Video: The Great Stagnation vs. The Singularity

For anyone who missed Tyler Cowen's presentation at the Singularity Conference from earlier this year.

Recapping The PolyCapitalist's 2011 Predictions

For those keeping score three topics I made 2011 forecasts on were:

1. Rise of Android
2. China's bubble
3. U.S. Housing

On Android, the verdict is in:

The U.S. housing market officially double dipped in May and then continued to fall, so that call looks correct as well.

The China prediction is a bit murkier, but here are some points worth noting:

• The Hang Seng and Shanghai stock markets are in a bear market and down roughly 20% for the year, or 30% since May. From its peak in 2008 Shanghai is off 60%.
• Housing prices are softening quickly; in Beijing new home prices dropped 35% in November alone.
• Coastal cities such as Wenzhou and Ordos appear to be experiencing a credit crisis with reports of businessmen leaping off rooftops.
• Hot money appears to be flowing out of the country: China's $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves have been falling for three months despite a trade surplus.

Things aren't shaping up too well for China or trade relations with the U.S. in 2012 either. For more on this see here, here, here and here.

Overall, does 2.5 out of 3 predictions sound about right?

Two more quick ones: bullishness on gold has been a steady theme since starting this blog in May 2010. And how did gold do in 2011? Despite the autumn selloff gold priced in U.S. dollars has returned around 10%. Not too shabby given that the S&P500 is flat YTD. I also managed a correct mid-year bearish call on the euro.

Check back later for The PolyCapitalist's 2012 predictions.

Will the Next Decade Be Dominated by America?

'Tis the season for predictions and STRATFOR's George Friedman has come up with a whopper.

The first chapter of his new book has been posted here. The main provocative claims is that the American 'Empire' will continue to be dominant over the next decade.

Will it? Here are a couple comments on Friedman's chapter:

First, I would take some issue with simplifying the Great Depression down to having originated in Germany. The role of Germany in the Great Depression does actually deserve more popular credit than it receives, but the scholarly consensus would not agree with Friedman's assertion that its "roots" reside in Germany.

Second, on his main argument, the IMF is projecting that China's economy will surpass the U.S.'s (on a purchasing power parity basis) in just five years in 2016. The EU economy is already larger than the U.S.'s. and has blocked U.S. mergers (e.g., GE's attempted acquisition of Honeywell).

Yes Europe has problems, and yes China may be experiencing the Mother of All Bubbles. But for Friedman to argue that the U.S.'s relative power in the next decade will be anything like it has been over the past 20 years seems incredibly optimistic and naive. The U.S. would appear to be at a significant cyber-warfare disadvantage compared to China at present (Update: within a few hours of this post STRATFOR's website was hacked and private client data posted on the internet). The U.S. has also failed to demonstrate that it can keep the nuclear weapons genie in the bottle in potentially hostile parts of the world. China is developing its first world class navy in 600 years. In short, examples abound of the U.S.'s relative power weakening.

Friedman writes about the U.S.'s need for a regional strategy. One interesting and rarely discussed possible outcome of the fiscal crunch facing America is the potential for unprecedented regional infighting inside the United States. For example, how difficult is it to imagine Texans questioning whether their tax dollars should continue subsidizing Maine, Oregon and Vermont? Or Californians funding Sarah Palin's Alaska?

(click to enlarge)

This is the exact argument which is taking place in Europe right now between Germany and Greece. Yes, there are large differences between American and European social cohesion. But I would not be surprised to see growing regionalization within the U.S. as a key emergent theme in the years to come. In the absence of existential external threats the justification for an extremely powerful and centralized U.S. federal state is more open to question.

Overall, Friedman's chapter is written from the perspective of an all-powerful emperor and not from one bearing witness to the paralysis which has gripped Congress in recent years. I'm also not sure he has a firm grasp on some of the social-demographic shifts which are emerging nor the current economic/financial situation.

In short, this chapter seems more a treatise on how Friedman would prefer to see the world than how it actually is.

