Featured

The Stock Market Is At Record-Breaking Highs. Time To Be Wary?

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

As I write this, the stock market as a whole (Primarily the Dow, but also the NASDAQ and the Fortune 500) has just reached another record-shattering high. As the longest bull market in history rages on, the threat of war comes and (apparently, at least for the moment) goes, and the trade deal with China evolves through a complicated set of thrusts and parries with no discernable progress, the stock market just keeps climbing… And climbing… And climbing. Despite the notable lack of widespread, systemically healthy and sustainable growth in American business and manufacturing, the stock market still behaves as though the 1950’s have returned. A year of incredible increases only lightly dampened by a couple of short-lived, panic-inducing drops have propelled the market heavenward and its main indices are currently poised to reach nosebleed heights that only cranks and visionaries once believed possible. Currently, if reports by seasoned traders like Jim Cramer are accurate, and if the data on buying of stocks says anything about human behavior, then investors have gone… excuse me for saying this… completely nuts. Apparently, the sky is no longer the limit on how far the market will rise in the minds of the masses of stock market millionaire wanna-be’s. That leads to the million (literally) dollar question: should anybody be investing in the stock market right now? Should you?

IT DEPENDS.

Before choosing whether to commit your money to stocks at this time, there are several factors to consider. Any decision is personal and should depend upon whether an investor understands the real reasons behind the incredible performance of the market during 2019, what’s driving it now, and whether said investor has the time, education and propensity to keep abreast of cues indicating when the party is likely to come to an end. It also depends upon an investor’s appetite for risk, and whether he or she possesses the self-discipline necessary to be honest about what’s going on, and then act on the numbers rather than on emotion or market sentiment. Oh, and it also depends upon how much an investor can comfortably stand to lose if their timing or judgement are less than perfect.

In my personal opinion, based upon my own research, analysis and experience (although remember that I’m not a trained economist or financial advisor, so proceed on my outlook with caution), right now – during truly volatile times and in the heat of a market mania – it’s probably a good time for the average investor, like you and me, to “stay out”. There’s a feeding frenzy currently underway, and the little guy is chum for the sharks. Manias are infamous for luring in the unwary, who don’t understand market mechanics, and the lazy, who think that investing consists of dumping their money into the laps of their financial investors without thoroughly understanding the products they’re being sold or how to make genuinely informed decisions about risk, return, and underlying performance metrics. When your best friend’s cousin’s ex is “riding the rocket and making a killing in the market”, that should be your cue to consider getting out of the water because the tide is likely to turn – violently, and soon.

AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION

Besides the off-putting characteristics of market manias, there is one additional unique and problematic aspect of the current market that potential investors may want to consider. This is the fact that the market’s enormous gains may not be a sign of good health, but actually the symptom of a great underlying crisis and the (so far) successful ongoing attempts of the Fed to control that crisis. Dan Amerman offers a compelling theory that, since the popping of the tech bubble in 2001, the economy and the markets have been dominated not by free forces, but by cyclical eruptions of economic crisis and subsequent attempts by the Fed to contain those crises to fend off serious economic depressions. (To read his considerable work on this subject, please visit his web site at Https://www.danielamerman.com). By his analysis, it’s quite reasonable to suppose that the markets are rising primarily because they’re being artificially propped and pushed up via increasingly desperate attempts of the Fed to prevent free market forces from imposing a very natural, and necessary, periodic correction. In the section below, I discuss how the Fed actually IS intervening in the markets in a shockingly spectacular way, perhaps to prop up the markets, or perhaps to actually take them down surreptitiously. In either case, the Fed’s current massive and continual market intervention, largely unknown to the public, may serve as another warning sign that there’s danger lurking below the surface. So, proceed with caution!

OTHERWISE OK?


If you still think you want to jump in and brave the currently raging tide, at least educate yourself first about a fundamental aspect of the financial system called the repo (short for “repurchase”) market. The repo market is a lynchpin that holds the financial system together. And right now, it’s not working very well. Having some basic knowledge of what this market is and how it’s supposed to function – versus how it’s currently being manhandled and (mis?)managed by the Fed -is critical if you want to gain useful insight into how the banking system works and why the stock market is behaving as it is.

Briefly, the “repo” market is the market in which banks lend money to each other overnight. If a bank thinks it will be short on cash for operations the next day, it offers collateral (usually Treasury bills, or sometimes mortgage backed securities or other items agreed upon by both parties), to other banks in exchange for a loan. They then repay the loan, with interest, the next day. ( Repos can actually be of varying lengths of time, but overnight is the most common.) The interest rates on overnight repo loans are normally kept within guidelines set by the Federal Reserve. On the night of September 16, 2019, however, the lending between banks nearly stopped and the interest rates briefly spiked from about 2% (which was in the Fed’s desired ballpark), to almost 10%. Banks were suddenly afraid to lend to one another! The banking system was seizing up! A banking collapse was unfolding! And nobody a the helm of our financial system – the Fed – knew why or even saw it coming!

When the Fed realized what was going on, it reacted swiftly to prevent the banks from becoming too low on their cash reserves and having to keep their doors closed in the morning. They instantly created $53 billion in electronic cash out of the nothingness, and poured it into the repo market. And on each and every night since then, the Fed has been doing the same thing, in varying amounts. It’s extremely difficult to calculate exactly how much the Fed has created, since the money that was created one day, has to be paid back the next day (or whenever the term of the repo expires.) So after the first couple of weeks or so of money creation – after the first 14-day repos expired – much of the money going into the repo market from the Fed is actually recycled money. How much that is is difficult to calculate, although an excellent article from Wolf Street (“The WallStreet Journal (and Other Media) Should Stop Lying About Repos”, 1/10/20, http://Www.wolfstreet.com) indicates that it would be less than the $8 hundred-something billion total that’s been floated in some publications. Still, some days, the amount of money that the Fed has injected (new or recycled) hasn’t been enough to satisfy demand so the Fed does have to create more cash or risk letting the system begin to die. Since Sept. 17 until today, approximately $413 billion has changed hands in the repo market, and the data clearly shows that the market is completely dependent upon the free flow of sufficient repo offerings.

Why should I care?

The issues with this are several and far-reaching, therefore best covered in a separate article. For now, I’ll just touch on what I see as the two primary consequences without much detail. First, the repo issue indicates that the Fed has now become the lender of FIRST, rather than LAST resort, indicating that the system is not functioning as intended. It’s really become a centrally controlled instead of a free market. And second, the repo crisis is a sign that there’s a vast ‘black hole’ somewhere in our financial system and it’s either sucking cash out of the banking system or re-directing it within the system to places from which it can’t escape and circulate properly. Or maybe both problems are operating simultaneously. Nobody seems to know why a hole may have gaped into existence, though theories abound. They range from overly restrictive regulations preventing banks from unleashing their reserve holdings, to deliberate manipulation of the repo market by J.P. Morgan bank trying to force the Fed to start QE4, to simple incompetence by Fed middle management, and even to deliberate sabotage of the markets by Fed employees wishing to derail Trump’s election chances. (The latter two theories, though they may sound far fetched, actually have a lot of merit. You can access the excellent article about them here: http://danielamerman.com/va/ElectionHacking.html) What we DO know is that the Fed’s current commitment to pump “whatever it takes” (their words) daily into the repo markets – plus a few billions extra as a guesstimate cushion, because the Fed has no idea how much newly-created money the banks (and hedge funds, which also participate, to a lesser extent, in the repo market), will need on any given day – will go on at least through April, per Fed statement. And the evidence IS clear that this repo money is what’s keeping the market afloat, the banks open, and by extension, the economy running.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MONEY SPIGOT CLOSES?


Should the Fed now try to stop backstopping the repo market every day, or should they grossly miscalculate how many billions the repo market will need in fresh or recirculated cash for several days in a row, the market will quickly begin to crash. And there will be precious little to prevent it from blowing down below the average (inflation adjusted) valuation of the stock market from the 1960’s through 2001, when the Fed unleashed its first experiment with quantitative easing in the wake of the bursting of the tech bubble. Remember that most things, over time, revert to their means, so if the mean (as in the average valuation for stocks) has been elevated for a while, the system will generally reset by diving back below its long-term mean. That way, it balances out overall in the long run. That’s just an iron law of statistics. Holders of stock could therefore experience massive drops in the value of their holdings very quickly, with no mathematical hope for most investors anywhere near retirement to ever recover their losses. Sadly, there’s likely to be very little time for investors to react once the markets start to fall when the Fed decides that it either cannot, or will not, prop them up any longer. The bottom line is that if the Fed can’t muster enough electronic cash (recycled or out of the nothingness) quickly enough, or if it can’t fix the repo problem in some other way, then there will be no stopping the black hole (whatever it is) from wreaking carnage on the entire global economy. Whether that day will be tomorrow, in April (when millions of businesses and taxpayers will be simultaneously pulling cash out of their bank accounts to pay their taxes), shortly before the November elections, or in a year or two, isn’t knowable right now. However, what IS knowable is the fact is that serious, and probably unrecoverable, damage will be done to investors who don’t get out of the way quickly enough once the house of cards begins to fall. So forget the (pending?) war, the trade deal, the impeachment chatter and all the other news that is currently only serving as a backdrop to obscure the main event, which is the Fed’s interventions into the repo market. The continued functioning of the repo, and by extension the stock, markets, and, by further extension, the economy, is now entirely dependent upon the actions of the Fed. Knowing that, is this really the time you want YOUR money invested in the market? It may be better to stay out of the water at least until you can read which way the tide is flowing.

Dear Mr. Putin: I Think the West Needs to Acknowledge Our Role In Causing the War in Ukraine (Part 1 of 2)

Dear Mr. Putin,

I am writing this letter to you as a way to educate myself on why you declared war on Ukraine. I know what the media and the people around me are saying and thinking, but I wanted to look into the situation for myself. That way I can get as close as I possibly can to what I would consider the truth based on the facts I can uncover. I like to ground my decisions that way rather than just accepting whatever t those around me have to say about the matter and making their opinions my own. Sometimes “common knowledge” isn’t the best indicator of what’s honest and real, and it’s not the best guide as to where one should focus one’s attention.

