A rebuttal to China crashing soon

Minxei Pei writes an interesting article in The Diplomat titled "China's Economy: Seizure or Cancer".

In it he outlines a number of the obvious features that have been discussed on this blog about China's overall economy.  He dissects the current situation and asks whether there will be an immediate heart attack that hobbles the beast or a systemic cancer that eventually kills it.

He refers to a "heart attack" scenario where a cascade of events, precipitated by a slowdown and excess debt, cripples China.  In his perspective China's communists will force the banks to defer losses and provide a backstop to prevent further contagion.  He states:

But China is different. Because the banking system is effectively owned and controlled by the state, a banking crisis won’t materialize unless the state itself is insolvent and Chinese depositors have completely lost confidence in the state’s sovereign guarantee of its banks. This unique character of the China’s state-owned financial system is the cause of the country’s inability to allocate capital efficiently. However, in the short term, this structural flaw may turn out to be an asset in averting a seizure of the financial system.

As in the global meltdown of 2008 and earlier banking system upsets in China, this approach has worked.

On a second level, if the economy doesn't crash immediately over the course of the next several months, the author perceives a potential "cancer" in the nature of the communist-capitalist hybrid.

Despite the threat of a seizure in the near term, the greater danger to the Chinese economy is its structural inefficiency, which is deeply imbedded in a state-led development model...

The investments made by the Chinese state may have given the Communist Party a lot of prestige (think of the country’s modern infrastructure and ambitious high-tech plans), but delivers preciously few real benefits to its people. Chinese state-owned enterprises have thrived because of their access to practically free capital, but their efficiency remains abysmal compared with domestic private firms or their Western rivals.

No country can keep pouring unlimited amounts of capital into unproductive infrastructure projects. China doesn't have the ability to keep blowing this current bubble and then dismissing colossal financial losses when the bills come due.  With Europe sinking into recession, America limping along, and much of the emerging market turning negative, there is little reason to believe they can pull the same rabbit out of the hat again.

Harper's contempt for Science and Canadian values

One of the fundamental differences between the previous Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and the current Harper Conservatives (Reform-Alliance Party; i.e. CRAP) has been the complete abandonment of progressive environmental policies and investment in the basic sciences.

First, let us consider what Mulroney did in his two-terms that has lead some environmentalists to call him the "greenest Prime Minister" in Canadian history.

• In 1987, the Tories helped establish "The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer".  The global treaty placed a ban on the destructive CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer and jeopardizing life on this planet.  
• Acid rain pollution was dramatically curtailed through cooperative legislation with the Americans.  
• A moratorium on fishing Cod, which twenty years later has yet to recover
• At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the United Nations Environment Programme was championed by Canada, and Canadians served as their leaders.

Whereas, Mulroney could be considered the high-water mark in environmental protection, the Harper government without any doubt is about as low and dirty as a clogged drainage pipe.

Plenty of people have talked of the Conservative's fealty to market based approaches, which is vaguely strange given that the current Prime Minster has never held a real job or career outside politics; his Finance Minister Jim Flahery was a motor vehicle accident and personal injury litigation lawyer (aka Ambulance chaser); and key Minsters Peter MacKay, Tony Clement, John Baird, and Jason Kenney have spent much of their adult lives as professional politicians.  So having established that none of these men has any experience in actually running anything but their mouths off, on the tax payers dime, it is less than obvious why anyone would believe that they understand what they are doing when it comes to making decisions about science funding in the public's interest.

Stephen Harper's desire to constantly control the message and limit the information that reaches the public has become legendary.  Like the Republican Party under George W. Bush, Harper has fought to manipulate the press and machinations within the government to serve his exclusive political goals.  The influence and taint of lobbyists peddling preferred laws, as it is done in Washington DC, is now the norm in his majority government.  Legislation is proudly rammed through parliament without adequate review or discussion from opposition parties or committee members input.  Through this unsightly metamorphosis into a corporate state, impediments such as empirical data, scientific facts, and international treaties to protect the environment have been removed.

Harper has pursued a global embargo on the speech of research scientists affiliated with the Government of Canada for the past few years.  For example, prominent scientists have been barred from granting interviews, providing opinions to the public on their subject of expertise, or discussing  their publications at conferences.  Environment Canada prevented  Dr. David Tarasick from "published findings about one of the largest ozone holes ever discovered above the Arctic."  Similarly, Kristi Miller was prevented from discussing her research into  a virus that might be killing British Columbia's wild sockeye salmon, despite her research being published in the journal Science.  An article in the scientific journal Nature further illustrates the problem:

Carefully researched reports intended for the public — Climate Change and Health, from Health Canada, and Climate Change Impacts, from Natural Resources Canada — were released without publicity, late on Friday afternoons, and appeared on government websites only after long delays.

The government demands that any information provided to the public must be vetted and cleared with a local propaganda officer from the Conservative party.

Science that offends the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists, the same group that makes up Harper's western base, is also edited from public disclosure.

When Scott Dallimore, a geoscientist for Natural Resources Canada in Sidney, British Columbia, reported evidence of the colossal flood that occurred in northern Canada at the end of the last ice age (Nature 464, 740–743; 2010), he was put through the message-moulding machine. As a result, Canada's taxpayers, who funded the research, were left in the dark. While the news broke elsewhere, journalists in Canada who had previously had open access to Dallimore, a gifted communicator, were left spinning their wheels while deadlines passed. The flood happened 13,000 years ago, so how can this work be construed as politically sensitive?

Recently, the Harper government changed the laws so that not-for-profit groups that engage in political criticism are penalized to prevent them for so-called abusing their registered charitable status.

