Japan: An 'On the Ground View' from 1989 to 2009

A Japanese friend who lives and works outside Tokyo sent this description of life in Japan from 1989 to 2009. He thought it might be of interest to our patrons.

In considering prices, it is a good shorthand to think of 100 yen as $1 US. I thought that this was funny because this is the same shorthand price I used when I was working in Japan in the late 1990's.

My friend's opinions are his own.

In the inflation/deflation debate, I think what most people mean is "their own personal cost of living", in view of income, rather than a macroeconomic concept.

Pay, job availability, and expense accounts were nuts 1990 to 1995. Everyone was partying... all week long... Wednesdays were as busy as Fridays and Saturdays. Fun while it lasted, but was everyone actually better off at the time? I guess just more hungover and with more handbags.

Prices were often exaggerated in the media because, well, normal prices have no entertainment value. Of course you can find $200 a pound Kobe beef in high end stores like Isetan downtown, but who actually buys that? Even during the bubble, almost no one. Beef in a normal supermarket was and is about $5 a pound, very high quality, and might be half off at closing time.
Change 0%.

At the local greengrocer, vegetables, like a bag of three carrots, a head of cabbage, or broccoli, was 100 yen 20 years ago, and is 100 yen now. I would say on the whole, in yen terms, that overall food prices have not changed. A nice large whole mackerel, cleaned and salted and ready for the grill, enough for two people, is 100 yen. Tofu is 50 yen a block, 150 yen for premium kinds. A pot of premium Japanese rice is 100 yen, enough for six servings.

Change 0%.

One of the things I notice when I go to the US is that there is almost always only high fructose corn syrup colored water to drink. In Japan, there is almost none of that. 90% of what is on the shelf, even in a convenience store, is 100% fruit and vegetable juice for about 100 yen a carton/bottle... in other words, the same price as a coke. I think at least some of the health problems in the US are due to simple things like that.

Long distance calls went from about 100 yen a minute to 3 yen per minute via internet telephony using, for example, Yahoo Japan broadband. From around a decade ago, you could just pick up a Yahoo broadband modem while walking through a train station, take it home, plug it into the telephone jack, plug your phone into the modem, and suddenly all your calls were 3 yen a minute all day every day to most countries. I did not know at first about the telephony as I was only interested in the broadband. One day, I realized that I had not gotten a long distance bill in quite some time. I made many calls around the holidays, so was bracing for a $500 bill. Instead, there was a $15 charge on my credit card.

A decade ago, the modem was free, the broadband was 6M, and it was $20 dollars a month with the first 3 months free. Currently, the minimum is 8M for about $20 dollars a month. Skype has unlimited worldwide calling for a flat $10 a month. I think this has saved me about $20,000 over the last decade. NTT is very unhappy. New apartments now often include free broadband via optical fiber or cable at 100M.

Change (for me) -90%.

Transportation prices have not changed much in 20 years. As was the case from 50 years ago, your employer will pay for your bus/train pass to go to work up to $800 per month, and you can use the pass to get off at any station in between. Even if you bought the pass yourself, to commute say 10 miles, the pass would be about $150 per month. AAA says to own and operate a new car in the US costs about $800 a month, $9,000 per year, and even if you drive your car until it dies, I think it still costs about $5,000 per year. Most people do not need a car, or have at most one for outings on the weekend.

Savings from free pass, no need for car, $5,000+ per year.

Trains are much safer than cars, and if the Japanese drove as much as Americans, there would be about 10,000 more fatalities per year. Over the last 20 years, there are 200,000 Japanese wandering around unaware that had they been driving like Americans, they would be dead. And many many more injured. If you want to be an actuary about it, assuming as in the US that a death in a law suit is roughly worth one million dollars, that is a benefit of 200 billion dollars, and untold billions less in hospital care, injury, disability, and misery.

Change 0%

A functioning train system means people actually walk 5 or 10 minutes to go to the station. Exercise automatically included, and another simple thing that could improve health in the US. (Every major city in the US used to have rail systems until General Motors and the oil companies and the tire companies bought them and ripped them out so everyone would be forced to buy cars and municipalities would be forced to buy buses. Rigging the system is far from new.)

Another reason you do not need a car here is that the home delivery system is terrific. You can send a box or suitcase anywhere in Japan within two days for less than $20. They will pick it up at your house, or you can send it from any convenience store, and you can specify the day and hour of delivery. Costco has solved the problem of customers needing a car to shop. Delivery of a box, up to 60 pounds, anywhere in Japan, is $6 (That is not a typo. You could send a 60 pound box from Costco in Hokkaido to Nagasaki in Kyushu, a distance of 1,000 miles, for 6 dollars). I shop for me and my friends, divide up the goods into boxes, and just send the boxes to them.

Costco did not have stores here 20 years ago, so hard to say, but I guess:

Change -60%.

WalMart has come to Japan by partnering with Seiyu. This and the proliferation of 100 yen shops (dollar stores) drove prices way down. Goods might be in some cases of lesser quality, but since the price can be 90% off, fine with me. A hammer to pound in a few nails is 100 yen, whereas before it would have been 2,000 yen for one of unnecessarily high quality. Even things like brand name high end shampoos at drug stores have come down by half or more.

On the whole, I would say the cost of dry goods has come way down.

Change -50 to -90%.

National health care is about $3,000 per person per year. No preexisting conditions are ever excluded. You can go to any doctor you wish. There is usually no waiting, so for routine things, people do not even make appointments.

Change 0%.

Energy efficiency has become a mania. From years ago, when Koizumi said "global warming", what he meant was "The cheap oil is running out! Get the energy efficiency up... now!"

Japan Railways cut energy use in new trains by half.

Compact fluorescents were great, but expensive ($10), from a decade ago, but are about to be superseded by LEDs.

LEDs are marketed showing that although they cost $40, they last for 40,000 hours, and you would have to buy 40 incandescents for that period of time, so at 99 cents per bulb, the price is actually the same. The LEDs use 1/10th the electricity. 2 yen per hour; in the US 1 cent per hour. Over 40,000 hours, an incandescent would use $4,000 in electricity, an LED $400. They clearly make economic sense now, and the transition is starting. They are a little dim, but fine for lights you leave on all the time like on the porch. Performance should improve and price of an LED light bulb should drop to about $10 in a few years.

New air conditioners use as little as 6 yen per hour (electricity is 20 yen per kilowatt-hour), so in the US, at an average of 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, that would be 3 cents per hour to run the air conditioner (they are all reversible heat pumps, so also warm in winter), so about $20 per month. Typical cooling August and September with older units like mine is $50 per month, heating December to March about $50 per month.

Change -50 to -90%.

Water is about $20 per month.

Change 0%.

Rent is $700 and up for 600 square feet, depending mostly on distance from downtown, type of building (wooden or concrete) and distance to the train station.
Change -20%.

