Peter schiff: Congress Avoids the Cliff by Selling Us Down the River

 

 

 



By: Peter Schiff       

Thursday, January 3, 2013

 

With the possible exception of the New York Times’ editorial board (and the cast of The Jersey Shore), everyone on the planet understood that the United States Government needs to cut spending, increase taxes, or both. Instead, after months of political posturing and hand wringing, the Federal Government has just delivered the exact opposite, a deal that increases spending and decreases taxes. The move lays bare the emptiness of budget legislation, which can be dismantled far easier than it can be constructed.

One question that should be now asked is whether Moody’s Research will finally join S&P in downgrading the Treasury debt of the United States. After the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which resulted from the Debt Ceiling drama) Moody’s extended its Aaa rating, saying in an August 8 statement:

“…last week’s Budget Control Act was positive for the credit of the United States…. We expect the economic recovery will continue and additional budget deficit reduction initiatives will be put in place by 2013. The political parties now appear to share similar deficit reduction objectives.”

Now that Moody’s has been proven wrong, and the straight jacket that Congress designed for itself has been shown to be illusory (as I always claimed it was), will the rating agency revisit its decision and downgrade the United States? Given the political backlash that greeted S&P’s downgrade in 2011, I doubt that such a move is forthcoming.

For now, the real budget negotiations have been supposedly pushed later into 2013, when the debt ceiling will be confronted anew. But who can really expect anything of substance? The latest deal emerged from a Congress that is nearly two years removed from the next election. As a result, Congressmen were as insulated from political pressures as they could ever expect to be. Nevertheless, they still chose political expediency over sound policy. If Congressional leadership (an oxymoron that should join the ranks of “jumbo shrimp” and “definite maybe”) could not put the national interest in front of political interests now, why would anyone expect them to do so later? They will continue to ignore our fiscal problems until a currency crisis forces their hand. I expect deficits to approach $2 trillion annually before Obama leaves office. Unfortunately, at that point the solutions would be far more draconian than anything economists and politicians are currently considering.

In light of the extensions of the popular middle class tax rates, the loudly trumpeted tax increases on those individuals making more than $400,000 (and couples making more than $450,000) will not be enough to translate into higher tax revenues. Instead they will result in perhaps $60 billion per year in new revenue to the Federal government that will be more than offset by the new spending announced in the agreement. In fact, with the likely passage of the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy aid package, it will have taken Congress less than one week to spend all of the projected revenue.  

But the tax increases will push many individuals in high tax states like California and New York into paying more than 50% of their income in taxes. While many economists are cautioning that higher taxes on the wealthy will take a bite out of spending, in my opinion it is more likely to result in lower business investment, which is far more detrimental to the economy. When faced with diminishing discretionary income, most rich people would sooner cut back on savings and investment than they would on health care, education, home improvements and vacations.

But it should be clear that the rate increases are just the opening crescendo in a symphony of tax hikes on the nation’s entrepreneurial class. President Obama has recently stated that he will consider needed cuts in spending and entitlement programs only if they are coupled with additional tax increases on the wealthy. In other words, as far as the President is concerned, the hikes included in the budget agreement that was just passed didn’t count for anything. 

It cannot, or should not, be denied that Washington’s latest fig leaf will have a major impact on the markets. The New Year’s “relief rally” is understandable given the clear implications that the government will simply print its way out of trouble for as long as it can. In the past, fiscal profligacy was held in check by investors who would sell bonds and push interest rates higher whenever it appeared that the government was not serious about national solvency. But with the Federal Reserve now buying the vast majority of U.S. government debt, no such roadblock exists. With monetary and fiscal stimulus pushing up stock and bond prices, and no immediate fear of a rally-killing spike in interest rates, there is no reason to stay on the sidelines. Markets are now driven by stimulus, not fundamentals, and the stimulus is firmly at the wheel. (For more on this – see the article in the January edition of Euro Pacific’s Global Investment Newsletter). But it is important to look at the nature of the rally. Most significantly we would bring investors’ attention to the increase in gold and oil and other assets that are expected to outperform in an inflationary economy. Our new Newsletter edition also includes an analysis of some of the more promising overseas markets.

But by taking the nominal risk out of investing, the government is insuring that the risks to the U.S. economy will grow exponentially. We are now – and will remain – a debt-fueled economy for as long as the rest of the world permits this to continue. But this is no way to create real, sustainable economic growth. On the contrary, it will simply permit the growth of government, the depletion of economic vitality, and ultimately the collapse of the U.S. dollar.   

In the meantime, President Obama and Congressional leaders will take credit for a tax cut that is in reality a huge tax increase in disguise. Government spending is the real source of taxpayers’ pain and it is only a matter of time before the bill comes due in the form of inflation. See our Newsletter for fresh analysis as to why inflation may already be higher than you think. Because the deficits will grow even larger, more purchasing power will be lost in this manner than would have been lost had all the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire. In addition, though entitlement cuts were taken off the table, the real value of benefits could be slashed, as cost of living adjustments fail to keep up with skyrocketing consumer prices. That’s a Fiscal Cliff that will not be so easy to avoid.

