More than 5 years into this crisis, and there is little sign of long lasting recovery. In fact, if the warnings of non-orthodox economists are to be believed, then we face an even starker future ahead.
There will be much ink spilled (and maybe blood and tears too) over whether it is the “state” or the “free market” that has caused this crisis. This argument has filled many a blog debate over the years, and has also gestated fringe movements as the Tea Party and Occupy.
However, much evidence does point to an unholy collusion between state and “free” markets. Again, much ink could get spilled in unpicking whether there has always been this alliance of interests. As only when the tide is going out can we see who has been swimming a bit too close to whom.
In the end, both the state and the free market are both ambiguous social conventions, and so straw men of only moderately differing qualities (but also of nebulous identity) will be attacked and defended in equal measure.
At their core, both social conventions of state and market are ultimately comprised of individuals. Many of these individuals deftly segue between private & public roles (e.g. Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson and our own Tony Blair) to the point that they can effortlessly appear on whichever side of the argument they choose.
However, what the current and past elite cannot avoid is their personal accountability for specific decisions and actions that they took whilst in positions of power and influence (whether privately employed or state representatives). They may proclaim that they made decisions in good faith, just a shame about the outcomes. However, they cannot be allowed to absolve themselves entirely from blame. At best their defence could only consist of admitting “economic manslaughter through diminished responsibility”.
This crisis is more than just a collective failure of ideology. It has been based on poor decision making by people who did know better, and yet actively dismissed warnings. Above all else, the position of power bestows on them perpetual accountability. They cannot have power without responsibility.
If we allow ourselves to engage in theoretic debate on such an abstract level of state versus free markets, we merely grant the real perpetrators immunity from their specific and individual culpability, regardless of which side of the fence they sit.
It is probably long overdue, but now is a pertinent time to issue an extensive Profits Warning for the West. This is because:
– Stock market valuations are fictitiously high
– Corporate profits are based on sham accounts (Zerohedge)
– The indebtedness of the average person in almost every developed country is excessive and unsustainable
– Government debt is ballooning
At the heart of this cross-sector malady is the fact that the Western banking sector is leveraged beyond comprehension. In the UK the combined balance sheet of private banks is 4.5 times GDP. Is this necessary and is it healthy?
During Britain’s post-war boom years of the ‘50s and ‘60s, it was never more than about half of GDP. So, no, it isn’t necessary.
As for the healthiness of this, well, anyone can look profitable in the short-run if they raid the cookie jar. So, the profit and loss accounts of each of these sectors may look fine. But has anyone studied the balance sheets? Yet this is where the real disease manifests.
To only focus on the P&L account assumes that all of the entities within each of these sectors can sustain themselves as a going concern. But it is increasingly clear that to maintain the fiction, ever more desperate acts of raiding the balance sheet needs to take place. In the UK, not only has public debt climbed higher and higher (a large proportion in recent years as a direct consequence of trying to maintain the fiction of bank solvency), but state assets have been sold off too.
If you are selling off the family silver whilst still running up enormous debts, then something is seriously wrong. This is not cry for public sector austerity. Far from it. Austerity is merely collective punishment of the already unsuspecting victims.
This is a warning that all we take for granted, in terms of our personal solvency, our employer’s solvency and that of our Government’s, as well as the stock market valuation, our savings themselves and even the value of our money, is a fiction.
The longer we maintain the fiction of false profits, the harder the fall.
We are in the midst of a depression / debt deflation, but one unlike anything beforehand. This is truly global. Truly interconnected, and truly uber-leveraged.
No bank is safe, no asset is safe. No currency is safe and no country is safe.
The pyramid scheme is collapsing under its own weight. Yet the twin vortices of inflation and deflation are disorientating us all. Disguising the underlying tensions and masking the future collapse.
The real economy is unable to supply productive capacity growth. We are hitting the buffers in terms of efficiency gain and real economic growth.
With the extortionate rise in money, debt, assets and derivatives we have deluded ourselves into thinking this reflects the true potential of future productive capacity. But that cannot be realised in the real world. The monetary assets actually represent negative inventory (belief that one holds a permanent claim on something tangible in the future – a long term call option as it were).
As energy declines, then real productive capacity is likely to fall too, which means that there will be less REAL assets for consumption to go around. The longer we continue to try and prop up the fictitious leverage, the longer the divergence between ever rising expectations and yet declining real capacity.
Deposits have been rehypothecated, mortagages have been rehypothecated. The nation’s Gold has been too, and in a very real sense our whole economy has.
