“Money we don’t have”

Good NYT article on deficit hysteria, with an especially illustrative quote from Rep. Cooper (D, TN):

“We have to stop spending money we don’t have,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who voted against the bill. “I hope deficit reduction fever is catching.”

The U.S. is in the midst of a balance sheet recession, with demographic ratios shifting an an unfavorable economic direction for several more years.  Under those conditions, deficit reduction fever will lead directly to the dreaded Japanese Disease —  another decade of stagnation, underemployment, and opportunity costs, all of which will impose greater burdens on future generations than expanded federal deficits would.

And policymakers — not to mention most members of the electorate, including analysts and the media — continue to commit two fundamental errors regarding fiscal policy:

1. They believe that all deficit spending must be financed with interest bearing debt, thus competing with the private sector for scarce financial resources.  However, judging by current Treasury rates, there’s still plenty of room for expanded federal borrowing.  And there’s a symbiosis between federal deficits and repair of balance sheets in the financial sector, as evidenced by the perfect quarters turned in by several major investment banks recently.  Politically, that relationship is almost nauseating, as it’s doing very little to relieve distressed households — but it nevertheless makes apparent the  dynamic between public sector fiscal deficits and private sector balance sheet relief.
2. They also believe implicitly that the U.S. is on a gold or similar standard, where fiscal and monetary policies are constrained by the supply of some exogenous factor, and governments can thus literally “run out of money.”  Governments can’t run out of money, as it is ’created’ by nothing more than digital ledger entries.  In other words, government (today, via operations of the quasi-private Fed) is the sole creator and supplier of high powered money.  Thus, the only constraint on money creation is inflation and a loss of confidence in the currency, and at the moment, those forces are emphatically not in play.  This too is symptomatic of Japanese Disease.

The fears of incumbent politicians like Cooper are certainly understandable.  But they’re borne of either ignorance about how these things work, or self-preservation.  Either way, it smacks of lousy political leadership. 

And given that Republicans are likely to benefit in November, we’d expect the trend towards fiscal conservatism to intensify.  Even President Obama, in a speech yesterday, promised the following:

• A three year freeze on all non-discretionary federal spending beginning in 2011
• Expiration of tax cuts via sunset provisions
• Elimination of 120 federal programs
• Reinstatement of PAYGO
• Higher fees on banks that are expected to lower federal deficits by $90B over ten years

He promised all of this as a way to force the public sector to budget in the same way that families and businesses do.  Again, this is wrong, and is borne of either ignorance or pandering.  And as with Congress, it smacks of crummy political leadership either way. 

The administration’s jawboning is also reminiscent of budget austerity measures touted by the Carter administration in the 1970s in reaction to the “tax revolt” — austerity measures that contributed to its eventual demise, even though they may have been more appropriate to the conditions prevailing at the time (e.g., baby boomers entering adulthood, global trade and financial integration, etc).   Today, austerity is far less appropriate, but even more vigorously pursued.  That almost certainly spells trouble for Obama in 2012 – assuming the GOP can field a worthy candidate and avoid blowing all of its political capital in the intervening years. 

You also have to wonder, were he to experience a change of heart, whether there’s any credible way for him to backtrack from his neo-liberal rhetoric.  The DLC, Brookings, Peterson, and all the other usual suspects have painted the guy into one hell of a corner.

In the meantime, assuming that reality will align with rhetoric, the political climate continues to be favorable to the USD and Treasuries, and rather risky to gold.  A contrarian call? You bet.  But it’s based on what we think is a well-grounded and – just as importantly – non-ideological assessment of the facts. 

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”) is a state registered investment adviser in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The views expressed by the author are as of the publication date, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy or a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Investors should not use this information as a basis for any investment decisions without first consulting their own financial adviser. SCM is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. Some clients of the firm are long GLL and/or long TLT.  At the time of writing, neither the firm nor its principals owned any securities mentioned. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS.

URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29deficit.html

http://www.japanreview.net/review_bsr.htm

http://www.miraeasset.com/ourmarket/outlookView.do?board_id=1125&group_id=1&pageNo=2

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100602/FREE/100609973

http://seekingalpha.com/article/208174-how-deficit-hawks-will-keep-cutting-spending-until-we-re-all-on-food-stamps

IRS vs Small Fry, Part 2

More on the IRS focusing its audit efforts on small taxpayers from CFO.com. In a recent post, we speculated on some conditions under which this might make sense. However, the study reported on and the experts interviewed in the article cast a far more shadowy light on the situation. For example:

• Audits of large companies have fallen dramatically over the past two decades, from 67% to 25%, despite offering the greatest potential dollar return per hour of agent labor.
• A “perverse quota system” might be incentivizing tax agents to pursue smaller companies, according to the authors of the study.

The IRS has indirectly defended its actions by reporting that it has increased its focus on pass through entities like S-corporations and partnerships, and by blaming “flat budgets.”

Tax experts quoted in the article point out that smaller companies are the locus of the “tax gap” problem — the difference between what is estimated to be owed in taxes and what is actually paid.

One of them also raised an interesting possibility regarding “sustension rates” (emphasis added):

While [Dean Zerbe, national managing director of tax consultancy Alliantgroup] says it is “difficult” to speculate on the decline in large-company audits, he points out that sustention rates (the ratio of agreed-on and upheld tax deficiencies to proposed tax deficiencies) may have something to do with the shift. Historically, sustention rates pertaining to large companies have been very low, says Zerbe. While the IRS may seek a high dollar amount based on underreported taxes, “the number drops like a stone” when the case gets to court and wends its way through the appeals process, he says.

Smaller companies also see the amount of tax they owe reduced in court, but “not nearly as dramatically,” notes Zerbe. That’s because they may not have the resources to challenge the IRS and are therefore more likely to settle. As a result, the IRS may see a better “bang for the buck” pursuing smaller companies, says Zerbe.

But targeting smaller companies may be bad for the economy on the whole, since audits consume the time and attention of business owners, adds Zerbe. ”While politicians in Washington love to give speeches touting how small businesses are the engines for job growth, revving up IRS audits of small business is like putting sugar in the gas tank,” he says.

We noted a similar irony while addressing healthcare reform back in March:

…employees of large corporations, unions, and public sector employees…have been subsidized, either through higher premiums, greater personal risk, or less health care, by the self-employed and entrepreneurs (which may be why politicians always try to kiss their rear ends)…

Our advice? Pay your taxes, small fry, but be wary of politicians kissing your keester. That smacking sound could signify an impending audit. 

URLs:

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14493089

http://654advisors.com/index.php/blog/2010/04/irs-watch-out-small-fry/

http://654advisors.com/index.php/blog/2010/03/paul-ryans-floor-speech/

IRS (still) has control issues

One of the major challenges to running a modern organization is having effective accounting controls in place. In fact, for the foreseeable future, the most effective control systems could actually prove to be a source of durable competitive advantage (though technology, learning curves, imitation, and innovation should eventually erode it away).

Apparently this has been a challenge even for the IRS:

Internal accounting errors by the Internal Revenue Service reduced federal funding available for unemployment benefits by $63 million, according to a new report…

While the IRS has improved its reporting of expenses associated with administering the fund, it still lacks sufficient controls to ensure that costs are calculated accurately. TIGTA found that the IRS overstated its expenses by $63,368,413 over a five-year period. These excess funds were transferred to the General Fund for overall federal government operations instead of remaining in the Unemployment Trust Fund.

URLs:

http://www.webcpa.com/news/IRS-Shortchanged-Unemployment-Funds-53904-1.html

Days of reckoning for state pensions?

Northwestern professor Joshua Rauh has published a paper in which he estimates that (1) state pension funds will run out of money in an average of 10 to 20 years and (2) the current gap between state pension assets and liabilities is equivalent to 25% of outstanding federal debt.

Rauh points out that actuarial practices understate the gap, and that with 8% annual return on pension assets [optimistic in our view], annual contributions to pension funds would have to double over the next ten years to close the gap. That’s a heck of a tax increase and/or shift in social spending at the state level. And given the contractual nature of defined retirement benefits, the fact that they are not indexed to nominal asset values in any way, and the importance they are afforded in most state constitutions, it seems unlikely that any ground can be made up on the benefits side of the equation.

