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.

Video: Niall Ferguson on Milton Friedman's Legacy

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

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.

Video: Niall Ferguson on the Likelihood of a China Hard Landing

Video after the break.

Video: Niall Ferguson's TED Talk on the Great Divergence

Software Is Eating The World

The tech world was roiled this week by Google's acquisition of Motorolla and HP's corporate makeover. Here's a good read from Marc Andressen (HP board member, VC and Netscape co-founder) on the current state of tech and where things are headed.

Michael Lewis on Germany & the Eurozone

The latest and final instalment in a series of what author Michael Lewis has described as 'Euopean financial disaster tourism' articles he's penning for Vanity Fair can be found here. This latest article focuses on Germany (the previous two covered Greece and Ireland - google them or click on 'Michael Lewis' tag below to get the link).

The Germany articles also features an accompanying interview with Lewis, where 'Europe's least welcome tourist' discusses the problems with the broader Eurozone:

VF Daily: Where did the euro go wrong? 

Lewis: At its conception. They glued together a bunch of countries and cultures that didn’t really belong together in the same currency. So if you put Germany together with Greece in a single currency, it’s a little like watching an Olympic sprinter and a fat old man running a three-legged race. The Greeks will never be as productive as the Germans, and the Germans will never be as unproductive as the Greeks. So if they’re in the same currency—unless the Greeks simply up and move to Germany to work for the Germans—it implies a lifetime of transfers from Germany to Greece. 

VF Daily: Greece was allowed a partial default this week, to the tune of $157 billion, despite the E.C.B.’s disapproval. This measure seems like a Band-Aid, though. Can we expect something much larger to happen, or do presidents and prime ministers just enjoy getting together to argue every six months? 

Lewis: The Germans are basically calling the shots here, because they’re the only ones who can afford to pay the bill. My impression is that the German people do not want to pay it, but the German leadership does not want to be labeled as the people who destroyed the euro. So the way Angela Merkel is playing it is to tell the German people what they want to hear until the moment another crisis occurs, and then she goes into parliament and says, “I need this little check to get us through this rough patch, or you will be responsible for the disintegration of Europe.” What she doesn’t ever come away with, however, is a commitment for fiscal union. She doesn’t get Germany agreeing to underwrite euro bonds—to take all the debt of the southern countries. 

VF Daily: Well, it would be political suicide, right? 

Lewis: She may have already committed political suicide. German people are increasingly unhappy with how she has handled the crisis. I don’t think that the German people are going to go all-in. The step that they would need to take is much more dramatic than this Band-Aid.

Video: The Commanding Heights - the battle between government and the marketplace

No less relevant today than it was roughly ten years ago when it first premiered, below is Part 1 of the must watch video series The Commanding Heights. Globalization, Keynes vs. Hayek, the future capitalism -- it's all here. Especially recommended for those interested in intellectual history. You'll find the remainder of the episodes at PBS here.

Worldwide Monthly Parking Rates

The City of London takes the cake. All figures are in U.S. dollars.

(click to enlarge)

h/t Paul Kedrosky

Chart of the Day: Generation U

Perhaps its time to rename Gen Y as Gen U, as in Generation Unemployed.

Not surprisingly, the PIIGS occupy five of the top seven spots in this primarily European country sample. Chronically unemployed young males are often a key ingredient in social unrest and revolution.

Source: The Economist

Video: Niall Ferguson - The West and the Rest (Chatham House Talk/Q&A)

Fareed Zakaria Needs to Study More History

Fareed Zakaria

A good geopolitical discussion with CNN host and Time magazine editor Fareed Zakaria on Charlie Rose, although I take issue with one of Zakaria's suggestions:

Charlie asked him for his prescription for preventing conflict between the U.S. and China, and his response smacked of the same arguments and thinking which were prevalent prior to World War I.

Fareed stated that if the U.S. and China can increase their "dependencies" then this would prevent war from occurring. I was surprised to hear Fareed say this as he generally gives off the impression as someone who is well versed in history.

Fareed's thinking about what will prevent conflict is identical to what was said prior to World War I, the original era of globalization when arguably the world was even more interconnected by trade than it is today. Because everything was so interconnected, because nations like Britain and Germany traded as much as they did, war was considered impossible.