My $0.02 on Krugman's and Delong's Inflationista Potshots

Here's Delong's OH BOY: NIALL FERGUSON PRACTICING ECONOMICS WITHOUT A LICENSE DEPARTMENT

And my comment (which for some reason won't load onto Brad's blog so I'm posting it here):

I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert on CPI methodologies, and I am inclined to believe that the BLS has many well intentioned and highly educated professionals using defendable methodological practices. However, I share Ezra's feeling that something doesn't smell right on inflation numbers.  

Over the past decade how can official cost of living figures have gone up so little when they supposedly take into account the following items: 

-Housing
-Medical
-Fuel
-Food
-Education 

These are some of the largest cost items for most consumers, and in the last decade up to the financial crisis many saw double digit price increases (in some cases in a single year). 

The BLS's CPI calculator says that $1 in 2001 has the same buying power as a $1.17 in 2007, so yes, the BLS is picking up at least some of the perceived inflation in these categories. However, do the BLS number capture the full picture? 

One thing is for certain: the CPI was utterly useless with respect to the housing bubble as it does not include housing prices, only rent. This despite the fact that nearly 70% of all American homes are owner occupied.

It's convenient to dismiss anyone questioning official government statistics as a conspiracy crank. However, under reporting of inflation by a government bureaucracy would be useful in terms of reducing that same government's expenses in the form of lower cost of living adjustments for government workers and TIPs expense. Under reporting inflation also provides ammunition for the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed to not have to raise interest rates and thereby dampen exuberance. 

In other words, many stand to benefit from the under reporting of inflation. It is therefore reasonable to cast a skeptical eye on these numbers, especially when they fly in the face of everyday experience.

A final point I'd add is that economics is too important to be left to economists, particularly with most of the 'license' holders (econ PhDs) having completely failed to identify in advance the biggest economic event since the Great Depression.

Video: Kim Jong-il - 'So Ronery' No More

Video: Google's Zeitgeist - What the World Searched For in 2011

As the Euro Rolls Over, Why Hasn't Gold Rocketed?

In early May of this year, with the euro hovering in the $1.46-$1.48 range, I disagreed vehemently with euro bulls such as portfolio manager Axel Merk who argued that the common currency was no longer vulnerable to a sell-off (see Merk's May 11 FT article titled 'Dollar in graver danger than the euro' and my counter arguments here, here, and here). 

Merk's argument was basically that in 2010, when the euro sank to a low of $1.18, the currency served as a proxy for the sovereign debt crisis. Now, however, investors were shorting sovereign debt directly and, according to Merk, recognized that it is a lot harder for the ECB to print euros than it is for the Fed to print dollars.

For awhile, as you can see from the below chart, it appeared that Merk perhaps had made a good point. From May the euro has shown remarkable resilience; for the last six months one sovereign after another has white knuckled its way through uncertain debt auctions and ever higher interest expense. Meanwhile the ECB kept its 'bazooka' semi-holstered with purchases of sovereign debt apparently capped at €20 billion per week. While the euro did soften from mid-May onwards it was able to keep it's head above the $1.40 mark for the summer and a good chunk of autumn.

Click to enlarge

Continue reading the full article at Seeking Alpha here.

Jeremy Grantham's Full December 2011 Quarterly Letter

JGLetter_ShortestLetterEver_3Q112

Video: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

Video of Niall discussing his new book, Civilization, as well as his current views on the European debt crisis, Turkey's resurgence, and Iran's future here.

The Fed's $1.2 Trillion in Secret Bank Loans

Interactive chart detailing previously secret Federal Reserves loans to each bank here. Bloomberg deserves an award for their doggedness and reporting on this issue.

Video: Hitler Reacts to S&P's Downgrade of 15 Eurozone Countries

Video: Jeffrey Sachs Full LSE Talk on The Price of Civilization

Greece Has Its Own Banknote Printing Facility; Ireland Mulls Boosting Its

From the WSJ:

Most euro-zone central banks maintain at least limited capacities to print bank notes. While the European Central Bank is responsible for determining the euro zone's supply of bank notes, it doesn't actually print them. The ECB outsources the work to central banks of euro-zone countries. Each year, groups of countries are assigned the task of printing millions of bank notes in specific denominations. 