The nearly paranoid and conspiratorial nature of these acts, stems from the Conservative's desire to prevent any information that may run counter to their pro-corporate or religious minded policies from reaching the public and interfering with their program.

---
It is not just the message that Conservatives loath; it is the scientists that accumulate all these facts that make Conservative-backers so angry with the fact-based world.  Over the past year, the Harper government has engaged in a systematic withdrawal of funding for Environment Canada projects and the scientists involved in those research projects.  A student researcher at the University of  Toronto discusses his perspective:

Over the past several months we have seen major cuts to Environment Canada that are leaving it without any real scientific or research power. We have seen many prominent scientific jobs cut, research funding slashed, and our ability to effectively do environmental assessment and management largely neutralized.

Given that public funding is the main source of revenue for environmental sciences at Canadian universities, which has now evaporated, researchers are packing up and leaving Canada en mass.

In 2011-12 Environment Canada had its budget cut by 20% to 854 million dollars.   Eleven percent of the department personnel was cut last year, with a total of 776 employees told that their jobs may be terminated.  Those affected include engineers, meteorologists, scientists, chemists, and biologists. Given the extent of previous cuts imposed by previous budgets, the department is said to be barely functioning.  Treasury Board Minister, Tony Clement (aka Mr. hundred thousand dollar Gazebo),  facetiously told reporters that “Environment Canada is open for business, they’re doing their job, and they want to do it more efficiently.”

Canada was a pioneer in ozone monitoring technologies, which "led to the discovery that the world's ozone layer was dangerously thinning in the 1970s, which in turn led to the successful Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances."  The internationally renowned ozone monitoring network, has about one-third of the ozone monitoring stations in the Arctic region. The data produced by this network is heavily relied on by scientists around the world.  A single person was running the entire archives, until the conservatives closed down the The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, Nunavut.

Not convinced at stopping the flow of information, eliminating the funding of  researchers, and closing down research stations, the conservatives have decided to destroy Arctic ice core bores that provide evidence of the atmospheric gaseous concentrations for thousands of years.  Mark Twickler, director of the U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver, Colo said, “These ice cores are so valuable that the international community, including the U.S., will do whatever we have to to preserve these remarkable archives of past climate.”

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is undergoing a similar budget slashing process. Budget cuts have lead to the closing of the Experimental Lakes Area. The program used a region of 58 freshwater lakes near Kenora, in western Ontario, where scientists conducted experiments on the effects of pollution.

The Environmental Lakes Area program was launched in 1968 and led to important discoveries about the effects of pollutants such as phosphates in household detergents and mercury on bodies of fresh water, prompting tighter regulation in Canada and the U.S.

Researchers from across the world are claiming disbelief at the action.  Harvard University aquatic sciences professor Elsie Sunderland said:

[she] was pretty shocked... This is one of the foremost research projects and places to do research in the world. To have it shut down is just appalling. It's just embarrassing. 

Cynthia Gilmour, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland, said  she "was stunned".  Jim Elser an aquatic ecologist at Arizona State University said in an article in the journal Nature,  titled "Canada's renowned freshwater research site to close," that it was "completely shocking".  Elser said it was equivallent to the "U.S. government shutting down Los Alamos — its most important nuclear-physics site — or taking the world's best telescope and turning it off."

In a separate incident, 625 prominent scientists have written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and warned him not to "gut fish-habitat protections they say would put species at risk and damage Canada’s international standing."  The legislation being implemented as part of the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, would eliminate components of federal law that bans activity that results in "harmful" alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.  The new law consists of a  prohibition against activity that results in "serious" harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or any fish that supports one of those three fisheries.

David Schindler, ecology professor at the University of Alberta said the “pro-development” Conservative government was determined to abrogate long standing environmental protections.  Others are equally pessimistic of Harper's infringement on established environmental protections and resource management:

Nick Dulvy, a Simon Fraser University professor who worked formerly as a fisheries scientist in the British government, said the two moves add to his growing alarm about the Harper government's "misuse" of science.

---
Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network Canada (CAN Canada), an environmental NGO, made the comparison between funding essential scientific research that monitors the health of the nation versus providing 2-billion dollars to build ships for the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard and another 29 billion dollars allocated in a non-competitive and rigged bid for 65 F-35 fighter jets that don't even meet the Department of Defense's own minimal specifications.  The government can find billions of dollars to spend on pet projects, fighting Middle Eastern wars, and providing billions in subsidies to petrochemical companies -some of which are the most profitable in the world- yet it can't find the funds to monitor the environment or maintain reasonable scientific competency.

John Bennett, the executive director of Sierra Club Canada, puts it more bluntly, “It will give the polluters what they want, a toothless Environment Canada with no scientific or enforcement capability."

That hard landing in China is looking a lot more likely!

Data that has been coming out in the past several weeks has shown a distinct contraction in the economy of China.  Unlike previous monthly claims that showed that the country was achieving its predetermined growth numbers, both April and May's numbers look at best underwhelming.  Questions are now being asked if China is in a recession?

Publicly,  April's growth in imports rose a moribund 0.3%, compared to an 11% from the previous period in 2011.  The NY Times is reporting that businesses across the country have reduced consumption of  many products, including commodities such as iron ore and high-end electronics, such as computer chips.  Exports grew only 4.9% in April; half as much as economists had expected.

Preliminary data published by HSBC and the financial information provider Markit for the month of May indicates that the Purchasers Managers Index (PMI) fell to 48.7 in May from 49.3 in April.  Indexes below 50 are considered representative of a contraction.  Whereas the HSBC manufacturing index has been below 50 for seven months.  May exports similarly fell to 47.8 in May, from 50.2 in April. 

