on over 12,000 different goods and services. No that is not a typo — over 12,000. Some of these tariffs are so significantly prohibitive that they are effectively outright bans.

Sugar, for example, is one product that Americans get gouged on, paying an average of $277 million more per year than they should. That is $277 million per year that would otherwise be used to consume other goods, invested in growing businesses, creating jobs, and raising real wages. This is nothing new. The original tariff was imposed as a “temporary” protection for US sugar farmers, that was more than 80 years ago. It has protected US sugar farmers, but has also decreased the productivity of the sugar farmers’ land. The laws of absolute and comparative advantage would dictate that the land on which sugar cane and sugar beets are grown and harvested should be used to produce goods in which these particular regions can more (cost and time) efficiently produce.

Sugar is not the only good, not by a long shot.

Even America’s favorite snack while watching America’s “favorite” past time — peanuts — are significantly more expensive than they otherwise would be because of measures to “protect” the US peanut farming industry. Specifically, the government imposes a 131.8 percent ad valorem tax on shelled nuts, even higher tariffs are applied to unshelled peanuts. The peanut farming industry is a $1 billion industry, annually. The question is how much are those numbers padded by the tariff, and how much less would consumers be paying for peanuts if peanut farmers weren’t a privileged class. A further example that demonstrates how inefficient these tariffs are is the import tax and quotas placed on rubber tires. In 2012, President Obama bragged about creating “over” 1,000 jobs in the tire manufacturing industry resulting from the measure. One account estimates that in 2011 alone Americans paid an additional $1.1 billion for tires, or roughly $900,000 per “job created,” than they otherwise would have. The same estimation concludes that 2 retail jobs were lost for every 1 manufacturing job created by the tax.

Tariffs are not the only way that the US government engages in what many would call “fair trade” instead of flat out free trade. Embargoes placed on several countries for so-called diplomatic purposes also distort international trade. Worse than the distortions they create, they don’t work for diplomatic advancement either. History tells us — and as 19^th century classical liberal Otto T. Mallery (and many others before and since) did — when goods don’t cross borders armies do. Contrary to popular belief it was not the European Union being created, it was not the United Nations mandating a beach bonfire kumbayah between countries, and it wasn’t the US military presence around the globe that has prevented another World War. It has been the increasingly open global market, the economic entanglements and the consequential benefits that nations reap when trading with others.

Before “heaping absurdity upon absurdity” as Bastiat put it in his famous essay The Petition of the Candlestick Makers maybe first we should take a look at the existing pile of absurdity that is US trade policy. To be clear, trade policies can carry many nuances. Tariffs don’t always necessarily only effect price, they could quite possibly effect profit margins of overseas corporations and create employment. They do always necessarily reduce prosperity. Even in the event that new jobs are created, they are likely to be less efficient jobs — either in cost, time or both — than their overseas counterparts. The best way to increase the number of jobs and the wages paid to those jobs is to increase the productivity of industry. First steps toward that should consist of tax reform, regulatory reduction, encouraging capital formation and accumulation, and repatriating the trillions of dollars stashed offshore as a result of high taxes and burdensome regulations.

Imposing more tariffs on more goods and more countries will simply make America a less productive society. Instead we are far better off focusing on producing the goods and services that — as the law of comparative advantage dictates — we are most superior at producing.

The Banking Secret that Neither Economists Nor Laypeople Know … Which Is Destroying the Real Economy (While Making a Few King)

Private Banks - Not the Government or Central Banks - Create 97 Percent of All Money

Who creates money?

Most people assume that money is created by governments ... or perhaps central banks.

In reality - as noted by the Bank of England, Britain"s central bank - 97% of all money in circulation is created by private banks.

Bank Loans = Creating Money Out of Thin Air

But how do private banks create money?

We"ve all been taught that banks first take in deposits, and then they loan out those deposits to folks who want to borrow.

But this is a myth ... The Bank of England the German central bank have explained that loans are extended before deposits exist ... and that the loans create deposits:

The above is from an official video released by the Bank of England. The Bank of England explains:

Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

• Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

***

One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers, for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.

***

In reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money .... Rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.

***

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans. *** This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics” in the 1960s stating:

[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.

Monetary expert and economics professor Randall Wray explained to Washington"s Blog that:

Bank deposits are bank IOUs.

Economics professor Richard Werner - who obtained his PhD in economics from Oxford, was the first Shimomura Fellow at the Research Institute for Capital Formation at the Development Bank of Japan, Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies at the Bank of Japan, Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Monetary and Fiscal Studies at the Ministry of Finance, and chief economist of Jardine Fleming - was granted access to study a bank"s books, and confirmed that private banks create money when they simply create fictitious deposits into a borrower"s account. Werner explains:

What banks do is to simply reclassify their accounts payable items arising from the act of lending as ‘customer deposits’, and the general public, when receiving payment in the form of a transfer of bank deposits, believes that a form of money had been paid into the bank.