The countries have different arrangements for printing their shares of the notes. Some, like Greece and Ireland, own their printing presses. Others outsource to private companies. 

The assignments vary from year to year. Last year, Ireland printed 127.5 million €10 notes, and nothing else, according to its annual report. This year, it was among 11 countries assigned to print a total of 1.71 billion €5 notes.

Full story here.

Video: Carmen Reinhart vs. Paul Krugman

This event occurred back in June but the video just surfaced.

Watch live streaming video from nytimesopinion at livestream.com

Steve Keen on How He Saw "It" Coming and Why We're in a Depression

A must watch interview with Economist Steven Keen, the first part of which is embedded below (remaining parts can be found here).

Video: SNL's A Closer Look at Europe

A Closer Look At Europe, SNL S37E05, Greece, Germance from Sandy Sandcake on Vimeo.

Video: Barry Eichengreen on Europe's Never Ending Crisis

Believe the Hype? Eurozone Collapse Fear-mongering Kicks Into Overdrive

Munchau gives the Eurozone at most 10 days to fix its problems before it implodes.

DeLong argues that "the Federal Reserve needs to buy up every single European bond owned by every single American financial institution for cash”.

But Johnson and Boone say such measures are basically pointless and have declared "The End of the Euro".

All of the above are respected thinkers with loads of experience and credibility, so clearly we are on the precipice of financial apocalypse.

But are we?

The Icy Silence

One country has taken a completely different path to the government and central bank financed bailouts urged by many of the Econoratti as the only way to save the Eurozone (and global economy) from economic catastrophe. That country is Iceland.

Iceland committed financial heresy when it decided to let its three formerly pygmy-sized banks, which rang up a remarkable $100 billion+ in losses, go bankrupt.

And how have things turned out for Iceland? So far, not too shabby.

Sound intergalactic advice

Iceland, an approximately $12 billion GDP economy, is small and none of its banks were Too Big to Fail. So it's an open question whether the example set by Iceland can be repeated by a larger country with a much more important banking system (i.e., Spain or Italy).

Having said that, one of the remarkable things about the current crisis debate is the near complete lack of contemplation of that very question. Instead an almost unanimous call is being made for the Germans to unleash the ECB money printing 'bazooka'. But that is just one of several different options.

As we contemplate Eurogeddon let's keep Iceland in mind. Contrary to what financial scaremongers would have us believe economic life does not come to an end when banks are allowed to fail and countries are allowed to go bust.

Recommended links & Photo of the Week

Coming soon to a Eurozone bank near you?

1. Beware of falling masonry (Economist) Good tactical overview of the eurozone crisis and some of the options being considered. See also 'Banks Build Contingency for Breakup of the Euro' (NYT)

2. Latvian bank Krajbanka set to be wound up (AFP) Above bank run image is of Krajbanka.

3. The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (Wired) Contrary to the title I don't think this is the last we've heard of Bitcoin, or other virtual currencies, but an interesting and informative read nonetheless.

4. Prepare for riots in euro collapse, UK Foreign Office warns (Telegraph)

5. Why Not Break-Up Citigroup? (Simon Johnson) Citibank has blown-up and required a bailout three times in the last three decades, or once on average every ten years.

6. How could Reebok sell trainers for $1? (BBC) Contrary to popular believe it's not all glum news here at TPC. I was able to see the remarkable Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Muhammad Yunus speak this week (video below). His bank, Grameen, is doing amazing things and gets a BHAG nod.

7. MF’s Missing Money Makes You Wonder About Goldman (Jonathan Weil)

Eurozone Debt Crisis is the IMF's Responsibility, Not the ECB's

Marc Chandler hits the nail on the head.

The IMF, which is funded by other sovereign countries, was invented precisely for dealing with problems like the current Eurozone debt debacle. The IMF is the proper lender of last resort to sovereign countries, not the central bank.

Central bank lending to sovereigns often ends in debt monetization and hyperinflation. There are sound reasons behind German stubbornness against turning the ECB into a 'bazooka'.

More on this topic, including why the 'experts' with near unanimity are calling on the ECB rather than the IMF, here.

Image of the Day

(click to enlarge)

In case you missed the video.

More on the story and fallout here.