I’ll admit I’m not much of a fan of yours. I’m skeptical of your actions. I don’t agree with some of your policies and a number of things you’ve said and done over the years. And I think some of the actions you’ve taken so far in the Ukranian war are downright wrong. However, I am a big fan of the truth, and I think the truth is that the West – America and our allies – bear a lot of responsibility for the current war in Ukraine and what that might lead to. The way you’re handling the current hostilities is rather over the top and not winning you any support, but I’d like to see more deeply into your situation than the mob – from the media to the online pundits to the seed companies currently pledging all their profits from their sales to benefit Ukraine – will allow me to.

Take a 1800 Turn

This may be an unusual perspective, but I think the real cause and reason for the war is regime change. Specifically, an attempt by the United States to oust you, Mr. Putin, from power and replace you with a puppet who is friendly to, and willing to be a stooge for, the world’s central banks. I think the real reason for this war is not a unilateral desire on your part to prey upon your neighbors, but a unilateral desire of the West to punish you for daring to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency and break free of our economic control. I realize that, like the West, Russia is attempting to bring its economy into the digital and total surveillance age, but you’ve done some things along the way, Mr. Putin, that has frightened and angered the West. You have threatened to break the stranglehold of the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT system on global commerce. And you have had the terminity to start finding ways around our sanctions and controls. Shame on you, Mr. Putin! You’re a bad boy, and other potentially bad children, notably India, are watching you to see if you can get away with making end runs around Teacher’s rules. According to our leadership, although they won’t say it verbally, it’s time for you to go. I think the current situation in Ukraine is their way of communicating what they dare not confess out loud.

The Propaganda Machine is Cranking at 11

At least since your were accused of meddling in the 2016 elections when the curious figure of Donald Trump and his veneer of core American values supposedly threatened to upend the entrenched powers that actually decide American politics, Americans have been subjected to a continual stream of propaganda against Russia. For several weeks before you decided to invade Ukraine, all we heard on our news outlets, even most of the supposedly conservative and alternative outlets, was that Russia was a hostile, out-of-control interventionist regime that wanted nothing more than to undermine and murder the citizens of nearby pro- Western democracies. One could practically hear our electronic town criers screaming “The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!” every time there was an opportunity to use The Bear as a bogeyman to keep the nervous sheeple from asking too many questions about things the elites would rather keep hidden. I, for one, suspect that the obvious heavy-handed attempts at generating mass hypnotic hatred and hysteria over Russia, is a strategy for deflecting inquiry as to what’s really happening in our own social, political and economic system, and who is actually behind the changes that are not in our best interests. I believe the real culprits behind the chaos now engulfing Ukraine are the central banks, not you.

I think Russia has been taunted, harassed and abused by America and our European allies for quite a long time in an effort to isolate and destroy you. Not that you’ve been exactly blameless in hurting Russia yourself by nurturing corruption and inequality in your own country, but we’ve put out a lot of effort, ourselves, into doing what we can to create problems for you while pretending that the Cold War ended long ago. You and the neocons who work deep in the military-industrial complex both know that the Cold War never really ended. That dramatic moment during Mr. Gorbachov’s reign when the Berlin Wall came down was just click bait. It always seemed to me to be nothing but a clever photo-op created so that actor Ronald Regan – who at that time was playing the role of President – could grandstand on the world stage. I was right. For those who had a vested interest in keeping open hostilities with Russia in their back pockets until such time as such hostilities were needed, the cold war continued on. What would be the point of giving up a potentially lucrative gig in case America needed a war to improve its bottom line or to cover up an internal mess it created in some other aspect of political or economic affairs?

If Not Now, When?

Well, it seems as though the time to trot out open hostilities has arrived. We’ll talk later about why I think that’s the case. The conventional excuse being pushed to explain what’s currently happening in Ukraine is that you, Mr. Putin, are a bloodthirsty, ruthless dictator hell-bent on invading and destroying Ukraine for the purpose of taking back territory that once belonged to Mother Russia. Perhaps you’re flexing Russia’s might because you want to restore Russia to a position of world power and glory. There’s a case to be made that watching Russia fall apart in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and be humiliated, particularly by President Clinton, drove you to be willing to do whatever it takes to make your country strong and relevant again, regardless of the cost1. Perhaps as you’re getting older you’re getting desperate to leave a spectacular legacy. Or perhaps you’re just insane. All of these ideas have been floated out but so far, not a lot of investigative journalists have actually investigated to find out which one(s), if any, are true. What the journalists, as a group, or perhaps their handful of media bosses, seem to have concluded is that responsibility for this war is completely your fault. The vast majority of news sources that I would consider alternative or outside the mainstream also seem to have, to my disappointment, uncritically accepted the narrative of your guilt. I’m surprised at how thoroughly the non-affiliated outlets, especially those claiming to be conservative or non-aligned, are failing to investigate your side of the story. Even RT, the news outlet from which I would most expect to hear a reasonable defense of your thoughts and actions, has had little of substance to say (from what I can tell) about why you are engaging in your current course of action.

And Now a Blackout?

Oddly, as I sit down to write this in the early morning of Saturday, February 26, 2022 and obtain the latest information, RT reports that its server is down or experiencing a network error. That’s odd. It’s never done that before to my knowledge and no other news channels or apps I use are off line right now. The fact that RT is down seems too coincidental to actually be a coincidence. It feels ominous. Should I be suspicious and blame it on you, Mr. Putin, perhaps because things are happening that you don’t want reported? Or is RT not reporting things in a truthful manner, so you’ve ordered it silenced? Or did the Russian-linked (according to experts) hackers turn their attention to it, after launching that ransomware attack on McDonald’s last Friday2 and stealing the 2020 election from Trump? (No, this isn’t an endorsement of Trump, just a compilation of Russian interference in U.S. affairs. It is, admittedly, a lengthy list of scary stuff, according to the “experts”. )

Hmmmm, I just found out, the hacking collective that calls itself Anonymous has claimed responsibility for taking down the web sites of your government, including the Kremlin, the Duma and the Ministry of Defense, as well as RT. I’m looking at an article right now about their latest activity. Ironically, the article was printed in RT but isn’t available from RT because RT isn’t working at the moment. I found it on Google. Anonymous sounds like a nasty group that, according to RT, has previously attacked the CIA, Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, the Church of Scientology and the Epilepsy Foundation, among other targets. Apparently they also hacked the Fed. (To their credit, in my opinion, at least they seem non-partisan.) They have now declared themselves to be officially at cyber war with the Russian government3. If there’s any question about that, the article I’m looking at quotes a post that reads “F** Putin… We support the people of #Ukraine… We are legion. We will not forget the lives that have been lost under Putin’s regime”. (ibid) Sounds like you’ve really gotten under some people’s skin, Mr. Putin, but I think maybe they don’t know the whole story. So that’s why I’m going to attempt to tell it here. At least I’ll lay it out as best as I understand it. It’s not going to be perfect, but I think it’s probably a lot closer to the truth than anybody else I’ve read has reached so far.

Where to start? The Cuban Missile Crisis?

It seems like the Cuban Missile Crisis might be the place to begin the story, as it bears a lot of resemblance to what’s happening today. Except that it’s in mirror image to the current situation. And it didn’t get out of hand. Let’s hope this war doesn’t either, even though I strongly suspect that it will (for reasons I’ll discuss in Part 2).

For 13 days in October, 1962, Russia and America had a bit of a showdown, didn’t we? In many ways, it was the perfect reverse of what’s happening today. For readers a bit light on their history, here’s the basic story. Apparently around 1961 sometime – we don’t know exactly when – your predecessor in the old Soviet Union, Nikita Kruschev, approached the Dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro, and suggested that Mr. Castro allow Russia to assemble and place several nuclear-armed Soviet SS4 medium-range ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. They were to be pointed at the U.S.. (Remember that this was in the midst of the Cold War, which officially began in 1945 and officially ended in 1991.) Mr. Castro, being the generous fellow he was, agreed. Perhaps that was because after he seized power over Cuba in 1959, Cuba became increasingly dependent upon the Soviet Union for military and economic aid. Therefore, the Soviet request probably seemed reasonable. Or maybe Mr. Castro was made a deal he couldn’t refuse? In either case, the end result was that he allowed the Soviets to put defensive nuclear weaponry approximately 90 miles from the nearest shore of their greatest nemesis.

The USSR’s rationale for placing nuclear weapons within striking distance of the densely populated eastern seaboard of America was to counterbalance the number of nuclear weapons the U.S. and our European allies already had pointed at you in Western Europe and Turkey. Understandably, the Soviet Union was a bit nervous about this. Castro hated the U.S. and the U.S. hated Castro back, so the idea of using Cuba as a launching pad to strike out at America made sense to Kruschev. Besides, Kennedy had launched the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and both Cuba and its ally the old USSR were eager to deter further meddling in Cuba’s affairs. A few nukes seemed like they’d do the trick.

Predictably, the U.S. went nuts. President Kennedy conferred with advisors for a week, and to his credit, he came up with a restrained approach to get rid of the Soviet missiles without initiating wider conflict or nuclear war. He simply blockaded Cuba with the American navy. In doing so, Kennedy prevented more weaponry as well as other aid and supplies from reaching Cuba. Yes, the Russian navy did sail to within a few miles of the blockade, but sensibly decided to not penetrate and risk provoking serious hostilities. The blockade worked! However, the greater standoff between Cuba and Russia, on the one hand, and America on the other, continued over the presence of the Soviet missiles already assembled and standing at the ready on Cuban soil.

On Oct. 26, Kruschev blinked and offered to remove his missiles from Cuban soil if American leaders promised to not attack or attempt to invade Cuba again. I think that was a pretty decent offer. The following day, the leader of the Soviet Union proposed, in a letter, to dismantle the missile infrastructure in Cuba if America removed our missile installations from Turkey. Kennedy agreed, officially, to promise that America would henceforth not bother Cuba. Unofficially, he also agreed withdraw our missiles from Turkey, but that decision remained secret from the public for over 25 years. The crisis officially ended on Oct. 28, 1962. However, it went on to influence U.S./Russian relations, in both positive and negative ways, all the way to the present day.

