Creditors of the World Are Not Necessarily Captive to the Debtors

In response to Martin Wolf's article in the Financial Times,  I offer the following commentary.

The conceptual framing of this argument is somewhat misleading. To begin with the phrase indicating a belief by creditors that they will inherit the earth suggests a context for concentrating wealth and power that is more benign than the underlying capitalist and human drive for dominance and control. There are enough examples in human history, and biology, be it modern or ancient, that one does not have to be much an historian to be compelled to believe that a basic survival instinct is to attempt to manage one’s environment so as to better the chances of surviving and thriving. Because of the complex web of relationships there is often some sort of mutual interdependence, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not so much.

The heart of Martin Wolf’s argument seems to suggest that the relationship between creditors and debtors is such that there is some sort of “lock” binding specific sets of creditors and debtors to one another. While perhaps the world cannot trade with Mars, specific parts of the world can rearrange their trading relationships and thier drivers of growth. For example, while no doubt the western developed world does serve an important function in sucking up the exports of China, it is also possible that through a combination of weaning itself from such heavy dependence on an export driven economy by developing its domestic aggregate demand, and shifting its trade relationships to for example Brazil, or even Russia, to meet some of its export needs it can transition from its heavy dependence its current export targets. As to being held captive because of its $3,200bn of currency reserves, it should be keep in mind that it is only held captive as long as the currency reserve exists in its current form. If these reserves begin to be exchanged for foreign equity positions representing control in strategic future resources that China needs, the current foreign reserves cease to be a control on China’s behavior, and rather serve to further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of those with capital.

Is this so different than when the Native Americans in New York sold Manhattan Island for the equivalent of $24 in baubles, or when the Soviet Union dissolved, dispersed shares of ownership of formerly state owned enterprises among the people, only to have aspiring oligarchs acquire and concentrate these assets for controlling interests in exchange for perhaps teh equivalent of a supply of vodka for a short period of time. There are innumerous other examples which can be given wherein the exchange of future earnings capacity (read indebtedness) for a more immediate gratification leads to servitude.

To suggest that because we are all on the same planet, as Martin Wolf does in his argument, the fix to the current capital imbalances are compelled by some notion of constraint by reciprocity is to have blinders hindering one’s vision as to the fuller range of feasible alternatives.

George Soros' European Crisis Solution

If one accepts George Soro’s solution to preventing a second Great Depression, the prognosis is indeed grim. His solution, while in itself conceptually problematic, appears in a pragmatic context to reside in never-never land. The bold steps he presents as necessary conditions to prevent a second Great Depression require the cooperation and coordination which would transcend the polarization and fractionalization of regional narrow self-interest at such a scale that defies observable reality. Moreover, while the conditions he proposes may or may not be necessary, he has not presented a convincing argument that they are sufficient conditions.

A nebulous foundation block of his strategy is to provide time for “Europe to develop a growth strategy, without which the debt problem cannot be solved”. The development of a growth strategy is central to every economic and business interest, as he well knows. The question which must be asked is what the potential drivers would be of any effective growth strategy, what are the competitive and comparative advantages that Europe could bring forth, and what the time frame for implementation would be? If this proposed growth strategy would be a palliative to the “debt problem”, one is assuming a sufficient rate of growth to offset the burden of debt service. Even assuming a growth strategy could be developed; getting a realistic idea of whether the growth rate would be sufficient to counter the demands of debt servicing takes us into the unquantifiable speculative realm. While George Soros is a demonstrably recognized master in the realm of speculation, a no small part has been his ability to be adaptable and flexible as changing conditions warrant. Unfortunately governmental and national policies rarely show the same nimbleness in response to changing realities.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/09/29/how-to-stop-a-second-great-depression/#axzz1ZHNkRk4j

Financial Crisis Solutions

Congress has passed the Paulson Mega Bailout Plan. Much of the public dialogue around this issue appears to confuse the two major factors underlying this crisis. These two factors are liquidity and solvency.

The credit markets are the lifeblood of a healthy functioning global economy. This financial crisis has resulted in a “freezing up” of the credit markets. Despite Central Banks flooding these markets with access to funds, the credit markets had remained frozen. The ostensible reason is that there is an underlying fear of institutional insolvency arising from exposure to toxic assets on their balance sheets. Because of the complexity of the financial structure of these assets, valuation becomes, more or less, conjecture. At the very least there is an asymmetric knowledge regarding the real quality of these assets. Probably, however, this even overstates the value assessment of these assets because, apparently, even the holders of these assets have exercised poor judgment regarding their value.

A more nefarious explanation as the why the credit markets continue to remain frozen after hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the system, could be a “money cartel strategy”. In this case, the fear generated by this credit crisis provides great cover for the institutional withholding of credit. The resulting worsening of financial market conditions result in more institutional and corporate failures and an increased availability of distressed asset sales for those who have access to capital.

Whichever explanation may be partially, or wholly, representative, the recently passed Paulson Plan is intended, at least at face value, to address the frozen credit market conditions by alleviating the institutional solvency concerns.

Unfortunately, as the point has been made by Roubini, and others, this only partially addresses the real problem which is the crushing personal debt burden. This is an underlying weak point which has lead to the deterioration in home values, and the associated mortgage securities. The idea that making more credit available to an economic system whose members are already drowning in debt seems to leave something to be desired as to this strategy’s future efficacy and effectiveness.

Because of the immense magnitude and pervasiveness of this financial crisis, it is likely that $700 billion will not be sufficient to successfully address this problem because the dollar value is insufficient, and its focus is incomplete. The other aspect which must be addressed is how to provide relief to an overly indebted population who cannot adequately service its debt, and how to do it equitably so that those who have acted prudently do not feel penalized for their more prudent financial behavior.

From my perspective the inevitable public policy which will arise will be monetizing the debt, and creating enough inflation to diminish the real value of the existing debt. This appears the only real option if the global financial system will not collapse in a shambles. This would be the case where the number of losers is maximized, and a result would arise from either an immensely stupid public policy decision, or a monumental geopolitical miscalculation. My inclination is to believe that because the vested interests are at stake of so many who truly are mentally sharp, as well as business and worldly-wise, the inflating option will be the direction we find ourselves going in. Given the monetary and fiscal policy apparatus, mechanisms, and policy maker predispositions, this seems the most probable outcome.

The next step in this would be to more directly address the personal solvency issues. This is a bitter pill to swallow, but this would be a natural consequence of the imprudent financial behaviors on the scale we have witnessed over many years. There are many creative ways in which this could be done. I would think, however, that a policy this is bold, and demonstrably decisive would be what is really required to breathe life back into the system. The follow-up, if we were to really correct the error of our ways would be to put in place regulations as well as financial education, training, and counseling programs, and a rethinking of our values, as to not get ourselves, globally, back into these circumstances.