G20 Leaders to Meet on November 15 in Washington DC

This will be interesting to watch, since it is conceivable that by the time of this meeting Bush's party may have lost the presidency and both Houses of Congress.

However it develops, for some reason it sends a chill to those who are not global unionists and who have an abiding distrust of statists.

This also spells potential volatility for the currency markets, since one thing these fellow do know how to accomplish is to 'fix' the currency markets if not the financial system.

NY Times
Bush Invites World Leaders to Economic Talks
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
October 22, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush has invited the leaders of 20 nations to come to Washington on Nov. 15 for an international meeting on the economy, the White House said Wednesday. The move could eventually lead to a far-reaching overhaul of the rules governing global financial markets.

The meeting, intended to be the first of several global economic meetings, will come less than two weeks after the presidential election, and its timing underscores the urgency the administration feels in addressing the financial crisis. The White House has said Mr. Bush would “welcome input” from the president-elect, although it is unclear if Mr. Bush’s successor would attend. (At this meeting Bush could be the lamest of lame ducks - Jesse)

The meeting will have a broad agenda, laying the groundwork for the leaders to “agree on a common set of principles for reform of the regulatory and institutional regimes for the world’s financial sectors,” Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s press secretary, said in announcing the meeting.

Mr. Bush has been under intense pressure for several weeks from leaders in Europe, especially President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, to convene an international meeting of economic powers to address the financial crisis. Mr. Sarkozy has called for strengthening and rewriting the rules governing global financial institutions, fashioned after the 1944 meeting in Bretton Woods, N.H., in which 44 nations remade the global financial system after the Great Depression. (Is Sarkozy the new Tony Blair in Europe? - Jesse)

But the White House initially sounded skeptical of the idea; administration officials have said Mr. Bush is wary of any effort to allow other nations to exercise control over the United States banking system. Over the weekend, though, Mr. Bush; Mr. Sarkozy; and the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, had dinner at Camp David and apparently brokered an agreement.

While Mr. Sarkozy had been pressing for a meeting of the so-called Group of 8 world economic powers, Mr. Bush insisted that developing nations be included. After their dinner on Saturday night, the three men issued a joint statement saying they would reach out to world leaders with the intent of convening a series of economic meetings.

The venue also appears to have been an issue. Mr. Sarkozy said over the weekend that he hoped the first meeting would be held by the end of November, and suggested it be convened in New York. “Since the crisis started in New York, maybe we can find the solution in New York,” he said. “This is a worldwide crisis, and therefore we must find a worldwide solution.”

By convening the meeting in Washington, his home turf, and by insisting that leaders from developing as well as developed nations attend, Mr. Bush appeared to be putting himself firmly in charge. (The lame duck's swan song? Let's hope so - Jesse)

White House officials have said that the president is especially concerned that an effort to rewrite global financial rules could hurt capitalism and free trade; in her statement, Ms. Perino said the agenda would include “an opportunity for leaders to strengthen the underpinnings of capitalism by discussing how they can enhance their commitment to open, competitive economies, as well as trade and investment liberalization.”

The White House drew the list of invitees from the so-called G20, a forum of rich and emerging nations that was convened in 1999 after an earlier international crisis. Its members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

Other international officials, including the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, the president of the World Bank and the United Nations secretary-general have also been invited to attend, the White House said.

Goldman May Be the Fed's Consigliere, But JPM is Still a Capofamiglia

Bloomberg
Fed to Provide Up to $540 Billion to Aid Money Funds
By Craig Torres and Christopher Condon

Oct. 21 -- The Federal Reserve will provide up to $540 billion in loans to help relieve pressure on money- market mutual funds beset by redemptions.

``Short-term debt markets have been under considerable strain in recent weeks'' as it got tougher for funds to meet withdrawal requests, the Fed said in a statement in Washington. About $500 billion has flowed out of prime money-market funds since August, a Fed official said.

The initiative is the third government effort to aid money- market funds, which in stable times are a key source of financing for banks and companies. The exodus of investors, sparked by losses from the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy, contributed to the freezing of credit that threatens to tip the economy into a prolonged recession.

``The problem was much worse than we thought,'' Jim Bianco, president of Chicago-based Bianco Research LLC, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Policy makers are trying to prevent ``Great Depression II'' by stemming the financial industry's contraction, he said.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. will run five special units that will buy up to $600 billion of certificates of deposit, bank notes and commercial paper with a remaining maturity of 90 days or less. The Fed will provide up to $540 billion, with the remaining $60 billion coming from commercial paper issued by the five units to the money-market funds selling their assets, central bank officials told reporters on a conference call...

