Mrcauser’s Weblog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

My point exactly……

leave a comment »

It takes time for people to recover from a debt implosion. You need to pay down, off or offset debt. The way our system works is that in order to make most loans banks look at our FICO Scores , incomes and assets and make a decision to lend.  After this crash too many people lost their income and  couldn’t maintain their payments.No income leads to their scores and the value of their loan collateral going  down.

This creates a domino effect which hasn’t stopped yet. Only the government buying these bad loans has slowed the bust. But government can only do so much. Giving broke dicks home loans, student loans, business loans, and God knows what else only adds a bigger burden on people who couldn’t afford the loans in the first place.

However, in a couple of years, these bad loans become less important and we start qualifying again for credit cards and houses starting the whole process over again.

Why shouldn’t this time be any different?

Simple, so far the gangsters in charge can’t leave us alone. They’d fuck with it until it goes back the way it was or destroy the world trying.

Here’s the deal! The government exists on bribes! Take my money and give it to bums, criminals, nitwits, The Pelosis Watermans, Rangles, union crime syndicates, government contractors, the Pentagon who can’t beat people living in caves, welfare bums, Mexican con artists and on and on.

Want to accomplish something for us? Send me a check. At least 50 thousand. I’ll pay off the rest of my debts, blow every penny and borrow like a bastard. Honest!

Until then,it ain’t over until it’s over!

The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending | Credit Writedowns

In the U. S., when a bank makes a loan, this loan creates a deposit for the borrower. If the bank then ends up with a reserve requirement that it cannot meet by borrowing from other banks, it receives an overdraft at the Fed automatically (at the Fed’s stated penalty rate), which the bank then clears by borrowing from other banks or by posting collateral for an overnight loan from the Fed. Similarly, if the borrower withdraws the deposit to make a purchase and the bank does not have sufficient reserve balances to cover the withdrawal, the Fed provides an overdraft automatically, which again the bank then clears either by borrowing from other banks or by posting collateral for an overnight loan from the Fed.

The point of all this is that the bank clearly does not have to be holding prior reserve balances before it creates a loan. In fact, the bank’s ability to create a new loan and along with it a new deposit has NOTHING to do with how many or how few reserve balances it is holding.

What is required to drive lending is a creditworthy borrower on the other side of the bank lending officer’s desk, which means an employed borrower, whose income allows him to sustain regular repayments. Absent that, there will be no lending activity. It is pointless to blame the evil bankers for this of state affairs, since they don’t control fiscal policy, which is the remit of the Treasury.

For all the talk from policy makers about not repeating the mistakes of Great Depression, we seem to be perilously close to doing precisely that. This is largely based on a poor understanding of the economic dynamics of that period, even by that noted scholar of the Great Depression, Ben Bernanke.

Most people believe the economy crashed between 1929 and 1932 and then remained depressed until the Second World War, which finally mobilized the economy’s idle resources and brought about a full recovery. That’s complete bunk if you calculate the unemployment data correctly (see here for an explanation) . Even leaving aside the unemployment calculations, it is abundantly clear that, once the Great Depression hit bottom in early 1933, the US economy embarked on four years of expansion that constituted the biggest cyclical boom in U.S. economic history. For four years, real GDP grew at a 12% rate and nominal GDP grew at a 14% rate. There was another shorter and shallower depression in 1937 largely caused by renewed fiscal tightening (and higher Federal Reserve margin requirements). This second depression has led to the misconception that the central bank was pushing on a string throughout all of the 1930s, until the giant fiscal stimulus of the wartime effort finally brought the economy out of depression.

That’s incorrect. The financial dynamics of the huge economic recovery between 1933 and 1937 are extremely striking. Despite their insistence that changes in the stock of money were behind all the cyclical ups and downs in U.S. economic history, even economists Milton Freidman and Anna J. Schwartz in their “Monetary History of the United States” conceded that the money aggregates did not lead the U.S. economy out of the depression in 1932-1933.

More striking, private credit growth seemingly had nothing to do with the takeoff of the economy. Industrial production, off the 1932 low, doubled by 1935. By contrast, bank credit to the private sector fell until the middle of 1935. Because of the collapse in nominal income during the depression, the U.S. private sector was more indebted than ever in the Depression lows. Yet somehow it took off and sustained its takeoff with no growth in private credit whatsoever. The 14% average annual increase in nominal GDP from early 1932 to 1935 resulted in huge private deleveraging, largely as a consequence of aggressive fiscal stimulus.

Tim Geithner should be aware of this, but like his old colleagues at the Fed, his main obsession remains deficit reduction, which is why he is now expending considerable political capital on allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Ironically, one of the more amusing aspects of this particular issue is the sight of Republicans such as Mike Pence and Eric Cantor arguing that job creation is more important to Americans than deficit reduction (hence, we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even as their party fought vociferously against extending unemployment insurance benefits for the past several months).

The reasoning of Cantor and Pence is perverse, but on balance — however disingenuous and politically insincere — we support the GOP’s born again support for job creation over deficit reduction. We just wish they would refocus on something that would really help reduce unemployment, such as a Job Guarantee Program. A disproportionate amount of the stimulus program has been enjoyed by those who least need it. We would like to see the Obama Administration at least begin to make the case that fiscal stimulus, whether via tax cuts or direct public investment, is still required to generate more demand and employment. They should not concede anything in this area to the politically insincere GOP, which never met a tax break for the top 2% of the population that they didn’t like.

There might well be very good reasons, on grounds of social equity, to minimize the income gap between the rich and the poor, but Geithner and Obama are not making the case for the elimination of the tax breaks on these grounds. Rather, they continue to do so on the basis that this is the “fiscally responsible” thing to do. This is also consistent with the President’s odd championing of a “bipartisan commission” to study entitlement “reform”, where the focus appears to be on cutting Medicare and Social Security — in effect gutting the Democrats most substantial social legacy of 20th century.

The only concern about government deficit spending should be a whether it generates inflation, in which case it should of course be slowed down. None of those critique the ongoing fixation on fiscal sustainability, or “pork”, or “entitlement reform”, do so on the basis that there are “no limits” on government deficit spending, as has been alleged. What we do argue is that deficit cutting per se, devoid of any economic context, is not a legitimate goal of public policy for a sovereign nation. Deficits are (mostly) endogenously determined by the performance of the economy. They add to private sector income and to net financial wealth. They will come down as a matter of course when the economy begins to recover and as the automatic stabilizers work in reverse (i.e. tax receipts rise and social welfare expenditure comes down). When our policy makers begin to understand this, we can stop with the counsel of despair and actually do something that reduces unemployment today, not years from now — when it will be far too late.