Per capital floor space in Tokyo has doubled, mostly due to improved construction techniques that allow tall buildings to be built on deep soil, where it would have been previously cost prohibitive, by simply driving the pilings deeper into the soil. This in turn was made possible by Japanese steel manufacturers figuring out how to make super strong structural steel for the same price as regular steel simply by minimizing the energy it takes to process the steel. As in Manhattan, skyscrapers were concentrated where there were granite outcrops. Not any more. You can build tall buildings anywhere for a reasonable cost, and the Ginza 10 story limit is about to go. This should continue to put a lot of downward pressure on real estate prices and rents.

Change 0% to -50%.

Many of the above prices are in yen, as would be experienced by someone working and living in Japan. From 1989 to the present, very roughly, the yen went from 150 to the dollar to 100 to the dollar, with a lot of ups and downs. Although the yen appreciated, there was generally no inflation, and no increase in pay per hour (although the amount of work went down), so if you have a job, things just seem to be mostly unchanged over the last two decades. Although much reference is made to Japan's "lost decades", had you actually lived here and not read the newspaper or watched TV, you would have had no idea that anything bad was happening. There are still almost no vacant stores. Visitors said "Recession? What recession?" It is not at all like New York in the 70s.

What is confusing if you are looking at Japan from the outside is that while prices in yen have basically not changed for 20 years, because the yen increased by 30 to 50% against most currencies, the nominal price as viewed in dollars, pounds, etc., has gone up. However, there has been inflation outside Japan, so that is confusing. When I see salaries in the US, etc., now, I think, "Huh? They pay that much?" But of course, the prices of goods in those countries have gone up.

Using money as a proxy for goods and services is very confusing. The real question is, assuming one has a reasonable amount of work at reasonable pay per hour, what goods and services and of what quality can you get? On the whole, I would say that that has improved, some of the improvement being inherent in improved technology, building construction, etc., some of the improvement from better distribution and competition among retailers, some from the stronger yen, some from energy efficiency and improvements in public transportation. What we want is food, a place to live, electricity, water, telecommunication, education, and health care. If you have those things, you don't really need much money.

In summary, you could expect to live reasonably, within 20 minutes of downtown Tokyo by train on the following annual budget.

Rent $10,000 (60 square meters, 600 square feet)
Health insurance $3,000
Food $3,000 (if you cook yourself most of the time)
Electricity (heating and cooling included) $1,000
Water $300
Gas $300
Telephone and broadband $700
Transportation $1,000 (free $1,000 employer provided train pass + $1,000 incidental travel by train, taxi, bus; $8 buys pass for unlimited travel for one day on most subways throughout Tokyo)
(Car unnecessary -$5,000 to -$9,000)
National income tax + local income tax = US federal tax rate.
Consumption tax is 5% on all purchases and most restaurant meals.
Average salary is about $50,000.

Cash for Clunkers Will Go Wrong, But Not For the Right Reasons

If I were to design a stimulus plan, Cash for Clunkers might be among them.

The target of the plan was to incent the public to trade in gas guzzling 'clunkers' for more fuel efficient, safer cars. It provided a spark of buying at a time of serious economic recession.

This is a classic case of promoting an economic and societal 'good' while providing a stimulus to spur economic activity. This is precisely the type of program that Big Business and its demimonde of commentators like when they are the primary beneficiary. Let's say, in a program of tax incentives to promote useful capital expenditure spending. And what many of the private individuals who complain about the program like when it benefits them personally, such as the deduction of mortgage interest.

So why is this likely to fail, at least in part?

That is because the Obama Economic Team, under the leadership of Larry Summers, is grasping at stimulus and aids programs like bank capital asset subsidies that as part of a total package might be useful, but as remedies applied to a sick system do not promote a cure, but merely serve to mask the symptoms.

Stimulus and aid programs do not work when they are merely poured into a system that is broken, or worse, broken and corrupt.

And it cannot be reformed by actors who have been and continue to be willing beneficiaries of its flaws, such as the transference of wealth from the many to the few. Congress and the Administration have to take themselves away from the trough and start acting for the greater good of the people whom they represent, rather than the special interests who give them campaign contributions and fat, overpaid jobs when they leave office.

What we are experiencing is a collapsing Ponzi Scheme, as Janet Tavakoli describes so clearly and yet so well in Wall Street's Fraud and Solutions for Systemic Peril.

This is why we say that the banks must be restrained, and the financial system must be reformed, and the economy brought back into balance, before there can be any sustained recovery.

The Fed and Those Money Market Funds Redux

There is quite a bit of speculation on the reasons why the Fed is eyeing the shadow banking system, aka the Money Market Funds, as a target for the reverse repos when they see the need to drain liquidity from the system.

The following chart shows that as the Fed expanded the monetary base, the liqudity was not being accumulated across the financial system proportionately.

There was a quite obvious parabolic increase in excess reserves held at the Fed as one would expect from a balance sheet expansion, for which the Fed is now paying interest.

From the look of the institutional money funds, one might surmise that beginning with the first failures of major banks, there were heavy flows of liquidity into the institutional money market funds from a variety of sources, with less into the retail funds, and very little change in demand deposits at commercial banks. This would have been consistent with a flight to safety in 'cash.'

Why is the Fed eyeing the money market funds? Two reasons perhaps.

First and most simply because, as notorious criminal Willy Sutton once said, that is where the money is. And if it stays there, the Fed must find a way to affect it to drain liquidity while mitigating the effects of their actions on specific institutions and sectors of the financial system.

Secondly, there is a strong possibility that the Fed's initial attempts to drain will not only involve reverse repos, but also an increase in the interest rate which it pays on the excess reserves.

As you know, one of the reasons the Fed wished to pay this interest rate is as a means of putting a 'floor' under short term rates during a period of significant quantitative easing. If the Fed is paying .15 percent on reserves, for example, it is unlikely that short term rates will fall below .15 percent, without regard for the tranches of liquidity it may be adding to shore up the balance sheets of the banks.

Conventional open market operations tend to become sluggish, if not unmanageable, as one approaches zero rates. Therefore Benny 'got a brand new bag.'

Since the Money Market Funds do not place their excess reserves with the Fed, there is an obvious need to somehow tie them into the process, if one intends to manage it gracefully, not tilting the real economy in one direction or the other, as we are sure our Maestro Ben wishes to do.

It was a bit of an eye opener for us to see this comparison of the Funds with the Banks, and the overall expansion of the Base in the period of fiancial crisis.

Granted, wherever the Fed drains there will be at least a temporary 'crowding out' that needs to be managed carefully. Goldilocks and all that.

No doubt the Banks who own the Fed are keenly interesting in making sure that no additional advantage is being given to the Funds in their ability to attract capital, and invest in even short term paper which might prove advanageous in a recovery. The Vampire Squid and its Merry Band of Lame-os do not like competition.

It is also interesting to note the hints being dropped by various Fed heads for the need to draw the regulation of the Funds under their purview, away from the SEC.

And the SEC is contemplating tougher rules on required reserves for the retail and institutional funds, as well as stricter guidelines on what they may hold on their books.

Sometimes the simplest, most straightforward possiblities are the best. And until additional data may prove otherwise, it does not appear that the Fed wishes to 'dump toxic assets' on the Money Market Funds. Rather, it looks to be all about financial engineering, and a desire to attempt to manage the downstream effects more carefully.

