Krugman Perpetuates Myth of the Zero Lower Bound

Professor Paul Krugman

Professor Krugman just published a column where he deserves kudos for sticking his neck on the line and predicting that the Bernanke Fed is not creating a bubble in bonds, and "probably not" in stocks either.

While the argument on whether or not Bernanke is blowing bubbles is interesting and worthy of discussion (although only time will tell for sure), that's not what this post is about.

In the column Krugman makes a somewhat tangential comment about what economists often refer to as the 'zero lower bound problem' on where a central bank can set interest rates. Here's Krugman's quote:

"True, it (the Fed) can’t cut rates any further because they’re already near zero and can’t go lower. (Otherwise investors would just sit on cash.)"

Krugman's statement is problematic for several reasons:

First, it's misleading and patently false of Dr. K to say that the Fed "can’t cut rates any further" when in fact it can. There is no economic or natural law which prevents the Fed from setting nominal rates at exactly zero, or at a negative rate.

Whether they should be set at zero or negative is another question. In short, Dr. K needs to replace "can't" with something like "could but shouldn't because...".

Second, I suggest that it would be helpful if Dr. K was a little more precise so that people understand why the Fed "can't" (shouldn't) set zero or negative rates but Denmark's central bank can set a negative deposit rate, and now Drahgi at the ECB is openly discussing this as well.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing negative rates. I'm only saying that negative rates are possible and that some central banks are experimenting with negative rates as a policy tool.

And finally, yes, perhaps if the Fed were the only central bank to pursue a negative rate policy then investors may sit on cash, move their money elsewhere, etc. But if enough central banks around the world kept driving rates further and further into negative territory then it would be very surprising if this didn't help generate inflation, in which case people would probably not be sitting on cash as Dr. K suggests but rather spending it before money lost its purchasing power.

The long perpetuated myth of the zero lower bound is starting to be challenged more and more, and for a more detailed academic discussion of the zero lower bound myth see here. 

When the UK Previously Looked to a Canadian to Run the Bank of England

Just a quick historical note on the somewhat stunning news that Mark Carney, the current head of the Bank of Canada (and a Canadian citizen), has been asked and has accepted the job of running the Bank of England.

Graham Towers and Montagu Norman 

I say 'somewhat' because students of history may know that as Montagu Norman's 24 year reign at the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street was winding down the then head of the Bank of Canada, Graham Towers (also a Canadian citizen), was considered as a leading candidate to replace Norman.

Norman and Towers worked closely together during World War II to support the price of sterling during the Battle for Britain, and much of the UK's gold (as well as France's) was sent to Canada to protect it in the event of a Nazi amphibious invasion of Britain. However, for reasons possibly lost to posterity Towers was either never offered or accepted the job.

Analogies about how England's national football coach is often  foreigner and how the Carney choice really isn't all that different are of course flooding the media airwaves right now. Perhaps the economic, patriotic, and security considerations that come with heading the national football club and central bank aren't really as far apart as one might think?

An issue which isn't under much doubt is that Mark Carney, like Graham Towers in his day, is simply a very good candidate for the job.

Looking ahead, the one thing that is certain is that Mr. Carney will have very big shoes to fill. Even with the financial crisis and the challenges faced by the City of London over the past several years, there can be little doubt that Sir Mervyn King has proven to be one of the finest central bankers of his age. Sir Mervyn recently gave an excellent lecture at the LSE on inflation targeting, which can be viewed here.

Another point is that the Carney choice further confirms London's status as the most welcoming of the major financial centers to foreigners and capital alike. Take that New York!

Video: Mervyn King on Twenty Years of Inflation Targeting

A very accessible, excellent talk from the Governor of the Bank of England on the past two decades of financial and central bank history, and the need to rethink the policy of inflation targeting. 

Podcast with better audio quality here.

Speaker(s): Professor Sir Mervyn King

Chair: Professor Craig Calhoun

Recorded on 9 October 2012 in Old Theatre, Old Building.

Since 2008, we have experienced the worst financial crisis and recession since the 1930's. What challenges does this pose to the intellectual foundations of monetary policy? Do we need a new approach?

Mervyn King is the Governor of the Bank of England. Before joining the Bank he was Professor of Economics at the LSE, and a founder of the Financial Markets Group.