***

No balance is drawn down to make a payment to the borrower.

***

The bank does not actually make any money available to the borrower: No transfer of funds from anywhere to the customer or indeed the customer’s account takes place. There is no equal reduction in the balance of another account to defray the borrower. Instead, the bank simply re-classified its liabilities, changing the ‘accounts payable’ obligation arising from the bank loan contract to another liability category called ‘customer deposits’.

While the borrower is given the impression that the bank had transferred money from its capital, reserves or other accounts to the borrower’s account (as indeed major theories of banking, the financial intermediation and fractional reserve theories, erroneously claim), in reality this is not the case. Neither the bank nor the customer deposited any money, nor were any funds from anywhere outside the bank utilised to make the deposit in the borrower’s account. Indeed, there was no depositing of any funds.

***

The bank’s liability is simply re-named a ‘bank deposit’.

***

Banks create money when they grant a loan: they invent a fictitious customer deposit, which the central bank and all users of our monetary system, consider to be ‘money’, indistinguishable from ‘real’ deposits not newly invented by the banks. Thus banks do not just grant credit, they create credit, and simultaneously they create money.

***

Instead of discharging their liability to pay out loans, the banks merely reclassify their liabilities originating from loan contracts from what should be an ‘accounts payable’ item to ‘customer deposit’ ....

How Can Banks DO This?

Professor Werner explains the reason that banks - but no one else - can create money out of thin air is that they are the only institution exempted from normal accounting rules. Specifically, every other company would be busted for fraudulent accounting if they conjured new money out of thin air by reclassifying a liability (i.e. an accounts payable) as an asset (i.e. a deposit). But the banks have pushed through exemptions so that they don"t have to follow normal accounting rules:

What enables banks to create credit and hence money is their exemption from the Client Money Rules. Thanks to this exemption they are allowed to keep customer deposits on their own balance sheet. This means that depositors who deposit their money with a bank are no longer the legal owners of this money. Instead, they are just one of the general creditors of the bank whom it owes money to. It also means that the bank is able to access the records of the customer deposits held with it and invent a new ‘customer deposit’ that had not actually been paid in, but instead is a re-classified accounts payable liability of the bank arising from a loan contract.

***

What makes banks unique and explains the combination of lending and deposit-taking under one roof is the more fundamental fact that they do not have to segregate client accounts, and thus are able to engage in an exercise of ‘re-labelling’ and mixing different liabilities, specifically by re-assigning their accounts payable liabilities incurred when entering into loan agreements, to another category of liability called ‘customer deposits’.

What distinguishes banks from non-banks is their ability to create credit and money through lending, which is accomplished by booking what actually are accounts payable liabilities as imaginary customer deposits, and this is in turn made possible by a particular regulation that renders banks unique: their exemption from the Client Money Rules. [Werner gives a concrete example on British law for banking and non-banking institutions.]

Sound fraudulent? Professor Werner thinks so, also:

But he also makes some more important points ...

What Does It All Mean? The Implications of Money Creation By Private Banks

Mainstream economists believe that private debt doesn’t even “exist“ as a force that acts on the economy. For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman assume that huge levels of household debt don’t hurt the economy because more debt among households just means that savers have loaned them money … i.e. that it is a net wash to the economy. To make this assumption, they rely on the myth debunked above ... that banks can only loan as much money out as they have in deposits. In reality, 143 years of history shows that excessive private debt – in and of itself – can cause depressions.

Moreover, Professor Werner points out that attempts to shore up the banking system with capital requirements (such as the Basel accords) are doomed to failure, since they don"t recognize that banks create money at will:

