Moyers and Bacevich: Endless War

"As prophet, Reinhold Niebuhr warned that what he called 'our dreams of managing history' — dreams borne out of a peculiar combination of arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-delusion — posed a large and potentially mortal threat to the United States. Today we ignore that warning at our peril.

Since the end of the Cold War the management of history has emerged as the all but explicitly stated purpose of American statecraft. In Washington, politicians speak knowingly about history's clearly discerned purpose and about the responsibility of the United States, at the zenith of its power, to guide history to its intended destination.

In Niebuhr's view, although history may be purposeful, it is also opaque, a drama in which both the story line and the dénouement remain hidden from view. The twists and turns that the plot has already taken suggest the need for a certain modesty in forecasting what is still to come. Yet as Niebuhr writes, 'modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management.'

Such humility is in particularly short supply in present-day Washington. There, especially among neoconservatives and neoliberals, the conviction persists that Americans are called up on to serve, in Niebuhr's most memorable phrase, 'as tutors of mankind in its pilgrimage to perfection.'"

Andrew J. Bacevich

I might have subtitled this, A Plunder Society: The Three Trillion Dollar self-serving adventures of the military-industrial empire.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Calgacus, as chronicled by Tacitus in his Agricola

The homepage for this interview is here.

Currency Wars

"In his latest letter, Mylchreest reckons we are now in the ‘Third Gold War' since the Second World War and this is being waged between the USA in conjunction with other western countries/institutions, notably the IMF, and various opposing sectors worldwide. In his contention, the U.S. and its allies lost the first of these ‘gold wars' to the French (then under De Gaulle) and the second to the Middle East, helped significantly by the then pro-gold stance and purchasing power of the German Deutsche Bank .

This latest Gold War has been/is being fought covertly. "High profile sales of physical gold have, for the most part, been replaced by sales of "paper gold" in the form of futures, OTC options and unallocated gold, etc." asserts Mylchreest. But this time he reckons the veil has been lifted and the whole charade is beginning to unravel. Instead of France or Arab nations, the opponent this time is China - the 800 pound gorilla - potentially an even more formidable opponent, with a huge treasury of trillions of dollars with which to back its moves. It's not just that it is the Chinese government which is the major participant, but also now that gold and silver ownership is being promoted to the populace there by government institutions, there is the huge pent-up, and growing interest in precious metals of the rapidly increasing Chinese middle class and its potential to affect the global demand patterns."

China: the Gorilla in the Third Gold War, Lawrence Williams

The gold war as described above is just one front in a greater and more general 'currency war' that is evolving as the empire of 'the US dollar as the reserve currency,' which has been in place since the end of WW II, declines and finally falls in the profligacy and crony capitalism of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury.

This battle may manifest itself more publicly later this year in the debate over the reconstitution of the basket of currencies that the IMF's Special Drawing Rights (SDR) will contain.

What Will Be the New World Reserve Currency

Russia Calls for Changes to the SDR

The SDR may not be the successor to the dollar hegemony in the short term. The BRICs may lobby hard enough to legitimize it, and even to include some gold and silver content in addition to the fiat currencies of a greater number of countries. I do not believe that they can be successful without some support from the Petrodollar countries in the Mideast.

I realize that the SDR is just another fiat currency, a somewhat artificial construct for the accounting of international trade, a fiat of fiats if you will. It may even be inherently unstable in the midst of the controlled demolition of most fiat currencies that is now underway.

But from a portfolio perspective it could be useful to take some of the power to control the world's money supply away from the Anglo-American banking cartel and its politicians who have proven themselves to be unworthy of such a great responsibility.

I don't think a direct transition to specie is feasible. Inclusion of gold and silver in the SDR provides an evolutionary path.

One cannot help but wonder if the current bear raids on the EU and the euro by the financial predators and economic hitmen, the gangs of New York, is designed to bring them to heel in the SDR debate tne this phase of the currency war, and to diminish the potential role of the euro in the newly created basket of world currencies.

If the new currency unit the SDR is used only for international settlements and reserves it may be successful. However, if it is promoted as a general currency for domestic usage, then one only has to look at the current troubles in Europe to understand what a trap this is.

Unity of currency without unity of government and fiscal policy and taxation is difficult if not impossible to maintain. One world currency is the step to one world government. And those who control the currency will, almost inevitably, control the people of the world.

"Basically, what Economic Hit Men are trained to do is to build up the American empire. To create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we've been very successful...We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities...The House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they've done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we've done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place...So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It's a huge empire. It's been extremely successful...This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people..."

John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman

“Currency warfare is the most destructive form of economic warfare."

Harry Dexter White, US Representative to Bretton Woods, 1944

"History teaches us that the capacity of things to get worse is limitless. Roman history suggests that the short, happy life of the American republic may be coming to its end... [the US will probably] maintain a facade of constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the United States any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2002-03. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system, or for military rule or simply for some development we cannot yet imagine. Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of our standard of living, a loss of control over international affairs, a process of adjusting to the rise of other powers, including China and India..."

Chalmers Johnson

Foreign Holdings of US Dollar Assets

Roughly analagous to Eurodollars, although it is not clear how much if any of the central bank reserves are actually captured here in these reports by BIS reporting commercial banks, especially in China and the non-European countries. Certainly the NY Fed Custodial Accounts for Foreign Central Banks show no decline whatsoever from the long term trend of accumulation to support their mercantilism and currency pegs.



But the takeway from this chart is that a long term trend of dollar accumulation was broken, and rather painfully, in the deflating of the Wall Street financial assets fraud.

One might not expect the Europeans and Asians to accept new financial instruments in dollars quite so readily. The US seems intent on maintaining a few mega-banks to serve as "competitive" instruments of national policy on the world financial stage.

They may find that maintaining the banks and their particular weapons of financial mass destruction may be just as costly as 700 military bases in diverse locations. Such are the burdens of empire.

Obama to Tell the G20 to Fix the US By Changing the World

When you can't run a state, run for President. When you can't run your country, attempt to run the world.

This directive to the G20 is probably going to make the Organizer-in-Chief's recent pathetic sermonette on altruism and self-denial to Wall Street seem effective by comparison.

Unless he is as prime an example of boobus Americanus as he appears to be by his actions, we suspect that this proposal is intended merely to be a blue sky diversion to a broadly unachievable goal from a genuine agenda for reform and action on the table including regulating bankers' pay, which might be an annoying hindrance to Obama's constituents on Wall Street. It has been estimated that the reforms on the table from Europe, for example, might cut the trading revenues at Goldman Sachs by a third.

What Obama does not say, and perhaps does not realize, is that the majority of the problems that exist in the US's imbalanced trade relationships is the position of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Owning the reserve currency is a significant benefit for your government and financial sectors, but it makes your manufacturing and productive economy the target of every mercantilist command economy around the globe that is by definition hungry for dollars.

Reuters
Obama wants G20 to rethink global economy
By Jeff Mason and Dave Graham
Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:29am EDT

WASHINGTON/BERLIN (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday he would push world leaders this week for a reshaping of the global economy in response to the deepest financial crisis in decades.

In Europe, officials kept up pressure for a deal to curb bankers' pay and bonuses at a two-day summit of leaders from the Group of 20 countries, which begins on Thursday.

The summit will be held in the former steelmaking center of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, marking the third time in less than a year that leaders of countries accounting for about 85 percent of the world economy will have met to coordinate their responses to the crisis.

The United States is proposing a broad new economic framework that it hopes the G20 will adopt, according to a letter by a top White House adviser.

Obama said the U.S. economy was recovering, even if unemployment remained high, and now was the time to rebalance the global economy after decades of U.S. over-consumption. (The recovery is as tenuous as Mr. Obama's prospects for a second term - Jesse)

"We can't go back to the era where the Chinese or the Germans or other countries just are selling everything to us, we're taking out a bunch of credit card debt or home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them," Obama said in an interview with CNN television. (How about a system where Wall Street thinks it can defraud the world, and take usurious rents on every financial transaction in every market? - Jesse)

For years before the financial crisis erupted in 2007, economists had warned of the dangers of imbalances in the global economy -- namely huge trade surpluses and currency reserves built up by exporters like China, and similarly big deficits in the United States and other economies. (Greenspan dismissed every growing problem with an unswerving prevarication, and the corportocracy provided air support. - Jesse)

With U.S. consumers now holding back on spending after house prices plunged and as unemployment climbs, Washington wants other countries to become engines of growth. (Most of the world would like to cure its problems by net exporting to other countries in unbalanced trade relationships. The Asian preoccupation with mercantilism is in some ways the natural outcome of the US dollar reserve hegemony. There is a bit of a standoff here. - Jesse)

"That's part of what the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh is going to be about, making sure that there's a more balanced economy," Obama told CNN.

China has long been the target of calls from the West to get its massive population to spend more. It may be reluctant to offer a significant change in economic policy when Chinese President Hu Jintao meets Obama this week. (The only way they can spend more is if they get higher real wages, a neat trick when your national policy is based on exploiting the exploitation of your laboring class - Jesse)

The U.S. proposal, sketched out in a letter by Obama's top G20 adviser, Michael Froman, calls for a new "framework" to reflect the balancing process that the White House wants.

"The Framework would be a pledge on the part of G-20 leaders to individually and collectively pursue a set of policies which would lead to stronger, better-balanced growth," said the letter, which was obtained by Reuters. (Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya... Jesse)

Without naming specific countries, the proposal indicates the United States should save more and cut its budget deficit, China should rely less on exports and Europe should make structural changes -- possibly in areas such as labor law -- to make itself more attractive to investment.