Fast Forward to 1989

The consensus among people who study these things that 1989 was, in many ways, “the beginning of the end” for your once-massive and proud Soviet empire, Mr. Putin. Or perhaps even a bit earlier, when your predecessor Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on a conference table and yelled that the United State was too strong to defeat militarily but would eventually fall from its own economic profligacy. I remember seeing old film reels of the incident and would call him prescient.

The years between 1989 and 1991 were particularly hard for your beloved Russia, as that was when the Berlin Wall came down and the “captive nations” of Eastern Europe were liberated. The Soviet Union itself was redrawn as fifteen independent countries. Russia caved to America in the Cold War, largely from economic collapse, and gave the West no more cause to fear it – or respect it, which is key.

America felt elated, emboldened and deeply self-righteous about our role in “spreading democracy” and ‘defeating the Evil Empire ‘. We beat you! We were #1! God loved us best and we could do no wrong! Given this mindset of superiority, in 1999, President Clinton didn’t mind stepping on the Bear’s toes by conducting a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia. Serbia was annoying us and had, until that time, been under the protection of Mother Russia, but Mother proved helpless this time to protect her offspring against an old adversary. The Russian Prime Minister at the time, Boris Yeltsin, screamed at Bill Clinton on the telephone to call off the planned campaign, but Clinton went ahead with it anyway. Mr. Putin, as a KGB officer, you said you felt humiliated for your country3. Could anybody blame you?

The West Adds Insult to Injury

1999 turned out to be a bad year for Russia in other ways, as well. Just as you, Mr. Putin, ascended to the peak of power, three of the countries that had formerly belonged to the old Soviet mutual defense organization known as the Warsaw Pact – the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – switched sides and abandoned Mother Russia to join forces with the West. The signal that they had decided to look Westward instead of Eastward to form their modern identities and economic opportunities came in 1999 as they concretized their decisions by joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The Warsaw Pact to which they had formerly belonged had been created in 1955 to maintain stability and balance of power in Europe via a mutual defense treaty. The parties to the treaty were your old Soviet Union and seven of its satellite states: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechloslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Although Albania withdrew from the pact in 1968 and Germany was reunited in 1989, the rest remained intact until 1991. During its 36 year history, the collection of Warsaw Pact nations, or the Eastern Bloc as it was popularly referred to, served as a buffer between your nation and the West. It provided some security and peace of mind for Russia and also counterbalanced Western power with Eastern power on the European continent. It began to crumble during the late 1980’s when Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev began to institute his policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). Gorbachev’s policies weakened the nearby communist governments in the Soviet satellite states until they began to fail. Their decline led to the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and then the dissolution of the Soviet Empire at the end of 1991. Nato saw its opportunity to move in.

The Devil’s Choice

Both the presence and the absence of the Warsaw Pact had pluses and minuses for both of us. On the one hand, the Pact kept a reasonably balanced balance of power between East and West for well over three decades. During that time, neither of us was likely to severely perturb, let alone attack, the other. Direct hostilities were unlikely because the chances of a decently easy win were poor while the odds of massive casualties should a war break out were very high. But, because the alliances of East and West were so ideologically opposed yet essentially in each other’s geographic faces, the arms race ensued. (Dear readers, do you remember the old term “Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? Have you ever watched the movie Dr. Strangelove?) When Europe was divided into Eastern and Western blocs, NATO and the Warsaw nations were in the paradoxical position of being at once frightened of one another and unable to coexist, but also too strong to risk eliminating the other. And toning down the ideology to make reasonably relaxed co-existence possible was a completely unpalatable option for both sides. (The banks and defense contractors in both blocs may have had something to do with keeping each locked into ideologically rigid positions, but we’ll get to that in Part 2.)

When the Warsaw nations weakened and the pact fell apart under Mr. Gorbachev’s attempts to ease the hostilities, the balance of power shifted, didn’t it, Mr. Putin? NATO then felt itself entitled to offer membership to former Warsaw countries. While the hard division of countries into Eastern and Western blocs was poor for such issues as environmentalism and human rights (although Canada has taught us that supposed Western Republics are as capable of abusing the environment and human rights as any Eastern dictatorship is), and while the East/West tensions also brought about the blossom of the arms race, ironically, in the long run, it seems that it was the softening of the hard lines that kept us apart that has led us into actual war, complete with threats of nuclear involvement. I guess as the old saying goes, “damned if you do, damned it you don’t”.

Enter Ukraine

In April of 2008 – just six months before the ‘great global economic crisis’ set the stage for enactment of a new law that allowed the Federal Reserve to begin stealing the savings of everyday Americans to bail out most of the world’s big banks (this is important, my followers, and you can read more at “The Stealthy Raid on Our Bank Accounts: How the Government Uses Our Bank Accounts to Fund the National Debt” by Daniel Amerman, CFA and MBA. It’s available for purchase at http://www.danielamerman.com), NATO held a fateful conference in Bucharest, Romania. During the Bucharest Summit, as it came to be known, NATO agreed to grant several countries on Russia’s doorstep, including Ukraine and Georgia, membership in NATO. While membership wasn’t actually granted at the time (and has yet to be granted to Ukraine even today), the mere exercise of the consideration was enough to cause the Deputy Foreign Minister of your country, Mr. Putin, to declare “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which will have most serious consequences for pan-European security”. Mr. Putin, you yourself declared point blank that Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO was a “direct threat” to Russia. Golly, whatever could you have meant by that?

If You Don’t Understand My Words, Perhaps You Will Understand My Fists

Since NATO failed to take your warning about the consequences of incorporating Georgia and Ukraine seriously, Mr. Putin, you decided, sensibly, to take matters into your own hands. You invaded Georgia later in 2008. We may have blamed you back then, too, but the war between Russia and Georgia was a direct consequence of the Bucharest Declaration. Had NATO not insisted on pushing forward with what you saw, correctly, as a major threat to Russia, you and Georgia would have remained in a stable relationship and peace would have continued. But in that case, Russia would have maintained political and economic hegemony over large chunks of eastern Europe. That would have continued to limit the political and economic expansion of western Europe and prevented America and our allies from gaining a power advantage in the region. To western political and economic interests, of course, this was unacceptable. So when Russia lashed out to capture and incorporate Georgia in what was mostly an act of self-defense, the dominant narrative in the West became that big, bad bear attacked innocent little Georgia over Georgia’s good decision to become a “free” (i.e., under the West’s control) country. The biased publicity did nothing to enhance your image in the West, Mr. Putin, or in surrounding states that had chosen to become western-leaning, particularly western Ukraine.

By 2010, Ukraine’s internal divisions, which ran largely along ethnic lines, had become quite obvious politically. At a U. of Chicago Alumni Association presentation in June, 2015, Professor John Mearscheimer reviewed evidence of deep internal tensions that were already stressing the country and had been since at least 2004. Political polls conducted in 2004 & 2010 showed without doubt that Ukraine was deeply divided on its eastern and southeastern sides. There was also a corroborating new 2015 survey presented by Dr. Mearscheimer and conducted by The International Republican Institute. It asked Ukranians if Ukraine should join NATO. The eastern and western halves of the country stood deeply opposed on the issue. The eastern half of the country clearly said “No”.

Dr. Mearscheimer presented a very convincing contrarian view that the overall mess which was the Ukraine even in 2015, was mainly the fault of the West, not you. He also predicted that troubles in a divided Ukraine were likely to lead to further hostilities with you. He pointed out that, until the early 2000’s which saw the two-pronged attempt by the EU and NATO to incorporate the former Soviet satellite states of Albania, Belarus, Romania, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria into the economic and military spheres of western Europe, the ‘balance of power’ concept kept the region relatively stable and kept outright hostilities between East and West to a minimum. But NATO and the E.U. correctly saw that if they could peel Ukraine (or, better yet, Ukraine and Belarus both) away from Russia and your influence, Mr. Putin, Europe would have a straight military shot at the Bear if desired. If Ukraine, in particular, but Belarus also, were friendly to the West, then military power could flow unimpeded from Poland, a firmly Westernized country situated midway between greater Europe and the East, through Ukraine or Ukraine and Belarus and directly into Russia. Wouldn’t that be convenient for us and our allies? Who wouldn’t want that?

The Bear Objects

For some reason, Mr. Putin, you didn’t understand the West’s good intentions and you weren’t as thrilled as we were with the idea of the West on your doorstep, surrounding and wielding power over your country. And you were correct in your paranoia over threats from America and our allies. In February 2014, the three key elements of Western strategy to emasculate Russia – NATO expansionism (regional military domination), expansion of the EU (regional economic domination), and the U.S led plan to foster and Orange revolution within Ukraine itself to put a Western-friendly regime in power there, came together and created the first Ukranian crisis. The crisis was precipitated in November of 2013, when the EU offered then-President of Ukraine Yanukovych a deal to form an association with the EU. Yanukovych didn’t consider the deal particularly good, and you, Mr. Putin, attempted to maintain the peace and balance of power by offering a counter deal.

In fact, you were willing to enter into a multilateral deal with the EU to maintain stability and keep a buffer between east and west. The EU turned you down. Apparently peace wasn’t really their top priority. In response, you made it clear that a unilateral deal between the EU and Ukraine was unacceptable to Russia. So you made Ukraine a sweetheart counter deal of your own, including a $15 billion loan for economic development. Over the EU’s objections, President Yanukovich accepted your offer. The Ukranian people protested in response. For whatever reason, Yanukovich overreacted to the protests and the ensuing bloodshed only generated more violence. On 2/21/14, a deal to allow Ukraine to hold democratic elections to choose a new leader was presented to the people and on 2/24, President Yanukovich fled Ukraine. The Ukranian people turned turned the offer of democratic elections down. Why? There is evidence to suggest that the refusal was due mainly to the influence of several very vocal, violent and armed fascist elements who wanted to institute a completely different government in Ukraine. That was a shame, but don’t feel guilty about it, Mr. Putin. We’re having the same problem in America today.