Basel rules were doomed to failure, since they consider banks as financial intermediaries, when in actual fact they are the creators of the money supply. Since banks invent money as fictitious deposits, it can be readily shown that capital adequacy based bank regulation does not have to restrict bank activity: banks can create money and hence can arrange for money to be made available to purchase newly issued shares that increase their bank capital. In other words, banks could simply invent the money that is then used to increase their capital. This is what Barclays Bank did in 2008, in order to avoid the use of tax money to shore up the bank’s capital: Barclays ‘raised’ £5.8 bn in new equity from Gulf sovereign wealth investors — by, it has transpired, lending them the money! As is explained in Werner (2014a), Barclays implemented a standard loan operation, thus inventing the £5.8 bn deposit ‘lent’ to the investor. This deposit was then used to ‘purchase’ the newly issued Barclays shares. Thus in this case the bank liability originating from the bank loan to the Gulf investor transmuted from (1) an accounts payable liability to (2) a customer deposit liability, to finally end up as (3) equity — another category on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet. Effectively, Barclays invented its own capital. This certainly was cheaper for the UK tax payer than using tax money. As publicly listed companies in general are not allowed to lend money to firms for the purpose of buying their stocks, it was not in conformity with the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in public company). But regulators were willing to overlook this. As Werner (2014b) argues, using central bank or bank credit creation is in principle the most cost-effective way to clean up the banking system and ensure that bank credit growth recovers quickly. The Barclays case is however evidence that stricter capital requirements do not necessary prevent banks from expanding credit and money creation, since their creation of deposits generates more purchasing power with which increased bank capital can also be funded.

Moreover, Werner points out that banks create the boom-bust cycle by lending too much for speculative, non-productive purposes:

By failing to take into account the fact that banks create money, economists and governments are sowing the seeds for future crashes. But the economics field is very resistant to change ... Economics professor Steve Keen notes in Forbes:

In any genuine science, empirical data like this would have forced the orthodoxy to rethink its position. But in economics, the profession has sailed on, blithely unaware of how their model of “banks as intermediaries between savers and investors” is seriously wrong, and now blinds them to the remedy for the crisis as it previously blinded them to the possibility of a crisis occurring.

A wit once defined an economist as someone who, when shown that something works in practice, replies “Ah! But does it work in theory?”

And a 2016 IMF paper notes:

Around [the 1960s] banks began to completely disappear from most macroeconomic models of how the economy works.­

This helps explain why, when faced with the Great Recession in 2008, macroeconomics was initially unprepared to contribute much to the analysis of the interaction of banks with the macro economy. Today there is a sizable body of research on this topic, but the literature still has many difficulties.­

***

Virtually all recent mainstream neoclassical economic research is based on the highly misleading “intermediation of loanable funds” description of banking ...

***

In modern neoclassical intermediation of loanable funds theories, banks are seen as intermediating real savings. Lending, in this narrative, starts with banks collecting deposits of previously saved real resources (perishable consumer goods, consumer durables, machines and equipment, etc.) from savers and ends with the lending of those same real resources to borrowers. But such institutions simply do not exist in the real world. There are no loanable funds of real resources that bankers can collect and then lend out. Banks do of course collect checks or similar financial instruments, but because such instruments—to have any value—must be drawn on funds from elsewhere in the financial system, they cannot be deposits of new funds from outside the financial system. New funds are produced only with new bank loans (or when banks purchase additional financial or real assets), through book entries made by keystrokes on the banker’s keyboard at the time of disbursement. This means that the funds do not exist before the loan and that they are in the form of electronic entries—or, historically, paper ledger entries—rather than real resources.­

***

This “financing through money creation” function of banks has been repeatedly described in publications of the world’s leading central banks—see McLeay, Radia, and Thomas (2014a, 2014b) for excellent summaries. What has been much more challenging, however, is the incorporation of these insights into macroeconomic models [how true].

What"s the Solution?

We"ve seen the problems created by failing to take into account the fact that private banks create money. But there are solutions ... Initially, Professor Werner notes that preventing banks from creating new money to loan for speculation and mere personal consumption would prevent booms and busts:

Werner says that the "Asian Miracle" happened for exactly this reason:

Additionally, allowing small community banks to grow would cause the real economy to flourish ... since small banks loan to small businesses (which create most of the jobs), while big banks only loan to giant companies and speculators:

Indeed, big banks are virtually out of the business of traditional lending ... and small banks are the only ones funding Main Street. Werner says this is the secret of Germany"s economic success:

Postscript: Due to their unique money-printing powers, banks now literally own the world … including the entire political system.

There"s a war raging in connection with banking. Remember that the giant banks tried to kill off community banking through the Trans Pacific Partnership. And as Professor Werner points out, the European Central Bank is currently in a war to destroy community banks:

One of key battles for prosperity and democracy today is decentralization of the banking system.

Which Country Punishes Productive People The Most?

Submitted by Daniel Mitchell via The Foundation for Economic Education,

Back in 2014, I shared some data from the Tax Foundation that measured the degree to which various developed nations punished high-income earners.

This measure of relative “progressivity” focused on personal income taxes. And that’s important because that levy often is the most onerous for highly productive residents of a nation.

But there are other taxes that also create a gap between what such taxpayers earn and produce and what they ultimately are able to consume and enjoy. What about the effects of payroll taxes? Of consumption taxes and other levies?