To head off reluctance from China, Froman's letter also supported Beijing's call for developing countries to have more say at the International Monetary Fund. (Say = talk, but it does not imply that anyone will listen and take any action. The US owns the IMF. - Jesse)

The IMF would be at the center of a peer review process that would assess member nations' policies and how they affect economic growth...(Most statists are by nature Ponzi politicians who really cannot run anything complex, and have to keep expanding their power and span of control or collapse and be exposed as frauds. Its been a perennial source of mischief throughout history. - Jesse)

Shanghai Exhange to List Foreign Shares in the Yuan

This article highlights the growing move internationally away from the dollar dominance in finance.

But it does also illustrate the 'closed capital account" which restricts the exchange of domestic and foreign currency even today in China.

No country should be allowed full WTO status with a managed and closed currency. There is no way to conduct 'fair trade' in such a regime. And certainly the actions by both Clinton and Bush to advance China as a trading partner while pegging the dollar at a steep devaluation remains a scandal of major proportion.

What would the world say if the US decided to move to a two tier currency system, devaluing the iternational dollar by 40% and then pegging it to a basket of currencies including the Euro, AUS$, Pound and Yen?

Caijing
Shares at Shanghai's International Board to be Denominated in Renminbi
By Fan Junli
09-18 19:59

(Caijing) Shares on Shanghai's too-be-launched international board will be denominated in renminbi rather than U.S. dollars, sources close to regulators told Caijing.

But critics say the decision could doom the board to the same fate of Japan's yen-deonomiated international board, which closed in 2004.

China has been preparing for months to launch an international board on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Fan Xinghai, director-general of Shanghai' Financial Services Office, said September 14 that one or two foreign companies will be listed on the board in early 2010.

One of the key difficulties in preparing the board has been the question of whether the shares listed there should be denominated in renminbi or U.S. dollar, a source said.

U.S. dollar denominated listings would pose several problems. Overseas' companies' listings would be subject to the approval of more than one government department if their shares were denominated in U.S. dollars. Also, China's closed capital account, which restricts the exchange of local and foreign currency, would pose an obstacle to U.S. dollar listings, the source said.

"Now a consensus has been reached that it is not necessary to denominate foreign companies' shares listed on the domestic market in U.S. dollars," the source said.

His comments were confirmed by a several other sources close to regulators.

Critics argue that denominating shares in renminbi will make it difficult for international investors to trade on the international board.

"We may risk repeating the failure of Japan's international board," one securities industry source said.

Japan's international board, where shares were denominated in yen, had 131 listed overseas companies in 1991. But Japanese investors' enthusiasm towards shares on the international board withered and foreign companies began to delist their shares. Only 32 companies remained listed on Tokyo's international board by 2003 and the board eventually closed in 2004.

Nevertheless, supporters of the renminbi denomination arrangement for Shanghai's international board said the failure of Tokyo's international board could not be attributed to yen denomination. They claim it was caused by the slump in the Japanese economy, the yen's appreciation and the high cost of trading cost on the board.

India Puts Its Weight Behind Alternatives to the Dollar Reserve Currency

When an alternative to the dollar as reserve currency does occur will this be the most widely telegraphed "black swan surprise" in history?

We would agree that it appears to be an almost classic Prisoner's Dilemma

The exits are likely to be rather crowded when this one finally comes home to roost, unless the nations can agree to a longer term phased in approach. But even then, once the announcement is made, it is beyond all doubt the endgame for the dollar bubble.

The system has not crashed, it is crashing.


Bloomberg
India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance
By Mark Deen and Isabelle Mas

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Suresh Tendulkar, an economic adviser to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said he is urging the government to diversify its $264.6 billion foreign-exchange reserves and hold fewer dollars.

“The major part of Indian reserves are in dollars -- that is something that’s a problem for us,” Tendulkar, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, said in an interview today in Aix-en-Provence, France, where he was attending an economic conference.

Singh is preparing to join leaders from the Group of Eight industrialized nations -- the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia -- at a summit in Italy next week which is due to tackle the global economy. China and Brazil will also send representative to the G-8 summit.

As the talks have neared, China and Russia have stepped up calls for a rethink of how global currency reserves are composed and managed, underlining a power shift to emerging markets from the developed nations that spawned the financial crisis.

“There should be a system to maintain the stability of the major reserve currencies,” Former Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan said in a speech in Beijing today, highlighting the nation’s concerns about a global financial system dominated by the dollar.

Fiscal and current-account deficits must be supervised as “your currency is likely to become my problem,” said Zeng, who is now the head of a research center under the government’s top economic planning agency. The People’s Bank of China said June 26 that the International Monetary Fund should manage more of members’ reserves.

Russian Proposals

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 major developed and developing nations summit in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.

“We will resume” talks on the supranational currency proposal at the G-8 summit in L’Aquila on July 8-10, Medvedev aide Sergei Prikhodko told reporters in Moscow today.

Singh adviser Tendulkar said that big dollar holders face a “prisoner’s dilemma” in terms of managing their holdings. “That’s why I’m telling them to do this,” he said.

He also said that world currencies need to adjust to help unwind trade imbalances that have contributed to the global financial crisis.

“The major imbalances which led to the current situation, the current account surpluses and deficits, have to be addressed,” he said. “Currency adjustment is one thing that suggests itself.”

Emerging-Market Dependence

For all the complaints about the dollar, emerging markets such as India remain dependent on the currency of the U.S., the world’s largest economy and a $2.5 trillion export market. The IMF said June 30 that the share of dollars in global foreign- exchange reserves increased to 65 percent in the first three months of this year, the highest since 2007.

Tendulkar said that the matter needs to be taken up in international talks, and that it emphasizes the need for those talks to go beyond the traditional G-8.

“They can meet if they want to,” he said. “The G-20 has a wider role, has representation of the countries that are likely to lead the recovery process.”

China Requests Debate on Reserve Currency at G14 Summit

China is proposing a new reserve currency regime less dependent on the dollar, along with other BRIC countries, and the US and its financial allies in the status quo will resist change because it is in their short term interest to do so.

China can take 'pre-emptive' action by diversifying its holdings ahead of any change, and there are some indications that it is doing so already. But while the dollar is the prime medium of international trade, China must buy dollars to support its mercantilist industrial policy. Its own alternative is to boost its domestic consumption and 'grow a middle class' which in some minds erodes the power of the narrow political elite which rules the country.

The US needs to stand firm in some areas, and acquiesce in others. Standing firm with regard to the yuan being free of a peg and currency controls is one area that ought to have been sine qua non when first Clinton and then Bush gave China its openings as a preferred trading partner even while maintaining de facto industrial subsidies through its currency and markets.

The first line of negotiation will be to agree on a dollar substitute, which will probably be the SDR. The US will resist and delay this as long as is possible.

The fallback position then will be the composition of the SDR, and a long phasing of the change in the primacy of the dollar and a few G7 currencies. China will seek more diversity and the inclusion of gold and silver, which is anathema to the Wall Street banking cartel.

The US must change or face more seismic, involuntary dislocations. As Britain surrendered its far flung colonial Empire, so the US must downsize its financial sector, restore balance to its own economy and its place in the world economy, and relinquish the primary reserve currency status which has become a powerful instrument of manipulation by the Wall Street banking cartel.

The dollar is the last, the mother of bubbles. Few understand this even now.

The epic US credit expansion was enabled by the preferred position of US debt instruments as the reserve currency of the world. The bond and the dollar are the absolute foundation of that debt pyramid.

Those days are undeniably over. What comes next and in what order and timing remains open to question for sure, but that substantial change is occurring is not.

The difficulty is that the financial institutions are a powerful influence over many key politicians in Washington and London and thought leaders and media outlets around the country, and in some parts of the world.

The military-industrial complex of which Eisenhower warned has become a real impediment to freedom in the US, but ironically it is not the manufacturing sector but the service, or FIRE sector, which has its grip on US political decision-making.

Obama could have changed this and there was hope that he would, but all that he has does so far appears to demonstrate that he and his advisors are fully compromised by the potent financial interests controlling their country.

What comes next, no one can say. But change is in the wind, and with that change comes the rise and fall of powerful but all too human institutions which many still believe can last for a thousand years, even as they are on the brink of der untergang, their downfall.

Reuters
China requests reserve currency debate at G8
Wed Jul 1, 2009 11:58am EDT

July 1 (Reuters) - China has asked to debate proposals for a new global reserve currency at next week's Group of Eight summit in Italy and the issue could be referred to briefly in the summit statement, G8 sources said on Wednesday.

One G8 source who was involved in the negotiations said China made the request during preparatory talks about a joint statement to be issued on the second day of the summit in L'Aquila by the G8 plus the G5 (Brazil, India, China, Mexico and South Africa) and also Egypt.

This forum, the so-called "G14", meets on July 9 to discuss the financial crisis, trade and climate change and for the first time a G8 summit will also produce a joint G14 statement.

A European source with knowledge of preparations for the summit also said China had raised the subject of a reserve currency debate and that it might be mentioned during the meeting, though the source added: "Any country at the meeting can raise issues they see fit." (China is not just 'any country' these days - Jesse)

"But whether there is a specific mention in the communique remains open," said the European source, adding that sherpas would discuss this further in preparatory talks on Friday.

The debate centres on proposals by some emerging powers that an alternative should be found to the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, to reflect the shifting balance of power in the globalised economy.

China's central bank governor said in March the world should consider using the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as a super-sovereign currency. The SDR is an international reserve asset allocated to IMF members and its exchange rate is determined by a basket of dollars, euros, sterling and yen. (China also wishes to modify its composition - Jesse)

But the Chinese proposal failed to gain ground after several world leaders, and officials from the IMF, backed the dollar as the global reserve currency. (Reporting by Reuters bureaux)

End of Quarter

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

The US markets will be closed on Friday July 3 in holiday observance of the anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence from the rule of England.