Chaos Begets Invasion – Or Not

To eliminate the possibility that a chaotic Ukraine might fall under Western control while distracted and divided, you sent additional Russian military units into Crimea to exert control over the area. I use the term “extra” because we know, Mr. Putin, that you didn’t actually invade as the Western press made out. Yes, you did seize control over the area, but Russia already HAD a military presence in Crimea – the very important naval base you were leasing there. Your military simply stepped off the base, began taking control of checkpoints, met the units rolling in from the Russian mainland, and took over operations from there. In March of 2014, the Crimean Parliament voted to join Russia and held a referendum on the issue. The referendum was held later in the month and your country subsequently formally incorporated Crimea. And because of its strategic importance to Russia on both land and sea, given the constant threats from the West, we know you will never let it go. I don’t think we can blame you.

Fast Forward to 2019: Was NATO’s Offer to Ukraine a Bait and Switch, Or Just a Tactic to Tease the Bear?

As of October, 2019, Ukraine had still not been admitted into NATO, but the Ukranian Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, Dmytro Kuleba, was certain it would still be coming through. In fact he held a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to discuss the partnership’s future. The subject of the meeting was to flesh out plans and priorities for future cooperation between Ukraine and the NATO alliance. Among the issues felt to be urgent were strengthening the Ukranian economy, democracy, and its armed forces. Priority was put on Naval development and enhancement of Ukranian security in the Black Sea.4 In the words of Deputy Prime Minister Kuleba, “Security challenges in the Black Sea are not a problem for Ukraine or the Black Sea alone. This is a threat to the entire region. When Alliance ships enter the Black Sea, they demonstrate the strength of the international community, being proof of the capacity to guarantee the security of the entire region. It is critical that we can see today in the port of Odessa the mine countermeasures groups of Alliance minesweepers from Bulgaria (a former Soviet satellite state) Italy, Romania (another former Soviet satellite), and Spain next to the Ukranian Navy vessels” (ibid.) Hearing Ukraine brag about how the former satellite states of the old Soviet empire were now consorting with the enemy to help keep you under control in nearby waters must have hurt.

Deja-Vu All Over Again

Could the situation in Ukraine be considered reminiscent of America’s situation with Cuba after 1959? In our case, Mr. Putin, your Russia had one ally on America’s doorstep, and an immense ocean between yourselves and your ally. Imagine if Nikita Kruschev and the Eastern bloc had managed to recruit Mexico to your side and together you deployed naval vessels to prowl the waters between the United States and Cuba in the 1950’s? How would America have felt? How might President Kennedy have reacted? Could NATO’s insistence in supporting Ukraine over your objections and clearly rebuffing your concerns by issuing supportive measures such as the Comprehensive Assistance Package, have served to provoke your anxiety, defensiveness and readiness to defend your homeland, even if you had to go on a preemptive attack to do it?

It’s a bit difficult to believe that the West could have been unaware that you wouldn’t have calmly accepted our slow but unyielding march to your doorstep. Bill Clinton’s decision to get involved with Serbia must surely have been made partly with the intent to push the advance while yanking your chain and rapping your nose with a stick, “because we could”. The entire dilly-dally with formalizing the Ukraine’s entry into NATO gives one the feeling that it may have been a psychological tactic designed specifically to give you constant heartburn. Ukraine did its part by playing along, effectively denying the deep cultural divide between its Western-leaning, pro-Western, pro-NATO Western provinces and its more Russian ethnic, pro-Russia Eastern provinces. In 2019, Ukranian Deputy Dmytro Kuleba acquiesced to his role by announcing at the joint Ukranian/NATO summit to discuss the Implementation of the 2008 Bucharest agreement, that “Public opinion surveys show a steady pattern that the support for Euro-Atlantic integration in the public is steadily growing.” 4 What he forgot to mention was that this support was coming mainly from the western provinces of Ukraine. The eastern and southeastern provinces wanted overwhelmingly to stay allied with Russia. I guess they didn’t count and didn’t seem like a potential problem. The situation wasn’t too unlike the sociopolitical situation that has developed in the U.S., where primarily the East and Left Coasts, along with some scattered urban centers across the Heartland, want to form an alliance with the increasingly Socialist government in DC while the rest of us would like to secede culturally and economically back into the United States as it was roughly during the 1950’s or so.

If a Putin Speaks in the Forest and Nobody Hears Him, Did He Make a Sound?

Mr. Putin, you did try to make your feelings known. You gave several direct and indirect warnings that admitting the Ukraine into NATO would not be tolerated, and that the issue should finally be settled one way or the other. In my opinion, there are several pieces of evidence that the West and the Ukraine WERE perfectly aware of the risks involved in attempting to make Russia effectively “go away”, but they chose to view these risks as a feature, rather than a bug, of the ideology of advancing ‘democracy everywhere at all costs’. I wonder why? My considered opinion is that the simmering, and perhaps future outright, conflict with Russia, had a lucrative appeal for certain parties that was too juicy to pass up. But in order to get the majority of the world’s people to go along with the program, these lucrative interests had to be disguised as humanitarian concerns. War is, after all, both ugly for the common man, and a massively efficient way by which to transfer his wealth and power to his government and the global banking cartel behind his back. It is so powerful a wealth transfer mechanism, in fact, that it degrades economies and ruins opportunities intergenerationally. It is particularly effective during times of rising inflation and financial weakness, and that is exactly is where the United States finds itself today. And it exascerbates the divide between the rich and the poor. This ratchets up internal strife within societies already dealing with civil unrest. Given the high cost to societies and ordinary people, why would anybody want such a situation to exist? Who benefits from such a scenario? In Part 2, let’s do our best to follow the money and see if we can find out. Perhaps there’s more going on underneath the table than we’re being told by the news media, and more main players in this war than just Russia, the Ukraine and NATO. Maybe there is a deeper story here that everyone should know about, because it could be much more of a life-and-death matter to the common citizen than even war itself.

REFRENCES

  1. Walker, Shaun “The Humiliation That Pushed Putin to Try and Recapture Russian Glory” History.com, Feb. 23, 2018, updated March 26, 2019

2. Griffith, Ken “Russia-linked Hacker Gang Launches Ransomware Attack on McDonald’s: CISA issue ‘Shields Up’ Alert for ALL American Companies to ‘Prepare for Disruptive Cyber Activity'” Dailymail.com, 22:56 EST 25 Feb. 2022

3. “Anonymous Declare ‘Cyber War’ against Russia” RT, 11:51, 25 February, 2022

4. kmu.gov.ua, “Dmytro Kuleba; Ukraine Believes the Decision of 2008 Bucharest Summit to Grant NATO Membership to Our Country Will Be Fulfilled” October 30, 2019

How Can the Government Steal Your Money? Let Me Count the Ways.

Let me start my post by asking you a simple, but important, question that might not seem related to the content (but is): Have you ever considered how important words are? Words direct our thoughts, and how we think about things influences how we behave. When it comes to how we spend and think about our money, our government would like our thinking to be, well, a bit fuzzy on the subject. That’s because, if we don’t really understand money (or, technically, currency, which is the green stuff in our wallets), we’re less likely to notice and react when they steal it from us. And steal it from us is what the government does in many ways. So when it comes to verbalizing the relationship between our spendthrift, heavily indebted government and our hard-earned currency, two words come to my mind: FINANCIAL REPRESSION.

Financial repression is a phrase that should strike terror into the hearts of anyone who believes in keeping their wealth, growing their wealth, saving for the future or having a life after retirement. Unfortunately, it’s a term that most savers and everyday investors really don’t understand. And that’s no wonder, because the government doesn’t exactly go out of its way to explain to the public in clear, simple language just how many ways it’s reaching into our individual and collective pocketbooks to relieve us of our hard-earned cash.

Financial repression might be thought of as a toolbox of policies and procedures deployed by government to redistribute wealth from us to it, and then onward to whatever recipients it chooses. If one searches for the definition of financial repression, one can come across a wide spectrum of analyses and opinions regarding the exact tools used. In my opinion (not financial advice!), while most of the definitions have a lot of merit, none are complete. The ways and means by which government parts citizens from their money are numerous and wily. So I though I’d give my readers the opportunity to see as detailed of a list of the tools of financial repression as I can come up with, all in one handy-dandy place. I won’t claim that it’s complete because those with more knowledge of the subject may see ways that I missed. However, if you take the following expose to heart, you’ll at least be armed with the knowledge of the most major and important ways that Uncle Sam rips you off each and every day – generally without your knowledge and certainly without your consent. Seeing how the tricks are accomplished is the first step to finding ways to end them. So – are you ready to take a trip to the dark side to see the many ways in which you’re being taken financial advantage of behind your back?

Financial Repression 101 – Basic Techniques (in no particular order)

  1. Taxation

Probably the most obvious method of financial repression and the one that receives the most publicity is taxation. Taxation is a simple, blunt and straightforward instrument for committing financial murder, with all the brute charm of a sledgehammer. Taxation as a tool of financial repression has its pluses and minuses from the views of both the taxing body and the taxed. From the point of view of the people paying, the “good” things about taxation are the facts that it’s obvious in the sense that you can see it happening and know how much it’s affecting you, and you can potentially change your tax rate by electing officials who have different ideologies regarding how high taxes should be, how they should be distributed, and so on. At least that’s the theory. From the point of view of the taxing body, taxes have the disadvantage of being subjected to the will of the voters (again, in theory). That’s why so many economists, financial advisors and so on claim that politicians are reluctant to raise taxes. They claim that leadership dislikes facing the wrath of the people when the people see that they’re being robbed.

Unfortunately, the idea that politicians don’t like raising taxes is far less true today than it used to be. Indeed, the promise to raise taxes and thereby repress taxpayers is more and more frequently being seen by both candidates and voters – including taxpayers themselves! – as a selling point in political campaigns. How is this possible? Because as more and more of the public, including working taxpayers, find both the motive and the means to become dependent for part of their keep upon largesse extracted from their neighbors by the police powers of the state, they see that for every $1 they pay in taxes, they, or somebody they care about, gets back $2 or $3 in mis-named “government” benefits. I say “mis-named” because the benefits come not from the government, but from the productive labor of their neighbors. It is merely appropriated and distributed by government after government takes a hefty cut from the proceeds to fund its massive redistribution infrastructure. Indeed, for more and more citizens, the arbitrage between what they pay in various taxes, including income taxes, property taxes, vehicle taxes, licensing fees and so on, and what they receive back in wealth redistributed to them in everything from food or rent assistance to medical subsidies and stimmy checks – all subsidized by the taxes extracted perhaps from themselves but more importantly from the collective mass of their neighbors – may be one of the biggest and safest arbitrages available anywhere in the financial world. This is especially true when the citizens or resident aliens receiving financial benefits, do not pay most forms of tax themselves. It would be a very interesting exercise to divide the total tax dollars spent on social welfare programs by the goods and services produced as a result. I’d even throw in the cost savings of harms actually avoided if they could be demonstrated over the long term and not merely theorized. My guess is that such an accounting would reveal a loss of value so staggering it would rival the amount of wealth stolen by the rest of the financial system. What if we added in the costs of social, mental and physical dysfunction fueled by the citizens’ tax arbitrage? My guess is that the costs to wage earners and society would likely make the trillions being siphoned off by the financial and political elites look rather reasonable by comparison.