Read More by Peter Schiff

Late to The Party…Once Again (Peter Schiff)

By: Peter Schiff
Euro Pacific Capital
Monday, April 18, 2011

The only thing more ridiculous than S and P’s too little too late semi-downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt was the market’s severe reaction to the announcement. Has S and P really added anything to the debate that wasn’t already widely known? In any event, S and P’s statement amounts to a wakeup call to anyone who has somehow managed to sleepwalk through the unprecedented debt explosion of the last few years.

Given S and P’s concerns that Congress will fail to address its long-term fiscal problems, on what basis can it conclude that the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating? The highest possible rating should be reserved for fiscally responsible nations where the fiscal outlook is crystal clear. If S and P has genuine concerns that the U.S. will not deal with its out of control deficits, the AAA rating should be reduced right now.

By its own admission, S and P is unsure whether Congress will take the necessary steps to get America’s fiscal house in order. Given that uncertainty, it should immediately reduce its rating on U.S. sovereign debt several notches below AAA. Then if the U.S. does get its fiscal house in order, the AAA rating could be restored. If on the other hand, the situation deteriorates, additional downgrades would be in order.

AAA is the highest rating S and P can give. It is the Wall Street equivalent to a “strong buy.” If a stock analyst has serious concerns that a company may go bankrupt, would he maintain a “strong buy” on the assumption that there was still a possibility that bankruptcy could be averted? If the company declared bankruptcy, would the analyst reduce his rating from “strong buy” to “accumulate”?

In truth, if bankruptcy is even possible, the rating should be reduced to “hold,” at best. Only if the outlook improves to the point where bankruptcy is out of the picture should a stock be upgraded to “buy.” A “hold” rating would at least send the message to potential buyers that problems loom. Then if the company does declare bankruptcy, at least it does not do so sporting a “buy” rating.

Of course, by shifting to a negative outlook, S and P will try to have its cake and eat it too. In the unlikely event that Congress does act responsibly to restore fiscal prudence, its AAA would be validated. If on the other hand, out of control deficits lead to outright default or hyperinflation, it will hang its hat on the timely warning of its negative outlook. This is like a stock analyst putting a strong buy on a stock, but qualifying the rating as being speculative.

The bottom line is that the AAA rating on U.S. sovereign debt is pure politics. S and P simply does not have the integrity to honestly rate U.S. debt. It has too cozy a relationship with the U.S. government and Wall Street to threaten the status quo. In fact, given the culpability of the rating agencies in the financial crisis, it may well be a quid pro quo that as long as the U.S.’ AAA rating is maintained, the rating agencies will continue to enjoy their government sanctioned monopolies, and that no criminal or civil charges will be filed related to inappropriately rated mortgage-backed securities.

Remember S and P had investment grade, AAA, ratings on countless mortgage-backed securities right up until the moment the paper became worthless. Amazingly, the rating agencies somehow maintained their status, and their ability to move markets, after the dust settled.

Currently, they are making the same mistake with U.S. Treasuries. Once it becomes obvious to everyone that the U.S. will either default on its debt or inflate its obligations away, S&P might downgrade treasuries to AA+. Such a move will be of little comfort to those investors left holding the bag.

In its analysis of U.S. solvency, S and P typically factors in the government’s ability to print its way out of any fiscal jam. As a result, it applies a very different set of criteria in its analysis of investment risk than it would for a private company, or even a government whose currency has no reserve status. But the agency completely fails to consider how reckless printing will impact the value of the dollar itself. It can assure investors that they will be repaid, but the agency doesn’t spare a thought about what if anything our creditors may be able to buy with their dollars.


More Peter Schiff

The Two Faces of Bernanke (Peter Schiff)

By: Peter Schiff
Euro Pacific Capital
Thursday, February 10, 2011

Based on his recent public comments, Fed Chairman Bernanke seems determined to give the U.S. dollar the reputation of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak: an unwanted relic of the past that everyone agrees must go, but stubbornly clings to a privileged position. The dollar is currently the world’s ruling currency, but, as with Mubarak, I believe that growing public discontent will spur regime change quicker than most pundits expect.

Clearly, the most significant problem facing central bankers around the world is the recent eruption of inflation, which is sparking unrest in Asia and the Middle East. With respect to this issue, Bernanke is alternating his responses through two different personas.

Sometimes he chooses to act like Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister who, in the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued to deny the presence of American troops even as U.S. tanks rumbled behind him. The parallel to Bernanke's testimony to Congress today is striking.

Speaking to the House Budget Committee, Baghdad Ben not only claimed that there is no evidence of overall inflation in the U.S., but that even food and energy prices are rising less than 1% annually. This is simply not true. He then claimed that the Fed’s massive QE purchases of U.S. Treasuries do not distort the yield curve, despite the fact that he has stated repeatedly that the program was specifically designed to lower long-term rates.

The reason behind these lies should be evident. Acknowledging inflationary threats would force him to raise rates. But Baghdad Ben knows that the current economic “expansion” is a lie built on a weak foundation of ultra-low interest rates. He knows that even marginally higher rates will trigger a savage return to recession. In his view, the only choice is to sell us an elaborate fiction – even when it obviously conflicts with the facts.

At other times, Chairman Bernanke assumes the persona of Marie Antoinette by professing regal indifference to how his own actions negatively impact the great unwashed. In a rare Fed press conference last week, Bennie Antoinette showcased this “let them eat cake” attitude by declaring that U.S. monetary policy is solely designed to benefit the U.S., and that any adverse consequences in other countries are not his problem. As a result, he broadly absolved the Fed of any blame for global inflation, putting it instead on foreign governments for not allowing their currencies to appreciate and for keeping their interest rates too low.