Financial engineering is quite possibly a quagmire, and the Fed in fairly deep within it.

The Federal Reserve School of Monetary Witchcraft and Wizardry

Here are some key excerpts from the account by The Institutional Risk Analyst of his trip to "The International Financial Crisis" conference in Chicago. You may read it in its entirety here.

It matches up with our feel from reading on the web, that most economists are going to be painfully slow to change their thinking, particularly in the US, even after this latest financial crisis of historic proportions. It is hard to change when one cannot even admit one's mistakes, and the green shoots of a false Spring bring out new hopes that old ways might still work once again.

The status quo often has a powerful grip on the levers of thought leadership, and a social science like economics is especially vulnerable to peer pigheadedness, even when it is shown to be flat out wrong. The lack of innovation seems even slower now than in the 1970's when the appearance of a virulent stagflation shook up the assumptions of the economic establishment.

One thing which is almost certain is that change will not come from within, but from without. The great opportunity for reform that Obama was presented is passing quickly, probably from the point at which he surrounded himself with highly atrophied economic thinkers, from the atavistic Larry Summers to the clever but highly tailored Ben Bernanke, who is like Alan Greenspan with a real PhD. The Treasury Secretary is not a thinker, but a pair of hands, at best, what T. S. Eliot called 'a willing tool, glad to be of use.'

A new school of economics will rise out of this crisis, and we are more sure now than before that it will not originate in the States, which is seeing an appalling failure in economic thought leadership, in part caused by a dominant Fed, acting in part to stifle innovation as MITI did in Japan.

But the stock market is up, after a brief period of housecleaning last week by the funds and the banks, opening the door to the end of quarter window dressing. So let's ignore our problems once again and keep the printing presses and that wealth transfer mechanism turning. For now.

The US may indeed suffer a lost decade after all.

Institutional Risk Analytics
The Global Carry Trade and the Crimes of Patriots
September 29, 2009

Our trip to Chicago last week to participate in "The International Financial Crisis" conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and the World Bank was instructive in several ways. First and foremost, it confirmed that the US economics profession is still trying to defend the old ways and means in terms of analytical methods for bank safety and soundness.

While there were many calls for "reform" of regulation, we heard nary a suggestion that the mish-mash of quantitative methods that currently comprise the framework for assessing the safety and soundness of banks needs to be set aside and a new approach defined. Indeed, the foreign participants in the two-days of presentations seem to be far more advanced in their thinking about bank safety and soundness than their counterparts from the US.

Andrew Sheng of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, reproached us for thinking that throwing debt at a global problem of insolvency will be successful. We have created the world's largest ever carry trade, Sheng noted, and suggested that the approach of exchanging a bank solvency problem for a sovereign debt problem could effectively replicate the lost decade of Japan on an international scale. He also wondered how any nation will be able to raise interest rates when vast sums of cash (i.e. fiat paper dollars) are ready to immediately pounce on any carry trade opportunities that arise.

Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics.... reminded the audience that whereas Americans still debate the merits of regulation vs. innovation, in the EU the political class has already decided the robust regulation of banks is a necessary condition for stability. He also dismissed the idea that you can separate the "utility" bank from "the casino," again suggesting that the EU view of regulation of banks is comprehensive and should be emulated by the US....

While the members of our panel suggested various ways to restore balance and even virtue to the regulatory process, we suggested that Washington does not need another oversight agency or more platonic guardians. Rather, we need to address the problem where it truly resides, first with the debt issuance of our profligate government and second with the accommodative monetary policy of our central bank. As one participant noted, there is no longer any distinction between fiscal and monetary policy in the US.

Though there were many insightful and interesting comments made at the two-day conference in the FRB Chicago, the one thing that we heard virtually no one say is that the current financial crisis stems from irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies. Many participants talked about the role of "global capital flows" in fueling the crisis, but none made the basic statement that having printed this money to pay for imports and fund domestic deficit spending, the US was bound to see the dollars eventually come home in the form of a credit bubble.

Since the October 1987 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve System has not denied the Street either liquidity or collateral. The objective goal of policy, it seems, has been to keep the ability of Congress to issue debt intact all the while keeping the casino part of the banking system operating at full steam regardless of the impact on inflation and, more important, investor behavior. Seen in this light, the proliferation of hedge funds and OTC securities is the natural response of investors to inflationary fiscal and monetary policies in Washington, a city where income and the proceeds of borrowing are seen as being equivalent.

Today the amount of debt and fiat money issued by the US government is threatening not only the solvency of private financial institutions and companies, but the stability of the entire global economy. Yet virtually no observers make the connection between the reality of secular inflation in the US and the bad outcomes in the financial markets, and in the global economy, where trade flows continue to shrink. Indeed, if members of Congress ever wanted a reason not to give the Fed more power as a regulator of financial institutions, they should start with an investigation of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy, not bank regulation. Just imagine how the US economy would look several decades from now were the Congress to give the Fed hegemony over bank supervision via the rubric of "systemic risk" even as the central bank continues its reckless policies with respect to monetary policy and its accommodation of US debt issuance.

Systemic risk, it seems, is not the result of bad regulatory policies, but the natural outcome of a system where income from productive economic activities is being increasingly supplemented with debt and inflation. Our political leaders say that such policies are meant to help the American people, but we've heard such empty justifications before. Call the policies of borrow and spend and print the "crimes of patriots," a powerful metaphor used by author Jonathan Kwitny to describe the bad acts of the CIA in the banking world decades ago. Since then, the money game and the role of government in our financial markets has only grown larger.

If the American people want to get the US financial system under control, then the first areas of investigation, we submit, must be fiscal and monetary policies. And if Americans do not soon get control over the habit of borrow and spend practiced by the Congress and facilitated by the Fed, then end result must be a populist backlash against Washington and incumbents in politics and the corporate world. As Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) writes in his latest book, End the Fed: "Nothing good can come from the Federal Reserve… It's immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty."

Reading for the Weekend

“We are slow to master the great truth that even now Christ is, as it were, walking among us, and by His hand, or eye, or voice, bidding us to follow Him. We do not understand that His call is a thing that takes place now. We think it took place in the Apostles' days, but we do not believe in it; we do not look for it in our own case.

God's presence is not discerned at the time when it is upon us, but afterwards, when we look back upon what is gone and over. The world seems to go on as usual. There is nothing of heaven in the face of society, in the news of the day.

And yet the ever-blessed Spirit of God is there, ten times more glorious, more powerful than when He trod the earth in our flesh.

God beholds you. He calls you by your name. He sees you and understands you as He made you. He knows what is in you, all your peculiar feelings and thoughts, your dispositions and likings, your strengths and your weaknesses. He views you in your day of rejoicing and in your day of sorrow. He sympathizes in your hopes and your temptations. He interests Himself in all your anxieties and remembrances, all the risings and fallings of your spirit.

He encompasses you round and bears you in His arms. He notes your very countenance, whether smiling or in tears. He looks tenderly upon you. He hears your voice, the beating of your heart, and your very breathing. You do not love yourself better than He loves you. You cannot shrink from pain more than He dislikes your bearing it; and if He puts it on you, it is as you would put it on yourself, if you would be wise, for a greater good afterwards.