The rest of the world will somehow manage to muddle through on its own as best it can, and continue to consider its options and alternatives to the US Dollar as the prime measure of international trade and sovereign wealth.

The Alternatives to Uncle Buck Being Considered

China Stakes
BRIC, SCO Discuss "Super-Sovereignty" Currency, USD Alternatives
By Scott Zhou
June 16,2009
Shanghai

China continued to consider a “super-sovereignty” currency among the countries of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an intergovernmental mutual-security organization that met today in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, in the Urals at the division of Asia and Europe. Members include China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with India as one of its four observers.

Right after the SCO meeting, the BRIC country (Brazil, Russia, India and China) leaders met formally for the first time. It is not merely coincident that three of them have expressed a desire to adjust their foreign exchange reserve portfolios by reducing the share or volume of US dollar assets.

China has just halted the increase its holding of US Treasury debt. By the end of April, China held $763.5 billion of it, a fall of $4.4 billion, month on month, the first time China has reduced its Treasury holdings. Since May, 2008, China has increased its holding by $260 billion.

Inside China, USD is a hate-more-than-love story. Analysts have long argued that China should be very cautious on buying US government bonds since dollar is bound to weaken. Others hold that US treasury debts are still the best and first choice for China's near $2 trillion foreign exchange reserve.

In March, Madam Hu Xiaolian, the chief of China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange and a deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, China's central bank, said that investing in US national debt is an essential part of China's reserve management. But while continuing to buy US national debt, China is concerned about the risk of the fluctuation in value of its assets.

China has announced that it would buy up to $50 billion in bonds issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Meanwhile, Russia and Brazil have said they are planning to buy up to $10 billion in IMF bonds, which would mean selling Treasury bonds. India has expressed the same interest. In April, China, Russia, and Brazil all reduced their holdings of US treasury debt.

China now believes that a long-term dollar decline is inevitable, and the risk to the value of its $2 trillion foreign exchange reserve has become realistic, if not imminent.

China has been a huge beneficiary of the order of the world economy and a monetary system with the US dollar as the reserve currency. China's economy has been anchored by a stable dollar exchange pegged by China's currency, RMB.

But the financial crisis has given China a wake up call that the present monetary system is not sustainable, and neither is China's foreign exchange regime and mode of economic growth, which has been largely based on relentless exporting.

What, then, is the role RMB can play in the future? Russia has been urging China for years to settle their bi-lateral trade in their respective currencies. Brazil intends to trade with China by RMB and the real. Recently Russia suggested making RMB convertible to become an international reserve currency.

China can not challenge US directly. The BRIC summit is a convenient platform for China and the other BRIC powers, set to become the 4 of the 6 largest economic entities by 2050, to put a bit of pressure on the US. Held before the first China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue in late July in Washington DC, the BRIC summit may give China some leverage in dealing with the US.

Russia is ready to use its exchange reserve to buy securities issued by BRIC countries. In return, Russia hopes the others will be willing to buy financial instruments issued by Russia. The leaders discussed increasing of the share of settlement currencies for trade among them. They also discussed adjusting their reserve assets portfolio in a coordinated way.

At the SCO meeting held just before the BRIC summit and attended by China, Russia and India, China proposed to research the feasibility of using a super-sovereignty currency among SCO member countries.

Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed that trade among SCO countries be settled by currencies of member countries. He also suggested that a super-sovereignty currency used inside the SCO eventually become a SCO reserve currency. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also supported the idea.

And the Winner Is.... the SDR?

This is a significant development.

It appears clear now that the preferred alternative to the US dollar reserve currency regime for international transactions is going to be the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) units from the International Monetary Fund. We have seen indications that this was going to be the alternative, as compared to the euro, but it was not so confident a probability as it seems today.

Now it seems to be. And those SDR units will be an adjusted basket of commodities and currencies that will be more reflective of the current global economic picture. This may be phased in over time if the US and its political supporters have their way.

This is important because it is feasible, a realistic alternative, much more practical than the complete replacement of the US dollar by something else like the euro for example. We may also see more bilateral agreements based on local currencies.

Achieving the concurrence of the Saudis and other US client states will be important, because the dollar reserve strength has been largely based on its political connection to oil and military power. Most commentators and analysts miss this, but it is essentially at the heart of the matter. History may look back on this as a period of neo-colonialism since it has been so pervasive and uneven in its geopolitical relationships, especially since the 1970's: a Pax Americana.

This is not to say that the IMF's SDRs will be THE solution. They may very well falter. But if one is looking for a politically and financially palatable alternative to break the Big Dollar cartel, this looks likely to us. If it falters, it will be replaced with something else, most likely after some 'tinkering' with the basket composition first.

Let's keep an eye on this. But it is our judgement that the US dollar will continue to decline in signficance, in a relatively orderly fashion for the forseeable future, looking out perhaps over the next ten years, barring a major exogenous event, most likely of a geopolitical or military nature.


Russia calls for revision of SDR currency basket
By Gleb Bryanski
Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:58pm IST

YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) should expand the basket of Special Drawing Rights to include the Chinese yuan, commodity currencies and gold, a senior Kremlin official said on Tuesday.

The SDR is an international reserve asset allocated to member countries with its exchange rate determined by a basket of currencies, at the moment including dollar, euro, yen and sterling. A review of the basket is due in November 2010.

"The rouble, yuan deserve to be included in the SDR basket," Kremlin economy aide Arkady Dvorkovich told a news conference ahead of the first summit of Brazil, Russia, India and China, known as BRIC, in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.

"It is important that the composition of the basket also reflects the role of commodities in the global economy," Dvorkovich said, naming Australian and Canadian dollars as possible candidates.

"We also think that gold has a potential as a possible participant. The price of gold has a negative correlation to the dollar. Therefore it is beneficial to tie these two instruments into one so that investors feel safer," he said.

Dvorkovich said he doubted Russia would complete its transition to an inflation-targeting regime which implies a freely floating exchange rate for the rouble next year when the IMF basket's review takes place, as announced by the central bank.

Dvorkovich said BRIC leaders will discuss new reserve currencies at the summit but called for caution in the currency debate, saying it was in no-one's interest to ruin the dollar.

Russia rattled financial markets last week when a central bank official said Moscow will cut the share of U.S. Treasuries in its forex reserves in favour of IMF bonds and bank deposits.

Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin played down this statement over the weekend saying the dollar's status as the world's main reserve currency would unlikely change in the near term. Dvorkovich said new reserve currencies were inevitable.

"The world economy will grow... In the future we are sure growth will resume. This growing pie should be divided in a fairer way. We are not talking about excluding the dollar but the share of other currencies should increase," he said.

He said BRIC leaders will discuss investing their reserves, which are among the seven largest in the world, in each other's currencies, settling bilateral trade in domestic currencies and striking currency swap agreements.

"It would make sense for us if our partners agreed to place some of their reserves in Russian roubles," Dvorkovich said.

He said BRIC countries had a common position regarding the reform of the International Monetary Fund while a decision by China, Brazil and Russia to purchase SDR-denominated bonds issued by the IMF would boost the role of SDRs.

"Any expansion of the IMF's resource base implies ... strengthening of SDRs' role in the international currency system," Dvorkovich said.

The Decline of Monetarism: Our Next Financial Crisis

"Throughout the world financial interests have taken control of government and used neoliberal policies to promote their own gain-seeking – financial gains without industrialization or agricultural self-sufficiency. Betting against one’s own currency is more remunerative than making the effort to invest in capital equipment and develop markets for new output. So unemployment and domestic budget deficits are soaring. The neoliberal failure to distinguish between productive and merely extractive or speculative forms of gain seeking has created a travesty of the kind of wealth creation that Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations. The financialization of economies has been decoupled from tangible capital investment to expand employment and productive powers.

Central to any discussion of financialization is the fact that credit creation has been monopolized in the United States and Britain for their own national gain."

This is an interesting essay from Michael Hudson, because it helps to illuminate some of the less frequently discussed implications of the rise of fiat currencies since the 1970's and the growth of financial engineering amongst an elite group of multinational corporations.

This subject has preoccupied the thoughts of this forecaster since the late 1990's and the Asian currency crisis.

How the evolution of monetarism and international trade plays out will shape the political and societal landscape of the first half of this century, and perhaps beyond.

This looks to be a classic showdown between those who issue and control the reserve currencies of the world, and those who make real products and write their nation's laws.

The Collapse of the Neoliberal Model
Where Russia Went Wrong
By Michael Hudson

Last week Izvestiya published an interview with former Premier Yevgeny Primakov, now president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (Johnson’s Russia List published a translation on May 8). The discussion centered on a universal problem – what China and other Asian countries, as well as OPEC and Europe should do with the export surpluses and proceeds mounting up in their central banks from mortgaging or selling off their real estate and industry. Or to put matters in retrospect, what should they have done to avoid the neoliberal monetarist ideology that governments should do nothing at all with these surpluses, not even use them to fuel economic growth.

If U.S. diplomats had their way, countries would simply let their foreign exchange reserves accumulate in the form of loans to the United States, in the form of Treasury bonds and other securities. Mr. Primakov has long opposed what his interviewer called “the fetishization of the Stabilization Fund – our beloved ‘piggy bank.’” Urging that it be spent on “primary needs,” to buy tangible capital goods, undertake infrastructure investment and finance imports to rebuild Russia’s dismantled manufacturing sector, he explained, “I was always opposed to having the Stabilization Fund considered something saved for an emergency. Money needs to be spent inside the country. Naturally not all of it. Some part should certainly be kept as a reserve.” But it was Vladimir Putin’s own “initiative to divide the Stabilization Fund into the Reserve Fund and the Fund for Well-Being. The latter was to be used to develop the economy and for social needs. It is too bad that they did not get to it in time.”