"It's the asset prices, stupid"

In a good post titled 'Why Obama is Winning' Harold James points out that political strategist James Carville's famous "it's the economy, stupid" quip from the 1992 U.S. presidential election campaign has gained a new twist:

...the lesson about the economy’s electoral salience is being subtly reformulated. It is no longer the real state of the economy, but rather the perception of asset markets, that is crucial. And the perception can be far removed from reality, which means that the more the prevailing political wisdom assigns decisive electoral importance to the economy, the greater the temptation to view monetary policy’s impact on asset prices, and not on long-term growth, as crucial.

What James is basically saying is that people feel wealthier when asset prices - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. - go up in value. This phenomenon -- the so called 'wealth effect' -- can make those who don't read The PolyCapitalist and the other recommended sites listed on the right side of this blog feel like the real, fundamental economy is doing better than it actually is. Or so the theory goes. 

Further, positive feelings about how the economy is trending due to rising asset prices can in turn drive higher consumer consumption and business investment, which in turn can increase GDP. At least in the short (and possibly) medium run.

For how long can this wealth effect ponzi-esque scheme go on? In other words, are programs like QE3 nothing more than an macroeconomic cheap trick?

No one knows for sure because, like much of modern macroeconomic theory, we are conducting a live, empirical test of the theory. And this test has arguably been running since at least 1987 (the year Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Fed), if not 1971 (the year Nixon severed the U.S. Dollar's anchor to the price of gold).

What this means longer-term, according to James, is further politicization of the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world:

Republicans will blame their defeat in November on the Fed’s monetary stimulus (if not on the ineffectiveness of Mitt Romney’s blunder-filled campaign). 

Meanwhile, in Europe, many national leaders, looking at Obama and the Fed, may conclude that they would do better with more direct control over the central bank. Given the difficulty of establishing such control over the European Central Bank, the euro’s next great challenge may be growing sentiment in favor of a return to national currencies.

In other words, expect central banks to remain in the politial bullseye following the 2012 U.S. and 2013 German elections, regardless of the their outcomes.

Will major reform be applied to central banks? For example, there has been open discussion of terms limits for the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Perhaps changes like term limits, greater Fed transparency, etc. are in the cards longer-term. But I am personally skeptical that any significant reforms will be enacted at the Federal Reserve prior to the end of the U.S. dollar's global hegemony.

On the Topic of Financial Collapse Fear Mongering

"Ireland is in a death spiral" -FT

"After the November President election the U.S. is facing a fiscal cliff" -Federal Reserve staff

"Eurogeddon!" -The PolyCapitalist

On and on go the warnings of cataclysm and pending financial doom. Technical jargon and existential risks are bandied about in frightening fashion, leaving the general, less-economically literate with very little ability to understand what's actually happening or just how bad things could really get if say Greece leaves the Eurozone, or another country defaults, or something like this occurs.

This blog is not entirely innocent of this criticism, and this post is a brief attempt to quickly address the question of whether our global financial system is on the precipice of a financial collapse if say something 'really bad' happens in Europe?

The short answer is no.

Now before I expand on that answer I would like to clarify something very important: this post is about financial collapse and not about the extremely high levels of unemployment, which have reached approximately 50% for young people in countries such as Greece and Spain. The youth and general unemployment problems today are serious and something to be very concerned about. But this post is not about that but instead about whether another Lehman-style event could occur where the world's financial system risks implosion if say a country like Greece pulls out of the euro, the current 'bank jog' in Spain accelerates, etc.

So why isn't the risk of financial collapse as bad as some would have use believe?

For starters, we have to keep in mind that our financial world is a virtual world. Today, money is largely a set of numbers on a computer. This means that even in the most extreme scenario of financial disorder, where policymakers completely blow it and the ATMs stopped working and the stock market tanked, that everything that is real and tangible - the houses, the food that is farmed, the physical assets - none of this goes away and will all be here the next day when you wake up in the morning.

Now having said that, a financial implosion would definitely have a major impact on our lives, particularly for those with fewer resources or who are unprepared. But life will go on for nearly everyone and could actually rebound quite quickly given other historical cases. For example, Argentina began recovering within months following its utterly complete financial meltdown in 2001 even though the country achieved the relatively rare trifecta of a currency collapse, a banking crisis, and a sovereign default all at once. Iceland has had a relatively quick turnaround following its 2008 financial implosion. And other Asian countries in the late-90s also turned the corner pretty quickly following major financial crises.

In the case of Argentina, dozens of people died in Dec. 2001 riots, so I don't want to minimize the very real suffering and dislocation which comes with a financial collapse. But Argentina's experience is a far cry from the level of suffering of say a war or severe natural disaster. In short, a 'cataclysm', it was not.

