Tag Archives: stimulus

Ireland bails out banks. Deficit 32% this year. Sovereign debt crisis continues.

The debt crisis finally forced Ireland into making a decision. Ireland had to choose whether to let its banks fail or bail them out. Neither choice was pleasant and both would have had severe repercussions. Not surprising, Ireland took the easier way out. Marketwatch reports:

The cost of bailing out nationalized lender Anglo Irish Bank could soar to as much as 34.3 billion euros ($46.6 billion), the country’s central bank said Thursday, as it also unexpectedly told Allied Irish Banks to raise a further €3 billion.

The new figures, along with the money already injected into other banks and a possible further capital increase for Irish Nationwide Building Society, could see the total cost of the industry bailout hit as much as €50 billion.

In a highly-anticipated assessment of the cost of the financial crisis, the Central Bank of Ireland said it expects Anglo Irish to need €29.3 billion in total, but added the figure could rise by another €5 billion under a “stress scenario.”

The bank has already received €22.9 billion of that total after suffering massive losses as the country’s housing market and construction industry collapsed, dragging the whole economy down with it.

Here’s the key section for those watching the debt crisis and the increasing socialism and economic fascism occurring around the world:

The extra cash for the banking system means the deficit in 2010 will soar to around 32% of gross domestic product, compared to a previous estimate of 12%. The government will announce a new four-year budget plan in November to ensure it can meet this commitment.

A 32 percent deficit!!! That has to be some kind of record.

But what choice did Ireland have? It could have let the banks fail, which would have sent the country to economic turmoil. Instead, it chose to socialize the banks’ debts and is risking the creation of a huge moral hazard. Ireland chose to trade short-term chaos for long-term chaos.

In reality, Ireland is hoping for an economic recovery that will lift its economy and help it reduce its deficit and pay off some of the debt. But will that recovery come soon enough? Will it be strong enough? Will the Irish government and Irish banks suddenly develop the fiscal discipline that it has lacked so far?

I don’t blame Ireland for the choice it made. The problem was not the choice it had to make last week, it was the choices it and other governments, including the United States, have made over the previous decades of loose money, free spending, and debt accumulation.

But we must remember, this story is far from over. It has simply shifted from one of a gushing flesh wound to a slow and festering wound that has not yet been repaired. I repeat: The sovereign debt crisis is far from over. In fact, it is just beginning.

Second Fed official opposes Quantitative Easing.

In a follow-up to my previous blog post Fed planning trillion dollar Quantitative Easing. Fed official admits it won’t work, another Fed official announced his opposition to the planned trillion Dollar quantitative easing:

Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, who will get a vote on the policy setting Federal Open Market Committee next year, on Friday made his case against a new round of bond purchases, saying it is not clear the benefits of further quantitative easing outweigh the costs. Fisher, according to a copy of prepared remarks he’s due to deliver in Vancouver, made the case that removing or reducing the tax and regulatory uncertainties is the best way to promote business spending and have firms “release the liquidity they are hoarding and invest it robustly in hiring and training a workforce that will propel the American economy to new levels of prosperity, rendering moot the argument for QE2,” he said. “I consider this to be a far more desirable outcome than being saddled with a bloated Fed balance sheet.”

The key words are IT IS NOT CLEAR THE BENEFITS OF FURTHER QUANTITATIVE EASING OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.

Doesn’t this seem to the motto of our current government? Purchase mortgages, expand the Fed’s balance sheet, and print more money even if there is no evidence that this helps the economy. Enact a trillion Dollar stimulus bill, pass a TARP bill, extend unemployment benefits to two-years and drop the requirement to look for work, and raise taxes on the rich even though logic and history prove that this things also do nothing for the economy.

Fed planning trillion dollar Quantitative Easing. Fed official admits it won’t work.

The Fed is currently planning a one trillion dollar quantitative easing program. As Jonathon Trugman of the NY Post reports:

The Fed will likely undertake a very large quantitative easing program sooner rather than later, if the economic data doesn’t get markedly better in the very near future.

This QE2 will need to be far more aggressive than most expect, for there is not going to be a QE3. It is essentially the last chance the Fed has. It will want to eradicate any doubt about its ability to work; it is, in essence, the nuclear option.

The measure could be as much as $750 billion to $1.5 trillion. And expect far more aggressive purchases than in QE1.