How High Will the Dollar Go?

Let's call this one "Your Host Exhibits His Falliblity" and general inability to see the future. Its a good reminder to all of us, of how little we really 'know.'

This is an email sent in response to a question "How high will the Dollar rally? Give us a best guess."

Who can know these things with any certainty? As guesses go this is probably as good as any.

Tell me if the European banks are stabilizing and are no longer starving for dollars, and that there is a meaningful decline in the TED and LIBOR$ and the top in the dollar will be easier to project.

Its hard to say because I don't have the latest data on the Banks balances in europe from BIS.

For my best guess I have to go to the charts. Part of me says it tops this week, but I won't bet on it.

The charts alone call the top around 85. Currencies overshoot. That's why I cannot
be more precise, especially since we are in a short squeeze unrelated to fundamentals.

So I would estimate just on gut instinct and charting that we probably topped about 30 minutes ago, at 84.263,
but might continue on to test 85ish. and mess around there until this clears up. I'd like to see LIBOR$ and TED
confirm this by dropping like a rock. LOL. Then I might bet on it.

The Safety and Immediacy of Liquid Assets in a Deleveraging Panic: MZM, Home Currencies, Bank Reserves, and Gold

MZM is the broadest and most reasonable measure of liquidity in the US economic system. Bank Reserves and Cash are its narrowest component.

Bank reserves are becoming decoupled from MZM now since banks are borrowing heavily from the discount window and building reserves in anticipation of future financial shocks and writedowns of assets. We are in a deleveraging panic.



Breaking this impasse between fear of writedowns and moving forward with economic growth is the preoccupation of the Treasury and the Fed. We agree that this is the problem, we may merely differ on the approach to take to solve it.

This 'crunch' in primary liquidity, or bank reserves, in a deleveraging panic for the banks has a dampening effect on the broader components of liquidity in MZM.

One can make the case that the panic is originating with the banks as they reap the results of their misrepresentations of their assets and reckless speculation by deleveraging.

The Fed and Treasury approach seems to be to fill the Banks' reserves until they overflow and being to trickle down to the real economy. They believe that they will receive more benefit by placing their capital here because of the power of the fractional reserve money multiplier.

In the short term this may not be fruitful. The engine is seized. Pouring more gasoline in it may not be productive.

Banks need a kick start by a component of the economy that is still functioning normally, if in an impaired manner. That is in the real economy. Rather than reaching the real economy through the banks, the Fed and Treasury might well be more effective in focusing on stimulating real economic activity by stimulating consumption and production directly. Trickle up if you will.

One has to wonder what Keynes would have said about these different approaches to applying stimulus: provide stimulus to the broader public through increases in wages and economic activity, or to provide stimulus to the banks and hope that they will lend to the broader public at rates low enough to stimulate projects that would not otherwise be feasible.

This is a critical point, and little debated or understood as it is emotionally charged with words like 'socialism.' Most do not understand the fractional reserve banking system, but it seems more official, more palatable, to give them billions, enormous sums, and to give the public as little as possible for fear of debasing the value of work and the currency.

Paulson and Bernanke both view the economy as an adjunct to the financial system so from their perspective the choice is obvious.

The Fed and Treasury may succeed eventually in their approach of filling all banks, solvent and insolvent, stable and unstable, until they burst with liquidity and overflow into the broader economy.

In doing so they risk a significant bout of inflation and financial instability that may surprise them. But based on the experience of the Fed under Volcker they are convinced they can cure any inflation, having done it -- once.

MZM in turn has its correlation with secondary liquidity in the form of less liquid assets such as stocks and bonds, gold, forex and the time encumbered components of M2.

Do not think of this as 'cause and effect' but more in terms of a teeter totter, as individuals make decisions about their desire for immediacy and safety of assets and move capital, selling some assets and holding others.

If seen on the scale of immediacy and safety things will make more sense as they evolve.

There is a relationship between MZM and Gold, which as liquid assets which differ in Immediacy and Safety as an investment choice. In a short term panic immediacy overwhelms safety. As an aside and not illustrated in this chart, 'paper gold' which is less safe is diverging from 'Physicial Gold' in the lens of investor choice. That divergence may become greater in the short term as investor fears shift from the immediacy of capital to its safety.



Here is something to think about in the chart below. It shows the 'forex' component of liquidity falling to the immediacy of the home currency in a deleveraging panic.



More food for thought. The "why" is all important.