China's National Bureau of Statistics has stated that

inflation in consumer prices slowed to 3.4 percent in April from 3.6 percent in March, while producer prices, measured at the factory gate, actually fell 0.7 percent in April from a year earlier.

Chinese government indexes show real estate prices have fallen in a majority the country’s urban markets.  Housing developers have dropped prices and some have reduced activity at constructions sites to a single daytime shift, down from a continuous 24-hour work cycle.  Demand for construction workers has sharply declined.

In a different NY Times article, the plight of local business people in Xi'an, a city of eight million in northwestern China, is highlighted.  Sun Yufang, a wholesale dealer of ovens, ranges, and water heaters,  states that local  residents have nearly stopped redecorating or outfitting apartments.  She elaborates that, “We didn’t really feel the global financial crisis, but this year, we’ve really felt it — I don’t see a solution unless people start buying,”  Likewise, Yian Leilei, a wholesaler of tablecloths and car seat covers, said that "sales nose-dived after Chinese New Year on Jan. 23 and had not recovered."

Jim Walker, founder and managing director of the Hong Kong-based economic research company Asianomics, has said that the, “Property-led growth and infrastructure-led growth is just about finished".  He concludes that more stimulus funding will have limited value, since there is already an excess of infrastructure projects, including transportation projects such as airports. 

---
Historically, China's economic data has been of questionable value. Senior politicians and economists within the Chinese government have said that the data, especially that arising from local offices, are frequently massaged to confirm with politburo demands.  For example, Le Keqiang, a senior communist party official, was quoted in 2007 cable released by Wikileaks that China's GDP figures were "man-made."  He explained that he reviewed only three statistics to assess the strength of the Chinese economy:

1. Bank lending
2. Electricity consumption
3. Rail cargo volume 

If one is to evaluate the economy based on these metrics only, the Chinese economy is in very poor shape.  For instance, bank lending has contracted as demand for new loans and projects has declined.  Electricity production is down m/o/m  for April, while freight cargo by rail has flat-lined.  An article on The Atlantic magazine's online site discusses these issues.

The collective declines in imports and exports, a worsening housing market, depressed labor conditions, reduced consumer confidence, and sinking inflation are representative of a serious situation that points towards a fundamental hard landing occurring in the months ahead.

Spanish society in freefall...

Spain currently has a mass unemployment rate of 24.1% and youth unemployment rate (15-24 y/o) that exceeds 50%, up from 18.2% in 2007.  In comparison Italy's youth unemployment is 29%; Portugal is 30%; and 24% of young people in France are without employment.  The Spanish economy has been contracting each of the past two quarters and is officially back in recession.  As the financial sector attempts to wade through the morass of over-development, massive consolidation of the banks and the crippling of credit has occurred.

The root cause of much of this disaster lies in the corrupt nexus between local bankers and regional politicians, which happen in many instances to be one and the same.  Lax lending standards, cheap foreign labor, and easy inflows of European capital all lead to a massive over-development.  The days of cheap credit ended with the financial crash of 2008.  Private debt was absorbed by the balance sheets of the state and ultimately the collective nations of the Eurozone.

Whereas the chicanery that lead to this bloody mess is a story that needs to be told, I'm interested today in discussing the impact on real people and the current generation of people who will have to pay for this economic catastrophe for the rest of their lives.  The decline and hopelessness felt across Spain has been chronicled in a number of newspapers and journals.  Here are some of the highlights.

In the Spanish daily La Pais, a 9-March article titled Generation Nimileuristra described the lives of young people who see opportunities denied and their lives stagnating with either low or no paying jobs.  

In 2005 youth unemployment was about 20%. Now [reaching] 50% while doubling the European average (22.4%) . The best educated generation has the worst outlook since the transition and feels a victim of the excesses of others...

In Spain there are 10,423,798 people between 18 and 34... Their average net income (including the unemployed), is 824 euros per month. And those who are working earn on average 1,318 euros a month (data from the Youth Council of Spain)...  Professions that seemed safe... are not. The Polytechnic University of Valencia followed the first steps in the process of engineers and architects who graduated in 2008: one in four did not reach [jobs with salaries over 1000 euros/month]. And what is worse: the [educated with jobs with salaries under 1000 euros/month] had advanced by 8% compared to graduates a year earlier.

In many cases youth are forced to abandon independence and relocate into their family's homes.

It has been established that even small levels of protracted unemployment in developed countries can have serious implications for the unemployed.  Those include reduced lifetime wages, reduced employment opportunities, and higher mental health issues.  With respect to society at large, depressed wages will promote educated youth emigrate to other jurisdictions, resulting in a brain-drain to the nation.  Undereducated and unemployed male youth on the other hand are statistically more likely to participate in criminal activity.

In many OECD countries the unemployment rate is substantially higher than the general population. An Economist article from Sept-11, 2011 discusses the various disadvantages and impacts under-employment and unemployment will have on these people.

Unemployment of all sorts is linked with a level of unhappiness that cannot simply be explained by low income. It is also linked to lower life expectancy, higher chances of a heart attack in later life, and suicide. A study of Pennsylvania workers who lost jobs in the 1970s and 1980s found that the effect of unemployment on life expectancy is greater for young workers than for old. Workers who joined the American labour force during the Great Depression suffered from a persistent lack of confidence and ambition for decades.

The implications of this situation are severe.  Not only will youth not be entering the work force, they will not be participating in the economy and doing normal things, such as buying cars, homes, furniture. So there is a negative cascade felt across the nation on all levels. Secondly, since they will not be paying taxes, who will bear the burden of maintaining the welfare state that Europeans are so proud of?   As fewer people are contributing to these pay-as-you-go programs, older generations will see a reduction in benefits.