Mortgage-backed securities, the root cause of the economic collapse, will be the cornerstone of the purchases, thereby allowing a possible 10 percent to 15 percent increase in home prices, which would do wonders for the flat-lined economy.

Credit card-backed paper will be on the tab as well as some auto loans to keep the administration happy.

Sadly, with credit still unavailable to the “middle class” due primarily to poor fiscal policy and economic leadership, the Fed will have to dramatically increase the money supply in order to spur spending. It will work, but it’s going to be complicated.

So Mr. Trugman believes this quantitative easing will work, but that it has to be huge to spur spending. He fails to ask the simple question: will such an aggressive program be worth the benefit?

But others are arguing that the quantitative easing will have no effect at all. Marketwatch reports:

A new round of Federal Reserve purchases of bonds would have little impact on markets or the economy, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota said in a speech on Wednesday.

Speaking in London, Kocherlakota on Wednesday outlined several reasons why buying government bonds wouldn’t make a major impact. For one, banks already have nearly $1 trillion in excess reserves. “QE gives them new licenses to create money, but I do not see why they would suddenly start to use the new ones if they weren’t using the old ones,” he said, according to a copy of the text he was due to deliver.

As to the first round of quantitative easing by the Fed, Kocherlakota cited an academic study showing that the $1.5 trillion purchase of agency debt, agency mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries by the Fed between Jan. 2009 and March 2010 reduced the term premium on 10-year Treasurys relative to 2-year Treasurys by about 40 to 80 basis points, which in turn led to a slightly smaller fall in the term premia of corporate bonds.

Kocherlakota estimates a new round of QE would have a more muted effect, because financial markets are functioning much better than they were in early 2009. “As a result, the relevant spreads are lower, and I suspect that it will be somewhat more challenging for the Fed to impact them,” he said.

So Trugman says this aggressive quantitative easing will work, but Kocherlakota says it won’t. In reality, who knows? The real problem is that there is so little discussion of the risks and costs involed. Marketwatch explains the risk in one sentence:

Kocherlakota also said that the impact of quantitative easing is to shift the interest rate risk on bonds from investors to taxpayers.

So the real impact of this quantitative easing will be to socialize risk. The Fed risks creating further moral hazard. The Fed risks producing interest rates that are too low, which will create more bubbles. The Fed is going to create distortions in the market system. But despite these risks, there is no guarantee of success.

I applaud Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota’s efforts to restore reason and common sense to our ineffective and inefficient monetary policy.

Stimulus spending: the new perpetual motion machine.

Stimulus spending is like a perpetual motion machine. Sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t work. Just as machines must use up more power than they output, so too stimulus costs more than it produces.

If stimulus spending really creates jobs and improves the economy, the government could just stimulate the economy all the time and we’ll never have recessions or unemployment. We can achieve perpetual motion through big government! Or so they tell us.

Eighty years ago, Ludwig von Mises wrote:

It is obviously futile to attempt to eliminate unemployment by embarking upon a program of public works that would otherwise not have been undertaken. The necessary resources for such projects must be withdrawn by taxes or loans from the application they would otherwise have found. Unemployment in one industry can, in this way, be mitigated only to the extent that it is increased in another. From whichever side we consider interventionism, it becomes evident that this system leads to a result that its originators and advocates did not intend and that, even from their standpoint, it must appear as a senseless, self-defeating, absurd policy.

It is not just economists like Mises that predict the failure of stimulus projects. History predicts it as well.

Stimulus spending didn’t prevent the Great Depression. It didn’t prevent any recession since then. And I have yet to see proof that stimulus spending produced a net economic benefit when the costs of the government programs were weighed against the economic gains, if there were any at all. Which leads us to one of two conclusions: either (1) stimulus spending cannot work or (2) it can work in theory but government is simply incapable of applying the correct amount of stimulus at the correct time.

In reality, stimulus does have some short-term effect. The “cash for clunkers” program boosted auto sales briefly. The tax credit for home purchases boosted home sales briefly. Construction spending from the Recovery Act did help the economy slightly. The census lifted employment for a few months. But all these programs do is borrow from the future. In the case of “cash for clunkers” and home tax credit, it brought future sales into the present. In the cases of jobs programs and construction projects, the government takes money from the future (debt) and spends it today. That leaves the government with less money in the future and it will either need to reduce future spending or raise taxes, either way harming our economic future.

