Clear Full Forecast

Invasion of the Moneylenders – Part 7 – To Shoot a Moose

By Peter Ewart

Thursday, December 27, 2007 03:45 AM

    This is the 7th in a series by Peter Ewart, You can read the others,  by clicking here 

In the great forests of central and northern British Columbia, moose hunting is a time honored tradition in the Fall.  Aiming to bag some big game for the freezer, hunters venture out in the bush with their rifles, 4 wheel drives, and thermoses of hot coffee. 

When going after moose, hunters strive for a clean shot to bring down these magnificent antlered giants quickly. But it often happens that, after taking a slug or two, the moose will stagger slightly and then disappear into the bush.  After waiting a bit, the hunter patiently follows the drops of blood in the fresh snow.  If it has received a heart or lung shot, the wounded moose will eventually end up dropping to the ground, sooner rather than later, in a steaming heap of fur, hoof, antler, and blood.

So goes the U.S. economy as a result of the subprime mortgage scandal and overall financial crisis.  By carrying out various unethical, semi-legal, and, as some are alleging in the U.S., illegal practices, including flogging toxic securities to investors, withholding vital information from clients, and falsifying documents, financial institutions have shot a bullet into the guts of the American economic system that, in the years to come, promises to wreak huge damage, not only to the U.S. economy, but also to economies around the world.  One of the main establishment newspapers in Britain, The Telegraph, calls it a crisis of “epochal proportions” (1).

And it is not the only storm cloud looming on the horizon.  Problems in the municipal bond market and credit card receivables are expected to emerge in the coming year.  As one analyst predicts, “eventually, the mushrooming damage from the collapsing credit markets will cause a world stock detonation” (2).  Many new ventures in mining, manufacturing and other sectors are also being put on hold because bank loans have dried up. In addition, a classical crisis of overproduction is gathering in parts of North America in some non-financial sectors like forestry, auto manufacturing, and housing construction. 

For example, throughout Northern Canada, sawmills and pulp mills are closing in the worst downturn in half a century or more.  For the auto industry in the eastern U.S., as well as Ontario and Quebec, the situation is no better.  Massive layoffs and shutdowns are idling thousands.  Indeed, the CEO of Chrysler Corporation has stated that the company is for all intents and purposes “operationally bankrupt” (3).  As for the housing market, Moody’s Economy.com says that “the United States is deep in the worst housing slump since the Great Depression” which is “not going to get better any time soon” (4).

The U.S. website “The Daily Reckoning” wryly comments that “the words to watch for next year are: solvency, crash, tariff, liquidated, foreclosure, zero-bound, Obama, exit-strategy, [and] unfunded liability” (5).

That being said however, the situation is paradoxical.  In some parts of North America, the economy, at least on the surface appears to be doing quite well.  In these regions, unemployment is low, and new construction, often fueled by government spending (like the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver / Whistler), is still booming.  But just as a gut shot moose will sometimes charge off into the brush at full clip or even resume feeding on shrubs as if nothing has happened, the North American economy is living on borrowed time.

The situation is not being helped by politicians and financial analysts who have persisted over the last several years in presenting a mindlessly optimistic picture of the economy or who have downplayed the dangerous economic waters we are entering.  As Hans Black, chairman of Interinvest Consulting Corporation in Montreal, says:  “I don’t think politicians, certainly not in Canada, have fully grasped the severity of what is going on.  We are at a very serious juncture, and there’s a serious risk of unraveling” (6).

So far, the main response of central banks to the credit crisis has been to flood the market with more money and lower interest rates.  But these measures are having little effect so far.  “The central banks of the world have created a monster, whose name is debt,” says Anthony Cherniawski of The Market Oracle.  “The ammunition they use to contain the monster is more debt, so the monster grows every time these so-called cash infusions are made” (7).  Furthermore, the more interest rates are cut, as the U.S. Federal Reserve has done recently, the more the plague of inflation will spread. 

