Dylan Ratigan, Alan Grayson, Bill Fleckenstein-It's Greenspan's Fault!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ya Lookin’ For A Trade War, Partner?

We had the cold war, and then Reagan’s War on Drugs, and his joint venture war in the Falklands with his girlfriend, Margaret Thatcher, which brought us the War against Saddam, by Pappy Bush, for drinking the oil milkshake located in Kuwait; next, we moved on to LittleBoyBush’s War on Terror, which brought us to the Iraqi Freedom War, and the War in Afghanistan. President Obama continues the presidential legacy of finding something to call “War”.

Now, President Obama has found his own voice of war by calling out the Chinese for keeping their Reminbi (RMB) undervalued as a currency, and pegged to the dollar. We are now hearing calls by those in Congress for a Trade War. Oh, how we love the sound of war, and its sweet destructive affects upon the lives of millions of people here at home and elsewhere.

Recently, we have heard from five of our dear Congresspersons looking for a fight with China. Senator Charles Schumer, of New York, and Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and three others showed their fangs after taking their cues from Mr. Obama. It looks like there is a cram of 130 Congressional pack hounds standing behind the five snarling government dogs that have introduced legislation that would label China as a currency manipulator and are pressing the Chinese currency to float more freely. They are pressuring Tim Geithner to call out a statement that China is a currency manipulator. The Treasury department will decide if China should be labeled as such. It hasn’t been since 1994 that such a designation had been authorized.

China’s prime minister did not waste anytime unleashing his own growls upon the five Viagra induced Congressional pitbulls. Bloomberg reported, by Randow and Salamat (“Roubini Sees Trade War…”), that Mr. Fan Gang, a Chinese central bank advisor, said “China “may resume a managed float of its exchange rate” if the global economy stabilizes and uncertainty around the economic outlook diminishes.” What is he thinking? That the only way that China will rebalance their currency is when the global economy stabilizes? 

Nouriel Roubini, economics professor at NYU, said, “As long as the U.S. won’t take immediate action against China there will be negotiations. But the Chinese clearly stated that if the U.S. were to brand China a manipulator and took action right away, the Chinese wouldn’t stay idle, they would take retaliation.” Now, that sounds like war! The U.S. likes a good war, and the groundwork is being laid out for it to possible happen.

Chinese commerce minister, Chen Deming, warned that there could be trouble in River City if the U.S. levies a punitive tariff on Chinese imports into their most favored trading partner. U.S. consumers will be suffering more than anyone. He went on to say, “If the United States uses the exchange rate to start a new trade war, China will be hurt. But the American people and U.S. companies will be hurt even more.”

Chen knows how life is in the U.S., since he spent time at Harvard University. He doesn’t understand why the Obama administration believes that threats will accomplish his goals. “You’re not going to get 1.3 billion Chinese to change by insulting them….economically it makes no sense.” He doesn’t believe that the U.S. trade deficit will decrease by limiting imports. What will the U.S. do? Will it put tariffs on all foreign imports? Is it only targeted at China? Will China get around it by producing consumer goods in Taiwan, Vietnam, Mexico, or South Korea? The only way to effect the trade deficit would be for Americans to save more of their incomes and reduce their overall consumer spending practices; or to push the dollar lower and increase U.S. exports.

Mr. Chen made reference that the U.S. will probably not be producing their own telephones or televisions anytime soon in order to cover the loss of those same products being imported from China. “That production isn’t going to return to America, that’s just not practical. Globalization has changed all that.”

It is my belief that Mr. Chen is mistaken. The U.S. could start producing such products again if the Obama administration stimulated, i.e. subsidized, the manufacturing sectors as the Chinese have done over the past years.

China’s Premier Wen denied that the RMB was undervalued when he said, “I understand that some countries want to increase their share of exports. What I don’t understand is the practice of depreciating one’s own currency and attempting to press other countries to appreciate their own currencies solely for the purpose of increasing one’s own exports. This kind of practice I think is a kind of trade protectionism.” (Found on MPettis.com, 3-17-10). Professor Michael Pettis (Michael Pettis is a professor at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in Chinese financial markets, and a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) wrote, “Wen is absolutely right! Undervaluing or depreciating a currency certainly is a form of trade protectionism, but that, I think, is exactly the point. In a world of sluggish growth and rising unemployment, everyone’s currency policies are legitimately going to be scrutinized over whether they constitute trade protection.”