It is this type of attitude from our top monetary policy maker – to either deny inflation or to lay blame elsewhere – that will accelerate the day of reckoning for the dollar.

Amazingly, for all its flaws, the buck remains the world’s reserve currency. So, for now, the U.S. continues to enjoy all the rights and privileges that come from that status, including lower consumer prices and lower interest rates. But along with those benefits comes the great responsibility of not conducting monetary policy in a vacuum. Since the dollar is the benchmark currency, when it is debased, other currencies must follow suit. Because of the massive printing effort underway for some time now, the dollar has gone from an instrument of stability to an instrument of inflation.

A reserve currency must not go on in perpetual decline. Since abandoning the dollar as a reserve implies radical change with unknown consequences, governments have been very reluctant to take the chance. So, they are acting to preserve the status quo. But, in so doing, they're creating inflation in their own countries. Unfortunately, this strategy may prove more risky in the end.

Other factors are also influencing foreign central bankers to stick with the devil they know. For one, as emerging markets compete to export to the United States, no one wants to surrender what it perceives to be its competitive advantage. None of these governments yet understand that if the dollar were to collapse, new customers would be instantly created in those countries whose currencies appreciate against the dollar.

Emerging markets also feel obligated to protect the value of the trillions of dollars that they already hold in reserve. Like traders throwing good money after bad, their instinct is to average down their cost of their position. The reality is that the more dollars they buy, the more they will ultimately lose. Once they realize that the rise in their own currency will more than offset their dollar losses, they will cut their losses and run.

When emerging-market governments decide they do not want to eat Bennie's cake, but rather keep their own bread prices from rising, they will have to pursue the tighter monetary policies. When that happens, the dollar will lose its reserve status.

When the rest of the world no longer links their currencies to ours, the Fed will truly not have to worry about fueling global inflation. Instead, all of its inflation will burn through our banks accounts right here at home. And that blaze, so concentrated, will burn a lot hotter than the fires we see abroad. Add'l Commentaries from Peter Schiff

Forever Stamps Tell Us Much (Peter Schiff)

By: Peter Schiff
Friday, December 31, 2010

The United States Postal Service announced this week that all future first class postage stamps sold will be the so–called “forever stamps” that have no face value but are guaranteed to cover the cost of mailing a first class letter, regardless of how high that cost may rise in the future. Currently these stamps are sold for 44 cents, but will increase in price if and when the Post Office hikes rates.

Apart from sounding the death knell of the one cent stamp, the news is interesting on two fronts: it provides insight into remarkably irresponsible government accounting, and it provides investors with the most attractive Federally-guaranteed inflation protected asset available on the market today.

Over the past fifty years, the USPS has raised the rates on first class postage 20 times. During that time the stamp prices have gone up more than 1,100%. Given the increasing frequency of rate hikes (three in the last four years) the Post Office claims it made the move to forever stamps to save money on printing costs and to increase customer convenience. The public seems to appreciate the product and has snapped up a staggering 28 billion forever stamps since they became available in 2007.

But the real reason behind the permanent switch is that it allows the Post Office to hide its insolvency behind phony accounting numbers, setting itself up for a massive taxpayer financed bailout in the not too distant future.

Much the way Greece used phony accounting to qualify for euro zone inclusion, the USPS is using creative accounting to avoid making significant cuts in current wages and benefits. By offering forever stamps, the Post Office moves forward future revenues to pay current expenses. But every forever stamp sold today represents a stamp not sold in the future. The revenues booked now will not be put in escrow to deal with revenue shortfalls that are guaranteed to plague the Post Office in the years ahead. This simply kicks farther down the road any intractable fiscal problems that the USPS can’t solve through more conventional means.

The Post Office also ignores that their ability to sell higher priced forever stamps in the future will be restricted. Those individuals and institutions who hoard the stamps now could offer them for sale in competition with the Post Office. Even though the Post Office will not redeem forever stamps for cash, there is no law against reselling them for whatever price the market will bear. How many forever stamps will the Post Office be able to sell at full price if customers can buy them at a discount on Ebay?

On that note, forever stamps provide the most conservative investors with a much more attractive alternative to zero interest checking accounts, low yielding Treasury bonds, or even inflation protected government securities (known as TIPS).

Given these stamps will always be completely liquid, the only way an investor can lose money on forever stamps is if the price of postage goes down. There may not be a single human on the planet who thinks that this is a likely scenario. On the other hand, if postage rates rise with inflation then the stamps are a very, very safe bet.

And unlike Treasury bonds or TIPS, investors do not have to pay a premium above face value for the privilege of buying stamps. While it is true that stamps do not pay interest, the extremely low rate offered by government securities should not fundamentally alter the investment calculations comparing bonds with stamps. More significantly, stamps are backed by an actual tangible service, postal delivery, whereas U.S. Treasury debt is backed by nothing but a printing press.

Forever stamps are about as close to a sure thing as most people will ever get. Over the past 10 years stamps are up 29%, while the S and P 500 is up a measly .1%. With labor and other costs continuing to mount inside the Post Office, there can be little doubt that many price hikes are coming. Minimum investment in forever stamps is just 44 cents, with no brokerage fees. Plus as an added bonus, if you use the stamps yourself, you pay no income tax on your capital gains.