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
Share5

You may also like:

* On China and America’s Collapsing Empire and Other Links On China and America’s Collapsing Empire and Other Links
* Koo Calls For Stimulus as Private Sector Deleverages Koo Calls For Stimulus as Private Sector Deleverages
* Rosenberg on the cause of the next secular uptrend in inflation or hyperinflationary shock Rosenberg on the cause of the next secular uptrend in inflation or hyperinflationary shock
* QE3: A plan to stabilize the global monetary system QE3: A plan to stabilize the global monetary system
* Who is getting robbed? The REAL “intergenerational theft” Who is getting robbed? The REAL “intergenerational theft”

[Translate]

* Share/Bookmark

Related posts

* Does the Money Multiplier Exist?
* What President Obama can do to improve the economy
* Koo Calls For Stimulus as Private Sector Deleverages
* Out of control US deficit spending
* Revisiting the sectoral balances model in Japan

Tags: budget, chartalism, credit, quantitative easing, stimulus

* Tweet This!Tweet This
* Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
* Digg it!Digg This
* Add to Delicious!Save to delicious
* Stumble itStumble it
* Subscribe by RSSRSS Feed

« Shilling: “The Economy Really Doesn’t Have Much Gas Any More” «
» On Too Big To Fail As A Company Strategy and Other Links »
Loading comments…

Problems loading Disqus?
Like Dislike

*

Community
Disqus

* About Disqus

Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?

Facebook

Twitter

Share No thanks

Sharing this page …

Thanks! Close

Optional: Login below.

*
*
*
*
*
*

Comments for this page are closed.
Showing 29 comments
Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

*

Scott [Moderator] 1 week ago
Hi Marshall:

I really like this argument much more than the “deficit terrorist” argument. It raises questions in a reasonable manner. First, as much as I hate it, I interpret your argument as one of advocating stabilizers more than deficit spending in and of itself. That is a tempered argument and one I think that is understood by constituencies. I’m opposed to deficits because I feel like we will run deficits until we cannot run deficits no longer. That’s what the political climate demonstrates to me. However, if you have an economy with 100 people and all people are guaranteed 1 unit of income at all times and the rest agree to pay a percentage of their income to ensure that then when income falls, there is an automatic stabilizer where we borrow against future income to pay that 1 when we otherwise could not, it makes sense. MMT is irrelevant then because we don’t need a theory, only borrowing capacity and all parties are agreed. The rules are in place, no one screams, and we all get some security. Simple Keynesian counter-cyclical prescriptions. We just need these rules in place now, not only when s hits the fan. The system is set up now to spend and borrow it all like we’re off to the races and then worry about the bad times when we get there and this puts you in a position to defend why that is not a problem. Minsky proposed a 20% government share to provide this service. This was 1986, but now we’re up higher than that and the inflation barrier is slowly increasing as more and more boomers become tied to inflation linked incomes. I think the various “5 year plan” arguments are consistent with my view. Say we’re not going to fix this now because the immediate pain is not something we want, but the credible plan will be presented, and everyone will know what the rules are as we impose them. This is very different than our current crisis management regime. I have personal opinions on how likely this outcome is which keeps me leaning towards deficit hawk stance.

I read your thesis as fiscal stimulus will lead this economy out of the dumps, as proven by the fiscal stimulus during the great depression along with other points you have made in the past. I won’t counter this because I would like more explanation as to why increasing aggregate demand is the panacea you propose it to be. I read Keynesianism in two different lights. The first, is that if the cash flows do not validate the debt payments, then the loans go bad and business bust due to lack of cash flow and not necessarily lack of demand. That’s probably a Minsky view but it is based on past business decisions. Second, if I do not spend, then that’s income denied to someone else, the Paradox of Thrift. I just want your opinion on the quality of aggregate demand if you ever decide to comment on this in future posts. Should past business decisions be validated at all costs in the name of the paradox of thrift. Here is why I’m concerned.

1.No one is demanding product because the product sucks
2.No one is demanding product because they don’t need it
3.If you maintain funding to those producing sucky products, the products still suck
4.If those producing products are producing them based on fiscally stimulated demand, as soon as the fiscal stimulus runs out, we all realize again the product sucks
5.Every dollar spent on sucky products is a dollar wasted
6.If the maker of a road is the first to get the stimulus and builds a road, then that is a dollar going to a road which very well could be a sucky product

I think you get my point this far, but my real point is that if we continue all this suckyness and suckyness builds jobs and offices on sucky products, how do we ever get out of this hole without adjusting our economy to an economy that produces what people want? I’m assuming that the reason why sales are down is because consumers are no longer buying what they don’t need, hence suckiness.

In conclusion, we’re in an economic, political, and consumer pickle here. I prefer the latter to lead the way, but let us know why I’m wrong.

In time, if you can go that direction it would be helpful.
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
MMT is not a theory; it’s an operational depiction of how things actually
work in a post-gold standard world. Similarly, the manner in which I
describe bank lending is an actual depiction of how it works if you are actually
on the bank lending desk, not the highly stylised variant one sees in the
economic textbooks. These are facts, not polemics.

I recognize that the term “deficit terrorist” offends some people, and I
have stopped using it to a large degree, but I do think the impact of the
policies being advocated by the brigade which says that all government
deficits are bad can engender harm of a magnitude not unlike that of an act of
terrorism. Yes, the sin may be one of ignorance, rather than direct
commission and in that regard, the term is probably inappropriate. But I also find
that much of the discussion of government deficit spending takes on an
almost theological hue with many people, who allow their ideological biases
about government to misrepresent or ignore the impact of the consequences of
what they advocate. A major problem for the US government now is that the
stimulus at the federal level is being increasingly undermined by the cuts
occurring in public spending at the state and local government levels. The
US federal system is working against itself. Further while private investment
has been growing modestly, private consumption has tapered off again. Pain
IS being experienced by around 90% or more of most Americans. I really
don’t understand how much more you want, but my point is always the same: 15%
underemployment is de facto evidence that we have a lack of aggregate
demand and if you can explain to me how that can be filled in the absence of
government spending (or tax cuts) I’d be interested in understanding how
you’d do it. By increasing private debt? That got us into this mess. By
increasing exports? Depends really on other nations, such as China and
Germany and in any case, is it really optimal to be exporting our economic
output, rather than consuming it at home?

I’ve suggested some concrete policies (as have others), such as the Job
Guarantee program. I don’t agree with your characterization of American
products all being “sucky” (you think the Chinese toys we import are that
great?), so I really don’t understand what your point is or what you would
propose.

In a message dated 8/4/2010 22:04:54 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
“MMT is not a theory;””

What does the “T” stand for, and when did this gather enough concrete evidence to support it graduating from a theory to fact?

It’s a theoretical construct, not to be confused with reality.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
MMT is a term which has developed, and obscures as much as it elucidates
for precisely the reasons you suggest. But it does describe an operational
reality.Love it or hate it, our sovereign government spends by crediting
bank accounts. Over the past 20 years, MMT has investigated, analyzed, and
documented the sordid operational details. Frankly, I prefer Abba Lerner’s
term, “functional finance” to describe what we outline, but MMT has gravitated
into the lexicon so we’ll use it, even though it incorporates that
dreadful word, “theory”. But you can’t use that to dispute the main point. We
can lecture for hours on the balance sheet manipulations involving the
Treasury, the Fed, the primary security dealers, the special depositories, and
the regular private banks every time the Treasury buys a notepad from
OfficeMax. As Randy Wray has said,
“We did the work, so you do not have to do it. And believe me, you do not
want to do it. You can skip directly to the conclusion: “Yes, government
spends by crediting bank accounts, taxes by debiting them, and sells bonds to
provide an interest-earning substitute to low-earning reserves. Q.E.D.”