The amount of claims far exceed the real assets to back them. It is nothing but naked leverage; the only thing holding up our fabricated sense of wealth and international power. Leverage that lurks in the shadow (banking system) until the claims start coming in. So how does this get settled? Are all claims on assets devalued equally, or do only a select few get to keep their claims whilst the rest of us get our fingers burned?
This excellent post on Golem-XIV so graphically highlights both that the claims are coming in (and so the leverage is collapsing behind the scenes), but also that the pyramid builders are making their exit and blocking the rest of us from escaping. They don’t want to get trampled as everyone dashes for the exits.
Ever since this financial crisis exploded in 2008 there have been commentators likening it to the 1930s. Steve Keen explains that private debt levels (never mind the sovereign debt sideshow) are higher than they were in the late 1920s. Paul Mason recently drew parallels with the 1930s in order to discuss various policy responses that might occur.
From an economic policy view, the 1930s crisis was often viewed as a problem of lack of demand. So demand stimulation came to the recue in various different guises. The diagnosis of the 1930s by Karl Polanyi viewed the crisis in terms of social reactions to the damage caused by un-fettered market economics. The blog post Wall of Illusions covers this viewpoint quite succinctly.
However, Polanyi may have missed an important aspect of world economic development. Perhaps the US New Deal, the rise of Fascism & state Communism were actually experiments in socioeconomic structures for optimising demand stimulation. The late 19th century and early 20th century bore witness to enormous increases in economic productive capabilities. The challenge for the economic policy maker was to indentify the best method for creating demand to satisfy this tsunami of supply. Naturally warfare is one method for achieving this.
The success of the Social Democratic mixed economies that emerged post World War II could be attributed to it establishing the least worst method for demand stimulation. Therefore, the debt-based demand growth model (whether by Gvt, business or private households) was the most socially acceptable method for ramping up the global economy to exploit the enormous energy and resource supply that was unearthed. The US and dollar reserve currency rode to the challenge of being the engineer and engine of a profitably expansionist global economy.
In the current crisis the enormous debt overhang threatens to constrain demand. Steve Keen’s exellent analysis of the debt burden, highlights how debt payments are prohibiting real economic growth.
But this is only part of the story.
As we actually reaching the peaking out of many natural resources, crucial for economic growth, the current crisis will be mired in insurmountable problems of supply.
This chart of G7 economic growth is showing a secular downward trend. From growth levels of about 3% p/a in the 1990s to stagnation in 2010 – 2015. This confirms a secular slowdown of -1% in growth every 5 years, which a major turning point happening about now.
The chart confirms that major developed economies are platauing in terms of economic productivity. If we link this plateau with the energy & resource constraints staring us in the face and you can only conclude that the world’s major economies are incapable of supplying the necessary cost-effective inputs to power economic production, regardless of fiscal and monetary stimulus. The capitalist economy’s acceleration addiction is getting an unwelcome dose of cold turkey.
The mainstream policy response will be two fold. Firstly, a desperate clinging to the high demand expectations, fully embeded in the zealotry surrounding the neccessity for creditors to be made whole on their expansionist lending practices. All efforts possible will made to maintain (or even grow) debts as the dogma suggests that only this can hope to create the neccessary demand stimulation.
As supply shocks also become apparent, we should also be wary that in a last gasp pique of laissez-faire de-regulation (of labour & environmental protections) will be imposed too. The migration of production capacity to large developing countries has only ever been to achieve the illusion of permanent supply growth. But this has already come at extreme social costs, such as mounting personsal debts, rising unemployment, declining social welfare. The desperation is only likely to push this further and further.
This is the legacy that predatory capitalism is delivering for the world. Energy and resource supply at any cost. Regardless of the impact on the environment, on people’s health or their quality of life.
Some of you may have already heard of the “Quants”, the supposed supermen of financial engineering. The majestic modellers of risk management and liquidity management that within their black box algorithmic alchemy they alone hold the key to unlocking the wondrous stability and growth of the late 20th / early 21st century.
Well, it seems that their black box “black magic”, might have turned out to be little more than complete fiction:
“Scientists struggle with models in many fields—including climate science, coastal erosion and nuclear safety—in which the phenomena they describe are very complex, or information is hard to come by, or, as is the case with financial models, both. But in no area of human activity is so much faith placed in such flimsy science as finance.”
States an article just published in the Scientific American:
“Calibrating a complex model for which parameters can’t be directly measured usually involves taking historical data, and, enlisting various computational techniques, adjusting the parameters so that the model would have “predicted” that historical data. At that point the model is considered calibrated, and should predict in theory what will happen going forward.”
It seems that a scientist (of the genuine variety) undertook a test whereby he created some dummy data from an underlying statistical trend model and then using the output data generated by this model tried to re-create the original formula; much as in the way a financial quant would study past trends of financial data and create a well fitting trend formula to predict the future.
