http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/…

The big policy news this week has been the Fed’s decision to buy $1 trillion of long-term bonds, going beyond the normal policy of buying only short-term debt. Good move — but it’s probably worth pointing out that yes, this does expose the Fed, and indirectly the taxpayer, to some risks. And in so doing, it blurs the line between fiscal and monetary policy.

Now, the Fed isn’t taking on any serious default risk — Treasuries are backed by the full faith etc of the US government, and agency debt is de facto backed by the same, although the market doesn’t seem to believe that. Anyway, the Fed is for these purposes a government agency itself, so all this is debt between different parts of USG.

The Fed is, however, creating a new liability: the monetary base it creates to buy these bonds. In effect, it’s printing $1 trillion of money, and using those funds to buy bonds. Is this inflationary? We hope so! The whole reason for quantitative easing is that normal monetary expansion, printing money to buy short-term debt, has no traction thanks to near-zero rates. Gaining some traction — in effect, having some inflationary effect — is what the policy is all about.

The problem may come when the economy recovers, and inflation starts to become a problem rather than a hoped-for outcome. Basically, there will come a time when the Fed wants to withdraw that extra $1 trillion of money it created. It will presumably do this by selling the bonds it bought back to the private sector.

But here’s the rub: if and when the economy recovers, it’s likely that long-term interest rates will rise, especially if the Fed’s current policy is successful in bringing them down. Suppose that the Fed has bought a bunch of 10-year bonds at 2.5% interest, and that by the time the Fed wants to shrink the money supply again the interest rate has risen to 5 or 6 percent, where it was before the crisis. Then the price of those bonds will have dropped significantly.

And this also means that selling the bonds at market prices won’t be enough to withdraw all the money now being created. So the Fed will have to sell additional assets; if the rise in interest rates is at all significant, it will have to get those assets from the Treasury. So the Fed is, implicitly, engaged in a deficit spending policy right now.

My back of the envelope calculation looks like this: if the Fed buys $1 trillion of 10-year bonds at 2.5%, and has to sell those bonds in an environment where the market demands a yield to maturity of more than 5%, it will take around a $200 billion loss.

I’m not complaining; I think quantitative easing (it’s really qualitative easing, but I give up on trying to fix the terminology) is the right way to go. But we should go into it with our eyes open.

Good lord. Would someone sit this man down and explain to him Austrian economics?! Or just correct his misunderstanding of the Austrian business cycle theory?! Bill Anderson says:

Hey, Krugman, you don’t have to worry about that, as there is not going to be a recovery, or at least not a recovery anyone can recognize. With the government trying to further distort the structure of production (something Keynesians like Krugman fail to acknowledge as even existing) via inflation, and with the tax and regulatory policies forcing up business costs, the economy will have a difficult time rising to meet former levels of production.

Still, I find it absolutely pathetic that the supposed star of the economics world has no concept at all about the destructive nature of inflation. The guy really believes that debasing the currency is a good thing. That must be the upshot of an MIT education these days.

If you’ve got the time check out Steve Horwitz’s “The Costs of Inflation” from FEE. Roger Garrison’s “The Continuing Relevance of Austrian Business Cycle Theory” and Peter Lewin’s “Capital and Its Structure”.

Check out the comments to the main story. When I last looked not one of them disagreed fundamentally with Krugman’s statements.

My morning frustration, CNN, strikes again.

When asked if the “stimulus” package could cause more harm than good some talking head responded: “Oh no. If you look across the board everyone is in agreement. This must pass to get things going again. It will need to be carefully monitored and tweaked as time goes on but even if it’s not perfect it will give the boost the economy needs.”

1. Not everyone agrees it is needed.
2. Not everyone agrees it won’t be harmful. In fact quite the opposite.
3. If it needs to be monitored and constantly tweaked… why not leave it to the free market? Isn’t that exactly what the free market is. A distributed, ground up network of monitoring and tweaking for the benefit of those same actors?