A few libertarians and Austrians now get this, although instead of
thanking us for a job well done, they immediately attack us for explaining how
things work. Now, why would they do that? Because they fear that if we tell
policymakers and the general public how things work, democratic processes
will inevitably blow up the government’s budget as everyone demands that wine
flow freely through the nation’s drinking fountains whilst workers retire
from government jobs at age 28 on generous pensions provided at the public
trough. And off we go to Zimbabwe land, with hyperinflation that destroys
the currency and sucks the precious body fluids from our economy.”

In a message dated 8/5/2010 11:55:17 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

JB McMunn (unregistered) wrote, in response to Marshall Auerback:

“MMT is not a theory;””

What does the “T” stand for, and when did this gather enough concrete
evidence to support it graduating from a theory to fact?

It’s a theoretical construct, not to be confused with reality.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jk1g0
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Scott [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
Thanks for the response. I’m learning and speaking as I go so I’m by no means an expert on anything, but I’m doing the dual tract between Keynsian and Austrian economics. I think your point below on Austrians is correct. They begin with the Fed and monetary science so they are probably more apt to understand modern monetary theory, as technically, there’s really no difference. It works how it works. I’ll continue my trade cycle studies and that is where I’m stuck. I just see some holes between aggregate demand and the capital structure of the economy. I don’t think you can fix capital invested in things that are now worthless (e.g. surplus housing inventory) by increasing aggregate demand. Hopefully, and you are an optimist on this point, softening the blow helps. I get that, I just don’t necessarily see how we cannot take some stripes and let time heal as well as capital and labor naturally adjusts to the demands of consumers going forward.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
Depends what happens as “time heals”. Long term unemployment leaves longstanding problems if left unaddressed. And the sad part is that there are some creative solutions out there. I would urge you to read Randy Wray’s “Understanding Modern Money”. Even a card-carrying Austrian like our esteemed Ed Harrison has read it and found some useful insights (and lived to tell the tale)! 🙂
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Scott [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
Marshall, I have and I understand deadweight loss and I respect your concern. It’s very optimistic of you to try and help those that do not know they are being killed not be killed. I’m stuck in a dead end job, but it’s a job. It’s really stagnant though. My earning years are wasting away too, but we got to move into the unknown, forward, and the only guiding principle we have at this point is to provide what people want. If that’s Ipads, then that is what it is, but I don’t see Apple getting any stimulus. Let’s stop the trying to maintain spending on the dionsaurs and let it flow to whatever the new apple is. If the new apple doesn’t show it’s face, I agree we’re all f’d, but we don’t know until then. What we do know is humans like to grow and consume and they like to choose, so that’s our only hope. I appreciate your responses and you definitely have society as your first concern so I respect that.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
Avoiding spending money on the dinosaurs is a political point, and it is
one in which I would agree.
. Much of the infrastructure we built to take care of the baby boom is
still with us, and will be with us for years to come, including houses,
hospitals, schools, dams, highways, and public buildings. As the baby boomers
age, we may have to convert schools to senior citizen centers and hospitals to
aged care facilities. However, we took care of the baby boomers with
relatively few workers in 1960, and common sense implies that we ought to be
able to take care of them when they are elderly.
The mainstream debate chooses to focus on the “financial” aspects of
these projected changes arguing that they will imply rising budget deficits
which they define as being unsustainable. The “budget costs or outlays” are
financial not real constructs. Public policy cannot prepare for a retiring
baby boom bulge through “advance funding”—that is, by accumulating a
large trust fund? A social security trust fund (such as that existing in the
United States) provides no “financial wherewithal” to pay for a possible
future revenue shortfall. To put it simply, the trust fund is simply a case
of the government owing itself, an internal accounting procedure. In, say,
2050 when payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, the trust
fund will redeem treasury debt. To convert those securities into cash would
require the Treasury to either issue new debt or generate tax revenue in
excess of what will be required for other government spending in order to make
the cash payment to the trust fund without increasing general budget
deficits. This is exactly what would be required even if the Trust Fund had no
“financial holdings”. Government cannot financially provision in advance for
future benefit payments. Indeed, attempts to do so via the encouragement of
deficit cuts today will simply exacerbate the “dependency” problem
implied by ageing demographics. Maximizing employment and output in each period
is a necessary condition for long-term growth. The emphasis in mainstream
intergeneration debate and adverse demographics suggests that we have to
lift labor force participation by older workers. Perhaps, but this is contrary
to current government policies which reduces job opportunities for older
male workers by refusing to deal with the rising unemployment.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 9:59:02 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

Scott wrote, in response to Scott:

Marshall, I have and I understand deadweight loss and I respect your
concern. It’s very optimistic of you to try and help those that do not know
they are being killed not be killed. I’m stuck in a dead end job, but it’s a
job. It’s really stagnant though. My earning years are wasting away too,
but we got to move into the unknown, forward, and the only guiding
principle we have at this point is to provide what people want. If that’s Ipads,
then that is what it is, but I don’t see Apple getting any stimulus. Let’s
stop the trying to maintain spending on the dionsaurs and let it flow to
whatever the new apple is. If the new apple doesn’t show it’s face, I agree
we’re all f’d, but we don’t know until then. What we do know is humans
like to grow and consume and they like to choose, so that’s our only hope. I
appreciate your responses and you definitely have society as your first
concern so I respect that.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jlslq
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Scott [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
final comment on this post ever. I read Wray’s article the first time I ever read it. I found not problems with it, presented it to “Scary Gary” (I’m a hack on that level, I’m about as secular as they get, but he does know his theory) and I got no response from him. I’ve been trying to find the hole in it since and the only hole is value. Who pays and how much. The answer I was looking for as found in Minskey’s comment on the inflation barrier can be lowered to a point where aggregate demand does not matter because unions or others can demand higher prices despite low capacity utilization. I’m running with this one. I think boomers will replace unions in this respect to the point where we get punishing inflation because their salaries will demand more and more out of the productive sector which shrinks over time. I also don’t see how capacity utilization factors in utility to produce current goods. An old machine that is underutilized cannot become quickly utilized to all of the sudden fill aggregate demand with not production costs involved. Even though we’re not war torn, we’re misallocated which makes our capital stock worth less than is presented by stats. I’ll take a six month hiatus with you Marshall. I think I covered my questions, I only got selective answers, but the last few sentences are my concern. Invictus’ post on Ritholtz in the last day raises similar concerns. Let’s change the way we look at the “R” word and instead start looking at your “creative” solutions that will never happen in America. Finally, I’ve been reading “American Lion” and that is a very good book to present Europe’s current delimma on centralization. 1830 and Jackson not only hated the bank, but he was out to preserve the Union. Not so different from the EU today minus the slavery and libertarian Americans.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
Only problem with Jackson is that he eliminated our national debt and then
continued to run budget surpluses and threw the country into a huge
depression by 1837.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 23:59:55 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