Educational Site: If you are concerned about political reform, you might be interested in taking courses as a political science major.

Video: Niall Ferguson on Colbert Report

Video: Kyle Bass' Full BBC Hardtalk Interview

"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell" and other choice comments from the hedge fund manager profiled in Michael Lewis' most recent book, Boomerang.

h/t Zerohedge

Video: Niall Ferguson on China's 'Achilles Heel'

Quote of the Day: On the Megabank-Government-Central Bank Axis

Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva is calling for the ECB to go beyond just being a lender of last resort to banks and to become one for his and other European governments. Specifically, he's calling on the ECB to make "unlimited" purchases of EU sovereign debt. This may be the first time one of Europe's leaders has publicly asked the ECB to take this step.

Would such a move by the ECB be a sound one? From a recent editorial in the FT:

"If governments stand behind banks and banks stand behind governments and the central bank lends freely to both and also underwrites financial markets, then financial asset prices become completely detached from economic reality. In this “system”, the central bank implementing more quantitative easing is no different, in economic terms, from Bernie Madoff marking up his client accounts every month."

From 'Circular commitments lead to a Ponzi economy'.

More on the distinction between what is meant by being a lender of last resort to banks versus the governments here and why lender of last resort to sovereign countries is the proper role for the IMF.

Euro Reading Roundup - Who Will Be Getting Booted Out of the Eurozone?

Or perhaps the more important question is which country will be the first to experience a a more serious bank run than the slow motion runs which have been occurring in Greece, Ireland, and Italy?

1. Departures from the Eurozone are "inevitable" (Rodrik)

2. Europe's Darkness at Noon (Eichengreen)

3. Thinking Through the Unthinkable (Wolf)

4. 'In 31 years, I've never seen markets this crazy' (Jim Cramer)

5. Wall Street Ignoring Europe? (Tim Duy) Smells like 2007

Clarifying What Is Meant By 'Lender of Last Resort'

As the European debt crisis continues to worsen there are growing calls for the European Central Bank to purchase ever greater quantities of Italian and other troubled sovereign debt. Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong recently wrote a widely discussed piece arguing that the ECB is failing in its central banking duty as 'Lender of last resort'. But is it?

Professor DeLong makes some good points, particularly about the importance of establishing credibility with the market. However, he fails to differentiate between a central bank serving as a lender of last resort to the banking system versus a lender of last resort to sovereign countries. So far as I know (central bank operations are often murky by design) the ECB has continued to serve as the former but has resisted becoming the latter. There is a big difference between the two so this is an important omission by Professor DeLong.

With respect to the European banks, the ECB has opened and accessed U.S. dollar swap lines with the New York Federal Reserve Bank while also providing certain "unlimited" lending facilities to European banks. In short, the ECB is in fact playing the role of 'Lender of last resort' to Europe's banks. However, as DeLong notes, the ECB has only purchased European sovereign debt in limited quantities. How come?

The Germans get blamed for the ECB's spendthrift ways, with the not-so-distant memories of the Weimar hyperinflation still weighing on Teutonic minds (or so the usual armchair-Freudian analysis goes). But there is some prima facie evidence for this hypothesis: even though the ECB has (so far) not chosen to crank up the printing press full-bore two German ECB board members have resigned in the past year. The most recent, Juergen Stark, publicly stated that his reason for quitting was the ECB's resumption of Italian and Spanish sovereign debt purchases.

While the ECB may continue to hold back for now I suspect that if things get extremely ugly it will in fact print a much greater quantity of money than it has to date to bail the Eurozone out of its debt problem. If this happens euro bulls beware.

The other alternative is for the proper lender of last resort to sovereign countries -- the IMF -- to step in. The IMF was in fact created precisely for situations like the current Eurozone debt crisis. Given this you might be wondering why the experts, in near unanimity, are instead pointing towards the ECB? The answer, in short, is because the ECB has a printing press and the IMF (for now) does not.

Other countries, such as China, do have the funds to bolster the IMF to bailout Europe. But they'll want something in return, such as a greater voting share on the IMF's Board. This is an unappealing prospect to the U.S. and (in particular) Europe, which has since the IMF's inception held a perennial lock on the top job at the Fund. And so in the minds of many that leaves only the ECB.