States potentially have the option of scrip’ting away part of the problem by issuing their own currency (a more permanent version of California’s IOUs). The problem there is that many pension beneficiaries may live outside of the state they worked for, and that such measures might run afoul of pension guarantees.

Thus, it seems inevitable that the federal government will become more deeply involved in this issue in coming years. And while a great deal has been made of a ‘Keynesian revival’ in economic policy over the past few years, the pension crisis, like demographic cycles, actually seems to call for a revival of Abba Lerner’s ‘functional finance’, and the neo-chartalist school in general.

Essentially, if tax related or other burdens associated with pension fund solvency would impose deflation and/or penalties on real output, then the sanest way to resolve the crisis would be to employ the federal government’s capacity to issue interest and non-interest bearing debt (Treasury bills/notes/bonds and U.S. dollars, respectively), as we did with the financial system.

While straightforward in theory and operation, functional finance could prove a bit messier in its outcomes, given that U.S. dollars are still the global reserve currency. As we’ve pointed our previously, goods subject to the Law of One Price, primarily commodities, could very well ”inflate” in price, even if core U.S. price indices are relatively tame. That combination can have a regressive impact on households, and asymmetric impacts by industry.

If mishandled, it would mean that we’re shifting some of the adjustment costs in state pension assets to people outside and inside our borders who had nothing to do with the problem, while others would benefit unduly. Messy stuff.

URLs:

http://kelloggfinance.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/the-day-of-reckoning-for-state-pension-plans/

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rauh/research/RauhASPSSUSC2010.pdf

http://www.sscommonsense.org/page04.html

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP10-Wray.pdf

http://www.ucm.es/info/ec/ecocri/cas/Febrero.pdf

Poor auctions signifying…what exactly?

A good deal is being made of subpar Treasury auctions this past week and whether they signify a turning point in the market’s appetite for U.S. government debt. It’s certainly possible, but we suspect that there’s a more nuanced and global explanation.

First off, a 10 year Treasury yielding almost 4% annually does not look like a bad deal given the intermediate growth outlook in the U.S., despite what so many other pundits are saying (unless you believe that we’re on the verge of persistent domestic inflation, i.e., a widespread USD surplus…anyone?).

Second, if Treasury auction participants came to market with only cash and held no other assets, then the prevailing theory would be harder to refute. However, the most important participants in treasury auctions are the New York Fed’s primary dealer banks, which are divisions of BNP, Bank of America, Barclays, Cantor, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Daiwa, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Jefferies, JP Morgan, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, RBC, RBS, and UBS. These bank divisions and their parents already own large amounts of financial assets. Thus, they also need to manage risk when making purchase commitments. And one of the biggest risks of the past week was whether the Eurozone could agree on an assistance plan for Greece.

The following members of the Fed’s primary dealer banks are also primary dealers for Greek debt: Barclay’s, BNP, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, Merill Lynch (assumedly this is Bank of America), Morgan Stanley, Nomura, RBS, and UBS. This provides just a glimpse of the overall mosaic, as dealers also act as agents or conduits for public, and not just principals. However, it’s an important one, and it’s reported (and reasonable to assume) that several of them do own large slugs of Greek government debt.

Thus, given the uncertainty surrounding management of Greece’s funding crisis, and how it spiked again this past week as Germany dug in its heels, it’s quite possible that some of the usual buyers of U.S. Treasury debt are simply distracted and/or increasingly risk averse (even using low central bank interest rates to finance the purchase of protective credit default swaps, which probably offered more comfort in the immediate environment than new Treasuries).

 Consider, for example, that French and German banks are believed to be exposed to $119B of Greek debt. Assuming sane leverage ratios of 10x (a dangerous assumption to make), the potential financial loss is equivalent to a significant percentage of the two countries’ annual GDP of $6T (e.g., a 15% decline in the value of Greek bond holdings, if unhedged, would equal roughly 3% of combined French and German GDP).

As tempting as the U.S.-Treasury-on-the-brink hypothesis is for the public debt Cassandras, we think ours does a better job of incorporating the sharp strengthening of the USD over the past week, and market behavior since yet another agreement began to take shape.

Combined with the fact that speculative credit markets are looking awfully frothy, some other strange market signs, and the likelihood of federal fiscal consolidation in 2011, we think you have a recipe for an eventual rally in Treasuries. It reminds us a little bit of the post 9/11 Treasury market selloff. Caveat venditor?