Scott wrote, in response to Scott:

final comment on this post ever. I read Wray’s article the first time I
ever read it. I found not problems with it, presented it to “Scary Gary”
(I’m a hack on that level, I’m about as secular as they get, but he does know
his theory) and I got no response from him. I’ve been trying to find the
hole in it since and the only hole is value. Who pays and how much. The
answer I was looking for as found in Minskey’s comment on the inflation
barrier can be lowered to a point where aggregate demand does not matter
because unions or others can demand higher prices despite low capacity
utilization. I’m running with this one. I think boomers will replace unions in this
respect to the point where we get punishing inflation because their
salaries will demand more and more out of the productive sector which shrinks
over time. I also don’t see how capacity utilization factors in utility to
produce current goods. An old machine that is underutilized cannot become
quickly utilized to all of the sudden fill aggregate demand with not
production costs involved. Even though we’re not war torn, we’re misallocated
which makes our capital stock worth less than is presented by stats. I’ll take
a six month hiatus with you Marshall. I think I covered my questions, I
only got selective answers, but the last few sentences are my concern.
Invictus’ post on Ritholtz in the last day raises similar concerns. Let’s
change the way we look at the “R” word and instead start looking at your
“creative” solutions that will never happen in America. Finally, I’ve been
reading “American Lion” and that is a very good book to present Europe’s
current delimma on centralization. 1830 and Jackson not only hated the bank, but
he was out to preserve the Union. Not so different from the EU today
minus the slavery and libertarian Americans.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jm0x9
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Scott [Moderator] 6 days ago in reply to Scott
You:
“Government cannot financially provision in advance for
future benefit payments.”

This is a key MMT statement. If I understand MMT correctly as crediting and debiting accounts then this means that the government will never be able to save. Other than selling a Treasury bond or taxing and then buying a real asset with the proceeds is this the correct interpretation? It’s very interesting, as is MMT.

My comments are defintely convoluted, but you took pains to deal with them. Thanks for that. After Keynes and Mises, it’s now time to go study Fisher and Friedman and see why debt deflation is so bad and take some looks at QTM. If it all comes down to sticky wages I’m going to be disappointed.

The End.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 6 days ago in reply to Scott
Yes, the government can’t “save” because it doesn’t have “dollars in a lockbox”. As my friend Warren Misler likes to say, the government is the scorekeeper. Asking the government to “save” is as silly as asking a scoreboard at a football stadium to “save” points.
Flag
Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Scott
Usually when interest rates are this low it chases money into the stock market, but what we see instead is massive unloading of equity mutual funds in the retail sector and flight to the bond funds. The stock market is perceived as a rigged game and we don’t want to play any more. We’ve been hosed twice in the past 10 years and we’re tired of it.

I carry no debt, have significant savings, and enjoy a substantial income. I am not spending right now. It has nothing to do with the quality of products. It is the simple fact that I am holding cash for the deflationary scenario and gold for the inflationary scenario. I don’t know what’s going to happen in terms of deflation or inflation because there are too many wild cards, but I do know that there is no way out of this problem except to go through it, which will be a very painful process. It’s called deleveraging.

When people have lost faith you can flood the country with money, you can fire half the government workers, you can raise taxes or lower taxes – it doesn’t matter. Until I feel like I can come out of hibernation I’m not spending one nickel more than I have to.

Perhaps I flatter myself that I represent a lot of people, but I don’t think so. I think this feeling is prevalent and its impact is underestimated. When people have no faith in Congress (20% approval rating) or the President (under 50%) where is the hope and optimism that will make them feel safe spending money? You can see this in the steadily declining Consumer Confidence Index. Pessimism rules and it’s getting worse.

There is no economic formula for fixing malaise.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
Yes, there is. You need the government to spend precisely to “ratify”
this ex ante predisposition to save on the part of people such as yourself.

No criticism at all in terms of your actions, but as I said before, all
things being equal, if everybody does what you do and there is no
countervailing action by the government, then you get the paradox of thrift.
Any individual can increase her saving by reducing her spending—on
consumption goods. So long as her decision does not affect her income—and there is
no reason to assume that it would—she ends up with less consumption and
more saving.
Consider the example of John who usually eats a hamburger at Macdonald’s
every day. He decides to forego one hamburger per week, to accumulate
savings. Of course, so long as he sticks to her plan, he will add to her savings
(and financial wealth) every week, just as you are doing in your actions.
The question is this: what if everyone did the same thing as John—would
the reduction of the consumption of hamburgers raise aggregate (national)
saving (and financial wealth)?
The answer is that it will not. Why not? Because Macdonald’s will not sell
as many hamburgers, it will begin to lay-off workers and reduce its orders
for bread, meat, catsup, pickles, and so on.
All those workers who lose their jobs will have lower incomes, and will
have to reduce their own saving. You can use the notion of the multiplier to
show that this process comes to a stop when the lower saving by all those
who lost their jobs equals the higher saving of all those who cut their
hamburger consumption. At the aggregate level, there is no accumulation of
savings (financial wealth).

In a message dated 8/5/2010 11:50:48 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

There is no economic formula for fixing malaise.
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
I’m sorry Marshall but Wray’s “trust me, I’m an economist” doesn’t work. Equations and models are conceptual reference points, not laws of thermodynamics. I’d have an easier time swallowing it whole if there weren’t other people with a different set of equations making the same claims of validity and drawing different conclusions.

You and I are in agreement that if everyone does what I’m doing then we get the paradox of thrift. Absolutely. No question. And that is transpiring right now and snowballing every day. Where we differ is that you claim you can get people to spend by appropriate levels of fiscal manipulation, and what I’m saying is that you can’t make people spend who aren’t comfortable spending.

Spending requires confidence that the money spent can be replaced. When people have low confidence that they will be able to replace their money they hoard it. When they have absolutely no faith in the government (vide supra) or the financial system (ibid) that’s a very hard sell. You can manipulate the system all you like but until the perception changes the money sits under the mattress.

That’s where I am right now. It doesn’t matter what anyone does because I don’t think this is fixable and if by some miracle it is fixable I have no faith that the people in charge will do it right.

Quite honestly, I wish they’d leave everything alone. Every bright idea that is tried induces a new disequilibrium that the whole system has to spend time and energy adjusting to – or as the saying goes, the solution to a problem creates a new problem.