2) Inflation

Inflation, or the devaluing of the purchasing power of the currency, is really a form of taxation. It’s a tried-and-true, favored method governments use to steal citizens’ wealth because a), most people don’t realize it’s a form of theft, and b) its origins are mysterious to most people. Therefore, the peasants are more apt to blame big business, labor unions, greedy politicians or the abominable snowman when the price of a loaf of bread now surpasses what we used to pay for a pound of prime rib. This isn’t to say that big business, labor unions and politicians – but probably not the snowman – don’t play indirect roles in feeding inflation by convincing the Federal Reserve to create more currency units to cover the costs of every good and service that the public and the military can possibly think of to spend money on. But inflation is, as Milton Friedman once quipped, everywhere and at all times a monetary phenomenon. That is, inflation is always the consequence of having too many currency units chasing too few goods and services, and rising prices are only the consequence or manifestation of inflation, or currency depreciation.

A prime benefit to government of taxing the people through inflation is that it can relieve us of incredibly massive sums of wealth while appearing to take only tiny quantities. For example, an annual inflation rate of ‘merely’ 2% will screw the average retirement saver out of nearly 40%% of his or her savings over a thirty year career. That happens courtesy of the cumulative, compounding effect of degrading the purchasing power of each dollar each year it’s kept in savings. The purchasing power of a dollar saved in 1971, for example, is worth only 15 cents in purchasing power today! Right now, even using deeply unrealistic numbers tilted in its favor, the government admits that annualized inflation is currently running about 5.25%. If one is guaranteed to retain only $82.03 of the purchasing power for every hundred dollars saved in ten years at a mere 2% inflation rate, of how much will one be robbed when inflation is over 5%? Or worse?

Wait – the Inflation Robbery Gets Even Worse!

When America was on a gold standard, prices remained relatively steady for long stretches of time. Economic expansion could occur only when more gold (or silver) entered the economy, either through mining or through trade with other nations that also used gold as money. Even after the Bretton Woods global monetary agreement in 1944, when the American dollar became the worlds’ reserve currency, the dollar was still valued at a certain weight of gold. It was no longer exchangeable for gold, but it represented a certain weight of gold that was supposedly held in government bullion depositories like Fort Knox. Business, banking and government interests soon began to dislike the dollar’s tether to gold, as they correctly saw that limiting the number of dollars in circulation to the number of ounces of gold held in the governments’ vaults, promoted national financial stability at the expense of allowing infinite growth for those with the greatest and most intimate access to both gold and dollars. Once Richard Nixon finally cut the remaining tie of dollars to gold, all limits on the creation of currency were removed and inflation became inevitable. After all, there was no reason to not spend, spend, spend on guns, butter and everything in-between because, to use Keynesian logic, “we owe the debt to ourselves, so it’s really not debt!”. Sadly, the reality is that spending currency that’s not fully backed by gold or silver IS debt that must be repaid some day, and our government has taken the sneaky, time honored tactic of repaying it largely through stealing the purchasing power of the dollars we earn, which is really a theft of our time, labor and talent.

With our national debt currently somewhere north of $26 trillion dollars, which is more than our combined national output of goods and services, or GDP, and our national budget deficits increasing every year, our government has no choice except to increase inflation, and keep increasing it annually, to avoid outright financial default and crashing the global economy. The cumulative effects of increasing inflation piled on top of increasing inflation, year after year, will quickly devastate the already pitiful value of whatever dollars you earn or set aside for tomorrow. The narrative that inflation will be transitory is a false one, because to the extent that the purchasing power of your dollars were to stop declining, the expense to service our national debt would start increasing over its already fantastic levels, and that would drag even more money out of the economy and hasten the monetary collapse that we’re already headed for. Unless there were to be a literally miraculous, massive and rapid upsurge in the the number of businesses expanding, jobs opening, people going back to work at good wages, and shrinkage of our welfare/warfare state, and what, seriously, are the odds of THAT happening?

3. Low, Low Interest Rates

Interest rates are the cost of money. Let’s say you took out a loan to fix up your house. Which would you prefer – a high, say 10%, or a low, say 2% interest loan? Of course, you’d take the lower interest loan. In fact, you’d shop around to get the lowest interest loan you can find.

Well, the government is no different, except that it has a friend in the Federal Reserve, our theoretically politically independent central bank. The Fed can help out ‘ol Uncle Sam by raising and lowering the base, or prime, interest rate upon which all other interest rates are based. Since our government is locked into spending ever-increasing quantities of cash to support the growing welfare state necessary for its political survival, as well as pay for the endless wars favored by the military/industrial complex and all manner of basic public services needed for a growing population, it must stay within its means by continually decreasing the amount of interest it pays on the money it borrows. Otherwise, the interest itself will become such a huge sum as to be unpayable given the level of goods and services our country can produce to earn income. If the interest rate were ever to rise significantly, forget about ever getting your money back on the loan principal – the government won’t even be able to make the interest payments!

But let’s face it – it’s not like the loan principle is ever going to be repaid, anyway, It can’t be, because our national debt now exceeds our annual gross domestic production, and our debt load is impeding growth. Even if our leadership had the will to buck the anger of the people and do what’s necessary to repay our debt principle, the sums now exceed our capacity to produce enough goods and services to generate that sort of cash. So the government is obliged to keep interest rates stapled to the floor. It’s the only way to prevent exceeding our ability to pay at least the interest on our loans so some fool keeps buying them, even if that fool is the Federal Reserve itself – the buyer of last, and often now only, resort.

It’s a scary reality. However, with our national debt unpayable and the size of interest payments both increasing exponentially and compounding as the debt grows, there is virtually no way that interest rates can ever rise again. I say “virtually’ because I do see two exceptions, but neither is a good one. In one scenario, it’s possible that there could be one very last, brief, and impotent “Hail Mary” attempt by the government to extract itself from what long ago became an economic tar pit by raising interest rates if the only alternative is to actually turn on the printing presses and flood the economy with true fiat worthless dollars. (We’re actually not at that point, yet, despite the popular meme of ‘printing press go brrrrrrr’. I’ll explain more in “Meet the New Money’ section later.) My point here is simply that the government has spent itself into a situation in which it has to keep lowering the interest rate on its Treasury securities so it can keep making its minimum payments. The good news is that with rates already almost at zero and the highly unnatural situation of negative rates so toxic that they would kill off the pension and money market funds, there’s not a lot more the Fed can do to repress savers and investors in this manner. The bad news is that the natural limits to squeezing more blood out of the public turnip in this manner is simply forcing the government to turn to even worse alternatives to forestall the inevitable.

The other possible alternative for forcing interest rates higher, in my opinion, is that the market simply stops listening to the Fed, and lenders of cash to borrowers of cash in the overnight collateralized loan market – called the Reposession, or Repo Market, for short – begin demanding far higher than federally “suggested” interest rates for overnight, or short term, loans. This happened once in recent history already, and the consequences were nearly catastrophic. The repo market blew out on the night of September 16, 2019, and overnight interest rates briefly reached almost 10%. The reason interest rates rose so high is because lenders didn’t trust borrowers. Credit worthiness of one or more big institutions was questionable, and nobody wanted to lend to them at the Fed’s pitiful interest rates. The risk of losing a large sum of money was just too great. So the Fed stepped in and flooded the market with cash. As a result, the risk of lending to a potentially insolvent company was reduced because there was less risk of insolvencies. Interestingly, the Fed is apparently trying to make the details of its emergency money loans handed out through its first three (and most opaque) crisis lending programs – the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF) – “go away” so you don’t see how much of your money it’s spending to keep interest rates low and the whole system “solvent”. In the first of this year’s required semi-annual reports to Congress on just who got what and when under this emergency lending program, the Fed listed only the lump sum for all programs that it distributed from January through May. In its required June. July and August reports to Congress, the Fed declined to list these bailout programs at all1. Why? We can probably guess at the answer. What’s harder to guess at is why not one of our elected representatives apparently has yet to inquire about the disappearance of this vital information.

Putting it all together

When you add Point Two to Point Three, what you get is a rate of interest that’s below the rate of inflation. The bad thing for is that even though your money is growing in whatever interest-bearing savings vehicle you have it invested in, it’s still losing purchasing power against the greater rate of inflation. This trick of letting inflation rise faster than interest rates and thus forcing the purchasing power of money to depreciate over time is the classic core of financial repression. Indeed, many economists consider this trick to be financial repression, but as we will see, it’s but one of multiple ways the government secretly prevents you from accessing, using and enjoying the fruits of your labor.

Financial repression 401 – The graduate level courses on economic cheating

The three forms of financial repression discussed above are what one might consider basic, “entry-level” financial maneuvers employed by revenue-hungry governments. They’re each powerful on their own, but stack them together and they’re pretty much a knockout punch for ordinary savers and investors. Every increase in taxes reduces spendable or savable income. Inflation then robs earners of the purchasing power of the dollars they manage to bring home. Finally, interest rates that are lower than the rate of inflation guarantee that any post-tax dollars saved will lose purchasing power over time at a slower or faster rate depending upon how low the interest earned falls below the rate of inflation. Who can get ahead when the government is hell-bent on both stealing your cash outright, and repressing the value of each dollar you manage to keep?