Here is more of the arrogance oozing out of the Chinese government, (as written in MPettis.com “How Will an RMB Revaluation Affect China, US and the World”), by Professor Michael Pettis) and spoken by Zhao Qingming, a researcher with China Construction Bank as he stressed that imbalance’s of an economy’s deposit and investment were the fundamental reasons for a nation’s trade surpluses or deficits. “Exchange rates have only minor influence. In fact, yuan appreciation brings more adverse effects to western countries than positive ones. In the past tens of years, because of the yuan devaluation and export rebate policies, western countries, to a large extent, were able to enjoy low inflation, low living cost, and current standard of living, and western governments were able to reduce financial deficits and allow their people to consume excessively.”

This is Professor Pettis’ response. He wrote that the first part of Zhao’s statement is basically correct, but he is way off with the second part of his distorted view of a devalued currency. “The second part is certainly wrong and probably meaningless. More interestingly, it seems a little weird to argue that one of the benefits that China has provided the world with its undervalued exchange rate is low consumer prices that allow countries like the US “to consume excessively”. Aside from the fact that this pretty explicitly acknowledges that the currency is undervalued, since excess consumption is exactly the problem in the US, and since Chinese per capita consumption is much less than 10% of that of the US, it seems that China should be more approving of US attempts to return the favor and allow Chinese consumers the benefit of subsidizing US prices.”

Mr. Michael Whitney, (“The Looming Trade War With China”), brings up the following impressive viewpoint. He quotes Mr. Chen, (extracted from Washington Post, China’s commerce minister: U.S. has the most to lose in a trade war”) “If the United States does decide to impose tariffs on China, American companies operating in China, which account for more than 60 percent of China’s exports to the United States, would surely be hurt the most. ‘In the end, America is the one that needs to adjust’”. Chen continued, “One reason why a revaluation would be dangerous for China, is that profit margins for Chinese exporters are tiny—ranging from 1.7 to two percentage points.”

Mr. Whitney asked, “does anyone seriously believe that the corporations would slit their own throat by starting a trade war? Consider this: Maybe China’s “currency manipulation” policy was just one of the many preconditions demanded by foreign corporations before they relocated to China. Naturally they would want to ensure that they’d have an advantage over the competition regardless of the costs to China or workers in America. In other words, the multinationals are probably the driving force behind the exchange rate.”

Ms. Carolyn Bartholomew wrote in The American Prospect (“The Great Industrial Wall of China”), “China policy has, over the past two decades, been driven by the interests of the multinational corporations, and those global firms have benefited from many of China’s policies. Starting several decades ago, it was a handful of exporting elite—Boeing, Motorola, and GE among them—who argued persuasively to the Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations that the U.S. economic interests would be served if only these companies had access to the Chinese consumers…As more and more companies signed on, and the investment banks got involved, production shifted to China…”.

“Instead of adjusting our trade and economic policy, U.S. policy-makers adjusted the rationale for the continuation of a status quo that was failing the American worker. Of the estimated 1.94 million U.S. jobs lost to China since China’s economic reforms started 30 years ago. 1.05 million of them—over half—were lost since China acceded to the WTO in 2001….Today, of course, we see the result of that sort of thinking. With the global economic crisis, American workers have ended up without jobs and without pension funds.” “At the behest of the U.S. based multinationals, Washington has championed the causes of corporate interests masquerading as free trade.”

This viewpoint is the crux of what globalization has done to the American worker. It sounds like we are being distracted, and redirected from the real cause of our trade deficit by our Congress and President Obama. Mr. Whitney pointed it out to us, which is that U.S. corporations walked away from the American worker in order to find the cheapest labor force with a stable government; and that was China. Outsourcing was the result, yet we were conned into believing that outsourcing would be good for us. We would have more leisure time as we invested our savings with the “financial experts”, and in return, we would have more dividend and capital gain income. WOW! Wasn’t that a crock of nothin’stuff!