Ever since the Asian financial crisis of 1997, countries that have built up foreign exchange reserves have found themselves targets of global raiders. The tactic has been to sell a currency short, that is, to promise to deliver a few hundred million (or nowadays a few billion dollars) of it to a buyer (usually the central bank) near the current price, and then drive down the exchange rate by selling. The central bank tries in vain to absorb the selling wave, until finally its reserves are exhausted and the currency depreciates. This is how George Soros broke the Bank of England – and what he denies having done in Malaysia during the 1997 crisis.

Under Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, Malaysia protected itself by not making its currency available for foreign speculators to buy and cover their short-sale position. But most other countries have passively built up reserves in an attempt to outspend potential raiders. Today, however, underlying trends are using up these reserves. The global financial crisis has ended the real estate bubble that enabled many countries to cover their trade deficits by selling off their real estate or simply taking out foreign-currency mortgages against it. The Baltics and other post-Soviet countries in particular have been financing their trade deficits by fostering a property bubble that has led real estate owners to borrow mortgage credit from Western banks. In the absence of putting in place a viable domestic banking system, Scandinavian, Austrian and other Western banks are the only institutions able to create credit. Now that the global real estate bubble has burst, this foreign exchange credit is no longer forthcoming. The financial End Time has arrived. Rather than facing the new state of affairs – chronic trade deficits are now over-layered with heavy foreign-debt service. Countries that have built up foreign reserves are running them down.

Many countries are trying to delay the Day of Judgment by borrowing from the IMF, dissipating the proceeds by subsidizing capital flight by investors and speculators who can see that exchange rates for chronic trade-deficit countries are about to plunge steeply. Russia has joined in expending its foreign-exchange reserves to stabilize the ruble in the face of capital flight and foreign speculative selling.

In retrospect this appears to have been inevitable, and indeed was widely foreseen by critics of the neoliberal Washington Consensus. The reserves built up during the oil-price run-up last year and the recent boom in minerals prices are being spent without having used the proceeds to develop its industry so as to replace imports and develop export markets for what used to be a high-technology economy prior to the Yeltsin “reforms” (that is, dismantling of industry). Russia continued to rely almost exclusively on raw materials and oil exports. “In our country,” explained Mr. Primakov, “40% of GDP was created and is created through raw material exports. The share of industrial enterprises engaged in development and introduction of new technologies barely comes to 10%.” The problem is that having given away its mineral resources and other public enterprises to insiders and their cronies, Russia has relied on what they choose to leave in the country from their exports and sale of shares in their companies. “The prolonged refusal to inject the capital being built up into the real economy and its direct investment in American treasury securities instead of its use inside the country to diversify the economy. … As a result, Russia will most likely come out of the recession in the second echelon – after the developed countries.”

The alternative, Mr. Primakov said, would have been to use the Stabilization Fund “to switch the economy to the innovation track and for its restructuring. ‘Patching the holes does not help for long.’” But he the then-minister of economics, German Gref, fought off attempts “to cannibalize the Stabilization Fund.” Under the kleptocracy the money was left to be stolen.

The problem is where to go from here. Neoliberal “monetarist” ideology conjures up the threat of inflation to deter public spending. This IMF and World Bank propaganda blocked Russia from investing in industry during the Yeltsin disaster of the mid-1990s. “Fear of inflation,” Mr. Primakov explained, “was named as the main reason that huge amounts of money lay idle. They said that inflation would soar if what had been built up began to be spent. At one of the representative conferences, I asked: ‘What kind of inflation can there be in building roads? The work would just spur on production of concrete, cement, and metal ...’ But our financial experts have a monetarist view of inflation. They are afraid of releasing an additional money supply into circulation. But in reality inflation rises much more strongly from that fact that we have colossal monopolization.” Trade dependency leads the ruble’s exchange rate to weaken, raising the price of imports and thus aggravating the inflation – precisely the opposite of what Washington Consensus orthodoxy insists.

I myself have heard Scandinavian and other European officials make this argument in almost the same words, and it has persuaded many Third World governments to do nothing with their raw-materials export proceeds but “save for a rainy day,” not promote domestic self-sufficiency in food and consumer goods. The argument seems maddeningly stupid, because it pretends that all government spending is inherently inflationary, adding to the spending stream without producing any production to absorb it. The practical effect is to block countries from growing in the way that the United States and other developed nations have done – by investing in infrastructure and other capital formation, with the government providing basic infrastructure at cost or even freely (as in the case of roads) so as to minimize the cost of living and doing business. Instead of having investment in place to show for the foreign exchange earned by exporting raw materials (and selling off ownership of national assets), countries that follow this policy are now seeing their reserves drained rapidly. And as far as government spending is concerned, the economic collapse is increasing public budget deficits after all!

Contrast this behavior with Pres. Obama’s February 17 economic stimulus plan for the United States. When the Izvestiya interviewer asked Mr. Primakov what he thought about it, he noted that: “In America investments in ‘intellect’ have been increased – in science, progressive technologies, and education, and expenditures for medicine are rising. ... Doesn’t it seem to you that our package of anti-crisis measures is less ambitious? … This law should be considered a plan of investment related to the American economy and society entering the 21st century and a new technological platform of competitiveness. That is why expenditures for science have been increased. The same thing, undoubtedly, with human capital.”

But that is not the Russian strategy today, Mr. Primakov complained. Russia has been living in the short run. “The TPP (Chamber of Commerce and Industry) conducted a poll in 720 firms. Only a third of the managers said that they associate getting out of the crisis with producing new output. The rest are counting on staff cutbacks. If the ministries are given the assignment of reducing expenditures at their discretion, the first thing they sacrifice is scientific research and experimental design development. However, research and development should be classified as protected articles of any budget.”

So much for the free-market policy of automatic stabilizers and do-nothing government policy, leaving choice in the hands of the nation’s financial oligarchs. The situation calls for structural change, coordinated by the government. “If a plane is having trouble, the autopilot cannot handle an unusual situation. Only the personal skills of the pilot can save the ship. It is similar with the economy. Autopilot does not work in extreme conditions. … Self-regulation of the economy disappears as a factor.”

When asked about the oligarchs keeping their funds abroad rather than investing them in domestic industry, Mr. Primakov replied that Russian officials did not “take into account that banks’ interests do not coincide with the interests of the real sector of the economy. … It should have been explained that after receiving state support, in using it banks no longer [should] act as commercial structures but as agents of the state. It should have been watched to make sure that the state capital was not commingled with the banks’ other assets in common accounts but was marked off with a red line. But that was not done. Probably some people were lobbying for the banks’ interests at that point. And the bankers hurriedly began to convert the rubles into hard currency and export it abroad and build up their capitalization” instead of “extend[ing] credit to the real sector of the economy.” Oversight was done poorly, and Russia did not even use its public funds to finance capital investment. But when it comes to what to do at this late point, Mr. Primakov acknowledged, “Punishing the banks for what happened means destroying them.”

The problem is how to restructure the financial system to make it serve the objectives of industrial growth rather than merely facilitating capital flight. Throughout the world financial interests have taken control of government and used neoliberal policies to promote their own gain-seeking – financial gains without industrialization or agricultural self-sufficiency. Betting against one’s own currency is more remunerative than making the effort to invest in capital equipment and develop markets for new output. So unemployment and domestic budget deficits are soaring. The neoliberal failure to distinguish between productive and merely extractive or speculative forms of gain seeking has created a travesty of the kind of wealth creation that Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations. The financialization of economies has been decoupled from tangible capital investment to expand employment and productive powers.

Central to any discussion of financialization is the fact that credit creation has been monopolized in the United States and Britain for their own national gain. What makes this interview so relevant is that Mr. Primakov is speaking as head of Russia’s shrunken manufacturing sector. Russia “practically pushes big business outside our borders,” Mr. Primakov noted, “to borrow money from banks there in places where the interest rates are incomparably lower.” Just as the nation was becoming underdeveloped industrially, so it and other post-Soviet economies have failed to create domestic financial institutions to provide the credit that is needed to finance circulation between producers and consumers. As a result, these countries are simply fooling themselves to imagine “that credit can continue to be borrowed abroad ‘for the crisis.’ It is not out of the question that for the first time in 10 years, the state itself will even go begging for a loan again.” So a byproduct of today’s crisis will be to put the world outside of the creditor nations on rations, as it were.

Mr. Primakov was asked what he thought of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s tracing “the sources of the present Russian crisis [to] the 1990s, when the liberal government permitted the ‘stealing, squandering, and distribution of natural resources and the largest sectors of industry to those who could not support their development.’” He replied that there were many smart managers among the oligarchy’s ranks, but acknowledged that “It is a different question that in buying up enterprises (mainly raw material ones) for a song and obtaining mega-profits, many from the beginning preferred not to raise the efficiency of production, but to skim off the cream. … Why think about some processing of raw materials if they bring in big money anyway in natural form? The state should have entered that niche long ago. To have done everything to make certain that some of the petrodollars were pumped into science-intensive industry.”

Contrasting Russia’s failure to industrialize with that of China and its anticipated 8% economic growth in 2009, Mr. Primakov noted: “China exports ready-made products, while in our country a strong raw material flow was traditional.” Now that Western economies are shrinking, China is “moving a large part of the ready-made goods to the domestic market. At the same time, they are trying to raise the population's solvent demand. On this basis the plants and factories will continue to operate and the economy will work. We cannot do that. If raw materials are moved to the domestic market, consumers of such vast volumes will not be found.” Increasing domestic purchasing power will “merely step up imports.” That is the price that Russia is now paying for having failed to sponsor “structural changes in the economy.”