Looking at the Evidence

To answer that question, we have a very useful study from the European Policy Information Center on this topic. Authored by Alexander Fritz Englund and Jacob Lundberg, it looks at the total marginal tax rate on each nation’s most productive taxpayers.

They start with some sensible observations about why marginal tax rates matter, basically echoing what I wrote after last year’s Super Bowl.

Here’s what Englund and Lundberg wrote.

The marginal tax rate is the proportion of tax paid on the last euro earned. It is the relevant tax rate when deciding whether to work a few extra hours or accept a promotion, for example. As most income tax systems are progressive, the marginal tax rate on top incomes is usually also the highest marginal tax rate. It is an indicator of how progressive and distortionary the income tax is.”

They then explain why they include payroll taxes in their calculations.

The income tax alone does not provide a complete picture of how the tax system affects incentives to work and earn income. Many countries require employers and/or employees to pay social contributions. It is not uncommon for the associated benefits to be capped while the contribution itself is uncapped, meaning it is a de facto tax for high-income earners. Even those social contributions that are legally paid by the employer will in the end be paid by the employee as the employer should be expected to shift the burden of the tax through lower gross wages.”

Englund and Lundberg are correct. A payroll tax (sometimes called a “social insurance” levy) will be just as destructive as a regular income tax if workers aren’t “earning” some sort of additional benefit. And they’re also right when they point out that payroll taxes “paid” by employers actually are borne by workers.

They then explain why they include a measure of consumption taxation.

One must also take value-added taxes and other consumption taxes into account. Consumption taxes reduce the purchasing power of wage-earners and thus affect the return to working. In principle, it does not matter whether taxation takes place when income is earned or when it is consumed, as the ultimate purpose of work is consumption.”

Once again, the authors are spot on. Taxes undermine incentives to be productive by driving a wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption, so you have to look at levies that grab your income as it is earned as well as levies that grab your income as it is spent.

All Things Considered

And when you begin to add everything together, you get the most accurate measure of government greed.

Taking all these taxes into account, one can compute the effective marginal tax rate. This shows how many cents the government receives for every euro of additional employee compensation paid by the firm. …If the top effective tax rate is 75 percent, as in Sweden, a person who contributes 100 additional euros to the economy will only be allowed to keep 25 euros while 75 euros are appropriated by the government. The tax system thus drives a wedge between the social and private return to work. …High marginal tax rates disconnect the private and social returns to economic activity and thereby the invisible hand ceases to function. For this reason, taxation causes distortions and is costly to society. High marginal tax rates make it less worthwhile to supply labour on the formal labour market and more worthwhile to spend time on household work, black market activities and tax avoidance.”

Here’s their data for various developed nations.

Keep in mind that these are the taxes that impact each nation’s most productive taxpayers. So that includes top income tax rates, both for the central governments and sub-national governments, as well as surtaxes. It includes various social insurance levies, to the extent such taxes apply to all income. And it includes a measure of estimated consumption taxation.

And here’s the ranking of all the nations. Shed a tear for entrepreneurs in Sweden, Belgium, and Portugal.

Slovakia wins the prize for the least-punitive tax regime, though it’s worth noting that Hong Kong easily would have the best system if it was included in the ranking.

U.S. Ranking

For what it’s worth, the United States does fairly well compared to other nations. This is not because our personal income tax is reasonable (see dark blue bars), but rather because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were unsuccessful in their efforts to bust the “wage base cap” and apply the Social Security payroll tax on all income. We also thankfully don’t have a value-added tax. These factors explain why our medium-blue and light-blue bars are the smallest.

By the way, this doesn’t mean we have a friendly system for upper-income taxpayers in America. They lose almost half of every dollar they generate for the economy. And whether one is looking at Tax Foundation numbers, Congressional Budget Office calculations, information from the New York Times, or data from the IRS, rich people in the United States are paying a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Though none of this satisfies the statists. They actually would like us to think that letting well-to-do taxpayers keep any of their money is akin to a handout.

Now would be an appropriate time to remind everyone that imposing high tax rates doesn’t necessarily mean collecting high tax revenues.

In the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Also, keep in mind that these calculations don’t measure the tax bias against saving and investment, so the tax burden on some upper-income taxpayers may be higher or lower depending on the degree to which countries penalize capital formation.

P.S. If one includes the perverse incentive effects of various redistribution programs, the very highest marginal tax rates (at least when measuring implicit rates) sometimes apply to a nation’s poor people.

P.P.S. Our statist friends sometimes justify punitive taxes as a way of using coercion to produce more equality, but the net effect of such policies is weaker growth and that means it is more difficult for lower-income and middle-income people to climb the economic ladder. In other words, unfettered markets are the best way to get social mobility.