We have already thrown vast amounts of money this and nothing happened. As Mark twain said, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes and Henry Morgenthau pretty much wrote the first stanza:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

I really don’t want to read the rest of the poem.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
I think you are mischaracterising Randy’s work. I don’t recall him every
saying “trust me, I’m an economist”. Please give him a little credit and
read what he has to say. I would suggest you start with his book,
“Understanding Modern Money” and you’ll see that he deals with reality, not “models”
or “conceptual reference points”.
I’m sure you would be happy to leave everything alone. That’s what
happened, as I recall, around 1930 and that turned out really well, didn’t it?
As for the notion that the spending achieved nothing, I think there is ample
evidence to contradict that claim. You have to consider what might have
happened had the money not been spent. And consider this report from the CBO:

On May 25, 2010, the _US Congressional Budget Office_
(http://www.cbo.gov/) released a detailed study – Estimated Impact of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2010
Through March 2010 – _PDF document_
(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25…) .
The CBO present information that recipients of the stimulus funds under
ARRA have provided estimating the “the number of jobs they created or retained
with ARRA funding”. This information suggests that “nearly 700,000 FTE
jobs during the first quarter of 2010″ were created by the fiscal stimulus.
However, they note that there are several problems encountered when using
this data which bias the impact. First, the jobs might have already been
created without the stimulus (therefore overestimate impact).
Second, the reports don’t consider jobs created by “lower-level
subcontractors” (therefore underestimate impact).
Third, “reports do not attempt to measure the number of jobs that may have
been created or retained indirectly as greater income for recipients and
their employees boosted demand for products and services” – the multiplier
effects (therefore underestimate impact).
Fourth, reports only cover a fraction of the stimulus capacity (therefore
underestimate impact).
The alternative method was to use their modelling capacity and historical
evidence. They conclude that the impact of ARRA for the first quarter of
2010 were:
* Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent.
* Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and
1.5 percentage points.
* Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and
2.8 million.
* Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8
million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been
otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work
or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of
employed workers).
They also said that these impacts “on output and employment are expected to
increase further during calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and
fade away by the end of 2012″.
You have every right to disagree with someone, but you don’t have a right
to confuse fact with fiction.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 15:48:05 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

JB McMunn (unregistered) wrote, in response to Marshall Auerback:

I’m sorry Marshall but Wray’s “trust me, I’m an economist” doesn’t work.
Equations and models are conceptual reference points, not laws of
thermodynamics. I’d have an easier time swallowing it whole if there weren’t other
people with a different set of equations making the same claims of validity
and drawing different conclusions.

You and I are in agreement that if everyone does what I’m doing then we
get the paradox of thrift. Absolutely. No question. And that is transpiring
right now and snowballing every day. Where we differ is that you claim you
can get people to spend by appropriate levels of fiscal manipulation, and
what I’m saying is that you can’t make people spend who aren’t comfortable
spending.

Spending requires confidence that the money spent can be replaced. When
people have low confidence that they will be able to replace their money they
hoard it. When they have absolutely no faith in the government (vide
supra) or the financial system (ibid) that’s a very hard sell. You can
manipulate the system all you like but until the perception changes the money sits
under the mattress.

That’s where I am right now. It doesn’t matter what anyone does because I
don’t think this is fixable and if by some miracle it is fixable I have no
faith that the people in charge will do it right.

Quite honestly, I wish they’d leave everything alone. Every bright idea
that is tried induces a new disequilibrium that the whole system has to spend
time and energy adjusting to – or as the saying goes, the solution to a
problem creates a new problem.

We have already thrown vast amounts of money this and nothing happened. As
Mark twain said, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes and
Henry Morgenthau pretty much wrote the first stanza:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
spent before and it does not work.…I say after eight years of this
administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous
debt to boot!”

I really don’t want to read the rest of the poem.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jktvt
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
PS Henry Morgenthau said exactly what you said and FDR duly introduced a
balanced budget in 1937. Result? Huge secondary relapse in activity and a
massive increase in unemployment. Please read some history of the period.
Morgenthau was comprehensively WRONG.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 15:48:05 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

JB McMunn (unregistered) wrote, in response to Marshall Auerback:

I’m sorry Marshall but Wray’s “trust me, I’m an economist” doesn’t work.
Equations and models are conceptual reference points, not laws of
thermodynamics. I’d have an easier time swallowing it whole if there weren’t other
people with a different set of equations making the same claims of validity
and drawing different conclusions.

You and I are in agreement that if everyone does what I’m doing then we
get the paradox of thrift. Absolutely. No question. And that is transpiring
right now and snowballing every day. Where we differ is that you claim you
can get people to spend by appropriate levels of fiscal manipulation, and
what I’m saying is that you can’t make people spend who aren’t comfortable
spending.

Spending requires confidence that the money spent can be replaced. When
people have low confidence that they will be able to replace their money they
hoard it. When they have absolutely no faith in the government (vide
supra) or the financial system (ibid) that’s a very hard sell. You can
manipulate the system all you like but until the perception changes the money sits
under the mattress.

That’s where I am right now. It doesn’t matter what anyone does because I
don’t think this is fixable and if by some miracle it is fixable I have no
faith that the people in charge will do it right.

Quite honestly, I wish they’d leave everything alone. Every bright idea
that is tried induces a new disequilibrium that the whole system has to spend
time and energy adjusting to – or as the saying goes, the solution to a
problem creates a new problem.

We have already thrown vast amounts of money this and nothing happened. As
Mark twain said, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes and
Henry Morgenthau pretty much wrote the first stanza:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever
spent before and it does not work.…I say after eight years of this
administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous
debt to boot!”

I really don’t want to read the rest of the poem.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jktvt
Flag
1 person liked this. Like
*

B_capp [Moderator] 1 week ago
RyanClarke here …

The real reason banks aren’t lending is BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE ANY MONEY TO LEND.

When a bank gets a ‘NEW’ MILLION DOLLARS IN DEPOSITS … the bank may choose to LEND ON THE ORDER OF TEN MILLION DOLLARS to whomever the bank decides to lend … that’s with a 10% reserve requirement. Now assuming the Fed doesn’t tinker with reserve requirements … because they did in 1987 … and placing reserve requirements to the side …

the problem is the two words ‘NEW’ and ‘DEPOSITS.’

There are simply no ‘new deposits’ being introduced into the banking system by private citizens and corporations who have accounts with the U.S. banking system … as indicated by the ‘velocity of money slowing to a crawl’ over the past two years.

You see, for every ‘private citizens or corporations’ sitting on a ‘ton of money’ … there are twenty ‘private citizens or corporations’ KNEE DEEP IN DEBT … and the banks don’t want to lend to this 95% of the ‘lending population’ for the obvious reason …

The 5% of the ‘lending population’ the banks would like to lend to … don’t need a loan … and the banks know the other 95% of the ‘lending population’ would only use borrowed money … at the very best … to service existing levels of outstanding debt.