I have cited these long quotations because they have been made by a man who once had a chance to steer Russia along different lines than the economically suicidal death trap promoted by the Harvard Boys and their Washington Consensus. It is the trap into which the Baltics and other countries have fallen. A decade ago Mr. Primakov proposed an alternative, based on a resource-rent tax to finance Russia’s re-industrialization. The government would have collected the “free lunch” of its raw materials sales proceeds in excess of their low costs of production. Instead of retaining the revenue in the public domain from the decades of capital investment that the Soviet government had made to develop its mineral, oil and gas resources, instead of using it to finance economic modernization, Russia simply gave it away to political insiders and let them sell off shares in these resources to foreign buyers on the cheap. Anatoly Chubais and his Western “free-market” backers promised that giving property to individuals in this way would transform them into forward-looking Western-style industrialists. Instead, it turned them into Westernized finance capitalists.

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

The Dollar Trap: Michael Hudson's Incisive Characterization of Our Global Economic Dilemma

Bretton Woods has not worked well for a long time, despite the best efforts of the world's bankers to pretend that it has. As the charade continues, the economy of the United States and the composition of international trade has grown increasingly artificial and unsustainable.

The dilemma facing us now is what happens when the dollar hegemony finally breaks down and falls apart? Which countries will break ranks and begin offloading their dollar reserves in size into more tangible and less arbitrary stores of value, risking the value of their remaining reserves, in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma? Be assured that this is happening quietly behind the scenes, despite some of the recent financial engineering that has caused a dollar short squeeze, primarily in Europe.

More on this later. But first, here is a major plank in our construct so very well expressed by the classical economist Michael Hudson. What we are approaching is the failure of the Bretton Woods arrangement. How this is accomplished, how it unfolds, will shape at least next several decades of history and the fortunes of our generation.

"What happens in practice is that foreign central banks recycle the dollars that
their exporters and asset sellers receive because their currencies would rise if
they failed to do this. That would price their exports out of world markets,
leading to unemployment. Foreign countries thus are in a dollar trap.
They send their savings to finance the domestic U.S. Government budget deficit
instead of helping their own domestic economics, because they have not been able
to create an alternative to the dollar."

Our Trash for Your Cash
Bankers Shake Down Congress and the G-20
By MICHAEL HUDSON

The financial press has been negligent in reporting how last week’s two top financial stories are linked: first, the testimony by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his evasive Interim Assistant Secretary Neel Kashkari defending why they followed a completely different giveaway plan to the banks (their own Wall Street constituency) than what Congress authorized; and second, the G-20 standoff among the world’s leading finance ministers this weekend.

The dollar glut is one of the key factors that has aggravated the junk-mortgage problem in recent years. Looking forward, if foreign countries are no longer to invest their dollar inflows in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and toxic packaged mortgage derivatives, what are they to do with these dollars? The U.S. Government refuses to let foreign government funds acquire anything but financial junk such as the plunging Citibank shares that Arab oil sheikhs have bought.

Here’s the problem that faced global finance ministers this weekend: The U.S. payments deficit has been pumping excess dollars into foreign economies, whose recipients have turned them over to their central banks. These central banks have saved their currencies from rising (and thus losing foreign markets by making their exports more expensive) by buying Treasury bonds so as to support the dollar’s exchange rate by recycling their dollar inflows back to the United States – enough to finance most of our federal budget deficit, and indeed much of Fannie Mae’s mortgage lending as well.

Mr. Bush for his part would like to shape the global financial system so that foreign economies continue giving the United States a free lunch. U.S. officials control the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and use these institutions to impose neoliberal privatization policies on foreign countries, thereby destroying the post-Soviet economies, Australia and New Zealand since the 1990s, just as they destroyed Third World economies from the 1960s through the ’80s.

That’s why, until last month, the IMF had lost its clients and was almost universally shunned. French President Nicolas Sarkozy led foreign calls for a “new Bretton Woods,” by which he meant not just an upgrading of U.S. dollar hegemony but a different world order – more regulated with a fairer quid pro quo. And as the Financial Times reported: “Spain’s governing Socialist party summed up the heady mood in some parts of Europe in an internal document, seen by El Mundo, that identified the summit as a moment of historic change. ‘The origins of this crisis lie in neoliberal and neoconservative ideology,’ it said.”

Mr. Paulson and other U.S. officials have long been promising foreign finance ministers that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities are as good as U.S. Treasury bonds while yielding higher interest. The resulting investment in these two mortgage-packaging agencies was a major factor in their $200 billion bailout. Letting their securities go under would have ended Dollar Hegemony for good. So getting foreign acquiescence in financing future U.S. balance-of-payments deficit is inextricably bound up with how to resolve the U.S. financial and real estate bubble.

Its bursting has prompted Congress to authorize $700 billion supposedly to re-inflate the property market. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gives Wall Street money in the hope that it will lend enough to start inflating asset prices again, enable borrowers to get rich by going into debt again – “wealth creation” Alan Greenspan-style. It is as if the neoliberal bubble years 2002-07 were a golden age to be recovered, not the road to financial perdition. In doing this, Mr. Paulson is using junk economics to cope with the junk mortgage problem that in turn was based on junk mathematical models. His problem is to keep the fantasy going.

Congress has caught onto the game being played. Now that the bailout looks like a last-minute giveaway to insiders while the giving is good, Congress held hearings last week to ask why the Treasury abandoned its plan to buy the “troubled assets” (junk mortgages) that Mr. Paulson had originally said was the problem. Why has the Treasury bought $250 billion of ersatz “preferred common stock” in banks at prices far above what private investors such as Warren Buffett paid?

Drawing a picture of a just-pretend world to rationalize Wall Street’s free lunch, Mr. Paulson sought to deflect the issue by postulating a series of “ifs.” The Treasury’s $250 billion in bank stock would give lenders money that might be used to re-inflate the credit supply if banks chose to re-enter the commercial paper market and provide more mortgages on easier terms. This trickle-down patter talk is what passes for neoliberal economic theory these days. The fantasy is for banks to restore “balance” by granting more credit, increasing the indebtedness of bank customers so as to restore the housing market to its former degree of unaffordability.

Congressional interrogators pointed out that banks were not lending more money. Mortgage interest rates have risen, not fallen, even though the Fed is supplying banks with credit at only a quarter of a percentage point (an average of about 0.30 per cent last week). Credit standards (understandably) have been tightened to require prospective buyers to put up more of their own money. Foreclosures and evictions are up and real estate prices continue to plunge. Also plunging almost straight down has been the Dow Jones Industrial Average, sinking below the 8000 mark last week to the lowest levels in years. Nothing is working out the way Mr. Paulson promised.

The word being used most by Treasury officials these days is “unexpected.” At his subcommittee hearing on Friday, Nov. 14, Dennis Kucinich asked Mr. Paulson’s sidekick, Neel Kashkari, whether the Treasury’s lack of realistic foresight was an innocent error or a case of bait and switch. Mr. Kashkari stonewalled by repeating a “talking point” loop-tape claiming that giveaways were the way to get the economy “moving” again. The banks would use their newfound power to help customers run back into debt even more deeply, presumably at the exponential rates needed to re-inflate property and stock prices

Republican Congressman Darrill Issa asked just when the Treasury decided to dump the law as written and pursue an alternative giveaway to Wall Street rather than help defaulting homeowners. Why hasn’t it done what the law that Mr. Paulson himself insisted that Congress agree to – arrange orderly debt write-downs by using the promised $50 billion of public money to buy mortgages headed for foreclosure, and re-set unrealistically high mortgages to reflect current price levels? Renegotiating bad mortgages down to this price for existing owner-occupants – or selling the property to a buyer who could afford fair terms – would avert the distress sales that are poisoning local property markets Isn’t this what the Congressional plan called for, after all?

Mr. Kashkeri kept trying to run out the time clock by explaining rote Treasury procedure. He assured the committee that he worried each night about the fate of homeowners, and said that Mr. Paulson also was wringing his hands in empathy, but they had found it much better to give money to the banks in the hope that they would show similarc concern for their customers. The committee members simply gave up when it became apparent that the Treasury officials were stonewalling, just as the Fed has stonewalled Congress by refusing to give any details of the $850 billion giveaway it’s been conducting under its own cash-for-trash program. On November 12, Mr. Paulson gave his excuse: “We changed our strategy when the facts changed.”

What were these facts? For starters, the Federal Reserve found that it was able to pump an even larger amount into the “cash for trash” program than the Treasury originally was to have provided. The Treasury plan would have obliged the banks to take a loss by selling their “troubled assets” (junk mortgages) at today’s post-bubble prices. Bankers don’t like to take losses. That’s what the government is supposed to do. The Fed can do anything it wants in order to “stabilize markets,” under an umbrella clause inserted into its Act for just such purposes. Applying the “privatize the profits, socialize the losses” rationale that bank lobbyists have polished over the past century, it has decided that the best way to “stabilize the economy” is to swap Treasury bonds for high-risk junk assets at face value, saving the banks from having to take a loss.

The more wealth that is concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid and the more banks that can be consolidated into just a market-setting few, the more “stable” markets will be. This is the neoliberal economic doctrine used to justify the Fed’s purchase of junk mortgages, junk bonds and the bad gambles in insuring derivatives that A.I.G. had drawn up. One can only conclude that Mr. Paulson was knowingly deceptive when he told Congress on November 12 that the government has found a better way for the giveaway to trickle down from the banks to the credit markets than to buy their bad loans. It has indeed been doing just this, but via the Fed at full price and in secret, away from the prying eyes of Congress rather than through the Treasury program that Congress authorized under more current market-oriented terms intended to protect “taxpayer interests.” The Fed values junk mortgages at the high fantasy prices that banks, A.I.G. and other companies had bought them for, saving them from having to take a loss. Hedge funds and speculators who had bought junk-insurance from A.I.G. were made whole, and A.I.G. stockholders were saved by the infusion of government capital so that players would not have to take losses in the Wall Street casino.

