Blog

UPDATE:  to read the Working Paper (“$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient”) click here Since the global financial crisis began in 2007, Chairman Bernanke has striven to save Wall Street’s biggest banks while concealing his actions from Congress by a thick veil of secrecy. It literally took an act of Congress plus a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Bloomberg to get him to finally release much of the information surrounding the Fed’s actions. Since that release, there have been several reports that tallied up the Fed’s largess. Most recently, Bloomberg provided an in-depth analysis of Fed lending to the biggest banks, reporting a sum of $7.77 trillion. On December 8, Bernanke struck back with a highly misleading and factually incorrect memo countering Bloomberg’s report. Bloomberg has—to my mind—completely vindicated its analysis; see here. Any fair-minded reader would conclude that Bernanke’s memo to Senators Johnson and Shelby and Representatives Bachus and Frank is misleading. One could even conclude that it is not just a veil of secrecy, but rather a fog of deceit that the Fed is trying to throw over Congress. He argues that the sum total of the Fed’s lending was a mere $1.2 trillion, and that it was spread across financial and nonfinancial institutions of all sizes. Further, he asserts… Read More

In his latest installment, C. J. Polychroniou surveys the slow motion collapse of the eurozone and the ongoing fragility of the US economy, and insists that underneath it all lies a deeper crisis.  What we are witnessing, he suggests, is not just the fallout from the latest banking panic or financial crisis, but a set of symptoms linked to a broader economic malaise:  a crisis of advanced global capitalism. Advanced capitalism had been facing severe structural stresses, strains, and deformations for many years prior to the eruption of the financial crisis in 2007, including overproduction, growing trade deficits, lack of job growth, and elevated debt levels. Private debt accumulation in the West, which has spiraled out of control, is largely the outcome of wage stagnation. In the United States, wages have remained stagnant since the mid to late 1970s, leading to a new Gilded Age, with renewed claims about the superiority of Darwinian capitalism. At the same time, the poor and working-class populations have come to be seen as a sort of nuisance in the galaxy the rich occupy, with attacks being launched by the rich on their wages and working conditions and the media often carrying out derogatory campaigns against working-class identity. Read the one-pager here.

Policy coordination and information exchange are critical to resolving the eurozone crisis. With this in mind, the Levy Institute is making selected publications that address aspects of the crisis—including policy briefs, one-pagers, and working papers—available online in Greek translation. A list of our current titles is available at www.levyinstitute.org/greek/, and more will be added weekly.

As Dimitri Papadimitriou has said, the European Central Bank is one of the only institutions that can save the euro project.  The commitment alone to making unlimited purchases of member-state debt might do the trick.  But as we have seen, there is a lot of opposition to the ECB acting as lender of last resort.  Why? Here are a couple more links on this question: Paul De Grauwe (“Why the ECB refuses to be a Lender of Last Resort“):  it may not (just) be dogma holding the ECB back, but a rational (though, to De Grauwe’s mind, unfortunate) calculation.  His analysis suggests the ECB won’t act until the sovereign debt crisis turns into a banking crisis. Noah Millman (“In the Long Run, We’re All German“):  the ECB is engaged in a game of chicken, attempting to secure as much of a commitment to fiscal rectitude and reform as it can before it steps in to stave off a eurozone collapse.  (Recent suggestions of a kind of quid pro quo in which a stronger fiscal pact would lay the groundwork for the ECB stepping up as lender of last resort lends some credence to this theory.  They should also plant doubts for those who think the ECB’s inaction on this front stems merely from good faith concerns about Article 123-type Treaty… Read More

This is one of the questions Marshall Auerback tackles in a piece at Counterpunch.  His answer, as you might expect, is “no.”  He also addresses the concern that the ECB risks an impaired balance sheet if it steps up and plays a larger role in buying member-state debt: … if the ECB bought the bonds then, by definition, the “profligates” do not default. In fact, as the monopoly provider of the euro, the ECB could easily set the rate at which it buys the bonds (say, 4% for Italy) and eventually it would replenish its capital via the profits it would receive from buying the distressed debt (not that the ECB requires capital in an operational sense; as usual with the euro zone, this is a political issue). At some point, Professor Paul de Grauwe is right :  convinced that the ECB was serious about resolving the solvency issue, the markets would begin to buy the bonds again and effectively do the ECB’s heavy lifting for them. The bonds would not be trading at these distressed levels if not for the solvency issue, which the ECB can easily address if it chooses to do so.  But this is a question of political will, not operational “sustainability.” So the grand irony of the day remains this: while there is nothing the… Read More

While the latest figures show the unemployment rate dipping below 9 percent, a lot of this decrease has to do with individuals giving up and leaving the labor force.  As for additional stimulus, Congress is currently negotiating an extension, and possible expansion, of the payroll tax cut.  But Republicans are insisting that it be “paid for,” so it’s not yet clear what effect this would have if passed.  That leaves the Federal Reserve as the only US institution to turn to.  Zero Hedge tries to provide some (small) reason for optimism on this front, suggesting that the composition of the FOMC may become more “dovish” in 2012 when the next group of voting members is rotated in (Fisher, Kocherlakota, Evans, and Prosser out; Pianalto, Lacker, Lockhart, and Williams in).