What appears to be a solution to the trade deficit might not be to force China into revaluing their currency, but to tell American corporations that if they continue to produce outside the country and import goods that were once made in America back to us we should tariff those products and tax those corporations. That could be the framework for a rebalancing effort.

Professor Pettis wrote, “Although Premier Wen noted again in his speech…that China is “worried” about the value of its US dollar reserves, perhaps as a warning that China would counteract any US trade move by selling off USG bonds, [Paul] Krugman doesn’t seem especially worried about this threat.” “[Krugman] said that if China were to sell all of its US investments, it would help the economy by acting as a form of quantative easing and fighting a “liquidity trap” that has recently been affecting the US economy.” “China was the top foreign investor [of] US government debt, with holdings of $898.4 billion in Treasury securities.”

Professor Pettis added that the main long-term impact of dumping USG bonds might be no more than to cause a liquidation of Chinese assets at very low prices, and an equivalent transfer of wealth from China to the US (or to others likely at some point to buy cheap dollar assets).

“An RMB rebalancing would impact with a decline in exports and shrinkage in their manufacturing. Foreign currency investors and those investing and stockpiling of commodities and other goods would also be negatively affected. The winners would be households. There would be an increase in personal wealth, growth in future assets and incomes, as well as an increase in consumer spending on imports boosting GDP.”

Professor Pettis begins to summarize, “Remember that each domestic imbalance requires the other, so that if China adjusts, the US must adjust, too, and if the US adjusts, China must adjust, too….Either way, the rebalancing in China will force an equivalent rebalancing in the US. As the price of Chinese goods rise, the net impact will be to transfer resources from US consumers, who have to pay more for their imports, to US producers (US producers become more globally competitive.) This rise in Chinese consumption relative to Chinese production would be necessarily matched by a rise in US production relative to US consumption.” (Investment is a factor in economic growth, as well.)

“Remember that trade surplus exists because of the imbalance between Chinese domestic production and Chinese domestic consumption (technically the surplus is the difference between savings and investment), and so anything that affects the subsidies to manufacturers, or that affects household income, will also affect the trade surplus.”

“Rebalancing just means that in China economic growth will be less than consumption growth, and in the US consumption growth will be less than economic growth….If the RMB revalues, this is the same as if all the currencies of the rest of the world depreciate….This is why policy coordination and gradualism is so important…China will rebalance, but it cannot do so quickly….Chinese producers have become so addicted to a wide variety of implicit subsidies, besides the currency, that they cannot possibly adjust very quickly. It will take years [8-10] of continuous adjustment to wean them away from an undervalued currency, too-low interest rates, excessive credit aimed at SOEs (State Owned Enterprises), and sluggish wage growth.”

So, do we have the time? Do the other trade deficit nations have time? Do other countries that want to revalue their own currencies have the time? Do 130 members of Congress and this administration have the time? Or, is a trade war on the horizon?

Thanks for reading, jerry

For Professor Pettis’ piece click here.

Daniel Kahnemann and Nassim Taleb's Incredible Discussion

Daniel Kahnemann and Nassim Taleb Speaking at the DLD Conference on Forecasting Error, Market Fragility, Black Swans, and the Incompetent Investment Banking system and the Government That Allowed It.  This event occurred on 3-13-09. Dr. Kahnemann is considered the most intelligent psychologist in the world, and Dr. Taleb an expert in risk projection.  59 minutes long.

Michael Lewis Interview On Fresh Air With Terri Gross

Listen to Michael Lewis, author of Liar's Poker, and now his new book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. Fantastic interview. 

For more, go to the link.