A further point needs to be made about the above examples, which is that they were all relatively isolated, contained crises that did not threaten a systemic collapse in arguably the same way as the current crisis. But this leads me to point number two, which is that a systemic collapse is extremely unlikely, particularly given two facts:

1. what was learned from the recent Lehman-experience in 2008 by the current crop of policymakers.
2. the world's central banks, especially the Federal Reserve, still have loads of financial ammunition.

Regarding the first point, current policymakers got a first-hand glimpse of just how interconnected the world's financial system is and how the failure of a seemingly small cog in the wheel could threaten to topple the whole system. So while yes, Greece's financial implosion could lead to a chain reaction that threatens the entire global financial system, it is utterly inconceivable in the wake of the Lehman crisis that policymakers would sit back and let that happen given what they learned and how they responded in 2008-2009.

So I hear you asking whether all our problems are solved then because central banks like the Federal Reserve are all powerful, financially speaking, and able to contain any crisis which comes its way? Over the long-term, I would say no, they are not all powerful financially. But in the short-term, meaning right now and over the next few months at least, they are all powerful financially, and here's why.

Central banks like the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan, and Bank of England which operate fiat currencies have an extraordinary power, which is that they can create an unlimited amount of money.

'Unlimited', meaning a truly infinite amount of money? Yes

What this means is that even if, for example, all the depositors in Spain and Greece withdrew every last euro from their local banks the ECB can supply all the notes that citizens want to hide under their bed mattresses. In short, the ATMs should never, ever run out of money in a fiat money system which is being managed by competent professionals.

But earlier I alluded to the fact that even though central banks can print an unlimited amount of money that they were not in fact financially omnipotent over the long-term, so what did I mean by that?

With the magic that is the computer a central bank could literally go and create and infinite amount of money. But there are side effects with central banks creating a lot of money, namely inflation. Without getting technical, simply put inflation is a rise in prices. Hyperinflation is a very large, sudden rise in prices.

But here is the crucial point to remember: rising inflation acts as a brake on a central bank's ability to create money. In other words, a rise in inflation is perhaps the key to understanding when central banks would be constrained in any effort to bail out the financial system.

Today, most of the world's advanced economies (North America, Europe) have relatively modest inflation, meaning low single digit annual percentage increases in official measures of core inflation. And even though they would say otherwise, the central banks in these advanced countries would be more than willing to trade an increase in inflation to stem the risk of a systemic financial collapse.

So how much more inflation would central banks be willing to tolerate as a tradeoff for not risking financial collapse? As the Bank of England has demonstrated in the past couple years, inflation creeping up towards 5% is not enough of a concern to prompt a significant deviation in policy. So my guess (it is a guess) is that at the extreme central banks like the Fed could tolerate up to 10% if they perceived the risks of collapse to be great enough before they would think twice about pulling another post-Lehman style bailout of the world's financial system. And since we're still in low single digit inflation this gives the Fed a decent amount of runway to maneuver.

This room to maneuver is what is meant when it is said that the Fed, which controls the world's most important reserve currency, and other central banks still have lots of ammunition.

The existence of this ammunition is likely a factor behind why given all the current distress in Europe that the stock markets haven't fallen further. In other words, the markets expect central banks to step in and flood the financial system with money if Greece leaves the euro or a banking run accelerates. Even the supposedly hemmed in by the Germans/hard-money crowd ECB. After LTRO and all the sovereign bond debt purchases, anyone who still thinks the ECB won't step in to save the system if things go completely pear shaped by creating a lot money is living in a fantasy. And this flood of central bank money would likely be very bullish for stocks in the short-term.

Should inflation increase significantly, then the ability of central banks to rush in and save the day could be diminished. But for now, they have the power to act, and that's why (for now) a general financial collapse is not on the immediate horizon.

So in sum, if you want to understand when it might be time to get worried, keep an eye on official measures of core inflation, particularly if it starts creeping up near the 5% level as that is about the time a proper central banker will begin to twitch over fears of runaway inflation.

Now, in terms of how you want to position your investment portfolio given the above, the very first post on this blog just over two years ago argued for allocating some of your portfolio into gold, which is arguably the best hedge against excessive central bank money printing. Even though the price of gold has gone up significantly in the last two years this blog still stands by that recommendation for long-term investors.

