Forget what you have been told about the financial crisis, because most of what has been written has been written from the view point of the financial system. That system exists to be an investment bank for the global wealthy. It packages revenue streams, and sells them. The most important one, was you. Your house, your willingness to pay for college, your willingness to pay for health insurance. What Goldman Sachs sells is you, in the same way that broadcast television sells viewers to advertisers. You aren’t the customer of Citibank, you are the product.
What is happening is that the dollar is breaking into two parts. The financial system dollar is one issue, the US economy dollar is another. The rich of the world are still willing to loan the US government money to do the international things that the dollar does, but they are not willing to loan US consumers money. While people talk about fraud in the financial sector, the real root of this downturn is that people with money to loan don’t want to loan it to American consumers. Citibank pays 0% for its money. You pay a great deal more for yours.
We can see this by what might seem a paradox, the dollar has strengthened, but the US trade balance has improved. If the relative cost of goods were the driving factor, the dollar getting stronger should have worsened the trade balance. The reality is that exports have gone up, and imports have gone down, because prices of US goods are not going up by much, and the recession has crippled US demand for imports. From now on, the US consumer is on pay-as-you-go from the rest of the world. Our economy is, as a result, likely to remain in a depression for some time to come, until the US starts selling things to the rest of the world that the rest of the world wants, and reduces the cost of being in the middle class.
This is a decoupling of the dollar as the world’s fundamental currency, often called being the world’s "reserve" currency—but the term reserve currency has a narrower technical meaning from its role as the currency of the American economy. Once the world loaned money to US consumers so that US consumers would support the policies required to maintain the world trade and stability system. The outside world hated what Bush was doing, but they did not hate it enough to stop him from doing it. Thus it let the US keep itself happy on a borrowing binge. But now the wars that this binge was meant to cover over are winding down, and there is a belief that the US will support the current level of engagement no matter what. Why keep us happy when we aren’t going to pay back?
What this simple reality means is that there are now two kinds of dollars: financial system dollars and consumer dollars. One is very cheap—the US can borrow all the money it needs to keep the global financial system afloat. One is very expensive—US consumers are going to have credit lines slashed, and the equity in their homes has been given a haircut. The US is going to be in a situation which looks like Europe, with many more people who want jobs than can have jobs, because only the goods that America is genuinely better at making will have a market outside. That is the cold reality.
The truth of banking is it is about giving people permission. Permission to do something they otherwise don’t have permission to do. The deep money of the world wants the permission it has given us to be paid back. That’s why the Peterson Foundation is all over budget deficits. Deficits don’t cause inflation, deficits tempt governments to use inflation to reduce the burden of debt, and encourage governments to invest in growth that reduces the relative burden of debt. However, current holders of that debt hate both of these things. They want money to retain buying power, and they want the economy to be weak, except in so far as it grows to pay them back. The budget hawks want a crippled America—because that is in their best interest—but their position is in contradiction. The economy that is slow enough to keep old debt powerful is too slow to ever pay it back. That is why—using the Federal Reserve’s US economic model—the recovery will be what is called "L" shaped, rather than "V" shaped. We will not bounce back, but will get dragged along the bottom.
The alternative course is argued for by Keynesian economics: that both a return of the power to discount the past, and the power to expand the future, are better. To reach this situation however, the United States has to realize that it cannot recouple the dollar as a weak dollar. This means that we will not be able to export cheaply by making cheap dollars, but must instead engage in public investment, so that people will pay expensive dollars for what we make. The only people who can give us permission to do this is ourselves. The solution to the economic crisis on Main Street comes from Main Street. Wall Street ran one way: in to the crisis.
The choice is up to us. . . and no one else.



43 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
zed
Nice post. And while you’re spot on that deficits do not cause inflation I can’t see our government doing anything but pay debt back with cheaper dollars.