---

The financial crisis has lead to governments across Spain to drastically cut programs, services, and cash transfers to lower levels.  A New York Times article elaborates:

Just as Spain’s national and regional governments are struggling with the collapse of the construction industry, overspending on huge capital projects and a pileup of unpaid bills, the same problems afflict many of its small towns.

One town's mayor discusses his small community's problems:

“We lived beyond our means,” Mr. García said. “We invested in public works that weren’t sensible. We are in technical bankruptcy.” Even some money from the European Union that was supposed to be used for routine operating expenses and last until 2013 has already been spent, he said.

The banking upheavals have brought similar troubles to small and medium scale businesses, which represent "60 percent of the economy, and 80 percent of the jobs".  The vicious cycle has resulted in the shuttering of more than 500,000 small business according to the NY Times.  

“The cuts in credit have been so abrupt that some businesses not only lost specific projects they were working on,” said Carlos Ruiz Fonseca, the director of economy and innovation at Cepyme, Spain’s association of small and medium-size companies. “Some companies have just gone out of business.” 

How is any of this supposed to engender confidence in the international markets?  The same banks which are cutting credit lines, reducing exposure to risk, and contracting their businesses are simultaneously being downgraded by the various credit agencies.  Billions of Euros are being requested by the financial sector to keep these debt ridden entities from further collapsing and imploding the entire Spanish economy.

The net result of all these events is a society that is in freefall.  If these trends continue, not only will Europe have generated legions of angry, unemployed persons, they will have created the same foundations that gave rise to the extremists of the last century.

---
Update: video link about squatters taking over an vacant apartment complex, built during the construction boom, in Seville

Chart of the day: increased incidence of natural disasters

(h/t The Big Picture)

The chart is provided by Re Munich and it indicates the growth of natural disasters over a period covering 1980-2011.  Insurance companies have an inherent self-interest in understanding the dynamics of disruptive natural events and how those events will have an impact on their business.  The data presented in the above graph is unequivocal in showing that climate change related events are rapidly increasing.  The scientifically illiterate right wing, uneducated masses, and corporate naysayers affiliated with the petrochemical industry can all continue to spout rubbish, but the facts speak for themselves. Consider that earthquakes and other geophysical events have stayed constant during the 30 year period, while storms, floods, and extreme temperature events have all increased geometrically over the same period.  This isn't God flushing the toilet on humanity; this is humanity self-destructing.

It appears from this graph, that we are looking at a doubling time of 15 years.  Under this time scale, things will become extremely difficult for most of this planet shortly.

We have passed the point of no return. What people should learn to accept is that we as a civilization and species have collectively failed to organize ourself to rectify a problem that  twenty years ago we all understood, but lacked the courage to tackle.  By kicking the problem down the road and listening to the greedy or stupid, we have condemned ourselves to a world that will nominally have substantial levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which will disrupt agricultural production; increase droughts, fires, mass population movements, cause mass extinctions of other species; encourage conflict and warfare over resource scarcity; and eliminate possibly billions of humans.

Roubini says double-dip too!

On the other hand, Paul Krugman isn't talking about double-dips, but a decade long depression.

I've got an expanded blog article titled "Recession Watch: one dip, two dips, ... we all fall down", which includes current macroeconomic data on America's descent into recession and opinions on what this all means by Krugman, Roubini, Joe Stiglitz, and Ken Rogoff.

None of this should be a surprise to those paying attention, but I suspect most people -as usual- aren't.

Quote of the day: Krugman on the coming storm

The austerians have brought us to the brink of a vast disaster. A recession in Europe looks more likely than not; and the question for the United States is not whether a lost decade is possible, but whether there is any plausible way to avoid one.

- Paul Krugman, "Defeatism"

Stiglitz on stimulating the US economy

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University, former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, and recipient of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Award in Economic Sciences, offers some sound advice to the American political system in how to stimulate the US economy.

He points out the obvious:

First, we must dispose two myths. One is that reducing the deficit will restore the economy. You don’t create jobs and growth by firing workers and cutting spending. The reason that firms with access to capital are not investing and hiring is that there is insufficient demand for their products. Weakening demand — what austerity means — only discourages investment and hiring.

He asks, "How do we  get America back to work now?"

The best way is to use this opportunity — with remarkably low long-term interest rates — to make long-term investments that America so badly needs in infrastructure, technology and education.

We should focus on investments that both yield high returns and are labor intensive. These complement private investments — they increase private returns and so simultaneously encourage the private sector.

Helping states pay for education would also quickly save thousands of jobs. It makes no sense for a rich country, which recognizes education’s importance, to be laying off teachers — especially when global competition is so fierce. Countries with a better educated labor force will do better. Moreover, education and job training are essential if we are to restructure our economy for the 21st century.

The advantage of having underinvested in the public sector for so long is that we have many high-return opportunities. The increased output in the short run and increased growth in the long run can generate more than enough tax revenues to pay the low interest on the debt. The result is that our debt will decrease, our GDP will increase and the debt to GDP ratio will improve.

He also considers the possibility of raising taxes and using that income to invest in the country to stimulate the economy.

Increasing taxes at the top, for example, and lowering taxes at the bottom will lead to more consumption spending. Increasing taxes on corporations that don’t invest in America and lowering them on those that do would encourage more investment. The multiplier — the amount GDP increases per dollar spent — for spending on foreign wars, for example, is far lower than education, so shifting money here stimulates the economy.

There are things we can do beyond the budget. The government should have some influence over the banks, particularly given the enormous debt they owe us for their rescue. Carrots and sticks can encourage more lending to small- and medium-sized businesses and to restructure more mortgages. It is inexcusable that we have done so little to help homeowners, and as long as the foreclosures continue apace, the real estate market will continue to be weak.