Many people are not aware of the fact that today's interconnected world is not our first experience with globalization. One of the better quotes on just how bound up the world was prior to WWI comes from John Maynard Keynes. Below he describes just how eerily similar life in early 20th century London was to today:

The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice.

Speaking of history, if you have a little extra time there was another excellent interview on Charlie Rose with the historian David McCullough about his new book, The Greater Journey: An American in Paris.

Podcast: Joseph Nye on the Future of Power

Link to audio here.

Joseph Nye is a long-time analyst of power and a hands-on practitioner in government. His concept of "soft power" has been adopted by leaders from Britain to China and "smart power" has been adopted as the bumper-sticker for the Obama Administration's foreign policy. In this lecture, drawn from his new book The Future of Power, Nye outlines the major shifts of this century: new transnational challenges such as the financial crisis, global epidemics, and climate change facing an increasingly interconnected world; a changing global political and economic landscape, including the rise of China and India; and the increasing influence of non-state actors. Nye explores what resources now confer power, and argues that, in the information age, it might be the state (or non-state) with the best story. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and a Deputy Under Secretary of State. The author of many books, he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, and the American Academy of Diplomacy.

Bin Laden's 9/11 ROI: a 2,514,000:1 return (and counting)

Al-Qaida pulled-off the Sept. 11 attacks for approximately $500,000, according to the 9/11 Commission report. By the end of fiscal 2011 the U.S. will have spent $1.3 trillion, or 9% of the national debt, fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq according to the Center for Defense Information.

But when it's all said and done the total cost of the wars will make Bin Laden's 2,514,000:1 return at the time of his death multiply dramatically. It has been projected by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and others that the lifetime cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will run to approximately $3 trillion, or over 20% of current federal public debt, when long-term medical care for the wounded and other costs are factored.

Bringing Bin Laden at long last to justice represents a real victory, and since 9/11 Al Qaeda has not executed a successful terrorist attack on American soil. However, in assessing the economic war Al Qaeda has conducted against the U.S. one can't help but conclude that Osama bin Laden has received fantastic bang-for-the-buck.

Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss

“We, alongside the mujahedeen,” bin Laden was reported to have said in a speech delivered right before the 2004 presidential election, “bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw [from Afghanistan] in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

“Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he added.

How Do You Bring Down the Most Powerful Nation in History?

In his biographies of the Rothschild banking dynasty, as well as The Cash Nexus and The Ascent of Money, Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson makes a strong case that a nation's ability to borrow in the bond market is a reflection, and perhaps key wellspring, of the state's power.

For example, the British Empire's ability to borrow more, and at cheaper rates of interest, was key in its defeat of Napoleonic France. In contrast, her crippling post-WWII debt signaled the dawning of a new era for Britain which consisted of economic malaise, military impotency, and periods of currency instability which resulted in dramatic devaluations of pound sterling in both 1949 and 1967.

Today the U.S. Treasury market is the deepest, most liquid bond market in the world. It also serves as a cornerstone of the U.S. dollar's privileged reserve currency status. In times of panic, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis, the world flees other assets for U.S. dollar denominated securities such as T-bills.

Whether or not the U.S.'s bond market is in fact the key pillar of American power is open to debate. What is irrefutable, however, is that displacing the dominant role played by the U.S. dollar and treasuries in the world's financial system would deal a huge, perhaps even mortal, blow to what remains of America's hegemonic power.

There are perhaps several different approaches, but one surefire way to weaken a nation state's currency and ability to borrow is for its government to run persistently large deficits, just as the U.S. has done for the past decade.

Whether Osama bin Laden's original aim for 9/11 was to entice America into engaging in protracted and costly Eurasian wars is revisionist history or fact is unclear. Regardless, Al Qaeda deserves at lease some of the credit for the U.S.'s large deficits, crippling debt load, and weakening currency.

In short, how the financial blow struck by Bin Laden and Al-Qaida will play out over the long-term for the U.S. remains to be seen.