BTW, your link is to the Peterson Foundation. The Peterson Institute is a think tank that hasn’t been grinding a deficits are scary ax. The think tank employs Simon Johns, author of the Atlantic article arguing our financial elites are analogous to those implicated in third world economic crises.
Let me fix that
A nice, optimistic article. Now, how to we go about giving ourselves permission to invest in “public investment?” Riots? Pitchforks? Blog posts? More letters to Congress?
Can you — here or in a future post — expand upon this? How do we give ourselves permission, and what government actions, if any, should we advocate for that is, in this, permission giving?
Stirling,
I followed you up until your last paragraph, where you write about “discount[ing] the past.”
This suggests to me paying off debt with inflated (cheapened) dollars.
How is this consonant with the “expensive dollars” of which you write?
I think they also are unwilling to invest in anything that creates American jobs. They have gotten so addicted to very high returns with no risk (or government assumed risk) that they don’t want to take a chance on a business that may or may not make it.
That should work
i don’t understand what policies you are referring to here. the only explanation i’ve heard that made any sense to me was that the primary reason most of the world (including the developing countries) has been willing to lend us money was because that was a way they could protect themselves from speculative capital flight and predatory lenders (see imf, us treasury).
hope you will explain this point. thanks.
Minor edit, well done.
It’s odd to see Johnson writing for Peterson given Peterson is part of the elite and arguably an oligarch or at least a wannabe oligarch. Makes me wonder if our ire at the Foundation’s anti-deficit message couldn’t be expressed better. Calling for spending these cheap dollars from the fed for long term improvements in middle class productivity is a great start; the increased output has some chance of soaking up the excess money without general price increases.
I agree with what you are saying. I would also like to offer a slightly different angle on the idea of the U.S. consumer as product.
To reach this point we have violated every economic precept and law associated with the public interest. The Obama administration is willfully and consciously underwriting and covering up felony fraud at every level of our nation’s public and private financial economy.
2. In doing so, we are creating the largest government Collateralized Debt Obligation in U.S. history. That “CDO” is taking the form of future taxes that will be paid, not by the recipients of the largesse, but by those who have been predated by them. This giant CDO will be securitized in the form of Treasury Bills, printed money and TARP loans and other agreements between the Treasury, the Fed and the Banks that will allow the Credit Default Swaps that, for starters, have allowed CDSs among the principle recipients to be cashed out at full value.
This was done with the larger goal of preserving the shadow banking system and its “toolkit” which is just another way of saying, “This will happen again.”
You’re right. The U.S. taxpayer/consumer IS the product. And the U.S. taxpayer/consumer AS a product is now openly being traded on the world market.
Emerging economies export as a means of growing a middle class capable of consuming the majority of a nation’s economy. One begins with majority exports. Hopefully, a nation grows to a point where it is able to consume a majority of its own production. At some point, it evolves further to reach a balance of trade in real assets with other nations.
In our case we were able to use our military and financial strength following WWII to create a virtual economy that leveraged our real assets at ratios of up to 33:1. That model failed. And now the only way to preserve it is to double down. That is what the current administration is doing. The problem is that the assets and promise to pay that it is using on this gamble is derived from the future earnings of middle-class America.
We may not reach a point of balance. We may be eating the seed corn. We may never recover.
what high return investments are you referring to?
Their “paper” returns they were generating last few years through their schemes in hedge funds, default swaps and the like.
“More sternly worded letters to Congress?”
And some finger-wagging, just to be sure.
huh? are you talking about the people who’ve been loaning money to the us gov?
edit to add: your comment was in response to this bit from stirling:
isn’t loaning the us gov money a defensive position?
If we look at the thirties, and the analogy is apt, we see the depression ended with world war II. Many panics end with war of some sort. Capitalism needs the destruction of war to fuel the next boom. If we are smart, which probably won’t turn out to be the case, we will declare war on sewer systems and replace present toilets with waterless models or we can declare war on the automobile and create free rapid transit systems as a public service like police and fire departments.