Thus, our economic possibilities get reduced to either a recession or a bout of prolonged stagflation.   Increasingly, the debate amongst financial analysts is not whether a downturn is coming, but rather how severe it will be.  One economist quoted in The Telegraph fears that we could be facing a situation that would “make 1929 look like a walk in the park” (8). 

Towards the end of their book “Empire of Debt”, William Bonner and Addison Wiggin look to the future, aptly titling a chapter with the phrase, “Something wicked this way comes” (which also is the title of a Ray Bradbury horror novel). 

“Well,” some politicians might respond, “What will be, will be.”  To them, it is better to be optimistic than pessimistic.  After all, what’s the harm in looking at the bright side of things? 

But there is real harm.  If municipal, provincial, federal or state governments believe that the economy will continue to develop and improve, they will tailor their economic and fiscal policies to address that positive reality.  On the other hand, if the outlook is not good, they will (or at least should) adjust their policies to deal with that negative reality. 

To put it another way, if a government is “zigging” when it should be “zagging”, the results can be disastrous for the populace.  And unfortunately many governments in North America and other countries under the sway of finance capital have been doing just that. 

According to Bonner and Wiggin, “the force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception and delusion that preceded it” (9).  By that formula, we are in for a bad one.

Notes

  1. Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose.  “Crisis May Make 1929 Look a ‘Walk in the Park.”  The Telegraph Dec. 23, 2007.
  2. Laird, Chris.  Prudentsquirrel.com.
  3. “Chrysler CEO: We’re ‘Operationally’ Bankrupt.”  CNNMoney.com. Dec. 21, 2007.
  4. Christie, Les.  “Pain Street USA: ’80 Housing Outlook.”  CNNMoney.com. Dec. 21, 2007.
  5. “Optimism in the Face of Inflation.”  The Daily Reckoning.  Dec. 26, 2007.
  6. Black, Hans.  Qtd. in “Harper Rejects Debt Bailout, Putting Pressure on Canadian Banks.” By Theophilos Argitis and David Scanlan.  Bloomberg.com Dec. 21, 2007.
  7. Cherniawski, Anthony.  “Real Estate Pro’s head for the Exit as Bush Asks Banks to ‘Come Clean’ on Losses.” The Market Oracle.  Dec. 22, 2007.
  8. Spencer, Peter.  Qtd. in “Crisis May Make 1929 Look a ‘Walk in the Park.”  By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.  The Telegraph.  Dec. 23, 2007.
  9. Bonner, William, and Addison Wiggin.  Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis.  Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Debt will be the demise of everything and everyone. No debts go unpaid, someone, somewhere will have to make up for the losses. Sage advice would encourage people and governments to pay down debt. If you have no debt, set money aside to accumulate for the future when things may not be so good. Those who have will be in a position to lend to those who do not have. Would you rather be the borrower or the lender?

But, what do most people want to do? Spend more and rack up more debt by embarking on more capital projects and purchases. (Local Municipal Government) Senseless and irresponsible in my opinion. Chester
Debt is simply a financial tool. Every dollar in existence is a 'debt'. For what's a debit in the hands of one party, is a credit in the hands of another.

Virtually all money comes into existence as a debt (to the banking system, at present, because it's charged with creating money). New money is created each time a bank loan is made, and the banker utters those immortal words, "Mr...., the money is in your account."

Loans create deposits, the repayment of those loans cancel them. It is simply 'bookkeeping'. What came out of 'nothing', at the end of its usefulness, goes back to 'nothing'. It's usefulness, while it existed, was to induce production and move that production through until final consumption.

When a Government taxes you to pay down its National debt it is sending the money it collects to oblivion. If, on it's journey from the bank into your hands through employment, that same money has been 'costed' into some production and forms part of the 'price' of it, and those articles have not yet sold, the removal of money from you through taxation for the purpose of Government 'debt reduction' means that some of the articles made CAN NOT be sold. Not, at least, in their totality, at what it cost to make them. For unless someone else borrows some more money, there's not enough money in existence to buy them with.

When you're told that your Government is being fiscally responsible by running a balanced budget and paying down debt, all it really means is that the debt it holds on your behalf collectively is being transferred back to you individually.