Now, the interesting thing is, from the point of view of most governments, brutalizing wage earners, investors and savers via the three ‘basic’ methods of financial repression doesn’t rob the people quickly or deeply enough. It also excludes a juicy source of profits to rob: the banks. So, clever leaders around the world have invented more sophisticated methods of financial repression that carry on the job of robbing people in ways that most can’t see and few ever understand, and squeezing the banks while they’re at it. I call these methods ‘graduate level’ methods of financial repression. Like the first three methods, they may be applied individually but are usually applied as a sort of package, which makes them each more effective because each one reinforces the effectiveness of the others when applied together. These also magnify the effectiveness of the theft of financial resources from the public when applied in conjunction with the three ‘basic’ means of financial repression. Here they are, in no particular order.

4. Capital Controls

Capital controls simply refers to the government putting limits, or restrictions, on how, when, where and why you may access your money, or how much you may access at any given time. OK, to be fair, in some cases, controlling your access to your own capital might be so obvious that it should go under the ‘basic methods’ section. A glaring modern example of capital control was imposed in its full glory after the government of Cyprus collapsed, and Cypriots with money in their local banks were told that they could withdraw only a tiny amount of their own money each day. This form of capital control, while certainly doable from a regulatory point of view, is politically impractical for obvious reasons unless or until a financial collapse occurs. However, governments that are, on paper, still fiscally solvent and socially sound -including ours – can, and certainly do, impose capital controls every day in a very wide variety of ways that hide in plain sight.

While the many ‘everyday’ methods by which governments impose capital controls are too varied and numerous to be included in this article, I’m highlighting a few more interesting examples to give you an idea of just how broad and insidious this practice is. I’ll start with one method of capital control that has harmed and infuriated a huge swathe of middle-class Americans over the past couple of years: rent moratoriums. Via executive decree, executed through the CDC, our government (illegally) withheld capital (streams of rental income) from private owners of rental properties. On a smaller scale, some municipal governments have followed suit, imposing their own extended rent moratoriums even as Federal moratoriums have expired. Although imposed under the rubric of “controlling the pandemic for the broader public good”, what the rent moratoriums also accomplished was a guaranteed government control over private contracts concerning the flow of capital. While some may say the contracts were unfair, they were entered into and agreed upon by private individuals, and should have been solved by private markets.

Although of course the imposition of rent moratoriums was a completely obvious, “in your face” maneuver by our government, it nevertheless wasn’t widely thought of in the strict term of capital control by most people including landlords. But that’s exactly what it was. Include the poorly-administered compensation belatedly administered by the government to some affected landlords, and we have an example of capital control with a new twist: not only did the government block holders or receivers of capital to capital they hold or are contractually owed, it also dispensed capital to them in place of the private parties who are supposed to dispense the capital according to contract. In other words, capital control has morphed from a one-step proposition in which the government simply blocks or restricts your access to capital, to a two-step, full-circle proposition in which the government first blocks or restricts your access to your capital, then dispenses compensation to you from public funds according to the government’s own willingness and administrative competence to do so. The government has thus constructed a circular tri-party noose with which to not only repress but actually strangle small real estate investors with their own capital while cheating taxpayers, as well. This happens in two stages: first, by using the combined power of legal action and the police state to cut off the flow of capital contractually owed by one private party to another, and second, by directing public tax revenue as compensation to landlords and thus determining who gets access to capital and how much, according to the whims and administrative competence of the government itself. Thus financial repression has become an opening volley into pure socialism and a nice cudgel with which the state can impose whatever broad social changes it desires using the capital of small investors as its source of power. And this is all accomplished without most investors and taxpayers ever understanding how they are funding the destruction of their personal financial futures and the future of their society! What a trick!

5. Forcing institutions to buy government debt

Landlords, the favorite villians of the Socialists and Marxist utopians, haven’t been the only group that our government has been systematically robbing and cheating in the name of public safety and economic justice. Investors from single people with 401-K’s to huge public trusts have been getting the shaft as well, under the guise of government assistance to foster the well-being of working people.

If you have any investments, yourself, you may have heard a few years back that our benevolent guardians in Washington – being full of concern for the well-being of investors and future retirees – was going to make sure that financial advisors, pension funds and money markets were “dong what’s best for their clients”(aka exercising “feduciary responsibility”) by mandating them to put most or all of their clients’ money into only the supposedly safest and most liquid of all financial assets: U.S. Treasury bonds. All for the clients’ own long-term good, of course. Now, as Creepy Uncle Joe would say, come on, man! Do you REALLY think this move was being proposed in order to protect you and me?

Of course it wasn’t! The sneaky reason behind this loving financial embrace was to force domestic investors large and small into purchasing U.S. Treasury securities (i.e. national debt), when foreign funds and other impossible-to-control buyers started to say “no, thanks”. It’s no big secret that as the U.S. has had to issue more and more treasury securities to finance its ongoing operations, foreign holders of U.S. debt have grown reluctant to keep purchases in line with the ballooning debt size. They’ve been starting to realize that the “full faith and credit of the United States”, which is really only the power to increase taxation on working people, isn’t what it used to be. America is aging, our industrial base is a shadow of its former self, the welfare state has ballooned, we’re throwing good money after bad into our failed wars and there’s no rate of taxation that can be high enough to cover even the interest on our massive debt any more. We’re now so broke that even the fact that we pay a pittance of interest in our Treasury securities in contrast to most Western nations that offer negative rates on both soverign and corporate debt, doesn’t compensate adequately for the risk of losing everything in a default or, more likely, getting paid back in dollars that have no purchasing power. This poor tradeoff has become too much for many would-be bond buyers to deal with. But America’s overspending isn’t going to decrease, so where can debt-soaked Uncle find new pigeons to pluck?

Enter Mom, Pop and large institutional funds all hungry for yield – and safe returns. By mandating that we all buy U.S. Treasury securities (or, more precisely, that we purchase future tax increases), the government provides everyone with both yield and safety! Oh, what a good solution! For the government, at least, and for a fairly short while. What the government is really selling, of course, is the illusion of safety, at a tiny cost the government can sort of afford, for a historically short time. In reality, government isn’t selling safety, or even positive yield once inflation is factored in, to investors at all. What the government is selling is a guaranteed stream of debt funding to itself, paid for by both big and little investors required by law to keep the spigots of private money flowing to the government. This is really just a back door method to nationalize private sources of savings, financial security and contractual obligations in order to keep the government afloat when it can’t do its job in a cost-effective manner. It’s also a way to keep private money flowing to preferred parties such as government contractors. Not only are they getting OUR savings and investment money, they’re getting it before it’s eaten up by inflation. When they pass it on to their workers, who then spend it into the economy, it competes with existing dollars, pushing prices up for them and all the rest of us. The whole cycle ultimately widens the wealth gap and makes the rich richer while the poor schmo putting his inflation-ravaged dollars into a savings or money market account to earn a few bucks for retirement gets cheated by several forms of financial repression at each stage of his relationship with his earnings. Nice, eh?

As nasty as this is, it isn’t actually a new tactic of financial repression. It’s been in practice in various countries since at least 2010. It enjoys a good following among governments because it transfers wealth in huge quantities from working people to leadership and insiders in a way that looks to the people being preyed upon like they’re being protected from risk! And what is the final insult? The fact that the poor investors and retirees who thought they were getting a safe passage to their golden years, are going to see their taxes raised in order to pay the interest on the Treasury securities (debt) that was supposed to be paying them back when they could not longer work! I doubt that P.T. Barnum and Rube Goldberg together could have come up with a more devious, opaque and completely unethical way of enacting financial repression and wealth transfer on such a monumental scale while keeping most of the public completely in the dark. If I were the type to cheer for the evil Queen in Sleeping Beauty, I’d take my hat off to the darkly brilliant minds who conceived of such a masterful method of mass financial delusion. But I’m not, so I won’t. I’d rather do what I can to wake up the masses who are being taken such huge advantage of, instead, and hope that we collectively gain consciousness before the poison of financial repression leaves us all with empty nests for retirement, courtesy of government “financial safety” regulations.

6. Meet the New Money, same and the Old Money

The classic rock song called We Won’t Get Fooled Again by The Who, contains the following refrain:

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

They might have been singing about our current money supply and financial repression. We’re being told that the Fed is printing money like crazy and consequently, the banks and money market funds are awash with cash and looking for someplace to store it all and that’s what’s causing inflation. That’s not true. The money currently “flooding” the economy isn’t mostly new money, but our collective bank savings being recycled back to us through a back door of Fed policy. It’s yet another obscure and opaque form of financial theft and repression called Reserves Based Currency Creation, and its just a fancy term for outright (but carefully hidden) theft of our currency from our collective savings held in reserves by the banks, then feeding our own money back to us through stimmies and subsidies. And engaging in a little social engineering along the way by stealing from those who have savings and redistributing to those whom the government wants to reward and bribe for votes. It’s the government’s hope, using the somewhat poorly thought out logic of the Keynesian economists, is that those who receive their “free” money, courtesy of those who work and save, will go out and spend their ‘extra’ money and bring the economy back to life. Even as those who have been robbed but not know it will continue to count on their now depleted savings to be there for them in the future as though nothing has changed financially. This type of financial repression is called Reserves Based Currency Creation even though it’s not really creation at all, but actually recycling. (For a more detailed discussion and explanation of reserves-based currency creation, see “Fed Difficulties in Funding the National Debt Grow Worse” by Daniel Amerman, CFA at http://danielamerman.com/va/ccc/I3Gyrations.html)

The government theorizes that as the economy gets going again – assuming that it does – incomes and personal wealth will rise, allowing the government to then siphon off a bit of our increasing wealth through little tax hikes and such, and quietly replace the savings it stole from us to pay for our stimmy checks and pandemic support. That’s the hope, anyway, as ridiculous as the underlying proposition is. The reserves based economy trick is at once both simple and sophisticated, but it does have a fatal flaw; it depends upon stimulus reviving the economy to the point that wages and savings rise enough to create a surplus from which to steal the wealth to replace the previously existing wealth the government already stole. Like most Keynesian ideas, it sounds great in textbooks, but works poorly in the real world.

One potential problem is that the sheeple might get spooked before the chacanery fully plays out. If word of what the Fed is doing to our savings ever got around, the masses could suddenly begin pulling their cash out of their savings and checking deposits in the style of an old-fashioned bank run on a national scale. While that might sound far fetched, those following the economy might have noticed that an increasing number of independent commentators and ordinary people in places like precious metals forums, are expressing the idea that keeping currency in banks isn’t safe and is therefore no longer recommended. They may be the odd voices here and there for now, but could this sentiment ever take off on a national scale?