World's Most Dangerous Banks and Their Host Countries

Below is the Financial Stability Board's list (by host country) of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), alternatively known as the 29 banks which are simply Too Big to Fail.

Twelve different countries are home to these 29 banks. Half of those countries host just one Too Big to Fail institution, and the other half host anywhere from two (Germany and Switzerland) to the U.S.'s eight.

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

Ciao G-Pap

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou is departing following the quick withdrawal of his referendum gambit, as it came to be called.

The word 'gambit' turns out to be quite a prescient or fortuitous choice. Of Italian origin, the literal translation of gambetto is 'tripping up'.

Another day in the Eurozone crisis and another politician bites the dust. With G-Pap gone it's your move Herr Berlusconi.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gambit |ˈgambit|

noun

(in chess) an opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.

• a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage : his resignation was a tactical gambit.

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: originally gambett, from Italian gambetto, literally ‘tripping up,’ from gamba ‘leg.’

Video: Bank Transfer Day, Bravo!

Very nice to see consumer activism working to solve Too Big to Fail. My SeekingAlpha article encouraging something similar last year can be found here.

For more info about Bank Transfer Day the link to the Facebook group is here.

Guest Post: Investing Simplified for Senior Citizens

Investments for senior citizens are no different than those made by a person of any age; however, it may be in their best interest to make investments with low risks since many are retired and are on a fixed income.  Here are some typical investments:

Stock Investments- You buy an equity ownership interest in a publicly traded companies. The price of a stock can fluctuates; as it fluctuates investors either make or lose money on their initial investment.  Stock prices can be unpredictable and risky but has the potential for very high returns if you invest smartly. Some stocks also pay dividends, although the amount of the dividend can be changed by the company.

Stock Mutual Fund Investments- You choose a manger and they invest your money into diversified set of assets. Mutual funds are available for stocks, bonds, short-term money market instruments, and other securities. A mutual fund can less risky than investing in a single or small number of companies due to diversification. However, fund fees can reduce the total investment return.

Savings Deposit Investments- Deposits you make into your savings account with your bank.  Money must be moved into your checking account for use.  While in your savings account, your bank pays you interest based on current interest rates and your money is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000 per despositor, per insured bank.

Certificate of Deposit Investments (CD)- You deposit a fixed amount of money for a fixed amount of time into account with a bank or thrift institution.  Once the maturity date is met, your bank pays you back your initial investment plus any interest you accrued. Bank CDs are also often covered by FDIC insurance.

Treasury Bill Investments (T-Bills)- Short-term debt sold by the U.S. Treasury, usually at a discount from the par amount, i.e. amount the bill will be worth upon maturity. For example, you might buy multiple bills for $98 and get $100 for each when the bills mature at a later date; the lowest bill you can buy is worth $100 upon maturity. Treasury Bonds are longer-term debt sold by the U.S. Treasury for periods up to 30 years. The Treasury also sells Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) which have feature and adjustable coupon payment based on the changes to Consumer Price Index.

Money Market Account (MMA) or Money Market Deposit Account (MMDA) Investments- A deposit account offered by banks.  Upon deposit, your bank will invest your money into government and corporate securities. You will be paid interest based on current money market rates of interest.

Money Market Mutual Fund Investments- A deposit fund offered by brokers who invest your money in short-term government and corporate debt securities. This investment is very similar to MMAs except that they are through a broker and not insured; they are more risky than MMAs, but you may receive a higher rate of return on your investment.

Below is an easy to read chart for senior citizens; it lists general details about these investment types.

Shannon Paley is a guest post and article writer bringing to us her simplified explanations on investments for senior citizens. She writes about nursing home abuse for nursinghomeabuse.net.


Note: please see the Disclaimer on the right side of this website. Before considering any investment you are encouraged to consult with a professional investment advisor.

Video: Niall Ferguson vs. Jeffrey Sachs

Transcript below:

Fareed Zakaria: Jeff, you were at Occupy Wall Street. You've in a sense lent it support. Why do you do that? What do you think is going on there?