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: The author does not own shares of any companies mentioned. Clients of the firm own shares of ALBKY, SHY, TLT, MFG, and NBG. A principal of the firm owns shares of C, GS, and MS. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy.

URLs:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

http://www.bankofgreece.gr/Pages/en/Markets/HDAT/DispItem.aspx?Item_ID=3220&List_ID=1af869f3-57fb-4de6-b9ae-bdfd83c66c95

http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-will-have-to-become-greeces-abu-dhabi-since-way-too-many-foreigners-hold-greek-debt-2010-1

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/banks-bet-greece-defaults-on-debt-they-helped-hide/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703798904575069712153415820.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=DXY%3AIND

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-27/bunds-fall-greek-bonds-rise-after-eu-leaders-agree-aid-plan.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJZgGddV4mIY

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/03/24/185091/new-negative-territory/

Stiglitz: The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

A timely column from Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz (emphasis added):

A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America…But despite protests by the yesterday’s proponents of deregulation, who would like the government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression.

…even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today’s deficit, but on the long-term national debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology, and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits. Banks’ short-sightedness helped create the crisis; we cannot let government short-sightedness – prodded by the financial sector – prolong it.

Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6% return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive.

In those last two paragraphs, Stiglitz is pointing out that if the returns on public spending are greater than the cost of financing them, then the future debt level will actually be lower. The government’s current cost of financing is simply the yield on Treasury debt. As of Friday, the ten year Treasury note yields 3.7%, while thirty year Treasury bonds yield about 4.6%. If publicly financed investments can be expected to return more than those figures, then undertaking them — and adding to current deficits and debt levels — is a no-brainer.

And as long as the yields on the securities of private sector issuers aren’t abnormally higher than those on Treasuries, the argument that the federal government is going to ‘crowd out’ the private sector is without merit.

Of course, it’s debatable (1) whether public expenditures are likely to produce returns of that magnitude and (2) whether future Congresses, Administrations, and Treasury Departments will manage the federal balance sheet appropriately. Unfortunately, no one’s openly debating these points. Instead, we’re treated to pithy but nonstop dogma from both sides, and a peculiar obfuscation by those in the middle, which in all cases overlook the basic financial calculus that Stiglitz reminds us of in his column.

Most importantly for debt and deficit hawks and those who fear higher taxes (those whom econo-nerds would refer to as ‘Ricardian equivalence’ subscribers), when the financial calculus is positive, then the debt service associated with marginal federal spending can be financed organically, via higher growth, rather than through higher taxes.

In short, people on all sides of the deficit issue should be able to agree, at least on financial and economic grounds, that investments yielding more than their cost of financing, when they do not crowd out private sector borrowing or resource demand, should absolutely be carried out.

—

Unfortunately, Stiglitz overlooks his own argument when he writes the following, which make us wonder if he doubts his 5 to 6% return figures, or if he’s just offering a gratuitous slap at the financial sector (emphasis added):

As the global economy returns to growth, governments should, of course, have plans on the drawing board to raise taxes and cut expenditures…

Continuing with his love of taxes:

The financial sector has imposed huge externalities on the rest of society. America’s financial industry polluted the world with toxic mortgages, and, in line with the well established “polluter pays” principle, taxes should be imposed on it. Besides, well-designed taxes on the financial sector might help alleviate problems caused by excessive leverage and banks that are too big to fail. Taxes on speculative activity might encourage banks to focus greater attention on performing their key societal role of providing credit.

As we’ve pointed out elsewhere, the domestic financial sector is going to shrink even without  punitive measures, as demographic composition shifts away from the saving and investing age groups. Well-designed regulation might be a better approach than taxes to constraining financial sector activities to socially beneficial ones (we admit that a ‘Tobin tax’ can be the most efficient approach to regulation under certain conditions, but aren’t convinced that it’s optimal for the financial sector).

And it would be profoundly unjust for the federal government, which so strongly encouraged and underwrote the expansion of mortgage financing (Stiglitz’ “pollution”), to retroactively punish the financial sector, its employees, and its current and future clients for simply following the government’s orders.