If, alternately, the repayment of a National Debt takes place from money earned as 'export' credits from having a national surplus of exports over imports, the value of Canadian currency against foreign currencies rises, and our exports become harder to sell in foreign markets. Resulting in unemployment, as factories, mills, etc. close.

On the other hand, under the current financial arrangements, if your Government runs up a debt, the value of Canadian currency falls internationally, and, while our exports become competitive again in foreign markets, (until those other counties move to keep them out, anyways), we are really then just GIVING our resources and labour away just to have a 'job'.

We cannot ever 'win' under either scenario. Nor will we ever, until we have a proper set of National Accounts organized under the same priciples that apply in any business's accounts. Where the increase in actual Net Worth over time is properly recorded, and distributed periodically to the shareholders through dividends.


Oh goody, what we have all wanted as a News years wish.

A bomb in every households portfolio.
Hmm! I was under the thinking that deposits were necessary first before a bank could lend money. I do realize that the banks can create debt (profit) with the stroke of a pen. And they can also lend much more than what they have on deposit. Approved by our Government when they gave away control of our currency to the Bank of Canada.

Personally, when I incur a debt, it is under the understanding that I am willing and have the ability to pay it back.

I will pay it back by providing something of value like a product or a service that someone is willing to pay for. There is no something for nothing in this world. Somebody pays for everything.

Those who borrow with out concern of how or if they will ever pay it back are the real problem. I blame the bankers for lending money to everyone and their dog, whether they are credit worthy or not.

Most people live way above their means and struggle their whole lives giving the bankers extra interest. (Sort of like getting to the till at Can Tire and asking them to ad 26% to the bill)(And then complain and try to blame somebody else why their incomes aren't adequate)

There is good debt and bad debt. Most people use the wrong kind and for the worst reasons. And they wonder why the rich get richer? Well, they buy shares in the banks of course. Stupidos! Chester
"So goes the U.S. economy as a result of the subprime mortgage scandal and overall financial crisis."

America is in deep debt doodoo, caused partly by the expensive policy of maintaining 700+ military bases around the globe. By waging prolonged simultaneous wars while engaged in policing the world it is attempting to remake and shape it into something acceptable to America.

Most cultures and societies prefer autonomy without foreign intervention and occupation. That is a basic fact but doesn't seem to be acceptable to some power groups. Therefore, the madness continues until the bottom falls out of it.

These policies have cost trillions of dollars and will keep costing trillions more.

In a roundabout way peace may finally arrive when war becomes too expensive to conduct!



Investing in the banks is the worst thing you could do at this time. A lot of them are going bankrupt themselves because they had assets that were really not assets backing up their fractional lending policies. Those assets were nothing more than repackaged mortgages that are no longer good for re-payment and classified as investment assets once repackaged, rather then the traditional liability that they really are.

Each mortgage defaul hits the banks ten fold in the banks ability to maintain its required reserves, and doubly so because its not just a liability anymore, but rather was classified as an asset (through repackaged investment devices), so they could borrow up to ten times what they had just lent. Its why the money supply in North America has doubled in less then 3-years.

That is just the tip of the iceburg when one considers the next wave will involve $64 trillion in casino market derivative and hedge betting that is about to unwind.

The situation right now is out of the hands of the US Federal Reserve and US Treasury that created the problem in the first place and is now in the hands of the banks themselves, which if not corrected in the next 2-3 months will all come apart like a deck of cards. With GW in charge in the US and his appointments all a part of the executive class that benefited from the creation of this banking mess we have no hope IMO of averting catastrophe.

I disagree with the notion of socred that paying down debt is throwing money away. Its called short term pain for long term sustainability and it is required now more then ever. 6-months from now we may require the opposite, but for now that is the prudent thing for governments and citizens to be doing.

What we really need is a congressional investigation of the banking sector in the United States, but that will never happen because the banksters not only controll the US Fed banking system, but they also control the two political parties that form the monopoly in America's so-called-democracy.