We should do this by taxing the rich a lot. Unfortunately the nation is so deluded that those who benefit oppose this remedy because they harbor the fantasy of becoming rich someday.
As for making Main Street’s voice heard, we need to organize differently via the internet. I’ve made this point before and no one’s taken me up on it. It may require more time for people to realize phone calls and faxes to congresspeople won’t do it. That, of course, is a prediction. Perhaps the system will work after all. We live in hope.
Talking about the “rich of the world” as Stirling called them.
Those “manufactured” high returns were made of nothing. The Emperor’s “New” Clothes.
Let me outline it here: remember that economics is not physics, it is more like chess, in that it tells you whether what you want to do will work, rather than what the physical reality is. So if we want to have more public investment, what happens if we raise the money for that by, for example, raising taxes.
In the end the economic system rests as much on what we want to have happen, as what underlying forces demand. Economics talks about trade offs, but people make those trade offs.
The bail out has been about permission. We’ve given permission to banks to ignore the fact that they don’t have enough capital to make new loans. Instead, they can act as if they have capital. That’s not an economic reality in a model, that’s political permission.
We can only have permission to invest in a different America, if we it to ourselves – if we refuse to enforce rules that do not lead us there, and start to enforce new rules that do lead us there.
One specific area, is to change the budget process so that it accurate reflects the real deficits and surpluses, because we gave ourselves permission to run huge deficits to go into Iraq, but suddenly the budget “deficit” is the end all issue when Iraq is over.
Capital mobility, the United States as the key provider and arbiter of financial and military stability, development arbitrage, labor arbitrage, continued reliance on the carbon economy, preservation of mercantile policies in certain economies – to name a few. But the military stability ones are the ones that stand out in this case.
This crisis is a paper crisis. The physical crisis is yet to come. But it is coming.
Yes, it is defending existing recognition of wealth.
The people in Washington are going to be all about preserving the financial system. The impetus for this is going to have to come from elsewhere.
are you referring to foreign exchange reserves? or something else?
A government is always a CDO, in that it has debts of various levels: completely secure, mostly secure, and only in good times. The problem is that in order to stabilize the financial currency, we are imposing crushing interest rates on the real economy.
thanks.
don’t know if this is what you had in mind, but it pissed me off, so here it is: Congress Going Easy on Payday Loan Dealers
Can anyone explain to me just exactly what the difference is between these guys and straight-up loan sharks? Oh yeah, loan sharks break your legs. Payday lenders can’t do that legally. Yet.
“The rich of the world are still willing to loan the US government money to do the international things that the dollar does, but they are not willing to loan US consumers money.”; yes, that is what the Fed is doing -loaning US consumers money- and it’s getting good interest on it’s loans to the Gummint.
Concur about the ‘L’ shaped ‘recovery’ but it seems as though the pain hasn’t affected enough people yet to bring about the change that is needed.
The thing with a loan shark -having had experience with them when I was bartending in Vegas- is once they break your legs, the debt is written off. The Payday Lenders want to keep people strung out forever so they wouldn’t break one’s legs.
i don’t think pain is the answer.
I actually agree that now is the time to use government spending to boost the economy. It worked before when we were in much worse shape:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The one thing I can’t see is how propping up failed financial markets at the expense of product markets can generate the resources necessary to jumpstart the economy. It’s as if the entire global finance economy has taken on the character, morality and expectations of hedge fund and other derivatives traders. What are they going to bet on once their base/real economy is gone — each other’s liquidity?
That last question was rhetorical. We’re living through the result of just that, right (i.e., CDSs)?
The real problem is that the banks placed bets they couldn’t cover, and now working Moms and Dads everywhere are having to dip into their retirements to pay off these spoiled brats gambling debts.
P.S. Thanks for what you do, Stirling. Yours are some of the most insightful essays I read.
Book Salon upstairs with Jeff Madrick’s The Case For Big Government hosted by Richard Parker
Thanks, Stirling — You’re channelling Howard Beale again
No pain, no change.