The banks’ anti-competitive credit card practices also essentially impose a tax on every transaction — but it is a tax with revenues that go to fill the banks’ coffers, not for any public purpose — including lowering the national debt. Stronger enforcement of antitrust laws against the banks would also be a boon to many small businesses.

Recession Watch: one dip, two dips,... we all fall down

The trend lines are undeniable; the US economy is heading into another recession.  Debate between economic analysts entail whether what is occurring is an entirely new recession, a double-dip recession, or the continuation of even larger economic contraction that began initially with the 2008 financial crisis (which some would argue is an extension of the 2001 recession) and has properties that are unlike previous recessions.  Each of these arguments have some validity in explaining the current situation, but all conclude that this new decline, while not likely to be as severe as the 2008 crisis, will last longer in duration and given the current political weaknesses of the major industrial nations, be more difficult to mitigate.

Leaving aside the debt crisis and economic malaise that is occurring in Europe for the moment or the possible hard landing that has been predicted about China and the entailing risks these situations pose to the global economy, America's economic position is clearly weak.

First, the jobs position is dismal.  Last month, zero jobs were added and only a fraction of the jobs necessary to compensate for population growth alone have been achieved in the previous four months.  The NY Times summarizes:

Over the last 50 years, every time that job growth has been as meager as it has been over the last four months, the economy has been headed toward recession, in a recession or in the immediate aftermath of one.

The collapse of job creation is not about businesses fearing regulatory uncertainty, creeping hyper-inflation, or the need for further tax-cuts to stimulate big businesses already bloated corporate coffers, but rather it is due to insufficient aggregate demand.  People without jobs, people forced to take inferior paying jobs, people concerned that they may lose their jobs, people forced to subsidize their spouse, adult children, parents, and/or relatives, and people loaded with debt, aren't engaged in making major purchases, because they can't afford to.  Consider the following:

But the latest indicators suggest that even if the economy does not continue to worsen, it appears to be too weak to add enough jobs each month — roughly 125,000 — even to keep pace with population growth. Anything less, and the share of the population that is employed will continue to fall.

The stimulus program offered by Mr. Obama was insufficient to meet the full demands of the  financial crash of 2008.  This blog has been saying for the past three years (here, here, and here) that the weak recovery was an illusion.  Joseph Stiglitz said back in 2009 that, "We need a larger and better designed stimulus."  Paul Krugman has been waging a public policy crusade to convince the public that a second more robust stimulus is needed.  President Obama, instead of listening to these and similar minded economists, decided to split the difference and offer everyone a little of what they wanted: a little bit of tax cuts and some stimulus over a couple years.  The problem was that while averting a more severe recession, it failed to create enough power to re-inflate the economy to pre-recessionary levels.  Now that the stimulus dollars have been used, the economy is drifting back into negative territory and with a recalcitrant Republican dominated House of Representatives, there is virtually no chance that anything of substance being passed.

Other indicators such as GDP, consumer confidence, consumer consumption, factory employment diffusion index, and housing are all trending downwards.  Volatility in the market place, with abundant talk of debt crises across the western hemisphere, has investors and business worried.  Last month Asian banks cut credit lines to French banks.  Central banks across Europe, Japan, and America have made the unexpected move to offer dollars to European banks to ensure liquidity.

What had been in 2008 a financial crisis has migrated into a sovereign debt crisis.  Nouriel Roubini expands:

We are running out of policy bullets. The policymakers don't have monetary bullets; they don't have fiscal bullets; they cannot even backstop their own financial system. That's why it's more scary than a year ago, two years ago, or three years ago -- when we had all these policy bullets. Now we are running out of them.

***

Ken Rogoff, Harvard professor and former chief economist at the IMF, has said, "the real problem is that the global economy is badly overleveraged, and there is no quick escape without a scheme to transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, either through defaults, financial repression, or inflation."  As a result, Rogoff points out that many policy makers have badly misunderstood the overall problems associated with this second great contraction, as he puts it.  He offers the suggestion that, "If governments that retain strong credit ratings are to spend scarce resources effectively, the most effective approach is to catalyze debt workouts and reductions."

Solutions to both individual and national debt problems should be addressed as follows:

For example, governments could facilitate the write-down of mortgages in exchange for a share of any future home-price appreciation. An analogous approach can be done for countries.  For example, rich countries’ voters in Europe could perhaps be persuaded to engage in a much larger bailout for Greece (one that is actually big enough to work), in exchange for higher payments in ten to fifteen years if Greek growth outperforms.

Another approach offered by Rogoff to reduce the painful deleveraging process and years of unnecessary slow growth, would be for central banks to pursue a policy of moderate inflation of 4-6% for several years.

At this stage, none of the policies suggested by Stiglitz, Krugman, Roubini, or Rogoff appear on the table in either Washington DC or the capitals of Europe.  Instead of sustained and ambitious solutions, we are left with blathering idiots telling us of austerity programs that will magically generate confidence, while keeping away the terrible bond vigilantes.  The incompetence and stupidity of our leaders is nearly blinding.

A decade of hell and the fall of America

The above chart (h/t Economist's View, "How long will it take for the economy to recover?") issued by the CBO describes what should be the central discussion amongst Americans.

While the developed world was on summer vacation, the economies of Europe and America have begun to decline in an alarming fashion.  Europe is scrambling to stabilize its weak perpherial economies. The march of the PIIGS has expanded to the point where Spain and Italy are no longer just question marks.  European banks are seeing formidable potential losses arise from sovereign debt issues.  Credit is tightening up and these same European banks are looking to national governments and the EU for assistance. Indecision amongst Europe's prominent leaders and a growing populist revolt across the continent have contributed to growing unease in the markets. The breakup of the entire European economic union and the failure of the Euro currency is now seriously being considered.