In the most concrete way, it almost did just this past March, during the resurgence of Covid and economic chaos. According to the Bitcoin.com.news, wealthy residents of The Hamptons reported that Chase Bank, Bank of America and JP Morgan all ran low on cash as a flood of customers all tried to make large withdrawls within a few days. At the same time, people across the country were complaining in social media that banks were restricting how much cash individuals could access from their own accounts2. In a different form, a slow bank run – more specifically, a shorting of he U.S. dollar – is gathering steam as a growing number of individuals and institutions are replacing an increasing number of dollars with “cash equivalent” alternative investments, namely, cryptos and precious metals. The rapid and extreme growth in the number of people holding alternative investments outside of the banking system is testimony to the decrease in public confidence in the value of the dollar and the institutions through which dollar-denominated transactions are mediated. This trend has become so widespread that recently, one large bank – U.S. Bank – became the first bank to offer a crypto custody service for fund managers3. This marks the birth of the evolution of banks into hybrid institutions that seek to simultaneously control both the flow of capital, on the one hand, by deciding, for example, who is worthy of a credit card or a loan, and facilitate the use of currencies, on the other hand, that free patrons from all institutional control (ibid.). This is a momentous monetary fusion process and historic moment in banking. If left to grow unchallenged, it may well change banks from the engines of currency creation and distribution, into a mere middleman facilitating the transfer of (electronic) currencies among entities and individuals operating beyond their control – at least until private cryptos and cash are both banned or regulated into oblivion and replaced by government-controlled FedCoin or a similar crypto controlled by a global central bank. But if private cryptos (and cash) survive the growing attempts by various soverign governments to ban them or make them unworkable, banking will run full circle back to whence it originated: the modern equivalent of the medieval goldsmiths who held and gave back customers’ deposits of precious coin without lending it out for profit. The paradigm of unending economic growth based on unlimited debt creation will have to be abandoned unless cryptos, like dollars, can be created in unlimited quantity. If that should happen, the banks will go back to being the custodians, rather than the creators, of economies.

It seems possible that, given another year or so – if the government and banking system we know lasts that long – a large enough portion of the population just might divest themselves of sufficient amounts of cash they hold in banks and associated institutions (money market funds, pension funds, etc.) to drain the banks’ increasingly depleted excess reserves. (“Excess” referring to all deposits beyond the vault cash needed for day to day transactions). The consequence would be a depression far worse than the Great depression, and would have severe global repercussions. Now you may ask, are there any publicly visible signs that bank reserves are really being depleted? Well, possibly. Bank depositors across the country have been reporting a growing number and variety of odd problems recently, such as increases in the time it takes for checks and money orders to clear, and sudden, strange and poorly explained outages in banking services. While not definitive, these would logically coincide with a shortage of reserves in banking system that’s actually not flush with cash reserves like we’ve been told. There may also be indirect signs popping up. A need to bring in more reserves may be contributing to the recent drives to extend banking to the “formerly underserved”, increase credit card usage, and expand bank and managed money institutions into rental housing. Somebody has to be putting new money into the system as others are pulling it out or the Ponzi falls apart! While the failure of the Ponzi may actually be the end game for the global banks, it must not happen until total financial and social control via electronic currency is implemented. The need to keep the scheme going for now may also explain banks’ sudden eagerness to expand into “underserved” (read: economically and socially risky) neighborhoods. It could be not to “lift up the poor” or serve “social justice” as they’re claiming, but really to get everyone herded into the electronic pen. A national bank run before this scheme was ready to be implemented would fully expose dear ‘ol Uncle with his pants down. The effects of millions of savers all discovering more or less simultaneously, thanks to modern technology like the internet, that their life savings have been appropriated to pay off the national debt, would make the unrest in Greece and Cyprus look like just the warm-up acts for a real meltdown.

But as you read earlier, a national bank run certainly is possible, with Covid-induced changes in the economy and supply chains as the most likely trigger. And it would be a run not only by individuals but also by institutions as well. Consider the behavior of hundreds of commercial entities in during the first quarter of 2021, when they suddenly all maxed out their lines of revolving bank credit during the the spring Covid resurgence. The banks were caught by surprise by this type of soft run. They could have been set up for potentially fatal losses of capital had many of the businesses used up their lines of credit then gone bankrupt (assuming no government bailout). The banks aren’t going to be prone to to let THAT happen again! That’s why the decision of Wells Fargo to suddenly cancel all customers’ personal lines of credit without warning this spring, was so concerning. Why were they suddenly afraid of customers securing their ability to access the full amount of credit the bank had already deemed them worthy of? Did they expect that last, Hail Mary rising interest rate gasp of a dying economy to catch them with billions in outstanding loans paying miniscule interest rates, when they’re suddenly required to pay much higher rates on the dollars they borrow? Or are they afraid of customers suddenly using their lines of credit en masse to survive upcoming severe inflation? There may be other explanations for what happened, but there’s little likelihood that any of them would point to the bank being well capitalized with billions in customer savings sitting untouched in a fat account at the Federal Reserve, happily earning 0.05% interest the bank while the government keeps it well protected.

Final thoughts

While I certainly haven’t covered each and every way that our government steadily and faithfully picks our pockets at every turn, often without our knowing it, I hope I’ve given you some better idea as to why it’s become so much more difficult for most of us to get ahead or even stay afloat. Our government has created forms of financial repression to steal bits of our hard earned wealth with just about everything we do. As bad as things are now, though, should our government and others force our economy into becoming digital, the repression will be draconian and complete. Until and unless that nightmare becomes a reality, however, I hope this article has given you at least some insights that will help you to see where you’re vulnerable and take action to minimize the government’s ability to grab for itself what should be yours. There is no virtue in feeding the beast. Here’s to your ability to shepherd your wealth as a sheep herder tends his flock, awake to the tricks and dangers or predation lurking camouflaged everywhere in the financial jungle.

REFERENCES

  1. https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/08/three-of-the-feds-wall-street-bailout-programs-vanish-from-its-monthly-reports-to-congress/
  2. https://news.bitcoin.com/us-cash-crisis-withdrawal-limits-bank-run-fear/
  3. https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/u-s-bank-unveils-new-crypto-custody-service-for-institutions/

Reverse Repo Trend and FRED “Scheduled Maintenance” On Monday- Is Something Up?

For those of you who like spending your time on such things, there’s a very interesting chart published by the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank – often referred to as FRED for short – that shows how much cash the Federal Reserve is pumping out into the reverse reposession (reverse repo, or even rrepo, for short) market. In a very simplified nutshell, reverse repossession is a process by which one investor, or financial entity such as a bank or money market fund, makes an agreement with another investor or financial entity, to exchange some sort of collateral for a short-term cash loan. When the term of the loan is up, their agreement specifies that the entity offering the collateral will repurchase it from the counterparty for the full value of the loan plus a little interest. It is the repurchase agreement portion of the transaction that gives rise to the term “repossession” in its name. Reverse repo can also be called a collateralized loan because it requires that the party receiving the cash must offer collateral, usually a U.S. Treasury or mortgage backed security, equal to the value of the loan being received. If the entity receiving the loan defaults, the lending party simply keeps the collateral and gets to use it or sell it or dispose of it as they please because they now own it.

Reverse repo loans are not restricted to commercial banks, private businesses and small financial entities. Indeed, one of the biggest and, to date, most profoundly important, players in the reverse repo market is our own central bank – the Federal Reserve. And exactly how much reverse repo has the Fed engaged in for the past several decades? The Reverse Repo chart on the FRED web site shows how many billions, or even trillions, of dollars’ worth of U.S. Treasuries it’s pledged in the past, and is currently pledging daily, as collateral to America’s commercial banks in exchange for cash directly from their reserve accounts. Now, it’s important to note that the cash that the Fed is taking from the banks in exchange for its Treasury securities via reverse repo loans isn’t really the bank’s money, It’s OUR COLLECTIVE SAVINGS held in “excess reserves” accounts at the Fed itself. In other words, it’s OUR COLLEVTIVE SAVINGS that the banks are handing to the Fed during every reverse repo operation. Now, if the Fed doesn’t return the cash it borrows from the banks’ reserves because, say, it’s handing them to the Treasury to be used by our government to pay its bills, the banks lose that reserve cash (OUR SAVINGS) but get to keep the Treasuries, to hold as interest bearing assets or sell to the highest bidder. This is an important concept to keep in mind for later in this article.

This Sounds Like A Shell Game. What’s the Purpose?

Why do reverse repos occur? Because somebody’s short on cash and can’t balance their books. They need a loan. Rrepo loans are usually just overnight affairs, giving the borrowers the money they need until they can straighten out their books the next day. But why on earth would anybody make a loan to a business or financial institution that can’t balance it’s books? Well, first, because being temporarily unable to balance their books is a normal daily state of affairs for most businesses. Money goes in and out unevenly and rarely does the exact same amount come in as goes out on any given day. So being flush or short is a perfectly normal daily occurrence for any bank or business. The attractive aspect of collateralized loans is that the borrower agrees to pay back the loan with a little interest to get their asset back. For the lender, it’s an easy way to put their excess cash to work. Otherwise, it would be just sitting around gathering dust or earning less than it could bring in in interest if it were being used to make more lucrative types of loans such as home mortgages, business start-ups, personal loans and so on. Engaging in reverse repo/collateralized loans puts idle money sitting in a potential lender’s account to work making a quick profit with no risk to the lender. (In the case of reverse repo between the banks and the Fed, the banks are lending money to the Fed in exchange for boring but risk-free Treasuries as collateral.) If they don’t get their excess cash back plus interest the next day (or on a specified date perhaps a week or two in the future), or they get to keep the collateral and sell it for whatever profit they can get for it. And the entity receiving the loan gets to live for another day.

