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. 

"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.

Ben Bernanke Cannot Print a New Steve Jobs

Gold bulls rejoice, for open-ended QE is here!

Yesterday's Fed announcement wasn't the long rumored 'QE3', as a '3' implies a beginning and an end like the two prior rounds of quantitative easing.

The Fed has instead committed to not stop printing new money until the economy improves.

What then will the Fed do if the economy never improves, meaning unemployment never gets back below 5%? Will the Fed go on printing forever? We shall have to wait and see.

In the meantime anyone who believes that printing money ad infinitum will fix what ails the U.S. economy, or the global economy for that matter, is living in macroeconomic Willy Wonkaland.

Monetary policy in the form of printing new money and changing interest rates does very little if anything to improve the foundational competitiveness of an economy. The most dynamic economies are the ones which are the most productive and most innovative, and monetary policy has very little if any impact on these two areas.

The kind of GDP growth driven by purchases of products like Apple's iPhone reflects real economic growth. The kind of GDP growth derived from nominal GDP targeting (aka inflation) is fake.

In short, Ben Bernanke cannot create new real jobs. Real jobs are created by the Steve Jobs of the world.

However, it's much easier for central planners to punch a few buttons on a keyboard and print more money than to make the long-term adjustments necessary for fundamental economic improvement.

All About 'The Blob'

Read it and weep.

Video: Michael Burry 2012 UCLA Commencement Address

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.

Video: Review of 4-Part Frontline Financial Crisis Series 'Money, Power, and Wall St.'

The PolyCapitalist is kicking May off with a number of must watch videos, and this epic 4-part Frontline special follows the crisis from what is arguably its point of genesis: a 1994 JP Morgan retreat in Boca Raton, Florida which of led to the creation of the first credit default swaps.

Frontline has done an incredible job getting many of the key players and insiders, including a number of top Wall St. bankers, to go on record about what happend. Even if you've read all the books, seen the earlier Frontline financial crisis special, and think you know all you need to about the financial crisis, this is still must watch.

The big new item for me, and I'm a bit surprised this has not received more ink, was the March 2009 battle between Larry Summers and Tim Geithner over what to do with the megabanks. My prior understanding was that Summers and Geithner were two peas in a pod. Not always it turns out.

According to Frontline, in March 2009 Summers, along with fellow economist Chritina Romer, pushed for what was called 'Old Testament Justice', meaning firing a bank CEO and or possibly nationalizing one of the megabanks. In contrast, Geithner, who it would appear is more of a protege of Bob Rubin than Summers, fought hard to treat the banks with kid gloves and use stress tests to help instill confidence back into the marketplace.

Obama ultimately sided with Geithner, which seems to contradict earlier reporting that Geithner had ignored Obama's instructions to dissolve Citigroup. Frontline definitely presents Summers in a better light and Geithner and Obama in a worse one.

I have only a minor gripe with this Frontline series, which is the annoying editing. In a multi-part, complex story, reusing clips to aid telling the story is probably unavoidable. However, I felt they recycled too many from within the four part series, as well as from an earlier Frontline special on the financial crisis from a couple years ago. But this is a minor, forgivable quibble given the extraordinary job the Frontline team did to compile and document the crisis up through present day.

Overall, perhaps the key point made in the series - and one I could not agree more with - is that the financial crisis still has not ended. Where it will go from here is as much dependent now on politics as markets or economics.

Why is the U.S. Government Still Hiding Financial Crisis Documents?

Here here to former Lazard partner turned Wall St. author/historian William Cohan and his fighting the good fight to obtain public documents from the U.S. government related to financial firms such as Goldman Sachs.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Video: Kyle Bass on the Worldwide Problem of Too Much Debt

Link to Kyle's video presentation here.

Kyle, btw, is the protagonist in Michael Lewis' latest book, Boomerang. Zerohedge has posted some of the highlights about Kyle from the book here. 