In America, zero jobs were added to the economy last month. Growth for the second quarter (Q2-2011) was revised to 1% (annualized).  Financial institutions like Bank of America are in trouble and Warren Buffett has again been brought, as the non-governmental creditor of last resort, to prop up the ailing bank. The Republicans have inflicted serious damage to the American economy, in their traitorous advancement of no-taxes and no-growth governance.   Obama is floundering in his dismal attempt to appease his corporate backers, while carving out a middle path for his own election.

The above chart should make you terrified.  Although the rose-colored glasses of 3.5% annual growth is being portrayed, it is the green line with 2.5% growth that is most alarming.  The difference of 1% means that America effectively will lumber along for the next decade with little to no growth, unemployment will remain obscenely high, structural unemployment and a permanent underclass will arise, the deleveraging process will take longer, and governments will be unable to adequetely deal with further social or economic problems effectively.  This is the best case scenario we are working with at the moment, taking into account the data and Rogoff and Reinhart's post-crisis modelling.

Now consider that the world heads into a protracted recession, with China crashing shortly afterwards -taking those countries like Canada and Australia that have been dependent on commodity exports with it- and you've got a recipe for global armageddon.  The world stops growing and economies across the planet try to dig themselves out of this hole.  Here too the data suggests as in the case of the Asian and Latin American crises, that a ten year window will be required to get back any reasonable trendline.  The implication is an entire generation of workers see reduced income, mounting debt, and insufficient job opportunities.  How are these countries going to pay for the benefits sold to the baby-boomer generation, when the children of the boomers are unable to find long-term jobs and thus fund those liabilities?

We have come to the end of the line.  All the major economies of the world are now posed to fall and in that cataclysmic descent, we shall venture hopelessly through a decade of stagnation, decline, and possible collapse.

Quote of the day: Shiller on economic delusions

Economists who adhere to rational-expectations models of the world will never admit it, but a lot of what happens in markets is driven by pure stupidity – or, rather, inattention, misinformation about fundamentals, and an exaggerated focus on currently circulating stories.

- Robert Shiller, "Debt and Delusion"

Quote of the Day: On the deluded masses

When people hold certain ideological beliefs strongly enough, no amount of facts will get in their way. If you believe that the current deficit is the result of excessive government spending (passed by Democrats, even though they only controlled Congress and the White House for four out of the past thirty years*), no pile of charts will be big enough to convince you otherwise — just like if you believe that tax cuts increase tax revenues, that the deficit has produced high interest rates, or that Barack Obama was born on Mars, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

- James Kwak, "Who Created this Mess"

I've been struggling with this matter in the past few weeks.

Personal growth and development necessitates that each of us occasionally review and validate the overarching ideas that govern our worldview.  When dealing with religion, politics, and cultural issues, we are dependant on our limited educational and personal experiences and not hard empirical fact.  However, one would assume that most people when presented with facts that contradict prevailing opinions about the world, they would then tact and reassess their stances.  All too often though in this age of modern stupidity -as in the example on the right with regard to global warming and taxes or on the left with regard to the utility of the welfare state- people not only reject legitimate criticism and facts, but engage in buttressing their own faltering delusions.

The above quote, highlights the issue in America surrounding some of the more pedestrian claptrap that manifests itself as serious discussion in the media.  It seems despite the ease with which people can look up facts on the internet and access knowledge, the less some people are interested in thinking.

Where's my Government Subsidy!

I too wish the benevolent hand of government largess would visit me.  Subsidies, bailouts, and friendly handshakes as the taxes of the minions are redirected into my coffers.

Why shouldn't I with my friendly neighborhood politician be able to run a business model solely predicated on how much I can extort out of the public?

Why care about customer relations, effective management, cost-controls, and all those petty matters, when I can have a member of the legislative branch simply re-write the laws so I don't have to pay taxes, don't have to concern myself about environmental or labor laws, and don't have to worry about those things that all those small people have to.

Banks, energy companies, utilities, telecommunications, military industrial, surveillance state, big pharma, private education, corporate agriculture,... etc, all feeding handsomely at the trough.

Why Big Business hates Obama

Obviously when the S&P 500 index has rebounded by almost 50% in the time that Obama has been president, the only thing left to do is publicly blame him for all the horrible and destructive socialist policies he is pursuing. After all, how else can someone explain that "American companies just had their best quarter ever, earning profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter." Deutsche Bank has stated that corporate profits per worker have rebounded to nearly an all-time high in the period. In addition, the banking industry, oil companies, and health insurance companies, all companies with extensive lobbying operations, are all likely to break profit records for 2010.

How this comports with the general narrative that Obama and the Democrats have created a climate of legislative uncertainty is unclear. American businesses are now as or even more profitable than they were before the start of the great recession. The only intelligent answer is that Obama's policies have greatly benefited big business, while it has done little to significantly reduce unemployment and mobilize those people whose jobs have been offshored into gaining new skills and meaningful careers.