There is an inward world, which none see but those who belong to it. There is an inward world into which they enter who come to Christ, though to men in general they seem as before. If they drank of Christ's cup it is not with them as in time past. They came for a blessing, and they have found a work.

To their surprise, as time goes on, they find that their lot is changed. They find that in one shape or another adversity happens to them. If they refuse to afflict themselves, God afflicts them.

Why did you taste of His heavenly feast, but that it might work in you—why did you kneel beneath His hand, but that He might leave on you the print of His wounds?

God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission -- I may never know it in this life but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught.

I shall do good, I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments. Therefore I will trust Him.

Whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about.

He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me -- still He knows what He is about.

Let us feel what we really are--sinners attempting great things. Let us simply obey God's will, whatever may come. He can turn all things to our eternal good. Easter day is preceded by the forty days of Lent, to show us that they only who sow in tears shall reap in joy.

Contemplate then yourself, not as yourself, but as you are in the Eternal God. Fall down in astonishment at the glories which are around you and in you, poured to and fro in such a wonderful way that you are dissolved into the Kingdom of God.

The more we do, the more shall we trust in Christ; and that surely is no morose doctrine, that leads us to soothe our selfish restlessness, and forget our fears, in the vision of the Incarnate Son of God.

May the Lord support us all the day long, till the shades lengthen, and the evening comes, and the busy world is hushed, and the fever of life is over, and our work is done. Then in His mercy may He give us safe lodging, and a holy rest, and peace at last.”

John Henry Newman

This is a collection of quotatons woven into a whole thought by Le Proprietaire as a young man for a circle of friends.

Do Ben and Tim = Thelma and Louise?

One cannot help but note that Team Obama is trying to derail serious proposals regarding financial reform for Wall Street at the G20 meeting, as we suggested they would.

The concerns raised by US revelations at the G20 today about new intelligence regarding Iran's secret underground nuclear facility have overshadowed financial reform and economic problems, and Gordon Brown's prescription yesterday that the G20 would become the new governing council for the world. It also stepped rather heavily on the House Hearings on HR 1207 "Audit the Fed" bill sponsored by Ron Paul and a good part of the Congress.

Why waste a crisis indeed. Especially when you can cop a two-fer.

Yesterday we put forward a somewhat lengthy piece on the Fed and reverse repos being considered titled Fed Eyes US Money Market Funds.

There is a key quote in there that we would like to highlight today.

The central bank is now considering dealing with money market funds because it does not think the primary dealers have the balance sheet capacity to provide more than about $100 billion... Money market mutual funds have about $2.5 trillion under management..."

Only 100 billion in available capital for a relatively risk free short term investment in the global banking system including the Primary Dealers, does seem a bit tight for a set of such 'well capitalized' banks, especially since they aren't making many commerical loans, preferring to speculate in the commodity and equity markets for daytrading profits.

BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Banc of America Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Daiwa Securities America Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. , Jefferies & Company, Inc., J. P. Morgan Securities Inc., Mizuho Securities USA, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, RBS Securities Inc., UBS SecuritiesLLC.

Couple that with the revelation reported some time ago at ZeroHedge and covered here, that the Fed is taking on more than 50 percent of the longer dated Treasuries, and there is only about Ten Billion left on their balance sheet for expansion, and you get the picture of a financial system not cruising into recovery but heading straight at a confrontation with harsh reality.

We have considered the possibility that the Fed is doing this to place exclusively AAA and Treasuries on the balance sheets of the Funds, aka the Shadow Banking System, who are holding some seriously awful garbage. But this does not quite make sense unless those reverse repos are of a very long duration or rolled over automatically for a long period of time. A proper program such as was extended to the banks where the Fed buys the assets outright would be that solution. It made more sense to us that the banking system is still very tight on good capital assets and liquidity.

Here is an update from ZH that is somewhat compelling if one understand the implications. Visualizing the Upcoming Treasury Funding Crisis.

"Summary: foreign purchasers are congregating exclusively around the front end of the Treasury curve, meaning that the primary net purchaser of dated bonds has been the Federal Reserve. As everyone knows by now, the Fed only has $10 billion left out of the $300 billion total allotted for Treasury QE. That should expire next week. ... The time of unravelling may be upon us sooner than most think."

Do Tim and Ben = Thelma and Louise?

As the Eagles sang:

"Take it, to the limit, one more time..."

Federal Reserve Eyes the US Money Market Funds

The Fed is holding a significant amount of assets on its books in the form of Treasuries. For example, the Fed has purchased an enormous amount of US Treasury issuance in the past six months as part of its quantitative easing program, aka monetization. It has also taken on tranches of mortgage debt obligations from the banks, purportedly to improve the banks capitalization profile because of the dodgy nature of the assets.

This has added significant short term liquidity to the system, much of it held by the banks for interest at the Federal Reserve itself.

At some point the Fed will wish to reduce the levels of liquidity in the system. One way to do this is by increasing interest rate targets. It can achieve this, for example, by increasing the amount it pays for reserves.

The traditional way for the Fed to drain liquidity is to conduct what is known as a reverse repurchase agreement, or reverse repo.

In a normal repurchase agreement or repo, the Fed purchases assets held by the banks, normally Treasuries, which obviously increases the 'cash' being held by the bank. A repurchase agreement is by definition for a specific amount of time. At the end of the period the Fed sells the asset back to the bank. The difference in amounts is the 'interest' which changes hands for the transaction.

There is also a type of purchase agreement with no buyback. It is known as a PMO, or Permanent Market Operation. These are used to add liquidity as the name implies, permanently.

A reverse repo is just the opposite. In this case, the Fed sells an asset from its balance sheet to an institution for 'cash' and thereby drains or takes cash liquidity out of the system.

Aren't Treasuries as good as 'cash?' Why does it matter whether a bank is holding Treasuries or cash on its books? Apparently not the case, at least for accounting and regulatory purposes. Remember that the next time someone tells you that banks do not need depositors. Sometimes they do.

Typically the Fed has only done this type of operation with a group of about twenty or so financial institutions known as the Primary Dealers.

According to this news piece, the reason the Fed is looking to the Money Markets is that, just like Willie Sutton, that's where the money is. There, and in the 401k's, and the IRA's.

The central bank is now considering dealing with money market funds because it does not think the primary dealers have the balance sheet capacity to provide more than about $100 billion... Money market mutual funds have about $2.5 trillion under management..."

To digress, please note that somewhat startling statistic. The Fed is going to the money market funds, because they think that the primary dealers among them cannot raise more than $100 billion dollar in liquid capital to take repos from the Fed, without impairing the banking system. If you look it up in the dictionary, try looking under 'fragile' or 'insolvent.'

Back on topic, there has been a longtime animosity between the banks, or at least what used to pass as a bank, and the money market funds. The funds are not covered by FDIC, are not regulated as banks, and typically pay higher rates of interest to depositors than conventional commercial banks. They tend to invest their funds in the commerical paper markets. It was the seizure of the short term paper markets that brought the money market funds to the brink, and a potential run on the funds, as fears grew that they would 'break the buck,' that is, the Net Asset Value of One Dollar for every dollar deposited.