Thus, the ‘money log jam.’
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to B_capp
Well, you are basing your representation on the so-called fractional
reserve system, and I’m afraid it just doesn’t work the way you indicate.
Banks DO NOT use reserve balances to create loans. They create loans and
deposits simultaneously out of thin air. They use reserve balances to settle
payments or meet reserve requirements ONLY. If a bank is short reserve
balances for either of these purposes, the Fed provides an overdraft
AUTOMATICALLY at a stated penalty rate, which the bank then clears via the money
markets or the cheapest alternative. Whether banks in the aggregate hold $1 or
$1 trillion in reserve balances, there operational ability to create loans
is the same: it is infinite (Though the creation of even 1 loan requires a
willing, creditworthy borrow in the first place, of course.) Thus, neither
the Fed, nor any other central bank actually provides reserve balances
that banks can “lend or use” to purchase assets, but instead setting a cap on
the cost of bank liabilities at different maturities when they do make
loans or purchase assets. That is how loan creation works in post-gold standard
world, in economies where there are freely floating non-convertible
exchange rates. The belief that banks need reserve balances in order to lend is
only applicable in a gold standard-type of monetary system. The correct
conclusion is that the banks are fully capable of “getting money to struggling
businesses” but are unwilling to do so under present circumstances because
(a) aggregate demand is so weak that they cannot find credit-worthy
customers worthy of extending loans to (relating to his earlier point); and (b)
the budget deficit is currently not sufficient to engender any confidence
among borrowers that the things they might produce by expanding production
(with working capital borrowed from the banks) will be sold. Improving “
creditworthiness” and credit will follow.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 01:03:57 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:
Flag
Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
I agree with the final conclusion except that (b) is not a bank decision it’s a borrower decision. I also doubt that these small businessmen are thinking in terms of waiting until the budget deficit is bigger before they borrow. Go to the local Rotary Club breakfast or Chamber of Commerce meeting and explain that what this country needs is a big ol’ budget deficit so they can all feel more confident about borrowing some money. I’ll bet their pancakes get cold during the stunned silence.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
Exactly! The government is the only entity that is capable of leveraging
up and spending in this kind of environment..

In a message dated 8/5/2010 12:31:18 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

JB McMunn (unregistered) wrote, in response to Marshall Auerback:

I agree with the final conclusion except that (b) is not a bank decision
it’s a borrower decision. I also doubt that these small businessmen are
thinking in terms of waiting until the budget deficit is bigger before they
borrow. Go to the local Rotary Club breakfast or Chamber of Commerce meeting
and explain that what this country needs is a big ol’ budget deficit so they
can all feel more confident about borrowing some money. I’ll bet their
pancakes get cold during the stunned silence.

Link to comment: http://disq.us/jk608
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 6 days ago in reply to JB McMunn
No, it’s both. The borrower can’t get a loan if the bank officer won’t
extend it to him. A loan is a two-way contract between borrower and lender.

In a message dated 8/6/2010 14:14:14 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

I agree with the final conclusion except that (b) is not a bank decision
it’s a borrower decision. I
Flag
Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
“Exactly! The government is the only entity that is capable of leveraging
up and spending in this kind of environment..”

Counterfeiting and writing bad checks usually ends badly, even when done by a sovereign nation. If this were a true Keynesian scenario where we had been running surpluses or break-evens during the good times and we had to deficit spend to dig ourselves out I’d be ok with it. However, we have been deficit spending like crazy for decades and I have a hard time believing that more debt – even when taken on by an entity that cannot be insolvent – is the answer.

I’m willing to spend to keep people from starving and to keep a roof over their heads but that’s where I draw the line.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to JB McMunn
Yes, but that’s not what the US government does. You’re letting your
ideological biases get in the way of an honest assessment here.

In a message dated 8/5/2010 16:00:20 Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:

Counterfeiting and writing bad checks usually ends badly, even when done
by a sovereign nation
Flag
Like
*

Ronald Pires [Moderator] 1 week ago
Marshall ~
The Austrians’ sentiment that the public might misuse MMT as an economic fountain of youth is not entirely without merit. But that is better, I suppose, than leaving the fountain unattended with only the banksters to “guard” it.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 1 week ago in reply to Ronald Pires
I think that is an excellent point and indeed, Ed has made it many times
itself. I think it is the most legitimate critique one can make of MMT.
Unfortunately, people like Ed aside, the attacks usually are not so well
reasoned, but are predicated on ill-informed prejudice. But, even having due
regard to that risk, what’s the alternative? 1930s style liquidation? I
suppose that is a choice, but it’s not mine. Your fountain analogy is a very
good one.

In a message dated 8/6/2010 1:22:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
writes:
Flag
Like
*

JB McMunn [Moderator] 6 days ago in reply to Marshall Auerback
“I think you are mischaracterising Randy’s work. I don’t recall him every saying “trust me, I’m an economist”.”

Here’s what you said:

“As Randy Wray has said, “We did the work, so you do not have to do it. And believe me, you do not want to do it. You can skip directly to the conclusion”

Trust me, I’m an economist.
Flag
Like
*

Marshall Auerback [Moderator] 6 days ago in reply to JB McMunn
Why don’t you read the work, if you’re so untrusting?. You obviously lack a sense of humour or irony.
Flag
Like
*

steve_from_virginia [Moderator] 5 days ago
What was the question? Is the economy ‘bad’?

Why aren’t banks lending? Why should they? Any loan they make is instantly underwater unless it is for a perpetual motion machine or ‘fusion in a bottle’. I feel sorry for the economists, they just don’t get it. Without cheap fuel there is no ‘modern’ anything including a modern, manufacturing economy. ‘Modern’ that is running on empty is an obsolete style, like disco or Nehru jackets.

The Fed can print money, what good does it do? It flows into the pockets of gangsters who sock it away as a future substitute for petroleum. It’s good to know what the elites’ priorities are; we can see from the Eurozone, which has stifled money creation so as to pump up the value of the euro. More- valuable euros mean a lower fuel bill and an escape from an inevitable energy crisis; better to sacrifice the working people and pensioners to the banks NOW in the name of ‘currency stability’ so that Europe’s wonderful automobiles have full petrol tanks.

What happens here? The Eurofed has out- austeritied the USA which is fixated on cycling more credit into a system that is saturated with it. How is it all going to work? I personally agree with James Galbraith (and Michael Hudson and Marshall Auerback) that the US’ borrowing capacity is unlimited. Unortunately, recycling credit does not create value (output) and without value there is nothing to exchange for the fuel we require; the credit creates fuel demand that iraces ahead of the ability of producers to satisfy it. We really don’t HAVE an aggregate demand problem but a supply- of- value problem.

At the same time, the fuel constraint makes inflation of any kind impossible as a wage- price spiral ends (always) with an oil price spike- then- crash/demand destruction/increased business failures and rising unemployment/excess (industrial) capacity. We repeat our mistakes (over and over and over and over) until we learn not to. Unfortunately, not repeating means abandoning our wonderful automobiles that we cannot conceive of living without.

Each repeat of the same mistake at the largest (inflationary) scale knocks 20- 30% off of our productive economy. The current repetition of small inflationary attempts results in the current erosion of jobs and small businesses. How many repeats do we need, again?