So what did he find? Well, he found that he wound up not with one correct answer, but numerous, almost correct answers:
“while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward”
In other words the models “seemed” OK when tested against the data they were “trained on”, but then failed when tested against new data, it’s future forecasts.
So when the new data arrives, and it doesn’t match the orginal forecast, what do the Quants do? Well they don’t say their model was incorrect, they just say that it needs “re-calibrating”:
“When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it. If you had to readjust the constant in Newton’s law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn’t be much of a law. But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work.”
Yes, so much “faith” is placed on these financial geeks, and their flimsy “science” and flimsy “models” by a naïve public and gullible politicians.
In fact referring to what financial quants call “models” is an insult not just to science but to real models like Jordan and Kate Moss too.
NB: Scientific American may be a little late to the party in critiquing the Quants, as this film from 2010 explores the dubious underpinnings of high finance:
However, the beauty of the Scientific American article is the way that the investigator used a pure laboratory experiment to conclusively prove the folly of assuming that formulae created from past data is not always sufficient to conclusively predict the future.
There is much talk of a plan emerging for addressing the Eurozone’s current economic problems. The broad terms of the plan are that Greece may be permitted a partial default on its debts. But given the consequent impact this “haircut” would have on major banks in other European countries (such as France), plus the risk of default becoming the economic equivalent of herpes, we learn of the strategy for implementing a grand fiscal firewall (a modern day Maginot line as it were!). This takes the form of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) being expanded to something like three trillion Euros.
Not much of the mainstream media has explained where this funding will come from, except for a perceptive interview on Radio 4 by Paul Mason this Sunday. The Eurozone plans to put forward something in the region of four or five hundred billion Euros, but leverage this up to the three trillion. It will achieve this by raising the money in the (private) Capital Markets by pledging various assets (presumably sovereign) as collateral against future tax revenues. In the words of Zerohedge “Europe has just boldly gone where even Goldman’s Abacus has not dared to go before courtesy of the ECB’s acceptance of a CDO squared Enron Special SPV”.
To anyone who has studied the wonders of modern finance, this shares some similarity to the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). The theory goes that the price of a company share (stockholding) reflects the summation of all future dividend payments (incorporating the dilution of dividends expected further in the future owing to money being devalued over time). Therefore the price of a share now, reflects all future income generating capacity of the underlying company. In a way, it states that you can have the full cash worth now which is equivalent to the amount it would take the company to earn in something like 10-15 years. So the mere act of selling the share realises this future value and you have the income that the real world hasn’t actually produced yet. All wrapped up with the almost zealous denial of uncertainty surrounding whether the future could turn out better or worse than expected. The theory says that the price now IS a complete and true reflection of the future.
Amazing! Finance has proclaimed itself capable of undertaking time-travel, alchemy and telepathy, all in one simple move.
But we know it isn’t really alchemy, telepathy or time travel. Instead, the future income of these sovereign states is about to be mortgaged beyond belief, rendering them perpetually (and undemocratically) in hock to the buccaneering money changers. This is in effect just another side door bailing out of the banks and their reckless lending. Not a true default as such (i.e. no debt destruction has occurred) but a further transfer of debts onto taxpayer shoulders. And this time a supra-national example of that poisonous strategy of “privatised profits and socialised losses”. But there is something even more sinister about this recent stab in the back to taxpayers. They are not just stealing the built up wealth, income and assets of the ordinary people of these countries (as in the privatisations and asset stripping of Greece), but they are cunningly filching the European citizens’ future too.
The ECB is probably being leaned on by Washington to do everything in its power to prevent debt destruction. Whenever any stresses occur in the system the Washington modus operandi is to fail to accept the losses and double down the bets. Ever since the financial crises of the 1980s onwards (e.g. Mexico, 1987 crash, S&L, LTCM etc.), the strategy has been to expand dollar liquidity & financial sector leverage. The cost for servicing this build-up of unsustainable debts is pushed outwards to the innocent citizens of periphery countries and onto the shoulders of future generations.
If the EU approves the plan to expand the EFSF then they are embarking on a gigantic Collateralised Debt Obligation, taking the yet-to-be earned income of European taxpayers and throwing it at the banks to prop up their traumatised balance sheets. Ultimately just lining the pockets of the wealthy bankers from this leveraged up booty.
In short, they are plundering from the future for its not around to protest against it.
I’m afraid a second Great Depression is a possibility.
The only doctor that can cure the problem is the G20.
The debt situation is far bigger than 1929 when many US citizens jumped on the stock bubble with credit. But many would be less than 10% unlike the many that jumped on the worldwide property bubble.