Sure, without a federal bailout there is a chance the Post Office will go under, and those forever stamps will end up lining bird cages. However, given the track record of government bailouts and the clout of unionized postal workers, chances are very high that the Post Office will always get the bailouts it needs. As a result, forever stamps are a better bet than Treasury debt. They also have prettier pictures.

For Whom the Bell Tolls (Peter Schiff)

Peter Schiff
More of Peter Schiff
Friday, December 17, 2010

There is an old adage on Wall Street: no one rings a bell to signal a market top or bottom. Yet, I have found that bells do ring; it’s just that few people know exactly what sound to listen for.

Perhaps the biggest and most liquid of all markets is for US government bonds. That market has been rallying for almost thirty years. The bull can be traced back to 1981, when Treasury bond yields peaked at about 15%. At that time, high inflation and a weakening dollar had justifiably squelched demand for Treasuries. Even the ultra-high interest rates were not enough to attract buyers.

But this was also when the proverbial bell was rung. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had signaled, by jacking up interest rates so high, that he would stop at nothing to break the back of inflation. Volcker's iron will, and Reagan's unflinching support, restored demand for Treasuries for the next three decades.

We have arrived today at a similar inflection point. After falling steadily for 30 years, bond yields are now heading north with a full head of steam.

Many are taking the recent moves in stride. The consensus is that despite the recent spike, yields are still historically low, and that they are unlikely to go much higher from here. Once again, most on Wall Street are either tone deaf or plugging their ears.

For years, the Fed has been able to prevent market forces from correcting our growing economic imbalances by inexorably pushing rates lower. This happened in 1991, 2001, and most notably in 2008. These easing campaigns succeeded in boosting the economy in the short term by greatly increasing the amount of debt held by both the private and public sectors. As such, these episodes have allowed our economy to delay and magnify the ultimate reckoning.

Just like a junkie who requires ever-increasing doses of heroine to achieve the same high, the Fed has needed to take rates ever lower to boost the economy after its previous stimulants had faded.

To stimulate after the bursting of the housing bubble (which itself resulted from the low interest rates used to juice the economy following the bursting of the dot-com bubble), the Fed lowered interest rates to practically zero. At that point, rates could go no lower. However, when that stimulus failed, the Fed decided to bring on the heavy artillery in the form of “quantitative easing,” or as it is known in the vernacular, “printing money to buy government debt.”

Lowering the federal funds rate, its traditional weapon, tends to make the most impact on short-duration debt. By its own words, the goal of quantitative easing (QE) was to lower long-term interest rates. It was hoped that this would achieve what low short-term rates had not: an increase in stock and real estate prices, a rise in household wealth, and consequently greater consumer spending, economic growth, and job creation.

However, the Fed’s plan backfired. The selling pressure on long-term bonds is overwhelming the Fed’s buying pressure. Spiking rates (which move inversely to price) are powerful evidence that the bond bubble has finally burst. The Fed threw everything but the kitchen sink at the bond market to force yields lower, yet they rose anyway. If bond prices failed to rise given such a Herculean effort to lift them up, there can be only one direction for them to go: down.

In true form, few on Wall Street hear the ringing. In a shocking display of rationalizing cognitive dissonance, some (such as Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel in a WSJ op-ed) have even suggested that the spike in yields is proof that quantitative easing is working. Siegel heralded higher rates as indicative of economic resurgence, which supposedly was the Fed’s goal all along. In other words, QE2 worked so well, we skipped the lower rates and went directly to the higher rates that go with growth!

There is also a widespread belief that long-term rates will remain contained at historically low levels. Four percent is seen as the ceiling above which ten-year yields will not rise. I believe this ceiling will prove to be of the thinnest glass. Once yields easily break that level, they may quickly rise above five percent, where they will likely encounter some resistance, before heading significantly higher.

In fact, if rates approach six percent next year, we will be seeing a ten-year high in ten-year yields. If our economy is this fragile with record low rates, image how much weaker it will be with rates at ten-year highs? If the Fed believes that lower rates revive an economy through the 'wealth effect,' what does the Fed feel will happen when higher rates produce a reverse 'wealth effect'?

Not only does this bell herald the end of the bond bull, but it also marks the end of the Fed’s ability to artificially engender economic “growth” through monetary policy. More significantly, the new tax compromise President Obama is about to sign will add more than $900 billion in new debt onto the government’s balance sheet over the next 10 years. This will put additional upward pressure on interest rates, and more political pressure on the Fed to monetize the debt. It is no coincidence that the real upward movement in yields began immediately after the tax/stimulus deal was brokered in Washington.

What lies ahead is a new era of rising interest rates, soaring consumer prices, increasing unemployment, economic stagnation, and lower living standards. Instead of stimulating the economy, quantitative easing and deficit spending will prove to be a lethal combination. Bondholders beware, the bell tolls for thee.

Washington Orders Another Free Lunch (Peter Schiff)

By: Peter Schiff
Euro Pacific Capital
Friday, December 10, 2010

This week Washington displayed the kind of “bipartisanship” that will bankrupt our country and wreck our currency. Coming at a time when both parties say they want to address our long-term fiscal imbalances, the compromise extension of the Bush era tax cuts should be a wake-up call to anyone who somehow expected the American leadership to ever have an “adult conversation” about the country’s long term economic health.