Interesting links to read.
the market, commodities, oil, Greece, Euro
A beautiful Storycorp story
Peter Schiff Youtube
Market Oracle Report
Karl Denninger piece on ZIRP Trap


The Great American Bank Robbery-MUST READ!
The Great Inflation Cover-Up
How Taxes and the Consumer Price Index Weights Hide Inflation
A Mortgage On-Line Calculator
Interest Scams and How to Avoid Them: Mortgages


Wall Street's Power Grab. This article has to be one of the best every written on this subject!
book review: 'Shadow Elite': Do You Know Whose Agenda You're Being Sold?
2010 is going to get tough
Robert Solow on the Global Economic Crisis--video and text

The Financial Smoking Gun--Indict Geithner and Bernanke!

Since the mortgage meltdown occurred, many bloggers and reporters have known that the financial system was rigged to allow the fabricated fraud to go forward without any serious scrutiny, supervision, accountability, regulation, or transparency over what has been called “financial innovations”, in other words, fraudulent derivatives and securities, as well as credit default swaps, which established the marketplace as a revolving Wall Street casino establishment betting on something, but then, without notifying the “something”, betting that the “something” will fail.

What has come forward by such first rate reporters-bloggers-analysts, such as Michael Whitney, Karl Denninger, and the people at ZeroHedge, and explained in the television media by such personalities as Dylan Ratigan and Eliot Spitzer, Lehman Brothers appears to have engaged in fraud when it was still an investment banking institution.

Simon Johnson wrote in his piece “Senator Kaufman: Fraud Still at the Heart of Wall Street”, “He [Senator Kaufman-D.DE, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee] goes after Lehman -- with its infamous Repo 105 -- as well as the other entities potentially implicated in those transactions, including Ernst and Young (Lehman's auditors). This is the low hanging fruit -- but have you heard even a squeak from the White House or anyone else in the country's putative leadership on this issue?” Where is President Obama? Where is your outrage, sir? Where is the Change We Can Believe In? Is it in a Goldman Sachs bank account? Is it in your reelection campaign fundraising account over at Bank of America located at 3401 Connecticut Avenue NW?

I believe Michael Whitney coined the term “a planned demolition” when describing what the Too-Big-To-Fail financial banking investment institutions were doing to the economy as they performed their mortgage magic mirages upon the American people as they duped them into buying homes they couldn’t afford, with no money down, and no analysis of the buyer’s financial ability to pay. And, what went along with that was a bet that they couldn’t pay at some point down the line. From there, home prices grew in their asset values and formed a massive bubble that eventually exploded.

Michael Whitney wrote in his piece, 3-15-10, “Lehman Brothers Scandal Rocks the Fed”, “After a year-long investigation, court-appointed bank examiner Anton Valukas has produced a deadly 2,200 page report which details the activities that led to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. The report is a keg of dynamite.”

We might say that this just could be the smoking gun, the mushroom cloud that erupted out of the volcanic rubble left by the toxic mortgage’s magma meltdown brought to all us by capitalism gone bad as designed by Alan Greenspan, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timmy Geithner—the Four Financial Fustian Fiends, or the Four-Squared Fleecing Fools.

I have been calling the TBTF syndicate a financial crime syndicate with Bernanke and Geithner as the mobster’s governmentally appointed financial operating field generals doing what is necessary to make sure that the Federal Reserve cranks out cash to them through its Quantative Easing operation keeping the failed mega-investment banks saturated with liquidity.

This appears to be a full-blown conspiracy to dupe the Congress, American people and the world to believe that QE was designed to infuse the investment banks with taxpayer cash in order to loosen up the credit markets and bring the economy back on-line after being shut down. April Fools!!!

Written in Naked Capitalism, by Professor L. Randall Wray, “Timmy-Gate: Did Geithner Help Hide Lehman Fraud”, “Now we find that Geithner’s NYFed supported Lehman’s efforts to conceal the extent of its problems. Not only did the NYFed fail to blow the whistle on flagrant accounting tricks, it also helped to hide Lehman’s illiquid assets on the Fed’s balance sheet to make its position look better…it continued to take trash off the books of Lehman right up to the bitter end, helping perpetuate the fraud that was designed to maintain the pretense that Lehman was not massively insolvent.” “In terms of dollar costs to the government, this is surely the biggest scandal in US history.”