Jeffrey Sachs: Well, I think they have a basically correct message that when they say "we are the 99 percent," that they're reflecting the fact that the top one percent not only ran away with the prize economically in the last 30 years, but also took the power, manipulated it, twisted it, broke the law. Brought the world economy to its knees actually, and it's time to correct things. And I think that that's what Occupy Wall Street is really about. The fact that every marquee firm on Wall Street broke the law in a major way, it's now paying a series of fines. Some people are going to jail. People are disgusted about this.

Fareed Zakaria: But isn't what has caused the one percent or five percent of the top to do well, these very broad forces of technology, the information revolution which have empowered global knowledge workers, which have empowered capital rather than labor? So if it's all these much bigger structural forces, is it going to be remedied by some kind of political solution like a Buffett tax?

Jeffrey Sachs: I don't think it is all that. I think that markets caused a widening of inequalities in just about every high-income country. But some governments did something constructive about it, where starting in 1981 the U.S. government amplified this in quite reckless ways.

Because when Ronald Reagan came to office, rather than saying we have globalization, we have competition, we now have to do something about our skills, our technology and so forth, he said that government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem. It was a fateful call. And this is the path that we've been on for 30 years of dismantling that part of our social institution which – institutions which could actually help with job training, help with education, help with science and technology in a more effective way.

But more than that, Wall Street didn't just gain from globalization, it has been completely reckless. They gamed the system. They packed toxic assets. They sold them to unwitting investors. They let the hedge funds bet against them. And the SEC is finally calling them to account.

But the public is disgusted because after that happened, lo and behold, the next thing is that they begged for bailouts; they got the bailouts. The moment they got the bailouts, they said, "Leave us alone", "deregulate", "free markets". So they're completely hypocritical in this behavior.

We want everything of ours until we need help, then we want your help, once we get your help, then we want everything again. And it's that kind of impunity that has brought people out around this country deeply angry.

Niall Ferguson: Well, first of all, I think it's important to avoid criminalizing one percent of the population which you just did, Jeff. I mean, there's no question that major financial institutions have been fined and rightly so. But to turn that into an indictment of three million people seems to me -

Seems to me actually rather reckless. And having watched what you said at Occupy Wall Street, I have to say I thought you overstepped the mark and ceased to be an academic and became a demagogue at that point.

Jeffrey Sachs: Whoa, Niall. You're the one who said that this -

Niall Ferguson: No, let me – no, let me finish, Jeff.

Jeffrey Sachs: The last time bankers came close to ruling America -

Niall Ferguson: Hang on, hang on. I let you have – I let you have your say.

Jeffrey Sachs: No, don't call me names like this.

Niall Ferguson: This is a demagoguic argument especially for somebody who knows that the principal driver of inequality has actually been globalization, not malpractice by Wall Street.

The second part of your argument is that banks misbehaved in Europe, too. I mean, those countries that did not go down the Reagan route have got banks that are insolvent, banks that were guilty of incompetence and malpractice.

So you argued that this was something specific to the United States. And the faults of – and the faults of Ronald Reagan.

Jeffrey Sachs: Of course it was.

Niall Ferguson: Just a second. The banks in Europe are in just as big a mess but they didn't go down the Reagan route. So it's not only bad economics, but it seems to me it's bad history and certainly bad politics.

Jeffrey Sachs: Let's talk what I said and what is important here. And what I've said is that in a society that is so unequal as ours and where the very top has abused the system repeatedly in the banks, the CEOs of this country taking home take-home pay hundreds of times their workers' pay, unlike any other part of the world, the hedge funds and the banks got unbelievable terms of the deal to get capital gains taxes, carried interest down to 15 percent tax rates. So outrageous compared to what the rest of America bears.

Niall Ferguson: You can't believe that this is the reason why the bottom quintile of the population is in poverty and has very limited social mobility. That's nothing to do with what happens on Wall Street, as you well know. The real problem that we have in this country, it seems to me, is declining social mobility, and not enough is said about that.