Stiglitz also takes a step back from his underlying thesis with this sentence:

Over the longer term, most economists agree that governments, especially in advanced industrial countries with aging populations, should be concerned about the sustainability of their policies.

From a technical standpoint, this isn’t as iron clad as so many of us reflexively believe. First, we have no idea whether an aging population is bound to be a drag on an economy, whether it depends on particular conditions, or anything else. There simply isn’t much historical data available to test such a proposition. Second, if we assume that it is a significant drag, then policies that are seen as unsustainable under “normal” conditions might very well be the most sustainable under those novel conditions. This could include expanded deficit spending and public debt, and/or expansion of money supply.

[To be fair, Stiglitz is almost certainly referring to entitlement spending obligations in that passage, which might be a bird of a different feather. We're just using it as an opportunity to critique some of the conventional wisdom around demographics.]

—

Despite Sitglitz’ inability to break out of his New Keynesian box, or part ways with his passion for higher taxes, we agree wholeheartedly with his essential argument:

…even with large deficits, economic growth in the US and Europe is anemic, and forecasts of private-sector growth suggest that in the absence of continued government support, there is risk of continued stagnation – of growth too weak to return unemployment to normal levels anytime soon.

The risks are asymmetric: if these forecasts are wrong, and there is a more robust recovery, then, of course, expenditures can be cut back and/or taxes increased. But if these forecasts are right, then a premature “exit” from deficit spending risks pushing the economy back into recession. This is one of the lessons we should have learned from America’s experience in the Great Depression; it is also one of the lessons to emerge from Japan’s experience in the late 1990’s.

…we must be wary of deficit fetishism…high-return public investments that more than pay for themselves can actually improve the well-being of future generations, and it would be doubly foolish to burden them with debts from unproductive spending and then cut back on productive investments.

These are questions for a later day – at least in many countries, prospects of a robust recovery are, at best, a year or two away. For now, the economics is clear: reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking. 

URLs:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz123/English

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interest-rate/yield.shtml

Mosler blowing minds (sort of)

Warren Mosler was given a brief spot on CNBC this morning to discuss his version of modern monetary theory, an idea that deserve a wider audience. The cognitive dissonance he induced among the host, a co-hosting economics reporter, and a successful hedge fund manager was pretty apparent. Warren lacks the charisma to make a quick sale, but as the co-host pointed out in the wrap up, it was a start.

Krugman vs CNBC

A couple of CNBC commentators ripped Paul Krugman for today’s op-ed on budget deficits, with Rick Santelli saying something about lining a bird cage. We aren’t defending Krugman against charges of self-contradiction or factual inaccuracies, but we are definitely siding with him on the economic substance of his argument (the lonely wingnut’s sojourn continues).

Prevailing rhetoric holds that the U.S. government is over extended, and that there’s precious little room for additional economic stimulus. That would be true if US dollars could only be obtained by taking them from people who have them, or by digging new ones out of the ground. In that case, servicing our debts — both private and public — would be quite burdensome. But the reality is that in a modern monetary system, monetary units are simply ledger entries. Whether carried in hand as a Treasury obligation, or held digitally in a bank account, all dollars are created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve in response to demands of the banking system.

The federal government does not have direct control of the Federal Reserve, so its control of money creation is only indirect (if Congress wished, it could wrest control of USD creation from the quasi-private Fed, a measure that a small number of radical but diverse members might like to see). But existing arrangements do not change the basic fact that the U.S. has the capacity to print the money (the non-interest bearing debt) used to service its public debt. That means that the only meaningful constraint on the level of our pubic debt is people’s willingness to accept the USD. And despite the sophomoric rhetoric on that point, people are still overwhelmingly willing to accept USDs.

The claim that Congress is “spending money that we don’t have” is even more egregious. To reiterate: if USDs could only be dug out of the ground, or pulled out of taxpayers’ pockets, then the argument might make some sense. But as long as we have the ability to create USDs out of thin air, then Congress has the ability to spend new USDs instead of existing ones.

The conservative argument against this type of Keynesian activism rests on a couple of key pillars, and under certain conditions, they’re valid: (1) as long as government constraints on the private sector are moderate, an economy will grow at or near full capacity; (2) public demand for capital will always tend to ‘crowd out’ private sector borrowing; and (3) public sector allocation of capital is inevitably distorted, which imposes long run economic costs. 