The administration and Congress are prepared to take the bold political move of not raising some taxes while significantly lowering others and greatly expanding Federal benefits. The entire cost of the $900 billion package will be financed entirely by adding to the national debt. Talk about tough love. While other countries consider ways to live within their means, Washington is intent on devising ever more creative ways to delay the day of reckoning.

While Democrats wanted more government spending,they were unwilling to vote for broad-based middle class tax increases to pay for it. Instead they want what Democrats have always wanted: higher taxes on the “rich.” Republicans want lower taxes, but as has become typical, they were unwilling to cut government spending to enable it. By running up the deficit both sides get what they want without any political sacrifice.Sure, they break their campaign promise to cut the deficit, but the political fallout that results will be far less costly than voting for the tax hikes or spending cuts.

In truth however, there are no real tax cuts in this proposal. The true burden of government is not measured by how much it taxes but how much it spends. Since this deal ensures that government will be more expensive next year than it was this year, American citizens will have to shoulder the added cost. Just because Congress has decided to deliver the bill with debt rather than current taxes does not mean that the spending will not be paid for. The only thing the plan accomplishes is to alter the means by which government spending is financed.

If we had a truly independent Federal Reserve (one that was not willing to buy all the excess government debt) these larger deficits would make much more of an immediate and discernable impact on the financial markets and the economy. A glut of government debt should lead to much higher interest rates. Higher government borrowing also tends to divert savings and investment capital that would otherwise flow into the jobs-creating private sector. However, with the Fed engaging in quantitative easing, Ben Bernanke’s “Sixty Minutes” denial notwithstanding, the money needed to buy the additional debt is simply printed. As such,the nasty side effects have been avoided in the short term. Instead we are set up for more inflation and a weaker dollar down the road.

Those who understand the implications of the “inflation tax” have already moved savings and investments out of U.S. dollars,expecting that the value of their savings and investments would diminish as a result of the inflation the Fed creates. In addition, working Americans will see the real values of their paychecks fall, as consumer price increases outpace the gains in after tax incomes.

As a result, this plan will do nothing to help our economy. The benefits of holding taxes low will be more than mitigated by damage done by larger deficits. In fact, despite the Fed’s efforts to artificially suppress interest rates, the fear of larger deficits is already driving rates up. Many on Wall Street have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that rates are rising because this new fiscal stimulus will spur economic growth, which in turn will make further quantitative easing unnecessary. In truth, the only thing this plan will stimulate is larger deficits, meaning the Fed will be forced to do more, not less QE in an effort to restrain rates.

It is the fear of additional QE that has really spooked the bond market. Sure Fed buying might initially boost treasury prices, but as the additional dollars created to buy the bonds work their way into the economy, rising consumer prices erode the present value of the bonds.

Unfortunately, nothing in the plan addresses the fundamental economic imbalances that underlie our economy and that brought us to the brink of ruin in the first place. What we really need are massive cuts in government spending so we can have true tax relief. In addition, we need to remove the government-imposed barriers which make our economy uncompetitive, and which are preventing market forces from correcting the imbalances. By expanding government and increasing debt, the plan puts us farther than we have ever been from a real recovery.

There Was a Fed Chairman Who Swallowed a Fly (Peter Schiff)

By: Peter Schiff
Tuesday, November 9, 2010

While it’s true that history repeats itself, the patterns should always be separated by a generation or two to keep things respectable. Unfortunately, in today’s economic world, it seems the cycle can be counted in months.

On July 24, 2009, just as the Federal Reserve unleashed its first quantitative easing campaign (now called “QE1” – an echo of the reclassification of the Great War after still more destructive subsequent developments), Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal to soothe growing concerns about excess liquidity. He assured the public that the Fed had an “exit strategy.”

In a response entitled “No Exit for Ben”, I called the Chairman’s bluff. I argued that the Fed had no exit strategy, and that Bernanke was trying to fool the market into believing that quantitative easing was not debt monetization.

Just 16 months later, Bernanke is at it again, penning another op-ed to defend his second round of QE. Except this time, instead of feigning an exit strategy, he just outlines a path to expand the program in perpetuity.

In recent months, Fed economists have taken great pains to tell us how much better off the economy is now than it was in the first half of 2009. Given this supposed good news, what prompted the current turnaround in policy? Could it be, perhaps, that perpetual easing was the policy all along?

Should we expect another op-ed in a few months in which Bernanke tries to reassure us that QE3 will not over-liquefy the market? How much longer can the Fed play this game before the public and the markets wise up?

The reason I knew QE1 would fail, and that the Fed had no exit strategy (other than more rounds of easing), is because the remedy is totally flawed. If Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, had engaged in prudent monetary policy, we never would have arrived at the point of desperation that made quantitative easing a palatable option. However, we did, and Bernanke’s understanding of economics is so remedial that making the right choice is essentially impossible for him. Now, we are caught in a vicious circle of spending, borrowing, and easing.

In his most recent op-ed, Bernanke rather envisions a “virtuous circle” in which QE2 causes stock prices to rise, which then “boost[s] consumer wealth, and increase[s] confidence.” The wealth effect, in turn, “spur[s] spending and produce[s] higher incomes and profits,” which finally “support[s] economic expansion and promote[s] increased employment.”

