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?

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.

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.