Ritholtz on the rise of the Corporatocracy

Over the past 30-years both Republican and Democratic parties have drifted from their traditional positions towards extreme stances. Throughout this period pro-corporate policies that catered to the balance sheets of multinationals and those with enough cash to pay-to-play, have defined the legislative agendas of both federal and state politicians. Left-wing political activists, like Ralph Nader, have been calling Washington D.C. "corporate occupied territory" for the past two decades. Consider the following:

• The revolving door between corporate officers and government employees has become the norm.
• A study conducted in 2005 by Public Citizen found that from 1998, "43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join private life have registered to lobby."
• Politicians have become indentured servants to special interest groups and major lobbyists in the financial/insurance industries, the military-industrial complex, the energy/ chemicals sector, big-pharma, corporate agricultural, and the communications/ electronics industries.
• Legislation is often written directly by lobbyists and submitted to congressmen and state legislators for direct approval.  Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, told The Atlantic magazine, "The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists... It's shocking how the system actually works."
• "Corruption, in its institutional sense, denotes the degeneration of republican forms of government into despotism, and typically comes about when the private ends of a narrow faction of citizens succeed in capturing the engines of government." (Harper's, Speak, Money, Oct. 2010)
• The Brookings Institute calls "The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent [to] likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism."  The Roberts court, "dismissed the legitimacy of laws... equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences."
• A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18, 2005 found that 49% of American adults say they believe "most members of Congress are corrupt."
• The Republicans K-street project, was a project by now convicted former congressman Tom Delay to coerce lobbying firms to "hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials."
• Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, was sentenced in 2006 for conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion related to his lobbying efforts

Barry Ritholtz, CEO of FusionIQ (an investment firm) and primary blogger at The Big Picture tells his readers that:

In 2009 and 2010, I learned that Corporate America took over the political process via their exhaustive lobbying efforts. What was once a Democracy is now a Corporatocracy... Politicians do the bidding not for the people, but for the corporate establishment. Those people who want to blame the barking, snarling government for all the woes of the world do not want you to look further up the leash to see who is giving the commands. These corporate apologists pretend to be philosophers, but in reality they are mere Fellatrix, bought and paid for by their lords and masters.

We've reached a turning point.  When growth was evident, jobs were available, and cheap accessible credit abounded, everyone was happy and willing to keep dancing to the same tune. Now that the bill is past due and we're looking at decade of low growth or worst, investors and everyday persons on both the right and the left are seeing the system for what it is.  Ritholtz acknowledges that we were warned by the founding fathers, Eisenhower on the military-industrial complex, and countless other critics about the perils of what philosopher Sheldon Wolin has described as inverted totalitarianism.

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation.

The viciousness and lawlessness of the corporatocracy knows no bounds. Like Orwell's 1984, those in control have no interest in the betterment of mankind or pursuing nationalistic agendas, they are solely interested in power for power's sake. And in the polluted materialistic cesspool that is modern existence, that power is obtained through the collection and amassment of wealth and money.

NYT's Book Review of Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia"

The New York Times Sunday Book Review looks at Matt Taibbi's newest publication "Griftopia"

The reviewer summarizes the book with the following:

In “Griftopia,” a relentlessly disturbing, penetrating exploration of the root causes of the trauma that upended economic security in millions of American homes, Taibbi argues that what unfolded was far from accidental. Rather, the nation suffered the equivalent of a hostile takeover of key areas of its commercial life by investment banking houses, while regulators and members of Congress abdicated their responsibilities either because they were influenced by campaign cash or because they believed the fairy tale that unsupervised markets always work best. The result, Taibbi asserts, was a thieves’ paradise — Griftopia.

Taibbi takes on the zombie lie, pushed by right-wing hacks, that the banks were forced to sell subprime mortgages to poor people and that Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac were the root causes of the crisis.

Taibbi persuasively dismisses the argument that the financial crisis was caused by poor people with a taste for real estate, delineating how Wall Street eagerly handed out mortgages to anyone with a pulse, and then used the home loans as the material for a far more lucrative enterprise — the exotic investments known as derivatives. The derivatives market depended upon a steady supply of mortgages. But when too many of the bets went bad, Wall Street persuaded the Treasury to construct bailouts that Taibbi describes as a “labyrinthine financial sewage system designed to stick us all with the raw waste and pump clean water back to Wall Street.”

The book attacks the mindless Tea-Party movement, calls Alan Greenspan the biggest asshole in the universe, delves into America's bubble machine typified by the original vampire-squid, Goldman Sachs, and considers how Obama's health care initiative is nothing less than a boondoggle for the toxic-sludge dealers in big-Pharma and the nickle-and-dime kleptomaniacs in the so-called insurance business.  As emotionally cathartic as it is to find someone who will call the biggest thieves and crooks on the planet, what they truly are. It is Taibbi's constant attack on the enterprises of American capitalism, those revered and sacrosanct temples, in which he viciously and relentlessly dismantles and exposes as being little more than high-end criminal rings, that is most satisfying.

An excellent read.  I hope someone was generous enough to put it under your Christmas tree.

Charlie Rose interviews Charles Ferguson of the "Inside Job"

http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/11321

The above link is to a recent interview (29 November 2010) between Charlie Rose and Charles Ferguson who produced the well reviewed documentary on the origins of the financial collapse of 2008 and the subsequent global bailout of the financial industry by governments across the world.

He states specifically, "the film is about the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption."

In the interview Ferguson makes it clear that the corruption of America and its legislative and regulatory processes are profound.  He makes the case that much of what happened would not have occurred if the businessmen behind these monolithic investment banks were not so incompetent and blinded by greed and the US government had not abdicated its role, as an agent for fairness, in properly regulating the whole industry.  The actions taken by the government was to save the banks and the elite bankers, while allowing the rest of the population to fend for itself.  The bankers, with the exception of Lehman Brothers, were not made to make any sacrifices.