As long as those assumptions are valid, then Congressional thrift, beyond a basic level of social insurance and national defense spending, is a desirable objective. However:

(1) History doesn’t lend strong support to the idea that an unbridled private sector will always and everywhere produce positive growth; and if monetary policy is constrained by a zero bound (i.e., interest rates can’t go below zero), then whenever growth is below potential, fiscal stimulus is appropriate (and can be enacted in myriad ways that appeal to lefties or righties). This is especially true for long economic cycles, such as the Great Depression, Japan from 1989 until 2008 or so, and several developed western economies since roughly 1999. Judging by the available empirical research, demographic composition could be the main driver of these cycles (and if the effect is strong enough, it might deemphasize the importance of rationality vs behavioralism in theory and policy making).

(2) When private sector demand for capital is contracting, as can happen in a long down cycle, then public sector demand for capital (i.e., deficits and debt issuance) is beneficial, and should foster rather than crowd out private sector credit demand. However, under certain conditions, this will only work if money creation is supportive of public sector credit demand, i.e, if new money is created to finance the public sector debt (the conservative point of view tends to see this as banana republic monetary policy, but that isn’t always the case). Today, banks are taking advantage of a steep yield curve to borrow funds from the Federal Reserve (which creates new USDs) to purchase higher yielding Treasury debt, i.e., a significant amount of our public debt is being ‘monetized’. While that would be a bad thing in an inflationary environment, it’s a good thing when it offsets deflationary forces. Almost everyone who parrots the prevailing rhetoric is overlooking this dynamic.

(3) Public sector capital allocation is certainly prone to distortion in as much as it is not subjected to competition and the judgement of diverse agents. But asymmetries in the private sector can have powerfully negative effects too (financial crisis, anyone?). And while there’s room in our political system for new institutions designed to allocate public resources more optimally, the existing ones, such as voting, negotiation, and oversight, should do a good enough job in the meantime.

Krugman wrote that “there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade,” and apparently this has some pundits and analysts pulling their hair out. But if prevailing demographic ratios are going to drive another decade of subpar economic outcomes…then he’s absolutely right!  

When the real economy is humming along, we can leave the creation and allocation of new USDs to the private sector, and rein in public deficits without doing too much harm. But when the state of the real economy is uncertain, as it certainly is now (pun intended), the refusal to finance public spending, investment, and intermediation via the creation of new dollars (within the constraints dictated by inflation objectives and expectations) is inherently deflationary and destructive. And that is what undermines the sophomoric notion that we are “leaving a mountain of debt to our grandchildren.” If the public sector is not active enough to offset destructive forces acting in the economy today, then our grandchildren will be worse off. Like most economic variables, public debt levels mean nothing in isolation. And we shouldn’t just look at it relative to current GDP. We must also look at it relative to opportunity cost, or looked at another way, to future GDP. There are actions that the public sector can take today to favorably impact GDP in the future, but they all require financing, including deficit spending. We should only be frightened of deficits when they are scarier than the opportunity costs imposed by government saving. Today, that is simply not the case.

So Krugman is right to be concerned about the policy outlook, which he has a rather pessimistic view of:

Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price.

We’ve expressed similar concerns since 2H09, but it now looks to us as though the Obama administration is “triangulating” on deficits and the federal debt, with no intention to substantially withdraw fiscal stimulus in the government’s 2011 fiscal year (though again, we’re still trying to figure out how the president’s emphasis on PAYGO fits into this). If we’re right, then the readjustments underway in exchange rates, specifically the Euro and USD, are being driven by the Euro and sovereign debt concerns, rather than from the USD side. That means we should settle into a new exchange rate equilibrium in the coming weeks, at which point risky assets should start to recover. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, but we’ll get there.

URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. At the time of writing, the firm, its principals, and its clients did not own any securities mentioned, or any securities issued by entities mentioned.

Obama Budget & 4Q09 GDP

We were feeling a little smug about Friday morning’s GDP print, given our argument in 2H09 that growth prospects were probably being under estimated. At 5.7%, it wasn’t quite the six handle that we thought we might see, but barring any significant downward revisions, it was closer than most expected, and nominal GDP did indeed have a six handle.