Until the establishment and its wise men (economists) recognize the centrality of energy in the money/finance dynamic – and act appropriately – any and all attempts to escape our rush to the New Feudalism will fail. Don’t believe me just sit back and watch.
Flag
Like

Reactions

*
Pooteeweetwit 1 week ago
From twitter via BackType
The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending http://bit.ly/cXekwr
*
larrymwalkerjr 1 week ago
From twitter via BackType
Currently reading http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/08/the-real-reason-banks-arent-lending.html #tcot
*
odaviron 1 week ago
From twitter via BackType
RT @edwardnh: The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/du1VAm $
*
edwardnh 1 week ago
From twitter via BackType
The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/du1VAm $

Trackback URL
blog comments powered by Disqus

Follow Us
o RSS RSSSubscribe now!
o Comments CommentsRSS
o Daily DailyE-mail Newsletter
o Weekly WeeklyE-mail Newsletter
o E-mailContact us
o TwitterFollow us
o DeliciousNews links
o FacebookFriend Edward
o YoutubeOur videos

Contextual Search
Looking for more about [term]?
o
o
Lijit Search

About the author
Marshall Auerback

Marshall Auerback has 27 years of experience in the investment management business, serving as a global portfolio strategist for RAB Capital Plc, a UK-based fund management group with $2 billion under management, since 2003. He is also co-manager of the RAB Gold Fund. He serves as an economic consultant to PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund management group, and as a fellow of the Economists for Peace and Security.
o Visit website

Facebook

Twitter
chassediable profile

chassediable Edward Harrison: Hiding Bank Losses http://tinyurl.com/2cj5a… 2 minutes ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Hiding Bank Losses: In a recent post on the money multiplier, a reader Luis Enrique asked about bank lending and c… http://bit.ly/bKbmGR 3 hours ago reply
dietmargoll profile

dietmargoll RT @edwardnh: This Isn’t Funny Anymore http://bit.ly/d6PuUt but it is funny! Ben Bernanke action figure 🙂 4 hours ago reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Hiding Bank Losses http://bit.ly/cKrFTx 4 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Hiding Bank Losses: In a recent post on the money multiplier, a reader Luis Enrique asked about bank lending and c… http://bit.ly/bKbmGR 4 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Hiding Bank Losses | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ 4 hours ago reply
Calculator60 profile

Calculator60 RT @edwardnh: Does the Money Multiplier Exist? | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ 12 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Taiwanese Animation: How JetBlue flight attendant made an emergency getaway: This is hilarious. Related posts:Taiw… http://bit.ly/cJv9xy 13 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Taiwanese Animation: How JetBlue flight attendant made an emergency getaway | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/9FHJBP $ 14 hours ago reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh http://bit.ly/boYpFW 14 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh: By Comstock Partners The Fed tried to thread a needle and ended up satisfying nobo… http://bit.ly/cKzVvU 14 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Does the Money Multiplier Exist?: The Federal Reserve Board’s Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp have a great pa… http://bit.ly/dicsyY 14 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh: By Comstock Partners The Fed tried to thread a needle and ended up satisfying nobo… http://bit.ly/cKzVvU 14 hours ago reply
readerfinance profile

readerfinance The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo…… http://bit.ly/bgNDaG 15 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ 15 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Does the Money Multiplier Exist?: The Federal Reserve Board’s Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp have a great pa… http://bit.ly/dicsyY 16 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Does the Money Multiplier Exist? | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ 16 hours ago reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Reinhart and Rogoff, Government Debt and Other Links http://bit.ly/9JRkfS 18 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Reinhart and Rogoff, Government Debt and Other Links: Topic of the day: Fiscal Problems 1. The U.S. and Reinhart a… http://bit.ly/dp0wDE 18 hours ago reply
dafowc profile

dafowc @Prof_Pinch @edwardnh I must be doing it wrong. I keep trying one at a time. Never was any good at multitasking. 18 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad On ideology and economics and the apathy of the American public: This is me thinking out loud (on paper). Comments… http://bit.ly/a8seNg 18 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Reinhart and Rogoff, Government Debt and Other Links | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/9l7G9x $ 19 hours ago reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG On ideology and economics and the apathy of the American public http://bit.ly/cWguTW 20 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs On ideology and economics and the apathy of the American public: This is me thinking out loud (on paper). Comments… http://bit.ly/a8seNg 20 hours ago reply
dafowc profile

dafowc @edwardnh just as i finally get used to seesmic. cc @Prof_Pinch 21 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Wheat and Currencies: Wheat is trading higher today, positioning to snap a 4-day profit-taking decline. The US Dep… http://bit.ly/ahQpaC 22 hours ago reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Wheat and Currencies http://bit.ly/bnmhie 22 hours ago reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Wheat and Currencies: Wheat is trading higher today, positioning to snap a 4-day profit-taking decline. The US Dep… http://bit.ly/ahQpaC 22 hours ago reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Wheat and Currencies | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ 22 hours ago reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Tensions Rising with China: The dollar-yuan was fixed today at CNY6.8015 today. It closed yesterday near CNY6.7750… http://bit.ly/brWj0m yesterday reply
nycwerewolf profile

nycwerewolf RT @edwardnh: Tensions Rising with China | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ yesterday reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Tensions Rising with China | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ yesterday reply
tatadiablo profile

tatadiablo RT @edwardnh Poor Economic Data in Europe Increase Global Growth Concerns http://bit.ly/9wq7jE yesterday reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Poor Economic Data in Europe Increase Global Growth Concerns: From the BBH Currency Strategy Team. Highlights The … http://bit.ly/9pz6rW yesterday reply
CMEGroup profile

CMEGroup RT @Tahoe58: Poor Economic Data in Europe Increase Global Growth Concerns | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/chab2M yesterday reply
Tahoe58 profile

Tahoe58 Poor Economic Data in Europe Increase Global Growth Concerns | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/chab2M yesterday reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Poor Economic Data in Europe Increases Global Growth Concerns http://bit.ly/9VKXeE yesterday reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Poor Economic Data in Europe Increases Global Growth Concerns: From the BBH Currency Strategy Team. Highlights … http://bit.ly/9pz6rW yesterday reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Poor Economic Data in Europe Increases Global Growth Concerns | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/bO2L1K $ yesterday reply
offwitz profile

offwitz “Economic policy failure | Credit Writedowns” ( http://bit.ly/bLtFhB ) yesterday reply
creditdad profile

creditdad Economic policy failure: Recently Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made an unsuccessful attempt to pin blame for the O… http://bit.ly/9dNrsm yesterday reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Economic policy failure http://bit.ly/dkxlij yesterday reply
financialblogs profile

financialblogs Economic policy failure: Recently Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made an unsuccessful attempt to pin blame for the O… http://bit.ly/9dNrsm yesterday reply
edwardnh profile

edwardnh Economic policy failure | Credit Writedowns http://www.creditwritedo… $ yesterday reply
JoeMattes profile