Now that the Fed is doing this, the Treasury can turn to its own form of giveaway: buying bank stocks at far above their market price (that is, the price paid by investors such as Warren Buffett for Goldman Sachs stock), on terms that permit the banks to turn around and use the money to buy other banks, pay out as dividends to shareholders or pay high executive salaries rather than helping mortgage debtors. “I don’t think the government should put money into failing institutions,” Mr. Kashkari assured Congress, explaining that the bailout of A.I.G., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be in vain without yet further government bailouts. Rep. Kucinich’s final remark to Mr. Kashkari was: “That statement that you just made, you will hear about for the rest of your career.

The internal contradiction here is that why the Republican logic of breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into smaller companies does not apply to the commercial banking system. Rather than consolidating the banking system in the hands of New York and East Coast banks, why shouldn’t the government break up financial institutions “too big to fail?" Instead, the Treasury is simply investing in stocks of banks, leaving existing stockholders in place rather than wiping them out.

Mr. Paulson under George Bush in 2008 is looking like the U.S. counterpart to Anatoly Chubais under Boris Yeltsin in 1996. Just as Russian neoliberals led by Chubais were promoted by Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs, today’s Wall Street power grab to replace the government as the economy’s central planner is being orchestrated by another Treasury Secretary from Goldman Sachs, empowered to decide which kleptocrats are to receive what public resources and on what terms, aided by “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve. Mr. Bernanke’s famous quip about helicopters dropping money to get the economy moving seems to be limited to Wall Street for use in buying financial assets, not real goods and services for the population at large.

The road to G-20

Speaking on Thursday, November 13, before the Manhattan Institute, a lobbying organization for finance and real estate, President Bush repeated the myth that foreign countries recycle so many dollars to America because of our “strong economy” and free markets.

The reality is quite different. There is no such thing as a “free market.” For a few days after announcement of the $700 billion giveaway, some knee-jerk opponents of government spending accused this of being “socialism,” but they quickly discovered that not all government spending is socialist. Regardless of what economic system is followed, all markets are planned, and have been ever since calendars were developed back in the Ice Age. Most market structures throughout history have been organized in a way that provides the vested interests with a free lunch. This remains the essence of post-feudal capitalism – or as some have expressed it, corporativism.

What happens in practice is that foreign central banks recycle the dollars that their exporters and asset sellers receive because (as noted above) their currencies would rise if they failed to do this. That would price their exports out of world markets, leading to unemployment. Foreign countries thus are in a dollar trap. They send their savings to finance the domestic U.S. Government budget deficit instead of helping their own domestic economics, because they have not been able to create an alternative to the dollar.

Next to Treasury debt, real estate mortgages are the only category large enough to absorb the excess dollars being thrown off by the U.S. payments deficit – thrown off, that is, by U.S. military spending abroad, consumer spending to swell the trade deficit, and investment outflows as investors here and abroad diversified their holdings outside of the United States. The upshot is that world monetary reserves have come to consist of central bank loans to finance the U.S. bubble economy. But the knee-jerk deregulatory philosophy of the Clinton and Bush eras has killed the U.S. investment market.

What makes this dynamic unstable is that U.S. exports become even less competitive as higher housing costs and debt-service charges push up the cost of living and doing business. The more dollars foreign countries recycle, the less the U.S. economy will be able to work off its debts by exporting more. So the dynamic is guaranteed to be a losing game for foreign governments – unless anyone can explain how the United States can generate the $4 trillion to repay its debt to the world’s central banks. To make matters worse, the dollar’s downward drift against the euro and sterling obliges foreign creditors to take a loss on their dollar holdings as denominated in their own currencies.

Nobody has found a “market-oriented” solution to this problem. That is what doomed the G-20 meetings this weekend to failure, just as there could be no agreement at the G7 meetings a few weeks ago. In the face of U.S. Treasury dreams of re-inflating the mortgage market, Europe is trying to draw the line at financing a losing proposition.

But now that gold no longer is the means of settling balance-of-payments deficits, foreign central banks lack an alternative to the U.S. dollar to hold their monetary reserves. This leaves them with (1) U.S. Treasury securities, and (2) U.S. mortgage securities. Recent years have seen a further diversification via “sovereign wealth funds” into (3) direct ownership of mineral resources, industrial companies, privatized national infrastructure and other equity investment rather than debt. But rather than welcoming this, the U.S. Government seeks to limit foreign central banks to buying junk mortgages, junk bonds and other financial garbage. To call this “market equilibrium” is to indulge in the feel-good argot that fogs today’s international financial dialogue.

To put matters bluntly, the issue at the G-20 meetings is mistrust of the unregulated U.S. banking system and, behind it, government “regulators” who refuse to regulate. China and other foreign dollar recipients have been treating the dollar like a hot potato, trying to spend it on buying foreign minerals, fuels and other assets from any country that will accept payment in dollars. Most of the takers are third world countries still committed to paying the heavy dollarized debts owed to the World Bank and other global creditors. The price of their remaining in the Bretton Woods system is to sacrifice their public domain in a kind of pre-bankruptcy sale rather than repudiating their debts under the “odious debt” and “fraudulent conveyance” escape valves. What is needed is not to “reform” the World Bank and IMF, but to replace them. But that is another story, one that other countries dared not even bring up at the November 15-16 meetings.

Euroland is officially in a recession for the first time since the birth of the single currency. Part of the reason is that its member countries have felt obliged to use their monetary surpluses to support the dollar – and hence, the U.S. Treasury’s budget deficit – instead of supporting their own domestic economies. Just before flying to America this weekend, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced his position: “‘The dollar, which at the end of World War II was the only world currency, can no longer claim to be the sole world currency … What was true in 1945 can no longer be true today.’” Stating this fact was not a matter of ‘courage,’ but ‘good sense.’” Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made a point of defending Russia, criticizing the US for “provoking” Moscow with its missile defense shield. But Mr. Paulson insisted that the global financial crisis was “no nation’s fault.”

U.S. officials chose to brazen it out, including a new wave of American protectionism for the auto industry in what may be a foretaste of economic nationalism to come. “Bankers complain that the financial rescue plans put in place in many countries distort competition because they operate on very different terms while others say that the bail-outs under consideration for U.S. carmakers represent a classic effort to protect national champions that could inspire copycat efforts elsewhere.”. So wrote Krishna Goha in the Financial Times, describing why, when G-20 finance ministers reaffirmed their support for free trade, they were talking largely at cross-purposes.

The past eight years have demonstrated the folly of imagining that the stock market and real estate can provide steady rates of return that compound into exponential increases in savings sufficient to pay retirement income and make homeowners and small investors rich without really having to work. Money managers advertise “Let your money work for you,” but only people actually work. Financial returns are paid in the form of command over labor power – workers “doing time.” What banks do provide is debt, and this remains in place after the force of asset-price inflation is spent and market prices fall below liabilities to cause Negative Equity. That is how economic bubbles operate. But to hear Wall Street’s neoliberals tell the story, it is not necessary to pay retirees out of what is produced. Finance capitalism can replace industrial capitalism without a “real” economic base at all.

Who Really Gets the “Free Lunch”?

So much for the material conditions of production! We can all live free as financial engineering replaces industrial engineering. The Treasury is now reported to be discussing bailouts for credit card issuers by taking over their bad debts. The banks presumably would even be able to charge the government for the accumulation of exorbitant penalty fees.

The banks and Wall Street are threatening to wreck the economy by “going on strike” and creating a credit squeeze forcing foreclosures and economic collapse, if Congress and the Federal Reserve don’t save them from taking a loss on their bad loans and financial derivatives. Foreigners also must play a subordinate role in this game, or the international financial system itself will be collapsed. Financial customers must absorb the loss.

The most reasonable response to this brazen stance may be to return the Federal Reserve’s monetary functions to the U.S. Treasury. This is where they were conducted with great success prior to 1913. Back in the 1930s the “Chicago Plan,” put forth in the wreckage of the banking system’s and Wall Street misbehavior that aggravated the Great Depression, proposed to turn commercial banking into classic-style savings banks with 100 per cent reserves. A modernized version is put forth in the American Monetary Institute’s proposed Monetary Reform Act as an alternative to the dysfunctional high finance that Wall Street lobbyists have created as a Frankenstein debt-selling machine. The U.S. economy has been living on a combination of foreign dollar recycling and bank credit that has been used simply to “create wealth” by inflating asset prices, not by financing new capital formation.

As matters have turned out, the banks have gone broke doing this. The Treasury has given them trillions of dollars of aid, and even more as special tax favoritism, loan and deposit insurance guarantees. This can only continue as long as banks can make the inevitable collapse of compound interest schemes appear to be unthinkable. That attempt is what doomed the G-20 meetings this weekend, and it will doom any future U.S. administration that tries to follow in its footsteps.

"The Dollar Will Be Devalued By a Large Margin" - The Economic Times of India

"We must...have a genuine international currency as the international reserve currency... As a one-time measure, the dollar will be devalued by a large margin..."

Asia seems to be growing increasingly impatient with Ben Bernanke and His Merry Banksters.

The Economic Times
Be Bold Enough to Fight the System from Within
By Ramgopal Agarwala
14 Nov, 2008, 0126 hrs IST

The ongoing global financial tsunami that originated in the US poses a serious threat to the stability of world economy. Already the financial crisis has spread from the US to Europe, Japan and major emerging economies.

The loss of wealth due to decline in share prices alone is in scores of trillions of dollars. Similar trillions are being lost in wealth in real estate. The crisis has spread from the Wall Street to the Main Street with a serious recession in the US which is sure to have a contagion effect across the globe.