Interestingly, headline government spending added little to the quarter’s numbers, so there will be an interesting debate over how much of a role ‘fiscal demand’ is playing, but we’re cautious about that for a few reasons. First, the slower pace at which private inventories were liquidated was a large contributor to GDP, but sustainable private sector growth and employment are unlikely as long as inventory building remains anemic.  Second, federal spending was down due to a lower defense spend, while non-defense spending was up 8% versus 7% in 3Q09, so it’s hard to argue there was no fiscal component. Third, it ignores the possibility of lag effects between public sector spending or deficits and subsequent private sector activity. And if we’re right that fiscal expenditures are still playing a role, the GDP data could imply a very healthy multiplier, a possibility sketched out in this recent academic paper.

This leads us to the Obama budget released today, which will be a real tooth gnashing, garment rending piece of work to many. But it looks pretty good to us at first glance (see the criteria on page six of this Idle Speculator), far better than recent rhetoric led us to expect. The deficit is forecast to be a record $1.56T in 2010 and to remain above $1T in 2011, and it’s beginning to appear that Obama is “triangulating” on fiscal austerity measures, or at least on the time frame over which deficit reduction will occur (though it’s not clear how PAYGO fits into this).

The President’s budget will be tough for some to swallow, but as we’ve pointed out elsewhere, the belief that government is always and everywhere the problem, or that it cannot contribute to real economic growth, is based on a massive underlying assumption: that the private sector is always and everywhere able to grow. It’s not hard to reduce that position to an absurd one, e.g., if a natural or biological calamity were to severely impact private sector potential, a government with a monopoly over money creation could pick up some or perhaps all of the slack.

Reality is far more complicated of course, but since demographic ratios came to our attention, it seems patently clear that private sector potential can vary wildly over multi decade periods, especially in economies where a steep fall in childhood mortality occurred at some point in history. Japan is the most recent example of a two decade downswing in potential output, and its policymakers mistakenly approached the problem as a cyclical rather than a secular one. The U.S. and other western nations are roughly ten years behind Japan in demographic terms, so there’s still roughly a decade of slow, no, or even negative growth ahead of us, barring an active public sector (note: “active” can include tax cuts). As we wrote last November:

We’re familiar with the major [economic] catechisms; we’re just not sure that the evidence supports any one of them over another. Structural economic conditions can and do change — age structure is just one example of how this can come about — and different conditions may call for different approaches.

There are several economic measures that, when viewed over the last two decades, support our assessment that demographics are playing a powerful role in the performance of the U.S. economy (and by extension, these measures tend to undermine arguments against Republican budget profligacy in the 2000s). For example:

The year over year decline in state and local income tax revenue has never been so precipitous, and it has become far more volatile since demographic ratios first turned negative in the late 1990s;

The trend in real private inventories has also been declining since the late 1990s; and 

Equipment and software investment has been in a similar downtrend since the late 1990s.

Admittedly, we’re just eyeballing graphs here and speculating on whether they correspond well to more robust empirical analyses. But we’re fairly confident in our speculation, and this has led us to accept that we are in a Keynesian moment, or more accurately, two Keynesian decades with a Minskian moment in the middle. In such an environment, where private sector expectations are pessimistic, the optimal response is for the public sector to pick up the slack in consumption, investment, and intermediation, within the constraints set by inflation expectations (granted, inflation is a messier issue in a world where the USD is the global reserve currency, and based on a first cut view of today’s budget, we believe our tradable goods inflation thesis is back in play).

The Obama budget appears to pick up a healthy measure of private sector slack, and should thus be favorable overall for employment, asset prices, and economic output. The inflation issue will be far more slippery: on the one hand, a well designed federal budget gives the Fed more room to tighten, as private sector expectations improve; on the other, fiscal direction is uncertain, especially beyond 2011, and prone to shocks, so central banks will have to be rather nimble (more nimble than they were in 2003-05 and 2008) to avoid taking an overly easy or tight approach to policy.