Despite the devastation of the Fed’s previous burst bubbles (stocks in ’99 and real estate in ‘08), Bernanke still believes in the virtue of pumping. His current policy is to inflate another stock market bubble to cure the recession that resulted from the bursting of the housing bubble, which was itself inflated to counter the effects of the bursting tech stock bubble. Does the story of the old lady who swallowed the fly come to mind? She eventually tried swallowing a horse, and we know how that ended. It’s hard to decide who is more culpable for the strategy: Bernanke for selling it or the country for buying it.

In the 16 months since Bernanke assured us that QE1 would not jeopardize price stability, oats prices are up 40%, concentrated orange juice up 45%, gold and rice up 50%, corn up 55%, coffee up 60%, copper up 70%, sugar up 90%, and cotton and silver up 100%! (The sluggish Dow Jones Industrials are “only” up 30%.)

Last week, Kraft Foods reported a 26% rise in third quarter revenue; however, because of steeply rising material costs, profits actually dropped 8.5% over the same period. If Bernanke is correct in assuming that consumer prices will stay low, the only way Kraft shares could go up would be for the market to assign much higher multiples to lower earnings. You can hope that will happen, but it’s not a wise bet.

Given that QE2 will also push down the dollar against foreign currencies, companies exporting to the US will face the same bind as Kraft. If foreign suppliers don’t raise prices, a weaker dollar will cut into their profits.

My guess is that neither foreign nor domestic companies will take the hit, but pass the costs along to consumers. Rising prices will soon became a daily occurrence on Main Street, not just in the stock market.

For all the wrangling over extending the Bush tax cuts, no one seems bothered by the continuation of the Bernanke tax increases. For the typical American wage earner, the inflation tax will more than offset the benefits of slightly lower income taxes. Savers and retirees will suffer the most as the interest paid on their assets continues to fall and the purchasing power of their principal is eroded.

In reality, quantitative easing will produce the exact opposite of its intended result. In the short-run, it may create the illusion of economic growth and temporarily add some service sector jobs, but once the QE ends, the growth and jobs will vanish. Then, the Fed will most likely try once again to douse the fire it started with another round of QE gasoline, creating an even larger and less manageable inferno. Let’s hope we can change policy before the whole economy burns to a cinder.

Fed's Hoenig: further easing would be dangerous! Are you listening Ben? Do you listen to anyone Ben?

Do You Listen to Anyone Ben Bernanke?

The Fed, both now and under Greenspan, expressed no concern with

the later stages of investment bubbles.

(Jeremy Grantham)

“Check writing in the trillions is not a bondholder’s friend; it is in fact

inflationary, and, if truth be told, somewhat of a Ponzi scheme..."

(Bill Gross)

The U.S. economy is a "fiscal train wreck" waiting to happen...further

quantitative  easing will have little effect on U.S. growth in 2011."  

(Nouriel Roubini )

"Quantitative easing is more likely to stimulate corporations to devour

each other than to create employment."

(George Soros)

"I expect the coming doses of quantitative easing will finally spark adverse

reactions, first in the dollar and later in the bond market. When a falling

dollar forces consumer prices and long-term interest rates to rise,

the Fed's actions will be rendered impotent."

(Peter Schiff)

"I tried to make clear that I regard that (QE-2) as the wrong way to go.

An excessive, permanent increase in money is, in my view,

an indirect manipulation of the exchange rate.”

(German Finance Minister at the Korean G 20)

In other words, by perpetuating an artificially low 10-year government

bond rate, the Fed may be delaying (even if very modestly, given the

modest impact of the action on long rates) the very fiscal policy action that

the nationmost needs, while doing little to boost an economy whose

principal problem is not high long-term interest rates.

( Peter Orzag)

Let's Try It One More Time Ben...Ben...Ben

Reporting by Jonathan Lynn
10/30/10

(Reuters) - Slight deflation is just as acceptable as low inflation, said a senior Federal Reserve official who has persistently dissented against Fed easy money policies, repeating that further easing would be dangerous.

Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig said the Fed should not have an inflation target but he would like to see an inflation rate of zero.

Prospects of very low inflation, and the resulting low nominal interest rates that give a central bank little room to cut rates sharply in a crisis, is misplaced as it does not allow monetary policy enough time to take effect, Hoenig said in an interview in Saturday's issue of Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung.

The interview with Hoenig, who has used all six of his votes in 2010 to dissent against the Fed's pledge to hold rates "exceptionally low" for "an extended period," was conducted on October 26 -- the same day that Hoenig warned in a speech that further easing could be dangerous.

The Fed is expected to approve a new round of "quantitative easing" -- essentially printing money by buying bonds -- at its next policy meeting on November 2/3 because many senior officials fear that low inflation could turn into deflation that would make it harder for companies and households to pay off their debts -- already a drag on the U.S. economy.

VOTE
Under the Fed's system of rotating voting positions for regional bank presidents, Hoenig has a vote on the policy-making federal open-market committee (FOMC) this year but not in 2011.

"A little deflation is no worse than a little inflation," Hoenig said in the interview, published in German.

The situation was not comparable with the Great Depression, when prices fell by 20 percent, which was just as bad as price increases of 20 percent, he said. "Wanting higher inflation is not the same as preventing strong deflation," Hoenig said.