Jeffrey Sachs: Well, I write a great deal about it. And the big difference of social mobility -

Niall Ferguson: Right. And what is the principal of -

Jeffrey Sachs: The big difference of social mobility in this country is the lack of public financing for early childhood development, for daycare, for preschool, for early cognitive development, for nutrition programs, for decent schools, unlike all of the rest of the high-income world. We do not help the poor. And that's why our social mobility has come to the lowest level of any of the high-income countries.

And we are 10 or 15 percentage points lower in government revenues to help for that. And I'm asking in the book for just a few percentage points and some decency at the top that they start paying their taxes at a decent rate so that we can actually pay for preschool and pay for childcare. And that's what low social mobility is about, Niall.

Niall Ferguson: But when you look at the quality of public education in this country, you can't simply attribute its low quality to a lack of funding. And I think there's a legitimate argument that the biggest obstacle to social mobility in this country right now is not the fat cats of Wall Street, whom I do not rush to defend, but the teachers unions, who make it almost impossible to improve public school in cities like New York where we are today.

Fareed Zakaria: But would you comment on Jeff's basic point which is, you know, yes, it's not true that the gap has been produced entirely because of government policy, but that you could use government policy and government resources to help in various ways. Education may be one part of it, child nutrition would be another part of it. You know, and that that becomes impossible because you're taxing at 14 percent and spending at 23 percent?

Niall Ferguson: So a major problem here is that the projects of transforming the United States into something more like a European country does imply significant increase in taxation as well as in expenditure. And there are two obstacles to this. One, it's very clear that this would not be timely given the situation that the economy finds itself in. And two, most Americans don't believe that that is going to deliver the kind of improvement that they would like to see in education.

Look how the federal government fares and the programs that it does spend a lot of money on. Health care, social security, I mean, it's already insolvent with its provision through Medicare. This is one of the hugest unfunded liabilities in the world. And the answer that Jeff has to the U.S. problem is let's create an even bigger federal spending program on public education. I mean, it's just not credible, Jeff.

Jeffrey Sachs: Niall, you're confusing so many issues. My point is that if we are going to be decent and competitive, we have to invest in it. That's paying the price of civilization. That costs money. The fact that the United States collects in total revenues at all levels of government right now about 27 percent of national income compared with 35 percent and above in other countries is the gap of decency right now where -

Fareed Zakaria: But it's also the gap you're saying of competitiveness. Now, the path to competitiveness for you is a larger government that spends more, correct?

SACHS: If it invests properly, of course.

Niall Ferguson: You can understand why people might be skeptical about that.

Jeffrey Sachs: I'm talking about investment in education. I'm talking about investment in job skills. I'm talking about investment in science and technology. Talking about investment in 21st century infrastructure. And we've been for 30 years demonizing government. We've been demonizing taxation. We have neglected to understand that a proper economy runs on two pillars, a market and government. And until we come back to that basic level of understanding that we need a mixed economy, not just a market economy, we'll continue to fail.

Niall Ferguson: Well, I'm sure the Chinese are listening to this debate with glee thinking, well, there are still academics in the west who think that the route to salvation is to expand the role of the state because that's certainly not what is happening in China. It is not what is happening in India. It is not what is happening in Brazil. The most dynamic economies in the world today are the ones which are promoting market reforms and reining in the rule of the state, which in those countries grew hypertrophically in the 20th century and that is a big problem in Jeff Sachs' argument.

Jeffrey Sachs: Thank you for the lecture. But the catching up phenomenon is quite different from the problems that the United States or other high income societies face right now, and for us -

Niall Ferguson: The problem is the falling behind phenomenon.

Jeffrey Sachs: - and for us to be able to have high prosperity at the living standards we want, we need training, we need education, we need infrastructure, we need governments that can pay for that.

Niall Ferguson: But you forgot and we need higher progressive taxation on the private sector, because that's the most important part –

Jeffrey Sachs: And we need the rich to pay their way, absolutely. Because they've run away with the prize. And they've run away with the prize –

Niall Ferguson: There's a simplification.

Fareed Zakaria: Unfortunately -

Jeffrey Sachs: That's part of the solution, stop calling it just one thing, Niall.

Fareed Zakaria: All right. I don't think – I think this is one of the rare cases where I was superfluous as a moderator. Jeff Sachs, Niall Ferguson, thank you very much.