Obama’s proposed tax increases on high income households will cause some resentment, but it’s hard to see how the income disparity pendulum could keep swinging on its current arc. The administration might also believe that higher tax rates on higher incomes will be supportive of state and municipal debt financing. We’d feel better about it if there were an accompanying reinvention of the corporate tax code, as we believe that would have some positive second and third order effects on lower and middle class incomes; first order effects could be achieved by instituting a payroll tax holiday as Warren Mosler has suggested.

Unfortunately, we place a zero probability on corporate tax reform happening any time soon (the budget calls for increasing taxes on certain sectors of the economy), and a near zero probability on a long payroll tax holiday. Despite that, the President’s budget does brighten the economic outlook a bit for 2H2010 and 2011, and the possiblity of a double dip might have been pushed back to 2012 or 2013 (which clearly calls the semantics of ”double dip” into question).

URLs:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~yona/research/Multiplier-version12.pdf 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/02/01/Introducing-the-2011-Budget/

http://654advisors.com/idlespeculation/20100112.pdf

http://654advisors.com/idlespeculation/20091109.pdf

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=ASLPITAX&s[1][transformation]=pc1

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=CBIC1

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=NRIPDC96&s[1][transformation]=pc1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment

http://moslereconomics.com/2010/01/28/tea-party-plan-for-dems-cut-to-the-front-with-tax-cuts/

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. At the time of writing, the firm, its principals, and its clients did not own any securities mentioned, or any securities issued by entities mentioned.

Dollar Strength & Foreign Credit

We came across an interesting piece on the relationship between the USD and commercial credit activity outside the U.S., as shown in the chart below. The implication, based on a quick and dirty visual analysis, is that if USD strengthening continues (the red line, which is plotted inversely), then foreign commercial paper (the blue line) is likely to contract. In other words, a dearer dollar could spell trouble for foreign economies, and that would have negative implications for economic activity, commodities, and risky assets abroad, all else equal.

This piece of evidence, combined with our strong dollar call yesterday, raises some fascinating possibilities. A rush to the USD was not on many strategists’ radar in 2009, or even to this point in 2010. Judging by markets’ performance today and yesterday, we could be seeing a significant break from those views. Then again, we might just be seeing the first notable stock market correction since last year; a USD squeeze might also be a short lived phenomenon.

We see too many moving parts to make a firm call either way. The markets continue to face the spectre of tightening federal purse strings and a ‘less easy’ Federal Reserve in 2010, and as of this week, they are now sitting in the middle of the open conflict that has broken out between the administration and the financial industry.  

We also see complexities in that battle that make it hard to come down on either side. We offered criticism of Obama’s initial remarks on the financial assets tax, though we later qualified it, and some of his remarks today were spot on. And while government policies and institutions certainly set up incentives to greed and stupidity, the actions embodying greed and stupidity (and the massive trading of rents that did little or nothing — arguably less – for economic welfare) were taken by individuals and organizations in the financial industry. And yet the overall tone of hawkishness from policymakers has negative implications for everyone, regardless of what street they make a living on.

There’s also a little noted irony in the apparent desire of some Democrats to constrain the size and activities of the financial sector. If Ajay Kapur’s research is on the mark, the sector is going to be shrinking in the years ahead regardless of regulatory changes, due to the shrinking ratio of middle aged adults.  A more interesting thing to speculate on, given the continuing centrality of the USD in the global economy, is how well those faster growing regions of the world will cope with tigher global liquidity. 

[UPDATE 1/21/2010 - In a CNBC interview moments ago, House Financial Services Commitee chairman Barney Frank put a far kinder and gentler spin on the recent presidential bluster, saying that a regulatory regime shift would have to be drawn out over several years and do a minimal amount of harm. This appears to have calmed frayed nerves in the market, and is a nifty scoop for Burnett and Cramer. Cramer's inferring that Paul Volcker (a man with a history of bull-in-a-china-shop approaches to policy) has the President's ear, while Frank comes down with the more nuanced regulatory views of Fed and Treasury, which could make for some political drama in the year ahead. It could even be a high stakes game of good cop, bad cop -- time will tell.]

http://shadowcapitalism.com/2010/01/20/the-implications-of-a-dollar-squeeze-on-foreign-banks-credit-access/

http://www.miraeasset.com/data/download.jsp?file_path=upload&file_name=MiraeAsset_TheGlobalInvestigator_20090812.pdf

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1340630859

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34979114/site/14081545