We cannot unilaterally change our interest rate without consequences affecting FOREX, capital movements and balance of trade. The US can.
The US is like the sun and the rest of us are like planets. If the US gets hot or cold the rest of us get hot or cold.
We have just witnessed a bubble busting, the tech bubble of 2001. We couldn’t possibly walk right into another, but we did.
The tech bubble burst thanks to tiny calculations showing that the emperor had no clothes and 90% of the new Internet companies disappeared overnight. It cost the US 2m jobs and Alan Greenspan took advantage of the US’s reserve currency status to reduce interest rates every 6 weeks 11 times in a row.
I’m not looking at any references. This is all from memory. I follow these things like a hawk.
Easy money put on 7m new US jobs.
When the US reduces interest rates we, and others, can follow and we did. We went down to 3.5% and it occurred to me that that was ¼ of the base rate when I bought here. Therefore, another person could get 4 times his mortgage for the same cost as his 1991 mortgage and that is what happened here and across the world.
The UK house price rose to 9.3 times average income when the norm is 3. US house prices went to 6.
We first heard the term sub-prime mortgagee in 2007. But the fact is that since Carter the NINJAs basically had to be given a mortgage and if he didn’t get one he could get legal assistance from Barack Obama, the solicitor, to get his right to a mortgage. The banks found a way of selling on sub-prime mortgages as securitized bonds (mortgages are securitized loans as the lender has his name on the title and can reposess the asset and sell it if the mortgagee fails to pay). The rip-roaring Northern Rock was giving 125% loans but it was selling them on and was outstanding in the building society market with a great business model for many years.
Securitized bonds paid as much as 18% and there was massive appetite for them. The more sub-prime the better the bond paid and house prices just went up and up and up (as bubbles do). US banks were actively seeking NINJAs and Northern Rock was reaping them in with its 125% deals. In the US you got a three-year easy start to draw you in. These bonds were triple A and when you think that interest rates in Japan were 0% for seven years you can see where the appetite came from. Foreigners held 80% of US treasuries. They were AAA and paid 4% when your bank paid 0%. Buyers of Mortgaged Backed Securities (MBS) looked no further than the 18% and the word “securitized”.
So my point is that the US, with its reserve currency status, had a licence to reduce interest rates and it paid them well, putting on 7m extra jobs and expanding GDP. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid increased 10 fold in twenty years and Bush signed the cheques. The cost of Iraq was small fry by comparison. The US debt ceiling was increased with a nod some twenty times and no one was bothered.
That is what was happening to the world economy. The sun was getting hot and we all benefited from the low interest rates.
But back home we were wanting in parliamentary debate and scrutiny. This is what parliament does. The massive Labour majority of 1997 led to a situation where it was not necessary for Labour MPs to attend debate but only to attend for the vote. Typically few or no Labour backbenchers attended a Finance Bill debate. Try keeping Ken Clarke, John Redwood or Peter Lilley away when money was on the table. But Labour MPs, who actually thought that Gordon Brown was a super economist (when he only studied modern history), never received or contributed to debate and scrutiny.
Labour (when we talk about labour we are only talking about the handful of middle class privately educated politics, philosophy and economics graduates, PPEs, who traditionally take all the top jobs) (prior to 1965 every member of a conservative cabinet had a PPE from Oxford, you need a PPE to govern) jumped on the easy money decade. They borrowed £30-£40bn every year since 2003, grabbed £15bn pa from pension funds (forcing employers to scrap their defined benefit schemes or fund the missing £15bn from profits which in turn takes £15bn from investment in UK wealth creation), drove people into property as the FTSE suffered the loss of £15bn pa, ran up an off-balance sheet debt of £300bn in PFI, allowed mortgage debt to sky-rocket to £1.2tr, allowed £400bn of home equity release and allowed banks to multiply their lending reserve by as much as 30 times deposits.
The result is that today we have personal debt of 1.06 x GDP, corporate debt of 1.26 x GDP and sovereign debt of 89% of GDP. All affordable when interest rates are low but all having to be paid back.
Debt is where you go when you cannot make ends meet. It is bringing forward future earnings. It is like earning £100 per week and taking a one-week sub and telling everyone you are on £200 per week.
GDP is measured in three ways that all give the same answer. It is basically the summation of all transactions. It peaked at £1.5tr in 2007, as did personal debt (£1.2tr of which was mortgages).
Nevermind Gordon Brown’s claim of 53 quarters of growth and the best chancellor ever. Just looking at a simple model; personal debt rising from 0 to equal to GDP between 1997 and 2007, and assuming it is linear, it takes real GDP from +3% to –7%. We were spending money and providing jobs that derived from home equity release, PFI, mortgages and personal, corporate and sovereign loans.