JoeMattes One Chart To Rule Them All, One Chart To Find Them (Out) http://bit.ly/aUEOLg #tcot #p2 #trade $ yesterday reply
sindad1 profile

sindad1 RT @WrittenOffUSA: Republican tax cuts for the rich “pay for themselves” disputed by…Republicans. Famous “Voodoo that You do” Video – http://bit.ly/d592pR yesterday reply
WrittenOffUSA profile

WrittenOffUSA Republican tax cuts for the rich “pay for themselves” disputed by…Republicans. Famous “Voodoo that You do” Video – http://bit.ly/d592pR yesterday reply
onti311 profile

onti311 RT @edwardnh: Potential for Sino-American trade friction increasing and other links | Credit Writedowns http://bit.ly/aBG8Z6 $ yesterday reply
JoseMiguelF profile

JoseMiguelF Hi @edwardnh, I followed you because @peerindex reckons you are an authority on Markets http://pi.mu/9q yesterday reply
mariogreat profile

mariogreat MG Potential for Sino-American trade friction increasing and other links http://bit.ly/aCvgqN yesterday reply
Join the conversation

Polls

If Alan Greenspan had raised rates in 2003, the US would have double dipped
o No (57%, 139 Votes)
o Yes (43%, 108 Votes)

Total Voters: 246
Loading … Loading …
o Polls Archive

o People
o Recent
o Popular
Top Commenters
o LavrentiBeria
5 · 146 posts
o Marshall Auerback
35 · 134 posts
o aitrader
3 · 79 posts
o Vangel
3 · 61 posts
o dansecrest
10 · 44 posts
Recent Comments
o Justin Weleski Then again, a bank can never truly determine whether a borrow is credit worthy (not unless they can correctly predict the future), so what seems to matter is the APPEARANCE of credit worthiness….

Does the Money Multiplier Exist? · 51 minutes ago
o Justin Weleski Interesting analysis: reserves don’t play the role we think they do and capital, leverage, and credit worthy borrowers are the primary determinants with regard to bank lending. I would disagree…

Does the Money Multiplier Exist? · 1 hour ago
o Arthur Cutten You may wish to include this paper in your reading as well http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_report… Some of these arguments are ‘chicken and egg’ and terminology and concept can…

Does the Money Multiplier Exist? · 1 hour ago
o Marshall Auerback It takes time for perceptions to change, especially given that the environment still remains pretty treacherous out there for many people (in spite of the improvements in the capital markets)….

Hiding Bank Losses · 2 hours ago
o Luis Enrique Thanks very much! I’ve got some reading to do. So we have an unfortunate situation in which households are trying to save more, but returns to saving are very low, yet there are credit-worthy…

Hiding Bank Losses · 3 hours ago
Most Discussed
o Economic policy failure

1 comment · 1 day ago
o The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending

29 comments · 5 days ago
o Housing Shortage Coming

9 comments · 6 days ago
o Misunderstanding Modern Monetary Theory

44 comments · 3 weeks ago
o Do Deficits Matter? Foreign Lending to the Treasury

10 comments · 1 week ago

Recent Posts
o Hiding Bank Losses
o Taiwanese Animation: How JetBlue flight attendant made an emergency getaway
o The Pause That Doesn’t Refresh
o Does the Money Multiplier Exist?
o Reinhart and Rogoff, Government Debt and Other Links
o On ideology and economics and the apathy of the American public
o Wheat and Currencies
o Tensions Rising with China
o Poor Economic Data in Europe Increase Global Growth Concerns
o Economic policy failure
o Potential for Sino-American trade friction increasing and other links
o Latam Update: ABC–Argentina, Brazil, Chile
o A few thoughts on the Fed’s quantitative easing strategy
o Global Growth Concerns Ignite the Dollar
o Chinese consumption and the Japanese “sorpasso”

Popular Posts
o The Real Reason Banks Aren’t Lending
o One Chart To Rule Them All, One Chart To Find Them (Out)
o If Deflation Wins, What Will Gold Stocks Do?
o A few thoughts on the Fed’s quantitative easing strategy
o Whither China?
o On China and America’s Collapsing Empire and Other Links
o Shilling: “The Economy Really Doesn’t Have Much Gas Any More”
o Bill Gross on quantitative easing, economic stimulus and recovery
o Starbucks’ closure list
o The top 25 European banks by assets
o Faltering Recovery
o The Federalization of the States
o Brazil: Look who’s got a Sovereign Wealth Fund
o The Month In Review At Credit Writedowns: August 2010
o More on China’s Housing Market and Other Links

Most Viewed
o Switzerland threatened with bankruptcy
o Letterman’s Top 10 George Bush moments
o Is the State of California bankrupt?
o The Dummy’s Guide to the US Banking Crisis
o Marc Faber: I advise every American to hold his gold outside of the United States
o Top ten predictions for the 2009 global economy
o Chart of the day: Dow 1928-1932
o The recession is over but the depression has just begun
o The top 25 European banks by assets
o The Swedish banking crisis response – a model for the future?
o Albert Edwards: Global economy to roll over in six to nine months’ time; bearish for shares
o Quantitative easing: printing money like mad to ward off deflation
o US GDP growth rate is unsustainable; recovery will fade
o The Fake Recovery
o Chart of the day: unemployment as a recession indicator
o The origins of the next crisis
o Brazil: Look who’s got a Sovereign Wealth Fund
o Hugh Hendry: China – The Emperor has no clothes
o 1931
o China’s empty city: the emperor really has no clothes

Avatars by Sterling Adventures

Our Site
If you want to find out what’s going on in the credit crisis, you’ve come to the right place.

See the Credit Crisis Timeline, which includes a timeline of major crisis events and links to a list of crisis events organized by financial institution. This is the most comprehensive data set of credit crisis-related events on the Internet.

To contact us, click here.

See more information about us.

Blog Authors
Annaly SalvosAnnaly Salvos
Casey ResearchCasey Research
Charlie BullCharlie Bull
Claus VistesenClaus Vistesen
Comstock PartnersComstock Partners
Edward HarrisonEdward Harrison
Edward HughEdward Hugh
Frederick SheehanFrederick Sheehan
Guest AuthorGuest Author
John LounsburyJohn Lounsbury
Marc ChandlerMarc Chandler
Marshall AuerbackMarshall Auerback
Michael PettisMichael Pettis
Niels JensenNiels Jensen
Rob ParenteauRob Parenteau

Post Calendar
August 2010 S M T W T F S
« Jul «-»
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Topics
bailout banking bankruptcy bonds Britain budget central banks China credit credit crisis debt derivatives distraction Economy election Europe financial bubbles financial history financial news financial statements forex Germany government Greece Housing inflation interest rates investing investment jobs journalism market wizards money mortgages Obama property recession recovery regulation retail Spain stimulus stocks United States video

Credit Writedowns
o About
o Contact
o Archives
o Advertise
o Subscribe
o Reading List

Advertisements

Written by mrcauser

August 15, 2010 at 11:50 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: