"The most significant threat to our national security is our debt," Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, August 27, 2010


Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Ben's Odyssey -- Chapter III

Ben has defined deflation and has outlined his program to fight deflation.  Ten years ago when no one was thinking deflation.  Today we track just how far Ben has traveled in this odyssey of his to fight deflation or whatever it is that he calls deflation fighting.  First, we would like to bring back a chart we showed you several weeks ago.  Remember, as you view this chart, the definition of deflation that Ben gave us in 2002 when he was thinking about deflation – or at least trying to get others to think about it.  Here are his words – ““Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.”

On our government chart above, the blue line, described as “all consumer items” would reflect an overall assessment of consumer prices.  We, at TheFundamentals, cannot find any evidence or even a smidgen of factual data to support a conclusion that price declines are widespread.  Some prices, as a matter of fact, are not only NOT DECLINING, they are escalating through the roof.  College tuition and fees and medical care prices are jumping off the chart.  And even though we don’t show it here, we all know that the price for anything “government” related just keeps rising and rising.   We can use these facts to support a conclusion that price increases are widespread; not the other way around.  So we ask Ben, “Prices are not declining.  And yet, you are well along this odyssey of yours.  Why?”  Here are some of the deflation fighting actions you described ten years ago (we took the words directly from your speech) along with a current status report --

  • Nominal interest rate declining to zero or almost zero (done – Mission accomplished - you did it Ben; over two years ago and you have said that you will keep them low into 2014.)
  • Lowering rates on longer maturity treasuries (done – Mission accomplished - you’ve done it – ten year treasury bonds are now at record low yields; below 1.5%.)
  • Operate in the market for agency debt such as GNMA (done – you did it; as a matter of fact you own a big chunk of the debt they and the other government mortgage agencies issue)
  • Buy foreign debt (done – you’ve been out there buying foreign debt)
  • Purchasing private assets (done – just the way you described – treasury issues the debt to do the politicians bidding and you buy up the debt)
  • Running that thing you called a technology of the government – a printing press or its electronic version (done – you have been running the printing press 24/7.  When do you plan to stop running the presses Ben?)

And yet, Ben, when we look at the chart above we are still struggling to see that triggering event you mentioned.  Remember Ben, that causal factor about widespread price declines – not specific or focused situations, but overall big time price declines.  Where are they Ben?  Why has this deflation fighting odyssey of yours advanced so far into the steps you outlined without any triggering connection? And why is it not accomplishing the objectives you so arrogantly outlined ten years ago?  Could it be that there is no deflation but something else?  Something very different than deflation that is underway?

Before we close this chapter on Ben's odyssey, we would like to pose this question, "Ben, do you know the difference between supporting unsustainable government sponsored bubble(s)  and fighting deflation?"  What is Ben up to?  More to come...

Monday, June 11, 2012

Ben's Odyssey -- Chapter II


Od-ys-sey (noun):  a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune; an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest.

After defining deflation, Ben, in his 2002 speech to other economists, asks and answers the question of the threat of deflation to the US.  Ben’s comments follow and are preceded by bullet points –

·         I believe that the chance of significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future is extremely small, for two principal reasons. The first is the resilience and structural stability of the U.S. economy itself.

·         The second bulwark against deflation in the United States, and the one that will be the focus of my remarks today, is the Federal Reserve System itself.

·         I am confident that the Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation in the United States and, moreover, that the U.S. central bank, in cooperation with other parts of the government as needed, has sufficient policy instruments to ensure that any deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.

Next Ben discusses using lower interest rates to fight deflation:

·         Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero.

·         When the short-term interest rate hits zero, the central bank can no longer ease policy by lowering its usual interest-rate target.

·         Hence I agree that the situation is one to be avoided if possible.

And further expands on avoiding deflation before it happens:

·         … central banks with explicit inflation targets almost invariably set their target for inflation above zero, generally between 1 and 3 percent per year.

·         The Fed should and does use its regulatory and supervisory powers to ensure that the financial system will remain resilient if financial conditions change rapidly.

·         Third, as suggested by a number of studies, when inflation is already low and the fundamentals of the economy suddenly deteriorate, the central bank should act more preemptively and more aggressively than usual in cutting rates

Then Ben says, “Suppose that, despite all precautions, deflation were to take hold in the U. S. economy and, moreover, that the Fed’s policy instrument – the federal funds rate – were to fall to zero.  What then?"  When the short-term interest rate hits zero, the central bank can no longer ease policy by lowering its usual interest-rate target.  Well, Ben has some more ideas; a lot more ideas –

·         …the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

·         One relatively straightforward extension of current procedures would be to try to stimulate spending by lowering rates further out along the Treasury term structure--that is, rates on government bonds of longer maturities.

·         If this program were successful, not only would yields on medium-term Treasury securities fall, but (because of links operating through expectations of future interest rates) yields on longer-term public and private debt (such as mortgages) would likely fall as well.

·         …. the Fed could also attempt to cap yields of Treasury securities at still longer maturities, say three to six years. Yet another option would be for the Fed to use its existing authority to operate in the markets for agency debt (for example, mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association).

·         If lowering yields on longer-dated Treasury securities proved insufficient to restart spending, however, the Fed might next consider attempting to influence directly the yields on privately issued securities.

·         For example, the Fed might make 90-day or 180-day zero-interest loans to banks, taking corporate commercial paper of the same maturity as collateral.

·         For example, the Fed has the authority to buy foreign government debt, as well as domestic government debt. Potentially, this class of assets offers huge scope for Fed operations, as the quantity of foreign assets eligible for purchase by the Fed is several times the stock of U.S. government debt.

Wow, Ben sure has a lot of things in his carry bag for this odyssey of his.  But, remember this was ten years ago and Ben may have been thinking – I’d better not scare these guys too much, at least not yet, so Ben moonwalks backward, just a bit:

·         I need to tread carefully here. Because the economy is a complex and interconnected system, Fed purchases of the liabilities of foreign governments have the potential to affect a number of financial markets, including the market for foreign exchange.

·         I want to be absolutely clear that I am today neither forecasting nor recommending any attempt by U.S. policymakers to target the international value of the dollar.

·         Each of the policy options I have discussed so far involves the Fed's acting on its own.  In practice, the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example…

Then Ben departs from his script – remember he is on the board of the fed; not in the congress but he plants the seed for the congress to do their part when he embarques on his odyssey –

·         Of course, in lieu of tax cuts or increases in transfers the government could increase spending on current goods and services or even acquire existing real or financial assets. If the Treasury issued debt to purchase private assets and the Fed then purchased an equal amount of Treasury debt with newly created money, the whole operation would be the economic equivalent of direct open-market operations in private assets.

So Ben was ready to fight deflation in 2002 – why would that be?  And why is Ben already so far down the road on deflation fighting?  In our next chapter, we will look at just what he has done on this odyssey of his and we will start to ask some questions using facts and Ben’s own words.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Do You Know Paul LePage?

We would like to share a few anecdotes about Mr. LePage as presented by our wonderful, always there with the facts and objectivity, Hollywood media ---

1.     Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, signs a balanced budget bill –http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57435656/maine-budget-balancing-bill-signed-by-governor/  (check out the bias in the “reporting” in this Hollywood media article)

2.    Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, encourages healthy unemployed to get moving – http://www.mediaite.com/online/maine-governor-to-unemployed-get-off-the-couch-and-get-yourself-a-job/

3.    Here is the Huffington posts version of same – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/paul-lepage-maine-governo_n_1496514.html  (if you are a liberal or a democrat this passes as objective reporting)

4.    Here is some “objectivity” from the NYTimes on Mr. LePage – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/15lepage.html

5.    We don’t know anything about this outfit.  Interesting rhetoric though – http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/16/paul-lepage-maines-madman-governor-strikes-again.html (Madman?  Are they referring to the TV show?)

6.    And this is the best one of all; we saved the best for last – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/uncle-sam-tells-maine-governor-repay-cost-removed-mural-labor-history/  Can you believe that the federal government, using taxpayer money, sent $60,000.00 to the state of Maine for a labor oriented mural depicting workers on strike?  And, of course, the answer is an overwhelming YES; of course, you can believe it but here is what we don’t get.  All the liberal media, what we call Hollywood media, whine and complain every time a cut in spending is proposed and they point to drastic events endangering people’s lives and other such distortions but they don’t move to eliminate unnecessary spending such as labor oriented murals. 