30,000 extra doctors, 90,000 extra nurses, 80,000 teaching assistants and 118 brand new schools in 2007. It all sounded great. A doubling in the spend on pupils pa and a tripling of NHS spend but all based on borrowing and not what we can afford but passed off as the latter.
The illusion was first broken when the Daily Mail ran the story that 90% of all the new jobs that Labour boasted about went to migrants who came here from 2004 onwards to get paid 6 times what they could get back home for the same work. The £ fell and the Zloty rose and many went home but we still have 1.35m doing work that Brits will not do because they are much better off on benefits. Then it transpires that many of the 5.2m Brits on benefits are basically unemployable and industry will always choose a migrant over a Brit because the Brit is less educated, less presentable and has a lower work ethic.
I broke the story that to halve the deficit in four years also meant to increase the national debt in five years. I put it on lots of financial sites prior to the election. Obama first used the phrase and I thought it was good news until I realised that he would be halving the deficit and not the debt. Labour picked up on it and even made it law and I knew it was a persuasive mantra.
You only had to add a few numbers together to understand that halving the deficit in four years meant doubling the debt in five. Debt was £700bn. Add £178bn, £130bn, £110bn, £89bn and a further year and you doubled the debt. I posted it on Jeff Randall’s Telegraph column and the following day was budget day. He never mentioned the budget on his Sky news show when every other channel was budget, budget, and budget. He just repeated that debt was different to deficit and the debt would double in five years. The Treasury Secretary, Steven Timms, was a guest and Jeff asked him what would happen to debt and Steve didn’t know. Jeff pointed out that it would double and that it was in the budget document that Steven had just written.
We are paying £43bn pa in debt service charges and this will grow to £63bn at the end of the coalition term. But we will miss this target, as it is so difficult to get the structural deficit down to 0 in a five year term.
Please ask yourself what you think about halving the deficit in four years? It does mean paying £120b pa in debt servicing in four years time, equal to the cost of the NHS.
The NHS costs £120b pa out of a total government spend of £700b pa of which £400b goes on benefits and pensions. Does any one really think that paying the cost of the NHS in debt service charges is a good idea?
The numbers are the key to understanding the problem and understanding a problem is the key to solving it.
Management is what we need.
Spending money on the most vulnerable in society was hard to control and ended up multiplying the poor and diverting money from the most vulnerable in society.
We introduced IB (incapacity benefit) for a target audience of 175,000 but soon there were 20 times that number claiming that they couldn’t work a day in their lives due to incapacity. Including 200,000 teenagers.
We went easy on single mums and their numbers grew by three fold in the last twenty years. Often due to LAT’s (live apparts). Those who choose to recover the lost income of the female when a child occurs by claiming to live apart and get everything funded by the state (or as I put it, by their neighbour).
We have to swallow some facts about Labour’s Britain that are not well aired by the media.
-The BBC delighted in telling us that the kids would go back to 118 brand new schools in September 2007 but omitted to tell us that even the primary school children would have to pay the PFI (generally 17% pa over 20 years) as it would load their council tax in years to come.
-600,000 LAT’s all getting all their home bills paid by the taxpayer.
-a career choice for 3.5m, less 175,000, was to graduate from JSA (job seeker’s allowance) to IB for the extra money and to save Labour the embarrassment of high unemployment figures. The most common illness being depression.
-1.35m guest workers doing the work we refuse to do.
-14,000 children excluded from school who will never learn to read and write.
-the average cost of a truant was £2m some 15 years ago. Yet we have more truancy today than ever
-15% leave school with no qualifications despite a doubling of the spend on schooling.
-public sector workers get 43% greater remuneration than private sector workers doing the same work when their 7% extra wages, lower hours, longer holidays, earlier retirement and better pensions are accounted for. The reason being that for 13 years the union (Labour) has sat in the employer’s chair.
-only 64% of working age men work, one in four children live in a home without a father (2m children), 5.2 m of working age do not work, one in four households of working age has no worker.
This list is endless.
I have not mentioned all the assaults on employers. We are beginning to realise that we quite like employers as they provide employment. That is what it says on the can. If you kill an employer you lose the tax they provide and the rest of us have to pick up the tab for benefits necessary to fund the workers that he funded before you hit him with CGL (climate change levy), NMW (national minimum wage) and increased employer NI and UBR (uniform business rates).
None of the Labour stimulus went to employers.
Before going forward let us please get the problem properly identified. There is no point in trying to solve the wrong problem.
Do we all agree that the above is the correct characterisation of the problem?