Obviously this entire proposition is a bit puzzling on the surface, and is certain to raise fears of Fed shifting toxic assets from the banking system to the more 'public funds.' It is not a huge concern if these are truly repurchase agreements since the value of the assets will be backed 100 percent by the Fed. We would also assume that the Funds might be able to express some preference for Treasuries, rather than bundles of sludge backed by Joe Subprime Sixpack LLC.

It was also interesting today that in his testimony before the Congress which was widely ignored by the mainstream media, Paul Volcker had some very strong words about what is a bank, and what is not. Money market funds are not banks, and banks have no business using their banking platforms to fund proprietary trading operations that are merely seats at a rather risky virtual casino known as Wall Street.

We admit now as before that we do not fully understand the accounting system of the banking industry, having grown up on the productive side of the economy, but are learning quickly.

One thing we can judge is character, and the character of many of the actors on this stage appear to be less than trustworthy to say the least, especially in the Obama Administration and their cronies on Wall Street. In reviewing the biographies of many of the key players, we were struck by how few of them have ever done anything, built anything, in the productive economy. Its all about FIRE institutions and governments, and revolving doors where one is paid for connections and influence, and following orders.

Increasingly it seems that the Wall Street financial institutions, led by the gang of four, will push their power grip on the nation until something stops them. What that will be, no one can know for sure. The Ponzi scheme they have been running is starting to fall apart. The target bag holders, the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans seem to be slipping towards the exit. When the music stops, someone may be left with a big pile of worthless paper. It looks to us like the Fed is interviewing candidates.

And this is why we say:

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into a balance between the productive and administrative sectors, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Reuters
Fed's exit strategy may use money market funds
Thu Sep 24, 4:02 am ET

LONDON (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve is studying the idea of borrowing from money market mutual funds as part of eventual steps to withdraw stimulus, the Financial Times reported on Thursday.

The Fed would borrow from the funds via reverse repurchase agreements involving some of the huge portfolio of mortgage-backed securities and U.S. Treasuries that it acquired as it fought the financial crisis, the newspaper reported, without citing any sources.

This would drain liquidity from the financial system, helping to avoid a burst of inflation as the economy recovered.

The FT said Fed officials had in recent days held discussions with market participants on how it might implement such a scheme.

The Fed is considering whether to conduct a pilot scheme, but worries such a test might be seen as a signal that the central bank was about to drain liquidity on a large scale, the newspaper said. In the near term, a big drain remains unlikely, it added.

The central bank held interest rates at close to zero on Wednesday and upgraded its assessment of the U.S. economy, saying growth had returned after a deep recession.

The Fed also said it would slow its purchases of mortgage debt to extend that program's life until the end of March, in a move toward withdrawing the central bank's extraordinary support for the economy and markets during the contraction.

The idea of the Fed using reverse repos to help unwind policy is not new; Fed chairman Ben Bernanke identified them as a potential means of soaking up liquidity in July. But the market had previously expected the repos to be done with primary dealers, including former Wall Street investment banks.

The central bank is now considering dealing with money market funds because it does not think the primary dealers have the balance sheet capacity to provide more than about $100 billion, the Financial Times said.

Money market mutual funds have about $2.5 trillion under management so they could plausibly provide between $400 billion and $500 billion, it said.

The newspaper added that the Fed did not think it would need to drain liquidity all the way to where it was before the crisis, because it was confident it could raise interest rates even with a much larger amount of reserves in the system than existed before the crisis.

Daily Charts for Gold, Silver, Miners and Oil

Gold call options were expiring today, and there was a concentration of options with a strike price of 1000. Let's see if the metals can find a footing or if this correction from a short term overbought condition must continue further.

From UBS:

"October options expiry on Comex will take place at 2000 GMT today, and the greatest nearby open interest for October gold is at the $1000/oz strike... $950 and $1050 strikes also have very large open interest - and that open interest between $950 and $1000 is larger than that between $1000 and $1050. We believe this is a consequence of the recent quick move higher in gold from $950/oz rather than options traders explicitly expressing a preference for the downside. Given the large open interest at the $1000/oz strike, we would not be surprised if gold remains close to this level today, barring a sharp move in EURUSD. To the extent that long October-expiration positioning in the market may have been constraining the range, however, the rolling off of October options should free gold to make larger moves."

More Smoke from the Federal Reserve On Their Opaque Operations in the Markets

Lots of smoke, but not quite a smoking gun, since the Fed representatives can always come back and claim that they were speaking hypothetically, and that the information was being withheld IF it indeed exist.

This highlights the problem of proving something wherein another party has the ability to stonewall and hide their operations. If the Fed was more transparent, then this would not be an issue.

I have been looking into this issue for some time, and have concluded that there is indeed plenty of smokescreens coming out of the Fed on a number of fronts. Some seem legitimate, but many do not. The Fed seems to want its independence, but also a position of power that is integration to the political and administrative policies of the US, more properly the domain of the public representatives.

Perhaps it is more or less innocent, but it does highlight how utterly inappropriate the Fed will be as a choice for a 'super regulator' of the financial system, seeming accountable and forthcoming only when they feel like it.

If this proves to be true, Greenspan is guilty of lying in his testimony to Congress, and most likely Bernanke as well. The Fed would also be implicated in expropriating US assets for its own purposes of rigging public markets far beyond their charter, since gold is hardly a foreign currency these days. They may as well be manipulating the price of oil or corn or wheat to suit their financial engineering. The permission to swap gold which belongs, not to the Fed, but to the American people via the Treasury, can only be granted by Congress.

I have also concluded that the Obama team wishes to broaden the powers of the Fed because this provides additional centralized and opaque power to the federal government. Both the Democrats and Republicans in the US seem to favor this.

As a semi-private organization, owing its allegiance both to the government, but even moreso to its private owners, the Fed should not and cannot be seriously considered for broader powers over more markets. They are hopelessly conflicted in their various agendas and loyalties already.

Business Wire
Federal Reserve Admits Hiding Gold Swap Arrangements, GATA Says
September 23, 2009
09:30 AM EDT

MANCHESTER, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Federal Reserve System has disclosed to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. that it has gold swap arrangements with foreign banks that it does not want the public to know about.

The disclosure, GATA says, contradicts denials provided by the Fed to GATA in 2001 and suggests that the Fed is indeed very much involved in the surreptitious international central bank manipulation of the gold price particularly and the currency markets generally.

The Fed's disclosure came this week in a letter to GATA's Washington-area lawyer, William J. Olson of Vienna, Virginia denying GATA's administrative appeal of a freedom-of-information request to the Fed for information about gold swaps, transactions in which monetary gold is temporarily exchanged between central banks or between central banks and bullion banks. (See the International Monetary Fund's treatise on gold swaps here.