Oh wait… that last part of 3 is what’s wrong. Can’t be having the politicians without their illusion of control. Even if it means the downfall of the economy.

Part 1

http://www.cnbc.com/…

There’s no shortage of bad news when it comes to the economy – the recession, fears of deflation and elevated jobless claims are just some of the things that people are talking about. The widespread sentiment of doom and gloom has put a damper on the holiday season. But is slowed consumer spending a result of hard economics or is the psychology of hard times holding consumers back?

Jackie DeAngelis
CNBC
Producer

In a recent study released by the Pew Research Center, it was reported that 73% of Americans say they plan to cut back on their holiday shopping this year. Nearly six-in-10 of those who said they’re cutting back report they’re doing so because they worry things might get worse; only 28% said they are cutting back because their financial situation has deteriorated.

Sure, we all need to save more and spend less, but extreme tightening might be the worst thing that consumers can do in tough times, as stopping normal spending will only put more pressure on the weak economy.

In order to fight the fear factor, consumers should not fight the urge to splurge — within reason of course. In fact, they should take advantage of falling gas prices to get out and about, take advantage of deep discounts in the stores and online for gift giving, and remember that giving this holiday season will lift spirits more than ever before.

Jackie DeAngelis is a writer and producer at CNBC. Previously she worked as a financial analyst at Oaktree Capital Mgmt. Jackie earned her J.D. from Rutgers Law School in 2008 and her B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University in 2002

Note to self: Oaktree Capital Management hires Keynesian financial analysts with law and Asian studies backgrounds instead of economists.

Left libertarians and statist communists often complain about “capitalists” and consumerism. Keynesian “spend spend spend”, “more money will solve everything” is hardly capitalism. If you just consume you have no capital. Progress can not occur without natural savings and capital accumulation. People like Jackie DeAngelis are mutual enemies to left libertarians of all sorts and those who agree with Austrian economic theory.

http://www.forbes.com/…

Despite these steps, more is needed. We must now take further decisive action to fundamentally and comprehensively address the root cause of our financial system stresses.

To restore confidence in our markets and our financial institutions so they can fuel continued growth and prosperity, we must address the underlying problem.

OH OH! So the Federal Reserve is going to be dismantled?! Remove regulations which are only show or there to help those at the top already?

And this morning, we’ve taken a number of powerful tactical steps to increase confidence in the system, including the establishment of a temporary guarantee program for the U.S. money market and mutual fund industry.

The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy.

First, to provide critical additional funding to our mortgage markets, the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will increase their purchases of mortgage-backed securities. These two enterprises must carry out their mission to support the mortgage market.

Second, to increase the availability of capital for new home loans, Treasury will expand the MBS purchase program we announced earlier this month. This will complement the capital provided by the GSEs, it will help facilitate mortgage availability and affordability.

These two steps will provide some initial support to mortgage assets, but they are not enough. Many of the illiquid assets clogging our system today do not meet the regulatory requirements to be eligible for the purchase by the GSEs or by the Treasury program.

I look forward to working with Congress to pass necessary legislation to remove these troubled assets from our financial system. When we get through this difficult period – which we will – our next task must be to improve the financial regulatory structure so that these past excesses do not recur.

This crisis demonstrates in vivid terms that our financial regulatory structure is suboptimal, duplicative and outdated. I have put forward my ideas for a modernized financial oversight structure that matches our modern economy and more closely links the regulatory structure to the reasons why we regulate.

Damn! No.

More artificial risk reduction. This will only continue the distortion price signals and cause more malinvestment. More regulation that will either further enrich Wall Street at the expense of those on Main Street or will stifle their ability to do what they need to do.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what is the alternative here? What is the dire picture you painted for members of Congress last night to try and convince them to support this effort? What is the alternative?

PAULSON: This is what we need to do. Because for some time we’ve been saying that the root cause of the problems in our economy and our financial system is housing, and until we get stability in the housing market we are not going to get stability in our financial markets.