Refreshingly Candid U.S. Senator Graham On Clean Tech, 'Polar Bear Politics', and Why Cap & Trade is DOA

U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham

I'm not sure whether there is something unusual about London or the LSE which triggers frank discourse from U.S. policymakers, or if honest talk is simply de rigueur for policymakers when they venture abroad.

Regardless, I highly encourage you to listen to this talk and Q&A from U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham. He speaks plainly about the the politics of climate change, what a big kick in the pants $5/gallon gasoline is for pols, and how the U.S. can prevent being left behind by China in the race to develop next generation clean technologies.

For more about Graham here is a NY Times Magazine piece from last year, and below is his bio:

Lindsey O. Graham was elected to serve as United States Senator on November 5, 2002. He serves on five committees in the U.S. Senate: Appropriations, Armed Services, Aging, Budget and Judiciary. A native South Carolinian, Graham grew up in Central, graduated from D.W. Daniel High School, and earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Graham logged six-and-a-half years of service on active duty as an Air Force lawyer. From 1984-1988, he was assigned overseas and served at Rhein Mein Air Force Base in Germany. Upon leaving the active duty Air Force in 1989, Graham joined the South Carolina Air National Guard where he served until his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. During the first Gulf War, Graham was called to active duty and served state-side at McEntire Air National Guard Base as Staff Judge Advocate. He received a commendation medal for his service at McEntire. Since 1995, Graham has continued to serve his country in the U.S. Air Force Reserves and is one of only three U.S. Senators currently serving in the Guard or Reserves. He is a colonel and is assigned as a Senior Instructor at the Air Force JAG School.

Video: Niall Ferguson on Nuclear Weapons and Human Rights

1 March 2011 (Part 4 in the lecture series)



Speaker: Professor Niall Ferguson
Chair: Professor Michael Cox

This event was recorded on 1 March 2011 in Old Theatre, Old Building

The decisive breakthroughs in the Cold War occurred in seemingly unrelated fields -- nuclear arms control and human rights. But was the collapse of communism a reflection of imperial overstretch or the result of liberal aspirations for freedom? This event celebrates the publication of Professor Ferguson's new book Civilization: The West and the Rest. Niall Ferguson is Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at LSE IDEAS for 2010-11.

Video: Niall Ferguson moderated debate: 'Out of Europe? The United States in an Asian age'

Speakers: Professor Michael Cox, Professor Arne Westad
Chair: Professor Niall Ferguson

This event was recorded on 2 March 2011 in Old Theatre, Old Building Niall Ferguson argues that the world is now being shaped more by the emerging economies of the East than by the once dominant West. But within the West another kind of power shift is taking place, one that leads to the growing irrelevance of Europe. Is this true? And does it really matter? Michael Cox is professor of international relations at LSE and codirector of LSE IDEAS. Arne Westad is professor of international history at LSE and co-director of LSE IDEAS. Niall Ferguson is Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at LSE IDEAS for 2010-11.

Video: Niall Ferguson Interviewed on WealthTrack

Video: A Bleak Long-Term Economic Picture for Japan?

Predicting the Land of the Rising Sun's future is a complex undertaking, and many a financier has had both their belt and suspenders handed to them from betting on Japan's economic implosion.

I'll admit up front that I don't have a ready prediction that X will happen by Y date. But here are some of the macro elements to keep in mind:

1. Japan is a major surplus country, meaning it produces and sells much more than it consumes. Much of the savings the country generates, which have to go somewhere, have been invested at home in Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) and abroad in U.S. dollar denominated assets. Alongside China, Japan is the second largest holder of U.S. treasury debt with as almost $1 trillion in holdings.

2. While Japan has a breathtaking 200%+ public debt/GDP ratio (the highest in the developed world), 94% of that debt is Japanese owned. What this means, basically, is that so long as the Japanese keep buying JGBs then Japan's fiscal future is in its own hands. In contrast, the U.S. depends on foreigners to finance a large portion of its federal deficit. The thrifty Japanese save enough to finance their Keynesian stimulus policies all by themselves and still have plenty left over to spot Uncle Sam!

Now, the Japanese savings rate has been steadily declining to what would seem an unsustainable level in terms of maintaining the current fiscal course.

Continue reading the full article published on SeekingAlpha here.