So, TheFundamentals concludes:

1.     Mr. LePage is clearly a man in need of some more coverage from whatever few objective sources may be still available.

2.     Mr. LePage is clearly a man we all need to get to know a bit better.

3.     The people of Maine are clearly fortunate to have him, and

4.    Is he available in a Romney administration for secretary of labor?  Or, maybe even better, Secretary of Eliminating Unnecessary Spending?


Here is the LePage family photo:



If you wish to learn about Mr. LePage’s agenda for the state of Maine (would be a heck of a fit for the federal government in Washington), please go to: 



Monday, June 4, 2012

Ben's Odyssey -- Chapter I

Od-ys-sey (noun):  a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune; an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest.


Ten years ago, a man unknown to most, set out on a journey.  This journey of his began many years earlier as the child of a drug store owner in Dillon, South Carolina.  He did well in school – well enough to gain admission to Harvard University and thereafter to Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  This young man had the smarts to do almost anything – he chose to do ECONOMICS.  And he stayed in academia and prospered and then something remarkable happened.  He became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve System – the central bank of the United States of America. The guys who control the money supply; the printing presses; the interest rates and darn near anything that has the following symbol connected with it:
$

Ben’s odyssey was about to start.  Coincident with this new job of Ben’s in 2002 – fed board member, Ben was invited to give a speech to a group of economists.  Ben seized the moment; carpe diem, and gave them the speech of his life.  He chose to show the economists that when the moment was right; when the planets aligned; when the fear receptivity was greatest; when those who depended on rising prices and rising economic numbers to keep their paychecks and benefits and pensions rising; when they could be convinced that prices were not only going to stop rising but would actually decline; when they could be spooked to their core that something big had to be done – he, Ben, would be ready and able to deliver the goods; the monetary and fiscal stimulus to make everything all right again.  Just give Ben the reins and the odyssey can begin.  You see, Ben knew all about deflation.  Ben studied deflation.  But Ben needed the fear of deflation to arrive on the scene to get his voyage underway.  Ben was planning this voyage long before that propitious piece of the puzzle came into the picture.

This is the story of Ben’s voyage – his odyssey – told in his own words.  The quotes are Ben’s words:

“Deflation is defined as a general decline in prices…”

“Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.”

“Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand--a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers.   Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending--namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.”

So, you can see how he sets up his opportunity to take on deflation – overall price decline (decline in consumer price index); not specific to one sector of the economy or one product or service and then a rather casual suggestion that it is derived from a “collapse of aggregate demand.”   We will examine this cause and effect later.  And then Ben concludes why we must fear this situation because a collapse of demand brings about “recession, rising unemployment and financial stress.”  That’s enough to scare most politicians and bureaucrats wouldn’t you agree?  Most of us too.  Remember Ben knew all this in 2002; ten years ago.  Ben knows deflation; Ben know depression; Ben knows that all he needs is a crisis to begin his odyssey.

Next Ben lays out his plan to keep deflation away from the great economy of the United States but, if it cannot be avoided, Ben also lays out his plan to show how he and he alone can deal with deflation; slay it in its tracks and save the economy.

Next, we will use Ben’s own words and follow Ben as he begins his odyssey.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Shake down the thunder from the sky...

“Notre Dame files religious liberty lawsuit related to HHS mandate”

click on arrow at right and enjoy this stirring victory march as you read the post --


we will fight in every game…

“The University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit Monday (May 21) challenging the constitutionality of a federal regulation that requires religious organizations to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate insurance coverage for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

…wake up the echos cheering her name…

“Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the lawsuit names as defendants Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and their respective departments.”

…what though the odds be great or small…

“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. It also authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently “religious” to warrant an exemption from the requirement.”

…shake down the thunder from the sky…

“Notre Dame’s lawsuit charges that these components of the regulation are a violation of the religious liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws.”

…send the volley cheer on high…

“This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives,” Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, wrote in a message to members of the campus community. “For if we concede that the government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions."

…while her loyal sons are marching…

 “Notre Dame’s lawsuit was one of 12 filed Monday against the federal government by 43 plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the regulation.”

…onward to victory.