Michael Hudson has an article appearing in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the history of debt and democracy.  For those who can’t read German, Hudson has produced an abbreviated English version.  An excerpt: The idea of an independent central bank being “the hallmark of democracy” is a euphemism for relinquishing the most important policy decision – the ability to create money and credit – to the financial sector. Rather than leaving the policy choice to popular referendums, the rescue of banks organized by the EU and ECB now represents the largest category of rising national debt. The private bank debts taken onto government balance sheets in Ireland and Greece have been turned into taxpayer obligations. Read the English version here.

A great series of videos at INET collecting clips from Robert Johnson’s interview of Steve Keen, who is among those (few) credited with seeing the financial crisis coming.  Hyman Minsky’s work has played a large role in Keen’s own thinking on this.  In this particular clip, Keen talks about the ways in which economists have been taught to assume an unhelpful story about the way in which banks operate and touches on the basic idea of endogenous money. Along similar lines:  this working paper by Randall Wray looks at what banks actually do (and what role the financial sector should ideally play in an economy) in the context of examining Minsky’s later work at the Levy Institute on restructuring the American financial system.  (Policy brief version here). Also, take a look at the last video in which Keen talks about developing a monetary model of capitalism.  For non-economists, this has to be among the more confusing claims to theoretical advancement.  (“Wait … you mean there are economic models that don’t include money?  Wh…”)

Yanis Varoufakis has an interesting exchange with Warren Mosler and Philip Pilkington, responding to their thoughts on the ideal path for a nation intending on breaking away from the euro.  The Mosler-Pilkington “plan” (clearly gunning for the Wolfson Prize) is basically this:  (1) the government in question starts using the new national currency as a means of payment (paying public salaries, etc.); (2) the government announces that tax payments must be made in that currency.  The merit of this approach, they say, is that it is “hands off”: Should the government of a given country announce an exit from the Eurozone and then freeze bank accounts and force conversion there would be chaos. The citizens of the country would run on the banks and desperately try to hold as many euro cash notes as possible in anticipation that they would be more valuable than the new currency. Under the above plan, however, citizens’ bank accounts would be left alone. It would be up to them to convert their euros into the new currency at a floating exchange rate set by the market. They would, of course, have to seek out the currency any time they have to pay taxes and so would sell goods and services denominated in the new currency. This ‘monetises’ the economy in the new currency while… Read More

In its continuing series on the Fed’s bail-out of Wall Street, Bloomberg estimates that the banks got a $13 billion hand-out from the Fed’s easy lending terms. Using the excuse of the crisis, the Fed lent funds at near-zero interest to the banks. This was supposed to encourage them to begin lending to firms and households, to spark economic growth and recovery. Of course, the problem with that scheme is that households were already underwater with debt (hence, the recession), firms had no sales hence no reason to borrow to increase production, and banks were loathe to lend to households and firms that face a bleak future on account of Wall Street’s crashing of the economy. So instead, banks mostly bought Treasuries and played the yield curve—earning more on Treasuries than they had to pay the Fed. The $13 billion subsidy directly created by the ZIRP (Fed’s zero interest rate policy) directly created $13 billion of extra profits that Wall Street could then use to reward the same genius CEOs that created the crisis. Nice synergy. The same Bloomberg article reports that the bail-out itself cost $7.77 trillion—a lucky string of sevens if you happen to be in the top 1% and work on Wall Street. This is based on the secret Fed documents that Senator Sanders managed to force… Read More

Speaking of balances, late last week Martin Wolf delivered a helpful column (“Why cutting fiscal deficits is an assault on profits,”  FT Nov. 24).  Wolf writes that if households are cutting back, a government that attempts to reduce deficits while anticipating no substantial changes in net exports must expect corporate surpluses to shrink.  But increased investment is unlikely, so:  “If the government wishes to cut its deficits, other sectors must save less. … What the government has not admitted is that the only actors able to save less now are corporations. The government’s – not surprisingly, unstated – policy is to demolish corporate profits.” Wolf is consistently worth the read.

At Citizen Vox Micah Hauptman uses the recent Bloomberg revelations (regarding the details of the Federal Reserve’s extraordinary efforts to stabilize the financial system) to frame a discussion of Fed transparency and accountability: The Fed has vigorously defended its secrecy, claiming that working behind closed doors is necessary to prevent panic in financial markets. According to the central bank, disclosing information about the Fed’s actions would create a stigma for the banks that took advantage of the measures, and cause investors and counterparties to shy away from doing business with them. But these excuses just don’t hold water. When the Fed spends money, it creates a government liability, for which the public is ultimately on the hook. And when the public is on the hook, it must be done in the light of day. Hauptman notes the recent formation by Senator Bernie Sanders of a panel of experts, featuring a number of Levy Institute scholars (including James Galbraith, Randall Wray, and Stephanie Kelton), that will make reform recommendations regarding these very issues.