Professor Wray continued: The abuse was so flagrant that no US law firm would sign off on the practice, fearing that creditors and stockholders would have grounds for lawsuits on the basis that this caused a “material misrepresentation” of Lehman’s financial statements.”

As I have said before, why isn’t the RICO statute being dusted off and charges slapped down into the hands of former Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld, Fed Chairman Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who was president of the New York Federal Reserve at the time when he should have been regulating LB. It appears that these three were engaged in the cover-up of Lehman Brothers worthless capital, which Fuld was using to borrow from other banks through what is called Repo-105. This is like a pawnbroker operation between investment banks. You give up some collateral that has market value, and in return, you get and equal value of cash to use for a very short term period of time, with the guarantee that you will pay it back soon, and reclaim your collateral.

But what was happening was Lehman was using worthless collateral and no one at the central bank, or the NYFed made Fuld and his underlings accountable for this shell game, yet it appears the NYFed knew about it and kept it from the investing public!!

Even though a New York Fed spokesman said the collateral accepted from Lehman was up-to-snuff, Lehman ended up failing two stress tests performed by the NYFed in order to determine if the collateral had real market value.

You might say that the New York Fed Outlet Store was pumping up the Lehman Brothers brand of tires, only to find they wouldn’t hold air, yet sold them to unsuspecting buyers without letting them know that in just about 10 miles, the tires would go flat.

Michael Whitney wrote that “[t]his is the huge scandal: [there were] collusive government officials who operate[d] as de facto agents for an industry saturated with corruption and conflicts of interest. [There was a conniving cover-up] of Lehman’s true position because he [Fuld] doesn’t work for the 10 million people who are now standing in unemployment lines, or the 35 million people who are now on food stamps, or the 6 million people who have lost their homes to foreclosure, or the hundreds of millions of people who have seen the home equity evaporate, their retirement funds plunge and their hopes for the future dashed so that a handful of insatiable landsharks could fatten their bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.”

“Today, there is only one market for junk: the Federal Reserve, which has lent $1.3 trillion in cash for trash, no questions asked. This amount exceeds the forecast[ed] Obama medical [health] care plan for the decade. No money for health insurance, but all for the junk-mortgage lenders.” (Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism, Whitney article)

Rave-on Michael Whitney! Beautifully said!!!

Mr. Whitney continues: “Is there really any doubt that Tim Geithner at the New York Fed, or Bernanke knew that Lehman was trading its junk assets to finance its ongoing operations? Doesn’t that in-itself constitute a cover up or [an “intentional” mislead[ing of] investors? And, if Lehman was exchanging garbage to feign solvency, then it seems likely that the other investment giants were engaged in the same type of charade. (Which implies that the rating agencies were culpable, as well.)”

Mr. Whitney had an email exchange with the brilliant, and former Wall Street economist, Professor Michael Hudson, who put this all into perspective. “If investigators can prove that the Fed exchanged US treasuries for MBS [Mortgage-Backed Securities] and other toxic assets that they knew were worth-less than the amount they provided via short-term loans (repos), then it is reasonable to assume that Bernanke’s quantative easing (QE) program operated under the same guidelines. That means, that the $1.25T QE program-which was supposed to extend credit to consumers and businesses—was actually a scam designed to transfer a gigantic load of capital to the very people who gamed the system and precipitated the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. [Therefore, w]ithout question, that misallocation of capital has deepened the recession and sent unemployment skyrocketing.”

So, the big question now is what is President Obama going to do about this smoking gun, this mushroom cloud of information? Will he pull the curtain from behind the stage revealing the fraudsters that have engaged in a possible conspiracy against the United States in order “to transfer a gigantic load of capital to the very people who gamed the system”?

The Time Magazine’s Man Of The Year, and his side-kick dummy may actually be traitors, at the most, and, at the least, small fish mobster field generals who engaged in a conspiracy to perform criminal negligence. What would Joe McCarthy say about this one?

Thanks for reading, jerry

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com