A central bank should aim over time to hold prices stable, or at most tolerate very low inflation, and it was dangerous to argue that monetary policy could reduce unemployment without stoking inflation.

Hoenig said that quantitative easing had succeeded in kick-starting the financial markets but now it had diminishing returns and now that the crisis was over the Fed should allow markets to function normally and reduce its portfolio by allowing bonds it had purchased to mature.

Hoenig cited estimates that long-term rates would fall 25-30 basis points if the Fed embarked on a new round of large-scale quantitative easing.

The Fed had always been quick to pump money into the system in a crisis but slow to withdraw liquidity afterwards, he said. "Thus the Fed is risking higher inflation for a very small incremental benefit in the form of slightly lower long-term interest rates. I'm not prepared to run that risk," he said.

Hoenig recalled that the Fed had eased monetary policy sharply in 2003 as an insurance against deflation. "We paid a horrific premium for that if you look at the recent recession. I still believe that the costs of such a policy are higher than generally assumed," he said.

It's scary how clueless Bernanke is...per Peter Schiff

As expected, Ben Bernanke provided a rational for more quantitative easing Friday, declaring: "Inflation is running at rates that are too low relative to the levels the [FOMC] judges to be most consistent with the Federal Reserve's dual mandate" of price stability and full employment.

Predictably, Euro Pacific Capital president Peter Schiff wholeheartedly disagrees with that - and just about everything else Bernanke says.

"It's scary how clueless Bernanke is," Schiff says, noting the dollar is at or near record lows vs. several major currencies and commodities from agriculture to zinc are soaring.

"That is inflation," he says, dismissing this morning's tame CPI data as hedonically adjusted government fiction. "As money loses value prices are going to rise because you need more diminished dollars to buy goods and services."

Moreover, Bernanke's suggestion that more inflation will spur employment growth is the really "crazy thing" in today's speech, Schiff says. "You don't create jobs by creating inflation," he says. "You create jobs by reducing regulation and lowering taxes."

A pure libertarian and devote of the Austrian school of economics, Schiff expressed two main concern about Bernanke's policies:

One, the government is trying to prop up an economy based on debt-fueled consumption, rather than letting it "restructure," albeit from much lower levels.

Two, more quantitative easing will lead to more big government.

"What Ben Bernanke is saying to Congress is ‘run up the deficits because I'm going to monetize it for you,'" Schiff says. "He is enabling the government to get bigger, which is going to make employment worse, not better. He's throwing gasoline on a fire."

Peter Schiff: In the end, our bubble economy will not just deflate, it will burst.

By: Peter Schiff
Friday, October 8, 2010

Since the US economy has failed to recover as widely predicted, pressure on the Federal Reserve to conjure a solution has increased. In fact, the Fed now faces the hardest choices in its history. It can either redouble its past efforts to re-inflate America’s bubble economy (risking the destruction of the US dollar) or it can stop pumping and let the economy deflate to a self-sustaining level. Unfortunately, both choices guarantee severe economic pain – but only one offers the possibility of ultimate success.

Today’s news that the economy lost 95,000 jobs in September confirms that record doses of stimulus have failed to create a real recovery. The loss of 159,000 government jobs in the month could have been a positive if those lost positions had been replaced by wealth-generating private sector jobs. But the 65,000 jobs generated by businesses didn’t come close. Worse still, most of these jobs came from the goods-consuming service sector rather than the goods-producing manufacturing sector (which lost another 6,000 jobs). The unemployment rate has now been above 9.5% for 14 consecutive months, the longest such streak since monthly records began in 1948. More importantly, the real unemployment rate, which factors in discouraged and under-employed workers, rose from 16.7% to 17.1%.

Armed with this weak jobs report, the Fed seems poised to make good on its plan for other round of quantitative easing (in English: printing money). Recent statement from top Fed governors have made that sentiment clear. Apparently they feel that they must do something, even though Fed inaction would be far better for the economy. At a time when we should be trusting the markets to grind out three yards in a cloud of dust, we have put our faith in the Fed’s ability to fling a Hail Mary pass, even though all previous attempts have failed.

Most people assume that the “crash” I referred to in my 2007 book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse” occurred in 2008. Those who actually read the book know otherwise. The financial crisis that resulted from the bursting of the housing bubble, accurately foretold in my book, was not the crash itself, but merely the overture to a much more tragic economic opera for which the curtain is just now rising.

I argued that the housing bust would threaten the financial system with collapse and that the government would react with stimulus and bailouts – thereby making the situation much worse. That is exactly what happened. I did not believe then, and I don’t believe now, that the process of liquidating bad debt would kill us. But I do believe we will succumb to Washington’s “cure” of endless stimulus.

Many now claim that government deficits and Fed easing prevented a repeat of the Great Depression. From my perspective, calamity was not averted but merely delayed. The price for the reprieve will be a far more severe downturn, which I now think will surpass the Great Depression.

In Crash Proof, I talked about how our economy suffered from the co-morbid diseases of asset bubbles, excessive debt and consumption, and insufficient savings, capital investment, and production. These conditions did not arise as a result of market forces, but from foolish monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies that distorted market forces. The proper cure would have been to remove the distortions and allow the markets to correct.