Ferguson further contends that "massive criminal fraud" was undertaken. Despite the nauseating proclamations by the financial industry and their media stooges, it is clear that both government and the largest corporations in America engaged in what may stand as the largest criminal event of the past quarter century. The reality is that none of these people, given the political climate and entrenched corruption of government, will be held accountable for their actions in destroying trillions of dollars of wealth, eliminating millions of jobs, and pushing families off the cliff.  When ordinary people lose their health care, lose their homes, lose their life savings, and end up destitute, the same people who caused this mayhem will snicker and call the rest of the population parasites!

I've said it numerous times on this blog, that only when people recognize the true nature of corporations in their society and begin to combat the force of coruption through monied politics, will things change.

Galbraith on why the Democrats lost the Election

The original sin of Obama’s presidency was to assign economic policy to a closed circle of bank-friendly economists and Bush carryovers. Larry Summers. Timothy Geithner. Ben Bernanke. These men had no personal commitment to the goal of an early recovery, no stake in the Democratic Party, no interest in the larger success of Barack Obama. Their primary goal, instead, was and remains to protect their own past decisions and their own professional futures.

James K. Galbraith, professor of economics, offers his summation on why the Obama administration and the Democrats in congress, failed to obtain better results in last week's election.

A few commentators, like Kevin Drum over at MotherJones.com, do not believe that even if Obama had pursued a strategy where the economy was this Administration's central objective, that the Democrats would be substantially better off.  Given the people who Obama sought consul from, it seems entirely correct to me that the Democrats would still have lost the house of representatives to the Republicans with such a strategy.  

As a corollary to Drum et al's sentiment, Galbraith elaborates in his opinion piece that Obama upon entering office had a limited understanding of economics, and coupled with a desire to pursue a centrist-right policy that maintained the status quo as much as possible, through the appointment of Clinton leftovers and Wall Street yes-men,  he essentially abdicated the mantel of being an agent of change and became an enabler of of Wall Street's mismanagement.

The obvious conclusion is that if Obama had pursued, as soon as he arrived in office, a bank nationalization program or something more similar to what the British engaged in and what the Swedes did in the early 1990's, he would have been able to dismantle the banking-congressional lobbyist nexus and create national banks capable of effectively lending money to both businesses and the American public a short time after.  Make no doubt that the process would have been bloody, but through inflicting maximum pain on the management and shareholders of the corrupt banks and insurance companies -something that was universally desired by the American public- Obama would have consolidated his record of being a giant-killer and a vanguard for the "little guy."

Instead, the timid and frustratingly feeble performance of Mr. Obama and his pro-business acolytes in the White House, have left his administration and the Democrats vulnerable to attacks from multiple fronts and potentially dead in the water for the next two years.

Gretchen Morgenson: Untangling The Complex Foreclosure Mess

Gretchen Morgenson, who writes a must-read weekly column in the NY Times business section goes on NPR to discuss the complete mess the banks and mortgage lending agencies have gotten the entire American economy into, through their initial mortgage securitization programs and now with their shady and illegal foreclosure practices.  To underline the severity of this situation, all 50 states have launched criminal investigations into the unsavory foreclosure activities committed by the banks.  Ms. Morgenson, unlike the hacks at the Wall St. Journal's op-ed pages, is an intelligent and informative journalist, who has been at the forefront in explaining the Great recession and the corpulence underlying America's corporate misdeeds.
 
NPR begins with the following introduction:

Since the housing bust two years ago, when millions of homeowners fell behind on their loans, the foreclosure industry has grown into a multibillion-dollar business. To deal with the thousands of defaulted loans needing to be processed, banks relied on thousands of temporary employees who often had little experience and training to handle the foreclosure paperwork.

This resulted in many mistakes being made throughout the foreclosure process. Reports of sloppy documentation — including the questionable notarization of documents, the loss of key paperwork needed to begin foreclosure proceedings and missing paperwork on original mortgages — temporarily halted foreclosure proceedings across much of the country in early October. It also triggered at least five separate federal investigations into the ways mortgage lenders have handled foreclosures.

The entire broadcast can be heard or downloaded here.

The degree of duplicity, fraud, and ineptitude exhibited by the major players in this decade long fiasco, should make everyone who has a stake in the viability of the American economy, to demand that everyone -politicians, corporations, bankers, loan agents, bond rating agencies, economists, and homeowners- all pay a severe penalty for engaging in what is likely the world's largest instance of criminal fraud.  Nothing else is acceptable, because these same devious pick-pockets will only re-emerge emboldened and unleash another wave of catastrophe upon the financial world if left unpunished.

Krugman on the Limits of American Exceptionalism

Paul Krugman compares America's current mortgage morass, associated with the unfolding home ownership and foreclosure fiasco, to that which was encountered during the Asian financial crisis.

After the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, it was often said that a key barrier to recovery was the uncertain state of property rights: so much debt had been run up during the boom, and there had been so many defaults in the bust, that it was no longer clear who owned anything. Plus, these countries lacked clear legal procedures, and in general suffered from insufficient rule of law. All this was said, of course, in a tone of superiority: we Americans had solved such problems.

He also states, America's mortgage crisis dwarfs anything that occurred in Thailand and Indonesia by orders of magnitude. 

The crony-capitalists and casino-players on Wall St. have made a mockery of America's international reputation as a safe and secure center of investment.  Gimmickry, sleight of hand agreements, unequivocal fraud, and legislative and regulatory arbitrage were all employed by the MBA ass-clowns in the banking and mortgage industry to secure profits for themselves without taking into account the long-term risk to either their businesses or the nation.  The end result will be a decade of lost growth for America and given that somewhere within that same period another potentially catastrophic economic collapse may occur, based on historic trends and the belief by many economists that an even larger shock lies in wait given the failure of most governments to adequately address the root causes of the great recession, capitalism as we know it today may collapse.