2012 Prediction #4: Romney Will Not Win the U.S. Presidency

It's looking like Romney has the Republican nomination, but I am very doubtful that he can carry the country in 2012 for a whole variety of reasons:

1. U.S. economic figures are showing signs of life, at just the right time.
2. Like Eichengreen, Dalio, and others, I think the next leg down in the ongoing financial crisis won't make landfall until 2013 at the earliest.
3. There is a decided lack of enthusiasm about Romney. He comes across as a Wall St. guy who, policy wise, isn't all that different from Obama. He also isn't well liked by the Republican base. In short, Romney seems positioned somewhere in political no-man's land.
4. There is a reasonable chance for a third party candidate to be a factor, and should that happen it will work against Romney more than Obama.
5. Even if Eurogeddon boils over the world's central banks have plenty of space to deploy more monetary artillery. Central banker hands won't begin to be tied until core inflation starts to increase significantly, and that's unlikely to happen over the next 10 months. Even though Bernanke was appointed originally by a Republican, he would probably prefer that Obama (who reappointed him) be reelected given Romney's and general Republican hostility towards the Fed.
6. An Iranian conflict (perhaps the biggest X-factor in 2012) likely favors the incumbent as it would provide Obama with an opportunity to exercise leadership and look presidential.

What could upset this prediction is any material economic deterioration or a geopolitical flub by Obama.

2012 Prediction #3: The Gold 'Bubble' Will Not Burst This Year

George Soros has called gold the "ultimate bubble".

It's getting more than a little far along into 2012 to still be making predictions, but let me just state clearly that 2012 will not witness a collapse in the price of gold.

Why not? I've written about this at length previously, most recently here.

Gold is already off to a decent start in 2012, up $150/oz YTD, so it's perhaps a little unfair for me to be making this call in February. I'm also not making a call on whether gold will finish the year higher or lower, although I suspect higher. However, I am confident that we won't see the bottom fall out of the price of gold this year, or next for that matter.

Overall, we're somewhere in the middle innings of the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and there is still way too much debt in the global financial system for the flight to gold to reverse.

Podcast: Philip Coggan's Paper Promises - Money, Debt and the New World Order

Below is the podcast of Coggan's book talk, and here is a good review of Paper Promises.

Speaker(s): Philip Coggan

Chair: Professor Christopher Polk

Recorded on 19 January 2012 in Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building.

The world is drowning in debt. Greece is on the verge of default. In Britain, the coalition government is pushing through an austerity programme in the face of economic weakness. The US government almost shut down in August because of a dispute over the size of government debt.

Our latest crisis may seem to have started in 2007, with the collapse of the American housing market. But as Philip Coggan shows in this new book, Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the new World Order which he will talk about in this lecture, the crisis is part of an age-old battle between creditors and borrowers. And that battle has been fought over the nature of money. Creditors always want sound money to ensure that they are paid back in full; borrowers want easy money to reduce the burden of repaying their debts. Money was once linked to gold, a commodity in limited supply; now central banks can create it with the click of a computer mouse.

Time and again, this cycle has resulted in financial and economic crises. In the 1930s, countries abandoned the gold standard in the face of the Great Depression. In the 1970s, they abandoned the system of fixed exchange rates and ushered in a period of paper money. The results have been a long series of asset bubbles, from dotcom stocks to housing, and the elevation of the financial sector to economic dominance.

The current crisis not only pits creditors against debtors, but taxpayers against public sector workers, young against old and the western world against Asia. As in the 1930s and 1970s, a new monetary system will emerge; the rules for which will likely be set by the world's rising economic power, China.

Philip Coggan was a Financial Times journalist for over twenty years, including spells as a Lex columnist, personal finance editor and investment editor, and is now the Buttonwood columnist of The Economist. In 2009, he was awarded the title of Senior Financial Journalist in the Harold Wincott awards and was voted Best Communicator at the Business Journalist of the Year Awards. Philip Coggan is the author of the business classic, The Money Machine.

Naked Capitalism Uses a Single Data Point to Disprove Financial Repression

A post over at Naked Capitalism titled 'Why Is The Term “Financial Repression” Being Sold?' by the Roosevelt Institute's Matt Stoler purports to "fact check" a statement about the negative effects of financial repression.

That sounds useful, for as Stoler points out financial repression is much in the news these days. However, there's just one big problem: Stoler's fact checking consists of looking at just one country, the U.S.

Never mind that the Reinhart and Sbrancia paper about financial repression which Stoler references includes a 10-country data sample (and information about dozens of other countries), or that other studies on the effects of financial repression have looked at data from 20 or more countries. And Stoler clearly couldn't be bothered with checking to see that most of the research on financial repression has in fact focussed on its impact on economic growth in developing countries, and not advanced economies like the U.S.