Time Will Tell
BTW as bad as it sounds on the macro global level... we here in Canada should feel fortunate, because we are the most insulated from this financial mess of any of the other western powers. Our banks seem to be a lot stronger and our countries finances are in a lot better shape then any of our major trading partners. Sure we will feel their pain as well, but we may also become a safe haven for their capital flight becuase of our more conservative fiscal and banking policy the last ten years. That said what will be devistating for the Americans will still bring a lot fo pain to our neck of the woods as well, as we will see in the forestry sector for starters.

IMO the huge winners from the GW presidency in the US for the last 7 years were the NWO banksters and their geo-political medling for global domination. In the next year we will all find out that they created a noose for America to hang itself in, and that the real winner will be a country like Russia who experienced enough of the Rothschild banksterism (after nearly a century of manipulation) and booted them all out under Putin, consolidated the global energy market under their control as the world took stock of GW's administrations true motives, and is now set IMO to be the dominant factor in the post bankster world order.

Time Will Tell
I didn't say paying down debt was "throwing money away", Eagleone. I said when the Government pays down the National Debt by money collected in taxes from the public that money is effectively cancelled as money.


If that money has appeared in the Cost, and ultimately the Price, of some good or service that's been produced and is still in existence, there is then a disparity between total collective prices and the total 'money' in existence necessary to liquidate those prices. There is already a deficiency between 'prices' and 'incomes' present in every modern industrial economy, and taxation to pay down a National Debt UNDER THE CURRENT RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY makes that deficiency worse.

The National Debt originated as a credit to the account of the Government, most of it from one of the chartered banks buying some Government securities. Treasury bills, bonds, etc. When the securities are sold by the banks (redeemed by the Government from taxes in this case) and the debt is repaid, an equivalent amount of that credit is cancelled. That 'money' disappears as 'money.

There is a very big difference between what you and I and Chester, and everyone else, can do in regards to our personal money and financial affairs, and what a Governmnet can do in regards to its. We are not 'self-financing'. A sovereign Nation is. It's on the opposite side of the ledger from its citizens.

As regards Chester's comments about 'deposits' and 'loans', yes, a Bank does need 'deposits'. But it does NOT loan its deposits, for they are the Bank's liabilities to its customers, and form part of its reserves.

Every new Bank loan creates an equivalent deposit. All modern Banking is creditary and based on a fractional reserve system. Most people assume that this means that if you were to depsoit $ 1,000 in your Bank, and your banker had an ultra conservative 30% reserve policy, (it's actually less than 10% now), the Bank could loan out $ 700 and keep $ 300 as its reserve.

That this $ 300, along with 30% of everyone else's deposits would form its till money. The cash on demand it could always pay, provided all its customers didn't appear and want their money back all at once.

The system doesn't quite work that way, however. For what the Bank really does is regard your $ 1,000 as its reserve, and computes what $ 1,000 is 30% OF. And that's $ 3, 333.33, which how much the Bank can create in new credit, in this case, on your $ 1,000.

So lets say that $3333.33 credit loan goes into default then the bank needs to cover for that amount out of their reserve creating a ripple effect that in effect takes away their ability to lend $11,000. If that credit cruch means the bank can not refinance some loans in order to cover for its reserves, then it can take on a life of its own as those denied refinancing also go into default. Fractional banking in reverse, which is what we are in the begining stages of today.

What the banks have done is take that $3333.33 in credit created, rather then put it on their books as a credit, they instead were packaging it with other loans and calling it a kind of investment bond with a guaranteed return and thus an asset. With $3333.33 in new assets the bank could then use that as their reserves and do the whole process all over again. In the mean time the bank charges high fees throughout the process, the banksters take huge bonuses for the fees they generate, and the 'asset' bundled loans (called guaranteed income funds or such)are resold to other unsuspecting investors and banks who are left holding the worthless bag that was sold as top grade investments. This way banks are selling other banks poison that created reserve problems when they realize what a bag of stones they have actually been sold. Suddenly the risk banks assess to each other gets out of control and a major correction is in order.
What you've described is largely what happens, Eagleone. In the case of a loan default the Bank is on the hook for any amount of the deposit that loan has created that's already been paid out to some third party. It's left to collect from the borrower, if it can.