Another level to the crisis is that for around 40-50 years, the economy has wanted to shift more to knowledge production, but no one has the social rules/structure to do that. A knowledge-centered economy requires 1) That knowledge creators are rewarded 2) That knowledge be spread to the maximum. Copyrights/patents do 1); “piracy” does 2). Nothing does both.
The result: the big projects that would create jobs and profits are not only impossible. They are unimaginable.
So money with no place to go pours into Wall Street where it meets up with intellectual talent without an outlet. And boom.
That’s the short version.
Stirling,
Thank you so much. I don’t always agree with you. Hell, I don’t always fully understand you. But I appreciate having my vision expanded.
I have followed you from one blog site to another. Next time you move, could you post something on the old site?
What is the physical crisis you refer to? Torches and pitchforks?
The only way I can see to do this, being admittedly NOT an economist,is to demand quality goods…from everybody, everywhere. We will, of course, have to pay more for them. that’s the short term pain when nobody has any $$.
The politicians won’t listen to US, so we make the corporations listen. If we get crappy goods and services from them, take the stuff back to the store. That costs them $$. Write a letter to the “consumer” departments and complain.
For instance, I spent most of my day taking back cat litter to Walmart, because it is now made in China and god knows what’s in it, but it was making my cats sick. It wasn’t fun and I HATE Walmart! I despise the corporation, I do not like the customers and I hate the low level of service there, etc.
But, I finally found something made in the USA that doesn’t stink up my house like a cheap sachet and make my cats sneeze to walk in the room with it. The other stuff gave me a headache.
I don’t want their stinking poison in my house.
I’ve watched the quality of goods and services go down, down, down in the last 9 years. I’m frankly sick of this “planned obsolescence” that the corporations have actual divisions to make sure the stuff breaks after a certain time period. And here we are, throwing our trash in the oceans when we should be conserving like hell.
I keep fixing my old stuff, including my car. It keeps my $$ in the local economy and I get longer service out of it.
I don’t even WANT the new crap they want me to have.
Maybe I’m way off base with what Stirling is trying to say. But I want to cost these M*thaf*ckers as much as I can before they take everything away with their Ponzi schemes.
Class action lawsuits may be the way to go, I think. The ACLU; the lawyers on this board and others. Sue ‘em till they scream.
They’ve turned US and everybody else into a herd of cows and I won’t join the chorus of moos
PS: I’ll not even go into what my bank is doing to me, I’m starting to suspect they are going under.
Crazy times.
Excellent reality check.
cows are much SMARTER
Oh I don’t know…cows and chickens are pretty dumb. Homo Sapiens Sapiens worst evolutionary flaw may well be our intelligence. The problem, as I see it is that darn cerebral cortex glued onto a the mammalian/reptilian brain which causes us to believe we know something different than what our instincts and senses are telling us.
We are NOT integrated. And all the philosophy and religions in the history of the world cannot substitute for that good ol’ “feets don’t fail me now” fight or flight voice yelling in our ears while we tell ourselves everything is just fine.
Unfortunately, now that the powers that be have made sure the entire world offers no havens…well, we know what’s left…some of us; don’t we?
Let me suggest we are crazy, not inherently bad with a cerebral cortex glued onto a mammalian/reptilian brain. I suggest (so far I am its sole adherent)collective image psychology which holds that we become the species we think we are. If you don’t think utopia, a classless, moneyless society is an immediate human possibility, it is because of a negative perception of human nature.
Be all that as it may, we should be discussing new approaches to oppose present policies. All may be lost, but we can’t know that. If we go down we may as well go down fighting.
I agree with you. I never subscribe to the Judeo/Christain view that we are born sinful or bad. We just don’t seem to use all our facilities to think with. The emotions can tell us things the brain can’t and intuition can get us in touch with something greater, perhaps the common good which most refer to as GOD