Following Stoler's breathtakingly brief analysis of the single U.S. data point he concludes:

"So we see that the financial repression meme is at heart an aristocratic concept."

Sorry, Matt, but it's not quite that simple.

Who exactly are financial repression's winners and losers? As some of the commenters on Stoler's post note the not insignificant dose of inflation which accompanies financial repression hits everyone who saves money. Also, the large rentier may have additional means at his/her disposal to mitigate the effects of financial repression. However, the small rentier (aka 401K holders, pensioners, retirees on fixed incomes) may not easily be able to, for example, shift assets to Lichtenstein.

But there may be a more simple answer to this question of winners and losers. To work as intended financial repression depends on government rules and regulation. In short, this means that under a system of financial repression those who follow the law are the ones who are punished by the law. Sound like a place you'd like to live?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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. 

What is Money? (or How is Money Created?)

I just did a Google search on 'what is money?' and 'how is money created?', and many of the top results are probably confusing for someone looking for a simple explanation of the broader concept of money.

(Note: this post is not about physical cash or coin, which I trust most people correctly understand to be minted by the government. It is instead about a more complete measure of money in all its physical and non-physical forms: cash, coin, demand deposits, savings, etc.)

Courtesy of Dan Hind here's a simply explanation of how money is created:

Banks create money through the act of lending it. They don't have to limit themselves to lending out the money deposited with them. In fact, they can end up lending huge multiples of the money they hold in reserve. 

When they authorise a loan or extend credit in the form of an overdraft, the money is conjured out of nowhere.

So there you have it. Banks create the vast majority of the money supply out of thin air (electronic bits these days) when they make loans. Simple, right? Here's Dan again:

The economist and ironist JK Galbraith once wrote that "the process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. When something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent". Offered the unadorned truth, stripped of any technocratic flim-flam, we can scarcely believe it. It seems preposterous that money should have such humble origins, as though it is beneath money's dignity that it should begin life at a banker's keystroke.  

The truth about money creation is a bit like the end of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, when it turns out that there is no all-knowing wizard, only an old man behind a curtain, making things up as he goes along.

A perhaps more interesting question is why the subject of how money is created is not taught in secondary school? The reason can't be that it's too complicated. But as one of the commenters on Dan's article notes:

 "it is truly preposterous how little the public knows about arguably the single most influential conception humanity has ever created."

Education Site: Educate yourself on various aspects of the financial industry with classes from accredited online colleges.

Graphic: Who Holds Sovereign Debt? 70% of U.S. Debt Held by Government Entities

Courtesy of Global Macro Monitor:

Here’s a great chart just released by the International Monetary Fund. Note that almost half — 47 percent – of the US$14.7 trillion U.S. federal government debt is held by the Federal Reserve and the government itself, such as the Social Security trust fund. Add to that the 22 percent foreign official holdings (mainly central banks) and almost 70 percent of the debt of the U.S. government is held by non-market/non-profit oriented public sector entities. Stunning! 

It’s also interesting to hear Europeans quote the $14.7 trillion (apx. 100% of GDP) figure while U.S. officials like to refer to marketable or debt held by the public, which totals US$10.1 trillion (apx. 75% of GDP).

(click to enlarge)

Video: Why Is There a Nobel Prize in Economics?

SNB Gift-Wraps $2,000/oz. Gold

Perhaps not since World Bank President Robert Zoellick publicly advocated a return to the gold standard last year has the barbarous relic received such a sure-fire price boost.

Today the Swiss National Bank declared that it will print an "unlimited" number of Swiss francs (because fiat central banks can do that) to prevent further appreciation of the franc.

The Swiss franc had been considered perhaps the ultimate safe haven currency, alongside perhaps to a lesser extent the Japanese yen. Both have been appreciating steadily over the past year+ in the face of periodic interventions by their respective central banks. Both countries have trade surpluses, which creates a built-in demand for their currencies as domestic firms repatriate funds. The Japanese and Swiss banking systems are also considered relatively strong. However with the SNB's decision to crank up the printing press and peg the franc to the euro at 1.20 francs will undoubtedly increase pressure on the Bank of Japan to do something similar.

Strangely, the price of gold dropped dramatically on the SNB news before rationality returned and pushed gold back up to an all-time record high of $1,923/oz. (although it did finish the day below $1,900).

Bottom line: today's news is very bullish for gold, and my prediction, made just under a month ago when gold reached $1,700/oz., that the yellow metal would push forward to $2,000/oz. should now materialize sooner than anticipated.