Recommended links

1. Why is Greece turning down the “bailout” (Tyler Cowen)

2. Circular commitments lead to a Ponzi economy (Letter to the FT). Here's the key quote:

If governments stand behind banks and banks stand behind governments and the central bank lends freely to both and also underwrites financial markets, then financial asset prices become completely detached from economic reality. In this “system”, the central bank implementing more quantitative easing is no different, in economic terms, from Bernie Madoff marking up his client accounts every month.

3. The Bailout That Busted China's Banks (WSJ)

4. Mr. Hoenig Goes to Washington (Simon Johnson)

5. Bond Dealers See Fed Holding Rate Near 0% at Least Through First Half of 2013 (WSJ)

6. Papandreou Is Right to Let the Greeks Decide (Spiegel)

7. Live European debt crisis coverage (BBC) and (Telegraph)

Recommended links

1. Rogoff: 80% chance that Greece will leave the euro (Bloomberg)

2. More Greece love from Sarkozy: Greece should have been denied euro (BBC)

3. Nominal GDP targeting is unlikely to work (INET)

4. World power swings back to America (Telegraph)

5. Hugh Hendry at LSE Alternative Investment Conference (Greshman's Law). My writeup on Hugh's Jan. 2011 interview at the AIC can be found here. Hugh has agreed to come back to the 2012 AIC conference, which I look forward to attending.

6. Portugal enters the 'Grecian vortex' (Telegraph). AEP has been on a roll lately.

7. Italian 10-Year Yield Tops 6% in Auction, Setting Record (CNBC)

Photo of the Day: Angela Merkel Sizes Up the Eurozone Bailout

(click to enlarge)

h/t Barry

Video: Niall Ferguson Says Financial Repression Preventing Full-Scale Italian Bank Run

Niall's latest comments on the Eurozone crisis after the jump:

The Italian Job: An 'Explosion in Slow Motion'

While much of the damage control attention in the rapidly escalating Italian crisis has fallen on the ECB's purchases of Italian debt, German Profressor Hans-Werner Sinn points out how the Bundesbank (and other European central banks) have been conscripted into lending a neighborly hand:

The ECB directed the central banks of all Eurozone members to buy huge quantities of Italian government bonds during the crisis. While the national central banks have not revealed how much they bought, the aggregate stock of all government bonds purchased rose from €74 billion ($102 billion) on August 4, to €165 billion this month. Most of this increase was probably used to purchase Italian government bonds. 

The German Bundesbank, which was forced to buy most of the bonds, strongly opposed the program, but was unable to stop it. In response, ECB Chief Economist Jürgen Stark resigned. He followed Bundesbank President Axel Weber, who had resigned in February because of the earlier bond repurchases. Meanwhile, the new Bundesbank president, Jens Weidmann, openly objects to the program, while German President Christian Wulff has publicly accused the ECB of circumventing the Maastricht Treaty.

Not to be outdone the Banca d’Italia has started printing money:

But the bond purchases are just the tip of the iceberg. Equally important, but largely unknown, is the fact that the Banca d’Italia has resorted to the printing press to cover Italy’s gigantic balance of payments deficit. The extra money printing and lending, as measured by the so-called Target deficit, effectively means drawing a credit from the ECB. 

This credit replaces the private capital imports that had hitherto financed the country’s net purchases of foreign goods, but which dried up because of the crisis, and it finances a capital flight, i.e. the purchase of foreign assets. The ECB in turn draws the Target credit from the respective national central bank to which the money is flowing and which therefore has to accept a reduction in its scope for issuing refinancing credit. 

Until July, only Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain had drawn Target credit, for a combined total of €330 billion. Italy was stable and did not seem to need the printing press to solve its financial problems. No longer. 

In August alone, Italy’s central bank drew €40 billion in Target credit, and it probably drew roughly another €50 billion in September, when the Bundesbank’s Target loans to the ECB system increased by €59 billion (after a €47-billion hike in August). This is the highest Target loan ever drawn from the Bundesbank in a single month, and in all likelihood it went primarily to Italy.

Full commentary here.