The letter, dated September 17 and written by Federal Reserve Board member Kevin M. Warsh (here), formerly a member of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, detailed the Fed's position that the gold swap records sought by GATA are exempt from disclosure under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

Warsh wrote in part: "In connection with your appeal, I have confirmed that the information withheld under Exemption 4 consists of confidential commercial or financial information relating to the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks that was obtained within the meaning of Exemption 4. This includes information relating to swap arrangements with foreign banks on behalf of the Federal Reserve System and is not the type of information that is customarily disclosed to the public. This information was properly withheld from you."

When, in 2001, GATA discovered a reference to gold swaps in the minutes of the January 31-February 1, 1995, meeting of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee and pressed the Fed, through two U.S. senators, for an explanation, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied that the Fed was involved in gold swaps in any way. Greenspan also produced a memorandum written by the Fed official who had been quoted about gold swaps in the FOMC minutes, FOMC General Counsel J. Virgil Mattingly, in which Mattingly denied making any such comments. (See here.)

The Fed's September 17 letter to GATA confirming that the Fed has gold swap arrangements can be found here.

While the letter, GATA says, is far from the first official admission of central bank scheming to suppress the price of gold (for documentation of some of these admissions, see here and here), it comes at a sensitive time in the currency and gold markets. The U.S. dollar is showing unprecedented weakness, the gold price is showing unprecedented strength, Western European central banks appear to be withdrawing from gold sales and leasing, and the International Monetary Fund is being pressed to take the lead in the gold price suppression scheme by selling gold from its own supposed reserves in the guise of providing financial support for poor nations.

GATA will seek to bring a lawsuit in federal court to appeal the Fed's denial of our freedom-of-information request. While this will require many thousands of dollars, the Fed's admission that it aims to conceal documentation of its gold swap arrangements establishes that such a lawsuit would have a distinct target and not be just a fishing expedition.

In pursuit of such a lawsuit and its general objective of liberating the precious metals markets and making them fair and transparent, GATA again asks for financial support from the public and from all gold and silver mining companies that are not at the mercy of market-manipulating governments and banks. GATA is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a non-profit educational and civil rights organization and contributions to it are federally tax-exempt in the United States....

NAVs of Certain Precious Metal Funds and ETFs

SP Futures Hourly Chart at 3 PM

Market volumes are still thin, and driven heavily by momentum traders and Wall Street wiseguys setting up the small specs, looking into what they holding, and then raising them out of their seats on short term spikes and drops.

Today was likely a bit of a letdown on the Fed news, that is, profit-taking, but the dips *should* continue to get bought once the funds sell off dogs into the monthly and quarter close and start window dressing which will likely begin Friday or Monday.

If any exogenous event occurs this market could drop hard and fast because it is all froth, and little conviction. Third quarter earnings *could* look good by comparison, but we have it in the back of our minds that October may be bloody.

Bernanke is disgraceful in his stewardship of the financial system, although it could be argued that he is doing his part, raising liquidity, but Obama and his crew are failing in their task of reforming the system and helping to direct that liquidity into fruitful efforts, rather than bonuses to their patrons on Wall Street.

Confessions of a 'Flationary Agnostic

I have no particular allegiance to either the hyperinflation or the deflationary camps. Both outcomes are possible, but not yet probable. Rather than being a benefit, occupying the middle ground too often just puts one in the middle, being able to see the merits in both arguments and possibilities, and being unwilling to ignore the flaws in each argument. But this is where reason takes me.

In a purely fiat regime, where a monetary authority has the ability and the willingness to monetize debt, there is NO mandated, no predetermined outcome for hyperinflation or deflation in the event of a credit crisis, unless that money is pegged to an external standard, which is ruled out by definition in a purely fiat regime.

In a credit crisis there is often a 'credit crunch' which is what was seen in the financial system when short term credit transactions seized up out of fear. This is not the same as a true monetary deflation which is a real contraction in the money supply, at the least. So far we have not seen this. And we may never.

Also, I would have to agree that the eventual fate of all fiat currency is failure and reissuance of a 'new' currency, due to the sustained erosion of a seemingly incessant, if gradual, inflation. This does not HAVE to be, but it is, as an outcome of human nature. Men will always and everywhere eventually succumb to the temptation of currency debasement, a free lunch, and so they cannot be trusted to manage a nation's affairs with the unrestrained keys to the Treasury.

And at the end of a currency's lifespan, there is quite often a bout of serious inflation that precipitates the reissuance and restructuring. How long this period of time can be no one can say.
That is the simple fact of it. The only limitation on the Fed's ability to inflate is the value of the dollar and the bonds; that is, their acceptability to 'creditors' who are willing to exchange goods and services with real value for paper.

And it should be perfectly clear that to choose a monetary deflation as a fiat policy decision for a country that is a net debtor would be bizarre to say the least.

Everything else is noise and generally ad hominem attacks. And the louder the noise, the less likely the person speaking knows anything about monetary systems.

I read that the Fed has taken on (a euphemism for 'monetized') roughly half of the Treasury debt issued in the second quarter of 2009. And it is quite likely that this is only a part of it, that a good portion of the rest of the debt was arranged for with other central banks, including those who are engaged in large scale currency manipulation of their own which is a de facto monetization on the road to default as China will be finding out most likely some day.

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding on the issue of deflation. As we have discussed before, deflation driven by slack demand is not uniform across product and service classes as it would be during a true monetary deflation. That is because goods and services vary in the elasticity of their demand.

Yes some prices will decrease, as one would expect, especially in those assets whose value has been inflated during a preceding bubble and discretionary items with a significant elasticity of demand.

But other items will remain stable or even increase in price, particularly essential items, and those provided from a sector with an oligopolistic framework.

Why? Because those who control access to essentials will seek to increase prices and 'rents' even during severe recessions to make up for lost revenue streams and profits in other areas of their business. Barring government intervention, every crisis has its profiteers.

So we have the phenomenon of banks being bailed out by the government, with public funds, not lending as they had promised, and greatly increasing fees and cutting services whenever and wherever they can on certain instruments such as credit cards, for example. Or other financial firms taking advantage systemic flaws and leverage and loopholes to game the markets, extracting what amounts to increased rents, a tax, on the nation's transactions, further dragging down the real economy.

Credit is not money. Debt is not money per se. These are things that are instrumental to the process of money creation and destruction.

If I 'owe you' ten dollars, are you ten dollars richer? Not unless you hold some sort of legally enforceable piece of paper to back it up, and even then there is a discount on the value of that paper which is repayment risk, the possibility that I might default on that arrangement.

Money is the sanction of the monetary authority on a particular debt arrangement. It is limited to only that which has been sanctioned, that which passes through the hands of the creditor "into" the money system. This may occur at the point of origin, the central bank, or one of its officially designated representatives, sanctioned by executive order or under the law created by the Congress.

One does not count a private debt obligation held by the creditor as money, in addition to the actual currency that was delivered to the debtor. That would be double counting, a misunderstanding of the accounting system. The debt held by the creditor is an asset, of varying liquidity and risk.

If you have an unused credit card with a $1000 credit limit, do you have $1000 dollars? Does that $1000 dollars exist anywhere? No, clearly not. You may act differently in having it, it may influence your behaviour, but it is not money.