Video: Pimco's El-Erian Explains Financial Repression

QOTD from World's Largest Currency Trader, John Taylor: "The euro is going to hell"

Here are some other highlights:

So why should the U.S. dollar appreciate in such a horrid environment? As the world's reserve currency, Taylor says, the dollar has become a reverse indicator of the globe's economic health. "Whenever things are good in the world, [the] currency goes down," since there's ample liquidity. But when the rest of the globe is doing poorly, there's no liquidity and therefore the U.S. dollar is worth more. "That is the most important thing to know about foreign exchange nowadays–it is kind of backwards," he says. 

Greece's default is more a matter of when than if, he says, as the Greek citizenry won't support the austerity measures necessary to stay in the euro zone. There will be a referendum this autumn on some of the recent changes, and the outcome could upend the fiscal cuts already decided upon, Taylor warns. 

He now sees the euro trading between $1.37 and $1 over the next 18 months—nearer to the top side "if the Fed does its best at ruining our currency, and the euro manages to survive somehow." The world is pretending the European debt crisis is fixed, he adds—necessary if you are trading short term, but "long-term, a debt deal isn't going to work. The euro is going to hell. Every time they do things to fix it, it gets deeper and deeper." 

Are there any other currencies worth paying attention to? Taylor is positive on the commodity-based ones, such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, despite their run-up. "We use commodities to forecast currencies," he notes. For instance, Norway's krone is a function of the price of oil, which he thinks is a solid long-term bet on the next growth cycle. In five years, he says, "we could see oil at $500 a barrel. I would be a buyer on dips of oil." 

Among Taylor's influences is the 1991 book, Generations, by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe, which identifies longer-term cultural and demographic cycles in American life. "Every 80 years, we go through a deleveraging cycle," he says. "It's hard to measure, but that's where we are now. It has to do with the period 2010-20, compared with 1930-40." The so-called Millennials, who were born between 1980 and 2000, "will be the ones to save us, but they'll have no money, no entitlements," says Taylor.

Full article here. 

Is the Bernanke Put Kaput?

As Barry suggests, have we just seen the end of the Bernanke put? Based on the way markets are trading today it would appear Ken Rogoff was right that Bernanke doesn't have the stock market's back.

However, in all likelihood Soros is right about how policymaking powers-that-be will be forced to bailout Too Big To Fail banks should the financial system begin to teeter again. In which case the only real question is for how long can the current central bank shell-game be sustained in a low-to-no growth economic environment?

No one -- not Ben Bernanke, not Alan Greenspan, not Milton Friedman if he were alive, nobody -- knows for sure just how much more room the Fed's balance sheet has before non-negligible inflation kicks in. However, former Fed Chair Paul Volcker for one is starting to get nervous.

Federal Reserve Total Assets ($s Trillions)

(click to enlarge)

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

Lehman Part Deux: The Dexia Domino and Belgium’s Caretaker Government

The fear that Dexia, a Brussels-based money center bank, may become the 'another Lehman' thought to be lurking somewhere in Europe was given further credence a few days ago when its CEO resigned suddenly. The surprise departure of a senior executive -- often a grave omen -- turned up the heat up on a stew which had already been simmering for months. 

While both the French and German governments should have enough reserves and borrowing capacity to backstop their banking systems following default by one or more European sovereigns, the Belgians recently broke Iraq's record for being the country unable to form a government for the longest period of time (500+ days and counting). While the political dysfunctionality appears to have been a boon for the local economy it raises questions about what will happen should Dexia need a bailout following what appears to be an imminent Greek default.

Reflecting its regional significance, the Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments injected over 6 billion euros into Dexia during the last financial crisis. But without a Belgian authority to negotiate with, and given that France's banks are coming under significant speculative attack (for good reason. More on 'slippery' accounting at French banks here), there is a very legitimate question of whether a similar regional bailout can be orchestrated again.

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.