The third party that's received payment is in the clear. Which is the usefulness of banking. It generalises the credit of the borrower, by exchanging his personal creditary instrument~ his promise to pay, his promissory note ~ something not fungible in the general community as money, for a bank deposit. Which can be drawn on by the use of the Bank's creditary instruments (cash, cheques, drafts, debit card, etc.) that are fungible as money in the general community.

Banking, in essence, is much akin to insurance. It's actuarial, it involves the pooling and sharing of risk. As you say, with defaults the fractional reserve system works 'in reverse', and the bank's loan losses represent a reduction in the Bank's shareholder's equity.

Its stock drops, in other words. If the loan losses are severe enough it can go bankrupt, same as any other business. In which case most of its customer's deposits would be protected by CDIC deposit insurance up to $ 100,000, (I believe), per deposit.

In the case of Canadian banks, the likelihood of bankruptcy is small. The Government regulators would most likely mandate any bank even in potential danger merge with a 'stronger' bank. (Which is just what the bankers have been trying to do for years, if only Ottawa would let them! That's the real thing to watch, IMHO!)

The whole issue that most are so focussed on, sub-prime mortgages, speculative real estate bubbles, risky unsecured loans, etc., etc., are all EFFECTS of a CAUSE that remains unlooked at, and consequently remains uncorrected.

That CAUSE is the ongoing overall diverging rate in the flow of PRICES and the flow of INCOMES that are supposed to be able to fully liquidate them as production moves into consumption.
Chester wrote:- "Personally, when I incur a debt, it is under the understanding that I am willing and have the ability to pay it back."

That's right. If you couldn't demonstrate that you could pay it back, the bank wouldn't lend to you. Your repayment may come from the prospect you have for future earnings, or, the pledge of some collateral security which could be liquidated to make good your obligation.

Chester:- "I will pay it back by providing something of value like a product or a service that someone is willing to pay for. There is no something for nothing in this world. Somebody pays for everything."

There are many, many "something for nothings" in this world, Chester, or none of us would be here. To give but one example, you don't 'pay' for the air you breathe. Yet. But Gordo and his Global ilk are working on correcting that!

Chester;- "Those who borrow with out concern of how or if they will ever pay it back are the real problem. I blame the bankers for lending money to everyone and their dog, whether they are credit worthy or not."

They quite likely had to demonstrate that in some way they were credit worthy. Or they wouldn't have got the loan at that time. Possibly their credit worthiness was based more on inflation continuing, and raising the price of the asset pledged as security to the bank. Than on their prospects for future earnings from employment.

But really, what would you expect in a world that sets such store in "full employment"? That has the economics governing Production solidly in the 21st Century, but moral dictums governing Consumption like, "let no man eat who has not first worked", rooted way back in the 1st?

They lend to the less credit worthy because if they didn't their Consumption could only take away far less of the Production of modern manufacturing than it's even now increasingly unable to. And if that happens? Well, there goes the 'jobs'. Faster than they're already going.


Chester:-"Most people live way above their means and struggle their whole lives giving the bankers extra interest. (Sort of like getting to the till at Can Tire and asking them to ad 26% to the bill)(And then complain and try to blame somebody else why their incomes aren't adequate)"

You're looking at the profligate spenders, of which I agree, there are too many. But they are NOT the main problem. The bigger problem is that 'society' has, and is increasingly, FORCING people to live beyond their means. By setting numerous standards which, while in themselves are often very desirable, have never addressed the problem of how they can be adhered to without increasing debt.

And, even more so, by failing to recognize that as long as ALL Costs are included in Prices, while CURRENT Labour Costs are only a PART, and a decreasing part, of those Costs, those Prices CAN'T be paid from Labour incomes alone. Not without increasing debt.

socred writes, "They lend to the less credit worthy because if they didn't their Consumption could only take away far less of the Production of modern manufacturing than it's even now increasingly unable to. And if that happens? Well, there goes the 'jobs'. Faster than they're already going."