The Keynesian argument is that this stimulus spending during a recession and cutting back in the future will smooth out the volatility of the economy. First, the government is great at the spending during the recession part, but terrible at cutting back during the recovery. Keynes’ idea was to run a budget deficit during recessions and a surplus during booms. Instead, government runs a deficit during booms and an even larger deficit during recessions. Second, the government has no idea how much to spend on stimulus during a recession and when to cut back on that spending. The government can only guess at how deep the recession will be, when it will start, when it will end, and how strong the recovery will be.

But the government will not let economics or history stand in the way of its grandiose ideas. As Stalin used to say, “We are bound by no laws. There are no fortresses which Bolsheviks cannot storm.”

History has proven that stimulus spending does not work, just as the great economists explained. Yet, time and again voters fall for the same trick and beg our “benevolent leaders” in Washington to take our hard-earned money from us to spend for us.

God willing, voters this November will learn to say NO to Washington and the politicians. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!” As those great political thinkers from The Who sang, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

The sovereign debt crisis is far from over. In fact, it is just beginning.

Anybody who thought the sovereign debt crisis was over, it is now time to wake up. Irish credit default swaps hit a new record today!

Irish government bond yields rose and the cost of insuring sovereign debt against default jumped Friday due to ongoing jitters over the cost of bailing out Ireland’s troubled banking sector.

Analysts tied the weakness in part to a research note published Thursday by Barclays Capital warning that the Irish government could eventually be forced to seek outside help from the International Monetary Fund and European Union if the fiscal situation proves worse than expected.

The spread on five-year Irish sovereign credit default swaps hit 433 basis points, up from 387 basis points on Thursday — soaring to the widest level on record, according to data provider Markit. That means it would now cost $433,000 a year to insure $10 million of government debt against default, up $36,000 from Thursday.

For months, the various world governments and mainstream media told us that the debt crisis was over. Why? Because countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland would reduce their budget deficits. Not eliminate them, just reduce them.

For example, Portugal:

Portugal posted a deficit of 9.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, the fourth-highest in the 16-country euro region. The government aims to narrow the deficit to 7.3 percent this year and intends to meet the EU’s 3 percent limit in 2012.

Yes, a 3 percent deficit is preferable to a 9.3 percent deficit, but with debt of 75 percent of GDP as of 2009 (much higher now), they are only switching from a quick death to a slow one. Besides, their deficit target is based on assumptions of a growing economy. What if the economy does not grow? The deficit will be wider than expected and their debt problem will get even worse.

Or Spain:

Zapatero has imposed tough austerity programmes, aiming to slash the budget deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product by 2013 from 11.2 percent last year.

Again, 3 percent is better than 11.2 percent, but the slow bleed continues. They are simply putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

And in Greece:

The government plans to cut the budget deficit to 8.1 percent of gross domestic product this year from 13.6 percent last year.

Again, I’m unimpressed. Greece’s debt is already 113 percent of GDP. Is there any way to recover from that besides running budget surpluses, which would require sharp cutback in government services?

And what is the situation like in Ireland, Europe’s new bogeyman?

Analysts say this year’s budget deficit could reach around 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) including the one-off costs associated with bank bailouts.

Even without the one-off bank bill, the shortfall is still expected to be around 10 percent next year on an underlying basis, over three times an EU limit of 3 percent, according to the latest Reuters poll.

Are you serious? A 25 percent deficit is possible this year? And an “improvement” to 10 percent next year?

By the way, the situation in the United States is not much better. This year’s deficit is expected to be 10.6 percent of GDP. Next year’s: 8.3 percent. Eventually, if all things go according to plan, which they never do, the deficit will fall to 3.9 percent of GDP. Not much better than those failing European countries.

And the government/mainstream media is trying to convince us that there is nothing to worry about. Gold is looking more and more attractive every day.

Anti-capitalist British Petroleum

In recent weeks, those on the left including President Obama have attacked British Petroleum and capitalism for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It turns out, BP is no friend of the free-market system:

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Mises on government stimulus spending

In a little known work, Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises explains the folly of government stimulus spending:

It is obviously futile to attempt to eliminate unemployment by embarking upon a program of public works that would otherwise not have been undertaken. The necessary resources for such projects must be withdrawn by taxes or loans from the application they would otherwise have found. Unemployment in one industry can, in this way, be mitigated only to the extent that it is increased in another. From whichever side we consider interventionism, it becomes evident that this system leads to a result that its originators and advocates did not intend and that, even from their standpoint, it must appear as a senseless, self-defeating, absurd policy.