Unfortunately, as I forecast, the opposite occurred. Washington lacked the economic understanding and the political will to allow for a painful adjustment to take place. So, instead, they cranked up the printing presses and administered the equivalent of economic heroine. The drugs succeeded in postponing the pain, but at the expense of exacerbating the underlying condition. As the high wears off, a more debilitating hangover will set in.

By electing to bail out the financial sector, prop up housing prices, allow excess spending and borrowing to continue, and maintain superfluous government and service-sector jobs, the government has pushed our economy to the edge of a very dangerous precipice.

The right choice is to admit past mistakes and reverse course. The Fed must raise interest rates aggressively, shrink its bloated balance sheet, and allow the real recession to finally run its course. It will be much more painful now than it would have been in 2008, but at least this time the pain will end and real recovery will take hold. By forcing the federal and state governments to slash spending, sound monetary policy will allow market forces to rebuild a solid foundation upon which future prosperity may be built.

The wrong choice is for the Fed to continue quantitative easing as planned, allowing the government to grow at the expense of the economy. This will widen the economic imbalances that lie at the root of our problems. As a side effect, the US dollar will continue spiraling downward as it becomes clear to foreign creditors that the Fed has no interest in protecting their investments. A weaker dollar will lead to higher inflation and higher interest rates, which will make the Fed’s task that much more difficult.

In the end, our bubble economy will not just deflate, it will burst. The dollar will collapse, consumer prices will skyrocket, real credit will completely evaporate, millions more will lose their jobs, and our economy will change in ways few of us can imagine. Our standard of living will plummet and legions of middle- and upper-class Americans will be impoverished. It is not a pretty picture, but unfortunately, it’s the one our government is painting. Unfortunately, we are running out of time to change artists.

Peter Schiff Responds to William Dudley and the Federal Reserve

By: Peter Schiff
Friday, October 1, 2010

NY Fed President William Dudley's outrageous statements today closely conform to recent pronouncements from other Fed officials and confirm that a massive round of dollar devaluation is poised to begin.

Seemingly overnight, the Fed appears to have altered its mandate, ditching its former goal of "price stability" in favor of "moderate price inflation." While no one is under the illusion that the Fed has kept prices stable over the last century, it used to be that the governors would at least pretend to fight inflation. Low inflation used to be the aim, now it's the enemy.

Although the inflation being created by the Fed may not be showing up immediately in rising rents or auto prices, it is nevertheless pushing up asset prices in other areas. Many commentators are celebrating the "best September for the Dow and S and P in 71 years," rising 7.7% and 8.8% respectively. Well, it was also a pretty great September for soybeans (up 9.5%), rice (up 10%), oil (up 11%), corn (up 12.2%), orange juice (up 13%), cotton (up 17.5%), and sugar (up 19.3%). In fact, the whole CRB is up 8.7%. The Swiss franc is up 4.6%, the euro up 7%, the Aussie dollar up 9%. Gold is at all-time highs, silver at 30-year highs, and copper at 3-year highs.

In other words, the box of Uncle Ben's in my kitchen cabinet had a better month than the Dow Jones Industrials. The same could be said for the boxer shorts in my dresser. Could it be that the Dow isn't rising, but the dollar falling?

Dudley says it may take "several years" before inflation returns to levels consistent with the Fed's mandate. Exactly when did the Fed establish a floor for "acceptable inflation?" Where is that floor, 2%? (The core PCE index is currently up 1.4% for the year) If we are below the floor, where's the ceiling- 3%? 4%? In 1971, President Nixon imposed price controls when inflation averaged 4%. That rate was considered so high that emergency measures were needed. Is that still the case? How much higher do costs have to go for cash-strapped Americans before the Fed can be expected to take its foot off the gas?

Without better understanding of where these parameters lie for the Fed, the markets will be flying blind through an impenetrable fog.

If the Fed were serious about maintaining long-term price stability, which is its actual mandate, it would need to allow prices to fall after the speculative booms that it helped create. As we saw in the 1980s, unemployment resolves itself when the monetary system is sound, but no one will hire under the uncertainty of a rogue, inflationary Federal Reserve.

As people on fixed incomes, increasingly impoverished by low yields and rising prices, desperately re-enter the work force, look for unemployment to head higher.

Dylan Ratigan with Peter Schiff and Henry Blodget discuss the state of housing and our economy

Dylan Ratigan Peter Schiff and Henry Blodget discuss the state of housing and our economy. Peter Schiff notes that it's too bad congress can't tax stupidity as if they could, they would pay off the deficit. Henry notes there are too many houses and too much debt.

Peter Schiff addresses the phony economy. The government is bleeding Main Street dry to feed Wall Street.

Peter Schiff: The bond market is the mother of all bubbles

Peter Schiff and Marc Faber explaining risk reality to CNBC varsity cheerleaders.

"The bond market is the mother of all bubbles right now and I think when it bursts the losses will dwarf the combined losses of the stock market bubble and the real estate bubble. The problem is that there is no way for the government to pay things back, the only way they could do that would be tax increases which are horrendous and would never be accomplished..."

"This decade will be the worst decade for bonds in US history..."

At 7:00 am CDT Tuesday, August 24th, the bond market continues its rally as the 10 year treasury is printing 2.54% (down from 2.61% Monday) and lowest level since March 2009.