Even worse is the scenario of the future of the US dollar. The US is pumping more and more dollars into the world economy, seriously aggravating the burden of its external debt, which is already over $20 trillion. If the confidence in the US dollar is shaken and the dollar goes into a free fall, we may well have what has been called ‘mother of all monetary crises.’

Faced with appreciation of their currencies in relation to dollar and fall in exports, major economies may well embark on competitive devaluations and protectionism, leading to a downward cobweb of production and employment in the world. The Great Depression of the 1930s may well repeat. We must not let that happen. We must make dispassionate analysis of the causes of the crisis and devise corrective measures however bitter they may seem.

While analysing the current US financial crisis, it has become conventional wisdom to blame the ‘greed’ of financial players on the Wall Street. But what else do we expect from the financial players? Profit maximisation is their job, their religion, if you like. It is the job of the regulators to make them work within the rules, which prevent greed turning into macro-economic imprudence. The real failure of the US system lies in its lax regulations that originated from a failed doctrine of self-regulating markets.

Along with the lax regulations, the spending spree in the US was fully supported, nay, encouraged by the authorities in order to prevent recession in the economy, in the wake of dotcom crisis and 9/11. Federal funds rate was brought down from 6.24% in 2000 to 1.35% in 2004 and remained below the 2000 level in 2007. Federal budget balance was changed from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $413 billion in 2004 and these may exceed $1 trillion in 2008/9.

In a normal economy, such domestic excesses will be prevented by the need to balance the external account. Unfortunately, the world has been on a US dollar reserve system, and there was no international regulatory mechanism to enforce discipline on the US spending. The world was flooded in the red ink flowing from international deficit financing by the US. Between 2000 and the third quarter of 2007, the US ran a current account deficit of $4.6 trillion!

But now the world must act. There could be a three-pronged strategy.

First, the countries holding US dollars must come forward to recapitalise the financial system of the US (in the US and abroad) by buying up equities of the US companies at the current low—and attractive—prices. In other words, rescue of the US financial system will have to come from the use of dollars in the system that created the problem in the first place rather than pumping more dollars into the system. What the sage of Omaha, Warren Buffet, is doing in billions needs to be done in trillions. Like Buffet, the lenders have to drive a hard bargain and these investments could be prudent over the long term as Warren Buffet’s probably are.

Second, we must go back to the wisdom of Keynes and have a genuine international currency as the international reserve currency. An internationally accepted bancor (as Keynes called it) should be created and exchanged for unwanted dollars. This programme will have a provision for systematic redemption of US dollars over time along with structural adjustment in the US economy. (Who will manage the rate of increase in the world currency, the 'bancor?' - Jesse)

As a one-time measure, the dollar will be devalued by a large margin to help US reduce its net imports and relative stability in real exchange rates will be maintained among major currencies through a system of managed floats. Speculative movements of short-term flows will be discouraged through regulations and taxes. In general, we may have to revive some features of exchange rate management in Bretton Woods agreement.

Third, a coordinated effort will be made to create alternative sources of demand in the world economy as the US net imports decline inevitably. Net additions of bancors needed (which could be more than a hundred billion dollar equivalent) could be used to fund global public goods.

The upcoming G20 summit in Washington DC could be a venue for considering these matters. Unfortunately, as indicated by the White House press release, the US seems to be putting the summit in the framework only of “reform of the regulatory and institutional regimes for the world’s financial sectors” and “strengthen(ing) the underpinnings of capitalism” by discussing how the summit leaders can “enhance their commitment to open competitive economies, as well as trade and investment liberalisation”!

Given the US veto power in Bretton Woods institutions, it can prevent the much-needed restructuring of global financial infrastructure. In that case, Asia should proceed with its own ‘Bretton Woods’ conference to set up a regional financial architecture that will pool its excess foreign exchange reserves in a regional sovereign wealth fund, create its own Asian currency unit as a parallel currency and use the seigniorage provided by the regional currency to fund the urgently needed physical and social infrastructure as well as measures to fight climate change.

This is an ambitious programme, but with a global economic calamity looming large, nothing less will do.

The author is with RIS, Delhi

How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

We do not agree with Michael Hudson on several points in this interview, but we do think it is thought-provoking to say the least.

In particular we view the polarization of wealth distribution in the United States as a trend that is alarming. It is a prerequisite for a severe testing of our democratic republic.

Because a system has been subverted and corrupted does not mean that the sytem is no good, but rather it merely proves that it is of human origin, and requires constant care and occasional renewal after a severe crisis brings the faults to the forefront.


How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy By MIKE WHITNEY
CounterPunch

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase & Co.), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world’s first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr. Hudson was Dennis Kucinich’s Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002

Mike Whitney: The United States current account deficit is roughly $700 billion. That is enough "borrowed" capital to pay the yearly $120 billion cost of the war in Iraq, the entire $450 billion Pentagon budget, and Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Why does the rest of the world keep financing America's militarism via the current account deficit or is it just the unavoidable consequence of currency deregulation, "dollar hegemony" and globalization?

Michael Hudson: As I explained in Super Imperialism, central banks in other countries buy dollars not because they think dollar assets are a “good buy,” but because if they did NOT recycle their trade surpluses and U.S. buyout spending and military spending by buying U.S. Treasury, Fannie Mae and other bonds, their currencies would rise against the dollar. This would price their exporters out of dollarized world markets. So the United States can spend money and get a free ride.

The solution is (1) capital controls to block further dollar receipts, (2) floating tariffs against imports from dollarized economies, (3) buyouts of U.S. investments in dollar-recipient countries (so that Europe and Asia would use their central bank dollars to buy out U.S. private investments at book value), (4) subsidized exports to dollarized economies with depreciating currency, and similar responses that the United States would adopt if it were in the position of a payments-surplus country. In other words, Europe and Asia would treat the United States as its Washington Consensus boys treat Third World debtors: buy out their raw materials and other industries, their export plantations, and their governments.

MW: Economist Henry Liu said in his article "Dollar hegemony enables the US to own indirectly but essentially the entire global economy by requiring its wealth to be denominated in fiat dollars that the US can print at will with little in the way of monetary penalties.....World trade is now a game in which the US produces fiat dollars of uncertain exchange value and zero intrinsic value, and the rest of the world produces goods and services that fiat dollars can buy at "market prices" quoted in dollars." Is Liu overstating the case or have the Federal Reserve and western banking elites really figured out how to maintain imperial control over the global economy simply by ensuring that most energy, commodities, and manufactured goods are denominated in dollars? If that's the case, then it would seem that the actual "face-value" of the dollar does not matter as much as long as it continues to be used in the purchase of commodities. Is this right?

Michael Hudson: Henry Liu and I have been discussing this for many years now. We are in full agreement. The paragraph you quote is quite right. His Asia Times articles provide a running analysis of dollar hegemony.

MW: What is the relationship between stagnant wages for workers and the current credit crisis? If workers wages had kept up with the rate of production, isn't it less likely that we would be in the jam we are today? And, if that is true, than shouldn't we be more focused on re-unionizing the labor force instead looking for solutions from the pathetic Democratic Party?

Michael Hudson: The credit crisis derives from “the magic of compound interest,” that is, the tendency of debts to keep on doubling and redoubling. Every rate of interest is a doubling time. No “real” economy’s production and economic surplus can keep up with this tendency of debt to grow faster. So the financial crisis would have occurred regardless of wage levels.

Quite simply, the price of home ownership tends to absorb all the disposable personal income of the homebuyer. So if wages would have risen more rapidly, the price of housing would simply have risen faster as employees pledged more take-home pay to carry larger mortgages. Stagnant wages merely helped keep down the price of houses to merely stratospheric levels, not ionospheric ones.

As for labor unions, they haven’t been any help at all in solving the housing crisis. In Germany where I am right now, unions have sponsored co-ops, as they used to do in New York City, at low membership costs. So housing costs only absorb about 20% of German family budgets, compared to twice that for the United States. Imagine what could be done if pension funds had put their money into housing for their contributors, instead of into the stock market to buy and bid up prices for the stocks that CEOs and other insiders were selling.

MW: When politicians or members of the foreign policy establishment talk about "integrating" Russia or China into the "international system"; what exactly do they mean? Do they mean the dollar-dominated system which is governed by the Fed, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO? Do countries compromise their national sovereignty when they participate in the US-led economic system?

Michael Hudson: By “integrating” they mean absorbing, something like a parasite integrating a host into its own control system. They mean that other countries will be prohibited under WTO and IMF rules from getting rich in the way that the United States got wealthy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Only the United States will be permitted to subsidize its agriculture, thanks to its unique right to grandfather in its price supports. Only the United States will be free from having to raise interest rates to stabilize its balance of payments, and only it can devote its monetary policy to promoting easy credit and asset-price inflation. And only the United States can run a military deficit, obliging foreign central banks in dollar-recipient countries to give it a free ride. In other words, there is no free lunch for other countries, only for the United States.

Other countries do indeed give up their national sovereignty. The United States never has adjusted its economy to create equilibrium with other countries. But to be fair, in this respect only the United States is acting fully in its own self-interest. The problem is largely that other countries are not “playing the game.” They are not acting as real governments. It takes two to tango when one party gets a free ride. Their governments have become “enablers” of U.S. economic aggression.

MW: What do you think the Bush administration's reaction would be if a smaller country, like Switzerland, had sold hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless mortgage-backed securities to investment banks, insurance companies and investors in the United States? Wouldn't there be litigation and a demand that the responsible parties be held accountable? So, how do you explain the fact that China and the EU nations, that were the victims of this gigantic swindle, haven't boycotted US financial products or called for reparations?