-------------

I don't buy your claim that banks are also charities and even bigger banks make bigger charities. I don't think they lend to less-credit-worthy because they feel a need to contribute to consumption in an economists ideal world. No... I think they lend to less-credit-worthy because they can rape them on the fees and then flip the risk to dummies in the financial world as low-risk-assets (consolidated clumps of ass wipe) in which the financial world can then pump-and-dump to the dummies of the investment world as a great guaranteed cash flow device.

A person who claims that debt is the only way to liquidate past debt, and that labour is not involved in that equation... is suspect to me, and then this idea of larger banks to better manage that debt... makes one wonder about you to say the least. I don't buy it.

What happens when you have a market where no-one has debt? Even today we have that in pockets and you can not discount that as not fitting with your economic models because they are the future investors that will own all those that can't pay there greater debt.

The facts are that the banksters are all theieves that steal with the pen through policy designed to make ussury acceptable and common place in society in order to use that as a means of control and advantage over others. The banksters achieve this with lack of oversight by government regulation over their conduct in finance as well as lending, and the pure conflicts of interest they are allowed to make common place. Banksters are allowed to rule our economy and IMO our democracy with little to no accountability. That IMO needs to change. It starts with regulation of debt, not more debt as socred will claim. IMHO
Time to purge all financial records and start over again.

;-)
Goodbye RRSPs and RRIFs, Canada Savings Bonds and bank deposits...

Where is my money? Sorry Sir/Madam, there has been a purge...the mother of all purges and it has been flushed. Get used to it!

:-)
Eagleone wrote:-"A person who claims that debt is the only way to liquidate past debt, and that labour is not involved in that equation... is suspect to me, and then this idea of larger banks to better manage that debt... makes one wonder about you to say the least. I don't buy it."

The system is dynamic, Eagleone. The liquidation of past loans depends entirely on there being an equal volume of new loans constantly being written to replace them as they mature.

If there weren't, profit, savings, and interest would be impossible, since each of these three things is in subtrahend to overall system flow.

When there isn't at least an equal volume of loans being written , when there's a credit contraction, then business profit falls or disappears, and we're in a recession.

Labour is very much involved in the equation. For it is the ongoing 'displacement' of labour incomes which ultimately causes the problems.
Eagleone:- "What happens when you have a market where no-one has debt?"

Under the current financial system you then have a market where no one has money. And the only way you can trade is through barter.

All money involves there being a debtor and a creditor, since money itself is not wealth, but only a ticket to it.

from this link: http://www.globalinsight.com/Highlight/HighlightDetail1495.htm

"With the potential for housing crunches in some European economies and a post-Olympics slowdown (or even bust) in China, the risks for the global economy are now overwhelmingly on the downside."

The obvious solution is to move the Olympics inot a 2 year rather than 4 year cycle and to build modular houses to be sent to poorer countries where people have inadequate or no housing.

As I say often, it is ashame we have not figured out yet how to distribute wealth in another way than to work more and more for it than our parents did and their parents did before them.

And we think we are so smart.
Just reading my own link in more detail.

How quickly we forget (or at least how quickly I forget since I really do not follow this sort of stuff too closely).

2002 - growth in in USA was 1.6% ... dot com bust and 9/11 .... growth next year is project to be 1.9% ....

Did we all survive 2002? Are we still living? Anyone die of hunger? Lack of housing? Give up turkey for Xmas?
Those are good points, Owl. There is a definite, and growing, disconnect between every industrialised country's 'real credit' ~ a correct estimate of its actual and potential ability to produce and deliver goods and services ~ and its 'financial credit'. Which latter is supposed to be an accurate 'reflection' of the former. To reconnect them, to make 'financial credit' do what it's supposed to do, is the challenge.

One place to start in is recognizing that physically the costs of all production are met as production occurs. There is no 'debt' in nature. The physical cost of all production, in total, is actual consumption, in total, over the same time period. The price we pay for the things we need and want should reflect that fact. And we'll never solve the problem of eliminating financial debt, and all the misery it causes, until we make the figures fit the facts.