Once you use that card, and 'borrow' $1000 on that credit line, then it does exist as money, and a corresponding liability of $1000 is created and is held by the bank as an asset.

Is that $1000 debt obligation being held by the bank the same as the $1000 in money that was created when you borrowed it and spent it, putting it into motion within the real economy? No. If anything we might have learned from this credit crisis should sink in, the value of collateralized debt obligations, a collection of assets on a variety of instruments, is deeply affected by risk.

This is why a private debt obligation cannot be money, because it is not significantly riskless and is more an asset. Anything that bears a significant risk of default that is not tied to the full faith and credit of the central monetary authority is not money. It is a product, some proxy for money.

Is the savings deposit in excess of FDIC at my local bank 'money?' Yes, but not of the same quality as cash in my pocket. That is why there are a variety of money supply figures.

Is the reduction of debt directly correlated to the levels of money in the nation's monetary supply? It depends on how it is accounted. The debt can be written off, and no 'money' is destroyed per se but the bank will take a writedown on assets. We are seeing this in action today, as vast amounts of CDS and MBS are devalued on the books of the banks.

We make a distinction obviously between the existence of the money itself, and the means or ability to create money through a particular process, which can itself be impaired, without a reduction in the aggregate supply of 'money' depending on how you account for it.

Here is an interesting chart. It clearly shows the precipitous dropoff in commercial lending, and the actions of the monetary authority and the government to step in and support lending, primarily in the programs of the Fed.



This lack of productive economic vigor is impairing the ability of the Fed to maintain an organic growth in the money supply. But it does not stop it. They have some limitation or impairment in their ability to manage the money supply, because of the slack demand in the economy and the loss of the aid of the 'money multiplier' and the moribund velocity of money. The money that is created by the Fed without a corresponding increase in economic activity is 'hot money' that is particularly dangerous from an inflationary perspective.

Here is an interesting paradox. At a time of slower growth rate of money supply, many might think that this is 'good' for the dollar, because less dollars means more value for each dollar, right? In essence, this is one of the major tenets of those called 'deflationists.'

First, there are not less dollars. The growth rate of dollars is slowing but as one can see, this is a relative thing historically.









But here is the key point.

The growth rate of dollars is slowing at the same time that the 'demand' for dollars, the velocity of money and the creation of new commercial credit, is slowing. GDP is negative, and the growth rate of money supply is still positive, and rather healthy. This is not a monetary deflation, but rather the signs of an emerging stagflation fueled by slow real economic activity and monetization, or hot money, from the Fed. The monetary authority is trying to lead the economic recovery through unusual monetary growth. All they are doing is creating more malinvestment, risk addiction, and asset bubbles.

Money supply and the rate of money supply growth is a confusing topic, primarily because lots of commentators twist it and split hairs about it to make points, without really caring to explain what is actually happening to those who are not specialists. 'Experts' hide behind terminology to obfuscate the situation to support particular policy initiatives under a cloud of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Despicable.

We have not written it out and worked the details yet, and the lags and expectations are always a significant issue, but generally the growth in the broad money supply should bear a positive relationship to the growth rate of real economic activity, with the appropriate lags. It ought not to lead it or lag it artificially except in extreme circumstances. Using money as a 'tool' to stimulate or retard economic activity is a dangerous game indeed, fraught with unintended consequences and unexpected bubbles and imbalances, with a spiral of increasingly destabilizing crises and busts. The Obama Administration bears a heavy responsibility for this because of their failure to reform the system and restore balance to the economy in any meaningful way. Whether it is cowardice, ignorance, or corruption is difficult to judge, but it is a failure without regard to motives.

What makes matters worse is that given the cumulative years of government 'tinkering' some of the key economic measures are hopelessly spoiled. The Consumer Price Index is probably the best example as is shown at Shadowstats. Consumer inflation is a key problem because it is used, as the chain deflator, in calculating real GDP, the basic measure of economic activity in a nation.

And so after the cumulative years of financial engineering by the government and the Federal Reserve, here we are today, caught in an ugly cycle of boom and bust, with an outsized financial sector, a government controlled by the money interests, and a productive economy in a systemic decline.

And this is why we say:

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into a balance between the productive and administrative sectors, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.... For the Market and the Democrats

Sometimes they do ring a bell.

Hard to believe that after one of the greatest credit crises in history, Wall Street and the punters went back to their old ways of chasing beta with hot (taxpayer) money.

As ZeroHedge so insightfully observed:

"Sentiment Trader demonstrates how bullish speculative mania as measured by option activity is now at a decade, if not all time, high. With moral hazard having become the only game in town, everyone believes their investments are implicitly guaranteed by the government..."

Paul Krugman, stalwart Democratic liberal economist, took Obama to task recently for his lack of stomach to change and reform the financial system in his column Reform or Bust

"What’s wrong with financial-industry compensation? In a nutshell, bank executives are lavishly rewarded if they deliver big short-term profits — but aren’t correspondingly punished if they later suffer even bigger losses. This encourages excessive risk-taking: some of the men most responsible for the current crisis walked away immensely rich from the bonuses they earned in the good years, even though the high-risk strategies that led to those bonuses eventually decimated their companies, taking down a large part of the financial system in the process...

I was startled last week when Mr. Obama, in an interview with Bloomberg News, questioned the case for limiting financial-sector pay: “Why is it,” he asked, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or N.F.L. football players?”

That’s an astonishing remark — and not just because the National Football League does, in fact, have pay caps. Tech firms don’t crash the whole world’s operating system when they go bankrupt; quarterbacks who make too many risky passes don’t have to be rescued with hundred-billion-dollar bailouts. Banking is a special case — and the president is surely smart enough to know that."

Paul has not yet been able to express the growing concern that many of Obama's top advisors and key staff managers are hopelessly conflicted, if not corrupted, in dealing with Wall Street.; The question can be asked, "if Obama is that smart, why is he acting so slowly, clumsily, ineffectively, timidly?"

The answer gets to the heart of the proposition put forward by Richard Nixon, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook."

So which is it to be: ineffective blowhard or corrupt politician? The jury is still out, and there is time for change. But the window is closing.

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.

The Dollar Carry Trade

A video from Warren Pollock regarding carry trades

Stock Market Rally: Shenanigans Abounding

This is just an opinion, and it could be wrong, as all opinions may be.

To be long US equities at this point seems risky, bordering on reckless, for anything but a daytrade. And there is plenty of that going on.

The US markets in general have every mark of a maturing Ponzi scheme in the steady run ups on weakness, and the ramps into the close with the selling after hours on weak volumes.

But why?

Thursday is option expiration, a quadruple witch as we recall. September is one of the big ones, often setting up declines in the month of October. Further, we have Rosh Hoshanah beginning at sundown on Friday September 18. As the saying goes, Sell Rosh HaShana and Buy Yom Kippur.

The government is anxious to encourage 'confidence' to the extent of skewing the statistics to create hope in the public, the consumers. The banks are flush with liquidity, but really have no place to put it but for a minimal return at Treasury, or in some hot money trades. They certainly are not interested in making new loans, but the credit card business is reaping some nicely usurious returns between fees and 26% interest at the drop of a hat.