Michael Hudson: International law is not clear on financial fraud. Caveat emptor is the rule. Foreign investors took a risk. They trusted a deregulated U.S. financial market that made it easiest to make money via financial fraud. Ultimately, they put their faith in neoliberal deregulation – at home as well as in the United States. England is now in the same mess. The “accountability” was supposed to lie with U.S. accounting firms and credit rating agencies. Foreign investors were so ideologically blinded by free market rhetoric that they actually believed the fantasies about “self-regulation” and self-regulating markets tending toward equilibrium rather than the real-world tendency toward financial and economic polarization.

In other words, most foreign investors lack a realistic body of economic theory. The United States could simply argue that they should take responsibility for their bad investments, just as U.S. pension funds and other investors are told to do.

MW: The Congress recently passed a bill that gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson the unprecedented authority to use as much money as he needs to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent. Paulson assured the Congress that he wouldn't need more than $25 billion but, the 400 page bill allows him to increase the national debt by $800 billion. How will the Fannie/Freddie bailout affect the dollar and the budget deficit? Are interest rates likely to skyrocket because of this action?

Michael Hudson: The Fed can flood the economy with money, Alan Greenspan-style, to prevent interest rates from skyrocketing. Nobody really knows what will happen to FNMA and Freddie Mac, but it looks like the mortgage and financial crisis will get much, much worse over the coming year. We are just heading into the storm where adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) are scheduled to reset at higher rates, and where U.S. banks have to roll over their existing debts in a market where foreign investors fear that these banks already have no net worth left.

So the principle here is “Big fish eat little fish.” Wall Street will be bailed out, and banks will be allowed to “earn their way out of debt” as they did after 1980, by exploiting retail customers, above all credit-card customers and individual borrowers. There will be a lot of bankruptcies, and people will suffer more than ever before because of the harsh pro-creditor bankruptcy law that Congress passed at the behest of the bank lobbyists. (Mike needs to consider a change in government administration - Jesse)
MW: A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial which said that they could imagine two nightmare scenarios if the current credit crisis was not handled properly; either there would be a run on the dollar causing a sudden plunge in its value, or the unexpected failure of a major financial institution could send the stock market crashing. Last week, the former head of the IMF Kenneth Rogoff triggered a sell-off on Wall Street when he said, "We’re not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we’re going to see a whopper; we’re going to see a big one — one of the big investment banks or big banks." What happens if Rogoff is right and Merrill, Citi or Lehman go belly up? Is that enough to send the stock market freefalling?

Michael Hudson: Not necessarily. Citibank would be nationalized, then sold off. The principle should be that if a bank is “too big to fail,” it should be broken up.

This should start with a repeal of the Clinton Administration’s repeal of Glass-Steagall.


As for Lehman, that would be given the Bear Stearns treatment, and also sold off – probably to a hedge fund. Merrill is much larger, but it also could be parceled out, I suppose. The stock market’s financial index would plunge, but not necessarily industrial stock prices.

MW: According to MarketWatch: "In the three months from April to June, banks posted their second worst earnings performance since 1991.... Earnings for the quarter totaled just $5 billion, compared with $36.8 billion a year ago, a decline of 86.5%." Also, according to a front page article in the Wall Street Journal: "financial institutions will have to pay off at least $787 billion in floating rate notes and other medium term obligations before the end of 2009." How are the banks going to pay off nearly $800 billion ($200 billion by December!) when they only earned a measly $5 billion in the quarter!?! And how in the world is the Federal Reserve going to keep the banking system functioning when earnings can't even cover current liabilities? Do the banks have some secret source of revenue we don't know about or is the system headed for disaster?

Michael Hudson: The traditional way to pay debt is with yet MORE debt. The interest due is simply added on to the principal, so that the debt grows exponentially. This is the real meaning of “the magic of compound interest.” It means not only that savings left to accumulate interest keep on doubling and redoubling, debts do to, because the savings that are lent out on the “asset” side of the creditor’s balance sheet (today, that of America’s wealthiest 10%) become debts on the “liabilities” side of the balance sheet (the “bottom 90%”).

The banks don’t have a secret source of revenue. It’s right out in the open. They will take their junk mortgages to the Federal Reserve and borrow the money at full face value. The government will be left with the junk.

It then can either take over the bank, as the Bank of England did with Northern Rock when it went bankrupt early this year, or it can let the bank “earn” money by stiffing its customers some more.

MW: From 2000 to 2006, the total retail value of housing in the United States doubled, going from roughly $11 trillion to $22 trillion in just 6 years. For the last 200 years, housing has barely kept pace with the rate of inflation, usually increasing 2 to 3% per year. The Federal Reserve's low interest rates were the main cause of this unprecedented housing bubble and, yet, ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan still denies any responsibility for what "The Economist" calls "the largest bubble in history". Did Greenspan understand the problems he was creating with his "loose" monetary policies or was there some ulterior motive to his actions?

Michael Hudson: He simply didn’t care about the problem. He saw his job as a cheerleader for people who were able to get rich fast. These always had been his major clients in his years on Wall Street, and he saw himself as their servant – sort of like a pilot fish for sharks.

Mr. Greenspan’s idea of “wealth creation” was to take the line of least resistance and inflate asset prices. He thought that the way to enable the economy to carry its debt overhead was to inflate asset prices so that debtors could borrow the interest falling due by pledging collateral (real estate, stocks and bonds) that were rising in market price. To his Ayn-Rand view of the world, one way of making money was as economically and socially productive as any other way of doing so. Buying a property and waiting for its price to inflate was deemed as productive as investing in new means of production.

Ever since his days as co-founder of NABE (the National Association of Business Economists), Greenspan has long looked only at GNP and the national balance sheet as an economic indicator, being “value-free.” This is his intellectual and conceptual limitation. He wanted to provide a way for savvy investors to get rich, and the easiest way to get rich is to be passive and get a free lunch. His ideology led him to believe the “free market” ideology that the financial sector would be self-regulating and hence would act honestly. But he opened the floodgates to financial crooks. His set of measures did not distinguish between Countrywide Financial getting rich, Enron getting rich, or General Motors or industrial companies expanding their means of production. So the economy was being hollowed out, but this didn’t appear in any of the measures he looked at from his perch at the Federal Reserve.

So just as journalists and the mass media proclaim every market downturn as “surprising” and “unexpected,” he was as clueless as a lemming running headlong over the cliff. It’s an inherent instinct for free-market boys. (And for most true believers everywhere including believers in a strong dollar deflation which can only occur if the US achieve a dictatorial control over the world's economy. And so many will betray themselves for a belief. - Jesse)
MW: The housing market is freefalling, setting new records every day for foreclosures, inventory, and declining prices. The banking system is in even worse shape; undercapitalized and buried under a mountain of downgraded assets. There seems to be growing consensus that these problems are not just part of a normal economic downturn, but the direct result of the Fed's monetary policies. Are we seeing the collapse of the Central banking model as a way of regulating the markets? Do you think the present crisis will strengthen the existing system or make it easier for the American people to assert greater control over monetary policy?

Michael Hudson: What do you mean “failure”? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down? The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept.

You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.

The former Soviet Union provides a model of what the neoliberals would like to create. Not only in Russia but also in the Baltic States and other former Soviet republics, they created local kleptocracies, Pinochet-style. In Russia, the kleptocrats founded an explicitly Pinochetista party, the Party of Right Forces (“Right” as in right-wing). (This is why Bill Gates was able to praise the People's Republic of China as 'my kind of capitalism.' - Jesse)
In order for the American people or any other people to assert greater control over monetary policy, they need to have a doctrine of just what a good monetary policy would be. Early in the 19th century the followers of St. Simon in France began to develop such a policy. By the end of that century, Central Europe implemented this policy, mobilizing the banking and financial system to promote industrialization, in consultation with the government (and catalyzed by military and naval spending, to be sure). But all this has disappeared from the history of economic thought, which no longer is even taught to economics students. The Chicago Boys have succeeded in censoring any alternative to their free-market rationalization of asset stripping and economic polarization.

My own model would be to make central banks part of the Treasury, not simply the board of directors of the rapacious commercial banking system. You mentioned Henry Liu’s writings earlier, and I think he has come to the same conclusion in his Asia Times articles.

MW: Do you see the Federal Reserve as an economic organization designed primarily to maintain order in the markets via interest rates and regulation or a political institution whose objectives are to impose an American-dominated model of capitalism on the rest of the world?

Michael Hudson: Surely, you jest! The Fed has turned “maintaining order” into a euphemism for consolidating power by the financial sector and the FIRE sector generally (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) over the “real” economy of production and consumption. Its leaders see their job as being to act on behalf of the commercial banking system to enable it to make money off the rest of the economy. It acts as the Board of Directors to fight regulation, to support Wall Street, to block any revival of anti-usury laws, to promote “free markets” almost indistinguishable from outright financial fraud, to decriminalize bad behavior – and most of all to inflate the price of property relative to the wages of labor and even relative to the profits of industry.

The Fed’s job is not really to impose the Washington Consensus on the rest of the world. That’s the job of the World Bank and IMF, coordinated via the Treasury (viz. Robert Rubin under Clinton most notoriously) and AID, along with the covert actions of the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy. You don’t need monetary policy to do this – only massive bribery. Only call it “lobbying” and the promotion of democratic values – values to fight government power to regulate or control finance across the world. Financial power is inherently cosmopolitan and, as such, antagonistic to the power of national governments.

The Fed and other government agencies, Wall Street and the rest of the economy form part of an overall system. Each agency must be viewed in the context of this system and its dynamics – and these dynamics are polarizing, above all from financial causes. So we are back to the “magic of compound interest,” now expanded to include “free” credit creation and arbitraging.

The problem is that none of this appears in the academic curriculum. And the silence of the major media to address it or even to acknowledge it means that it is invisible except to the beneficiaries who are running the system.

Michael Hudson can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com