We’ve worked with Congress on a number of the steps, all of which were important, leading up to this. But this is the way we stabilize the system and get at the root cause.

The root cause is central control of the economy. Something every American child is taught is a bad thing. Look at what happened to those evil commies. While the message we received was hyperbolic it’s has some truth. Central control isn’t only inefficient. It’s an inherently flawed system doomed to failure. These neo-Keynesians just won’t give up on their desire to control or antiquated theories. I saw Obama talking about how the fundamental reasons for this crisis include: not spending enough on infrastructure, not spending enough on education, not spending enough on labor (wages), not taxing the rich enough, etc. Just because you spend capital on something does not mean it’s good. It does not mean that’s what should be done. It does not mean you’ll receive a positive capital growth from the deal. The cost of education has doubled in real dollars since the 1970’s with at best a static result. The fundamental problems are the distortions of the pricing signals due to regulation and primarily the Fed’s interest rate and money supply manipulation. If you make debt cheap, or give it away like it is now (interest < price inflation), individuals will fall into the moral hazard trap and over estimate. They will over consume. Over invest. The illusion of wealth furthers the problem.

I wonder what could be the best practical policy to get this information out. I’m not looking to turn everyone into economists… I just want the to recognize something I think everyone does to some degree but stops short of applying it equally across others and the market as a whole. Perhaps just putting Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson [pdf] in public places with Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed [pdf] sprinkled about would help? I think after the recent happenings people would be happy to read through one of these while waiting for the doctor instead of reading People.

http://www.marketwatch.com/…

Central bankers and regulators are rethinking their faith in the ability of market forces alone to police the increasingly complex global financial system.

In a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed’s toughest challenge is not restoring growth, fighting inflation, or providing fragile banks with sufficient liquidity to get through the current financial crisis. Rather, it’s finding a way to prevent the next one.

The bailout of Bear Stearns in particular represents a failure of the supervisors to monitor the system. Bear wasn’t a particularly large institution, but its assets and liabilities were so thoroughly linked with the rest of the financial world that its failure would have been devastating, Bernanke said. Read the speech.
It’s not that Bear Stearns was too big to fail, it was too interconnected.

Bernanke suggested that the Fed and other bank supervisors need to use a holistic approach, rather than look at each institution in isolation. The explosion of securitization and derivatives in the past few decades has shifted risks in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. A risk that would be manageable for one bank would be unbearable if it applied to all, because systemic risks tend to create illiquid markets.

The regulators also have to clearly explain when and under what conditions financial institutions will be allowed to fail and when they will be bailed out, Bernanke said. To limit moral hazard, bailouts should be structured so that shareholders are wiped out, similar to the way failing banks are now treated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Imposing systemwide supervision and regulation won’t be easy to design or cheap to implement. Unintended consequences are certain to appear. But the alternative of doing nothing would consign us to periodic costly boom and bust cycles that could leave us all poorer.

Just… wow. The organization that is the biggest nonfree component of the current economy and who is looking daily to increase its power doesn’t have faith in the market’s ability to handle things. What a shock. I love that last sentence too. “But the alternative of doing nothing would consign us to periodic costly boom and bust cycles that could leave us all poorer.” Is this guy serious? Has this guy ever opened an economics book or thought critically on the subject? Making us poorer? The Fed’s massive inflation has helped do that. So has the socialization of so many aspects of our lives. We have periodic costly boom and bust cycles BECAUSE they refuse to do nothing. The bust doesn’t make us poorer. It makes us wealthier in the end. The bust is the liquidation of bad investments. If you continue on with the malinvestment you’re continuing on with an inefficient system and not investing in the things with the highest priority. The boom shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Spurred on by cheap debt and other manipulations. Some debt so cheap, like today, that they in fact are paying people to take money. Price inflation being higher than interest rates. Even if you don’t believe Mises and Rothbard on that one show me where the Fed has stopped the cycle? Please. Once you’re finished show me how well government regulation and interference in healthcare, education, housing, the poor, drugs, etc. has done.