Where is Goldman Sachs business revenue and profit coming from now? How much real investment banking is being done? How much M&A activity and IPOs are there to sustain it at this size, unscathed by the recent market downturns?

Obama and his team have NO credibility for reform on Wall Street after their handling of Goldman Sachs and the AIG payouts. We hear that Goldman had shopped the idea of those derivatives to the London office of AIG which was up for a quick quid, became their biggest customer, and then when the music stopped they managed to obtain the 100 cents on the dollar payouts from the government even as AIG became hopelessly insolvent.

Bonds, stocks, metals, sugar, cocoa, and oil are all moving higher, while the dollar sinks. Is the dollar funding a new carry trade?

The markets are increasingly the flavor of choice, and if the markets do not show a way, they will make one. Volatility is a screaming buy. Put vertical spreads are remarkably cheap.

Be careful. October looks to be the stormiest of months, if we hold out until then. The market is overdue for a correction, which can be up to 20%. Given the distance we have come on thin volume, what may make this correction shocking is the speed with which it will come.

Watch the VIX.

We remain guardedly 'optimistic' on the markets for next year ONLY because of the Fed's and Treasury's willingness to continue to debase the dollar to cover the massive unrealized losses in the banks' portfolios, even as they return to manipulating markets in business as usual.

Inflation is good for financial assets, and we think another bubble is in the cards, at least for now given Obama's unwillingness to reform, unless some exogenous event or actor intervenes. The other troubling thing is the lack of vigor in the real economy. The stagnation in median real wages is strangling the middle class. There can be no resurgent economy without them.

As much of an outlier it might seem, it is possible that Bernanke and the Treasury might lead the US into a stagnation similar to Japan, but with stagflation, because of their policy errors driven by the distorting demands of an outsized and corrupting financial sector.

Wall Street is throwing buckets of money at Washington to fight even a moderate reform such as a financial 'consumer protection agency.' These fellows will never quit, until they are stopped. And it does not appear that Obama and his cronies have the traction or the fortitude to get the job done.

Until the banks are restrained, and the financial system is reformed, and balance is restored to the economy, there will be no sustained recovery.

Long Term Gold Chart Targets 1325

Someone asked for a long term chart in gold.

Projecting this leg in the gold bull market has been of keen interest to us on one dimension, since we do have some trading activity in our own account. However, on the long term for our core positions it is of no more interest now than it was when gold was trading at 550, 450, or even 250. Gold is in a bull market, and you never give up your core positions in a bull market. You can trade around them if you are an aggressive trader.

As an aside, to anyone who can read a chart and as you can plainly see for youself, gold is in an obvious bull market. If you are dealing with someone who says it is not then they can only a) be incapable of reading a chart, b) be blinded by a mistaken belief, or c) be talking their or someone else's book. There seem to be a few analysts, never bullish on gold in a spectacular bull market, working for major gold trading houses, that fit into this last category.

So, gold appears to be targeting somewhere just north of 1300 for this leg of its bull market. As it says on the chart, this is a LONG term projection, and it should therefore be expected to play out over the LONG term.

The lower bound on gold on these formations is higher than 925 so we would not expect gold to trade lower than that while these formations are 'working.'

Every bull market has its 'wall of worry.' Gold certainly has its own. Its price increases are being met with fierce opposition by four or five US Wall Street banks who are increasing their paper shorts against it to record numbers.

The game of Wall Street is misdirection and mischief using paper and the control of information. Yesterday's US retail sales data was a nice example of the partnership in deception between Wall Street and Washington to deceive the people for a variety of motives, some well-intentioned and some merely venal.

For this reason the Bankers and the statists hate gold, because it defies their control, and that of the money manipulators, those who would control nations and the many by controlling their money.

US Dollar Long Term Chart and a Scenario for Dollar Devaluation

Here is a long term chart of the US Dollar Index.

The recent rally in the US dollar completed at an almost perfect 38.2% fibonacci retracement from the 70.70 bottom. In part this rally was part of the short squeeze in eurodollars created by the collapse of US dollar financial CDO deposits held by customers at European banks.

The Dollar Rally and the Deflationary Imbalances in the US Dollar Holdings of Overseas Banks

The target for the active H&S top from 121 is still 65. The Key Pivot remains 81, the high end of band which had been the support level held by the dollar for almost 20 years. While the dollar is below 81 the H&S top is active and working.

We have been trying to calculate a new lower bound for the dollar decline from the charts. Reason tells us that at some point the dollar decline and economic imbalances may lead to a devaluation of the dollar.

People have asked, "How can the dollar be devalued? After all, there is no fixed standard."

Well, the dollar can decline considerably in purchasing power of real goods, as it has been doing for many years. However, the dollar can be devalued against its only true measure as a fiat currency: itself.

A formal devaluation of the dollar would be the discontinuance and reissue of the US dollar as a 'new dollar' with some preset exchange rate.

A likely figure would be 100:1, that is, 100 old dollars for 1 new dollar, possibly to be called 'the amero' as some have suggested or simply the 'dollar' as the US dollars currently in use will be withdrawn from circulation. If this does not provide sufficient relief it might have to be repeated.

This is what happened to the Russian rouble on January 1, 1998 after a debt default. Since it is unlikely that the US default will be preceded by a hyperinflation and protracted period of instability, we think the 1000:1 ratio of reissuance used by Russia might be too severe for the dollar, most especially because of its position as the reserve currency.

However, if the new dollar is to be at least partially backed by gold at the insistence of its international trading partners, then 1000:1 seems to 'work' more effectively given the US gold reserves and projected new money supply. This might be accomplished in phases, or with a dual currency regime.

It should also be noted that devaluation alone does not fix economic problems. It is a form of debt default, more severe than mere inflation. After its reissuance in 1998, for example, the new Russian rouble quickly lost approximately 70% of its value against the dollar because the devaluation had not been accompanied by significant economic reform. It has since recovered through painful adjustment.

You should not believe that this scenario is possible for the US dollar, yet. After all, if it was generally accepted and believed that it would happen, a severe value decline would already be underway.

Fiat currencies traffic in confidence. This things tend to play out over months and years, not days, unless there is a precipitating event usually caused by exterior events. Even though there had been a Russian debt default in the 1990's, the rouble had been troubled by serious inflation for many years before that.

But the warning signs are here if you have the eyes to see them, as unlikely as it might seem. It will appear to be a 'no-brainer' to a future generation. "What were they thinking? How could they have been so blind? What made them think that it could go on like that forever?"

However, we are approaching levels of economic imbalance and unserviceable debt levels that should bring at least a bit of a chill in the dollar bulls, as a warning that all things of the earth pass away, as they have done, and will always do. Some things, however, endure longer than others because they are universal, and not particular to a time or place.

In an upcoming blog, we will attempt to explain why the debt destruction in the US, with a moderating of the growth of some of the money supply measures, is not and will not result in a strengthening dollar. We do not expect any one who 'believes' in deflation as espoused by some of the dollar bulls to accept this. After all, they ignore the dollar devaluation that occurred in the depths of the Great Depression, when a devaluation really meant something radical as it was done against a gold standard.