The Financial World Runs on Repo Operations

In normal times, trillions of dollars of reverse repo and repo operations – repo just being the name for the lending side of the same collateralized loan transactions – take place every night across America and the world with absolutely no problems at all. Millions of businesses, investors and financial institutions settle up their cash imbalances amongst themselves through the process of debtors entering the open market to find lenders freely willing to make them a loan in exchange for collateral and repayment with interest. The whole process occurs with no fuss at all while most of us are asleep. Repo and reverse repo operations – the global, institutionalized version of private individuals finding payday loan outlets willing to grant them some quick cash in exchange for their car titles – are a completely normal part of the business and investing world. Indeed, they’re absolutely critical to the functioning of the global financial system. Stop them for even one night, and the global economy would come to a screeching halt the next day. Businesses and institutions would be unable to balance their books, they would be unable to pay some or all of their bills due that day, and everybody would suddenly start distrusting everybody else. Who is going to lend out their precious cash which they, themselves, may need that night to balance their own books, when they can’t trust that the entities coming to them for loans were really credit worthy? And who is going to be able to ask for a loan, if they have no collateral that anybody with spare cash would consider worth taking if there’s a good chance they won’t get their money (plus the promised interest), back?

Enter the Federal Reserve

The historically most popular form of collateral for offering in the process of reverse repo has been U.S. Treasury bills, bonds and notes. Because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, Treasury securities are considered the most safe, easily sold or traded, and liquid assets in the world. And they’re backed by the most rock-solid guarantee in the world: “the full faith and credit of the U.S. government”! As I explained in an earlier paper, this is simply a euphemism for the power to tax the American public by whatever amount necessary to pay back any debt incurred by our government. Such a deal!

While Treasury securities are, of course created and offered for sale by the Treasury department, the ones purchased by a group of authorized banks may be re-sold to the Fed for a small profit. After purchasing, the Fed may do any of several things with its Treasurys, including offering them as collateral back to banks (including but not limited to the banks they purchased them from) in exchange for cash from the banks. Normally, the Fed will return the banks’ cash to them the next morning, with a little bit of interest. The banks are happy because they’ve made a bit of safe, easy profit, and the government is happy because it’s acquired the cash necessary to pay its daily bills. (If you’re wondering where the government is getting the cash necessary to replenish the money they used overnight to pay its bills, well, the truth is, it’s not. Uncle Sam is just filling the financial hole with IOU’s that they hope to pay back later by raising taxes. The government will simply use the extra tax money harvested tomorrow to replace the money it took to pay its bills today, and give you back dollars that each have less purchasing power than they did when Uncle stole them. To date, over 15 % of our collective savings in the nation’s banks has been spent via reverse repo operations, replaced by IOU’s that the Treasury will either never be able to replace (because the economy would have to run a huge surplus in order to honestly create that much extra money), or will replace by raising your future taxes to get the money from you directly so it can quietly re-liquefy your bank reserves from which it was secretly stolen. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to suppose that if the majority of the public knew what was going on, we’d quickly have the mother of all bank runs on our hands. That’s why dear old Uncle hopes you never find out about where he’s getting the funding to cover his little spending problem from.

Reverse Repo Suddenly Has an Obesity Problem.

Normally, as I said above, the process of obtaining trillions of dollars’ worth of overnight or short-term cash through the offering of collateral (the making of collateralized loans, or reverse repo), carries on without a hitch among millions of businesses and institutions every single night. Almost never has the Fed need to step in and offer Treasury securities itself (i.e., engage in reverse repo) to keep the process flowing. since it started the process of monetary easing (QE). But twice, first between starting August 2013 ending January, 2019, and again starting the very end of February, 2021 and continuing today, something went wrong. But twice, first between starting August 2013 ending January, 2019, and again starting the very end of February, 2021 and continuing today, something went wrong. The reverse repo spike that started in 2013 happened because the Fed, like most other central banks, embarked on a possibly mistaken errand to re-stimulate he economy by lowering interest rates to nearly zero. A the same time, they purchased huge and growing numbers of Treasury bond assets from the banks and credited the banks the equivalent amount of cash in their reserve accounts in exchange. (This is the process commonly referred to as “quantitative easing”.) The Fed effectively bloated the banks’ reserve accounts with excess cash1 in hopes that the banks would find customers eager to borrow at low rates and spend, spend, spend to haul the economy back onto its feet. The banks, in turn, did loan, pretty much to anybody who had a pulse, increasing their exposure to risky customers. They also bought more risky securities, like junk stocks, in order to have something that earned them more income than the lousy near-zero interest rates offered by Treasuries. In essence, the Fed’s persistent and relentless buying of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities from the banks and replacing of those securities with cash in the banks’ reserve accounts, essentially forced the banks into a bidding war to get any type of securities that paid more than Treasury paper did. That was fantastic for propping up the stock market! As the market exploded, those holding stocks felt more wealthy, and more confident about spending, Yay! The Fed’s plan was working! Except that it really wasn’t. All it was doing was preventing fundamentally unsound and insolvent banks and businesses from going under and being replaced by more sound institutions, and thus generating more instability and uncertainty in the global banking system. When the Fed saw that the banks were unable (or, in some cases, unwilling) to use the Fed-created excess reserves to make good loans that would, in theory, get the economy going again, and saw that the cash being credited to the banks’ reserve accounts was being used instead to blow massive stock, commercial bond and housing bubbles, the Fed tried to abruptly reverse course, Between August and November, 2018, the Fed suddenly became a persistent seller of Treasury and mortgage backed securities from the banks. They tried to drain the banks of the excess cash they had put in there in the first place, to control the market bubbles forming. But the banks would have none of it! Suddenly, investing in only the most secure of all types of investments – namely, Treasury securities – would do! After the EZ money from the Fed stopped rolling in, the banks no longer felt safe entrusting “their” reserves and the income stream based upon them, to just any old business or fund that might or might not be financially sound. A flight to quality investments began. The stock market, being full of overpriced and shaky stocks, began to tank. This was both an economically and politically untenable situation, so the Fed once again began buying as many Treasury securities from the banks as the banks would sell them, providing a safer source of revenue, and pumping cash back into the banks’ (only slightly) depleted reserves in a move that Fed Chair Powell called “Not QE” (ibid.).

But the Trap Had Already Sprung

Unfortunately, because of the fundamental structural flaws that the original QE had already created in the domestic and global financial systems, coupled with the Federal government’s relentlessly increasing need for cash, the stage was set for a disaster that we’re still dealing with. On the night of September 16, 2019, so much cash had been pulled out of the banking system between the Fed needing to pay its daily bills and businesses needing to pay their quarterly taxes, that the banks collectively ran low on reserves. multiple banks needed lots and lots of cash immediately, or they would be unable to open for business the next day. Hedge funds, ordinary businesses and large investors of course also needed their overnight loans, as well. The needs of the borrowers suddenly outstripped the capacity of the lenders so badly that some borrowers were willing to pay literally anything to get their hands on enough cash to survive another day. The free market mechanics of supply and demand briefly overpowered the Fed’s efforts to manage the markets and loan rates briefly spiked as high as almost 10%. Lenders didn’t trust borrowers. Who knew if the collateral being offered worth the risk of giving my money to somebody who was in imminent danger of economic failure? Lenders with cash wanted either only the most trusted collateral, or questionable collateral in greater amounts than usual. Fear had pervaded the system. A global credit freeze within hours looked imminent. That night, in a stunning reversal of policy, the Fed once again saved the global economy by abruptly pumping massive quantities of cash into the banks’ reserve accounts and taking Treasury securities back out of the market (ibid.) In doing this, the Fed saved the day, but also set the stage for the disaster that we’re currently dealing with, namely, the reverse repo crisis.

What Happens When You Exit the Frying Pan?

The whole process of the Fed offering Treasury securities in exchange for bank cash reserves when needed has become an acute (a condition which should happen almost never in a properly functioning free market within a healthy economy). Of course, reverse repo began in relatively tiny amounts. However, as with most things pertaining to banking and government, it grew. Between 2013 and 2019, the Fed engaged in reverse repo in amounts that bounced quite unevenly between $5 and $475 billion. (Adjusted for inflation, that would have been between $5.69B and $540B in today’s dollars). Such borrowing seemed outrageous and quite dangerous and out of control at the time. But fast forward to the night of Thursday, Feb. 25, 2021, when the amount of Treasury repo suddenly spiked to over $11 billion. (That would be equal to about $9.67 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars averaged between 2013 and 2019.) After calming right back down, it suddenly spiked again to just over $11 billion on the night of Thursday, March 11. It calmed again briefly before the next sudden spike to almost $27 billion on Thursday, March 18. The next spike hit $134 billion on the night of Wednesday, March 31, and never went back down to $0. Since then, in a rather steep and relentless march upwards, repo has reached a peak value (so far) of $1,087,342 on the night of Thursday, August 12, 2021.

Reverse Repo- Canary In an Economic Coal Mine?

In a matter of just under six months, if one counts the first little spike to about $11 billion on the night of Feb. 26 as the beginning of the current reverse repo trend (that’s what I choose to do since $11 billion happened quickly after a baseline of zero or almost zero since mid-June of 2020), the amount of reverse repo pumped out by the Fed and taken by investors and institutions has increased from quite literally zip to over a trillion dollars per night. What that means is that businesses, investors and financial institutions are giving the Fed up to, or even more than, one trillion dollars of cash nightly in return for that dollar amount worth of treasury securities.

Why? And, what does that mean?

It seems that the reasons for this sudden change are known mostly to a few people at the Fed itself, and some higher-level global banks. For the rest of us, guesses must be hazarded and assumptions pieced together from the indirect evidence available.

There are quite a few differing opinions on what’s driving the surge in reverse repo. They range from the Fed hauling out incredible sums to feed cash to the Treasury to cover payments on our exploding debt, to banks parking as much cash as possible with the Fed to earn the .05% risk-free return the Fed is offering on their excess reserves. (Taking a paltry .05% interest isn’t great, but in a deteriorating economic environment, it can still provide a decent return when applied to huge sums while offering greater convenience and safety than trying to lend it out when borrowers are fewer and less credit worthy.) Some economists also think that banks and other institutions might be re-selling (or hypothecating) the Treasury securities to highly leveraged hedge funds, corporations and speculators who desperately need high quality collateral to maintain their liquidity in an increasingly volatile economic environment. When push comes to shove, entities that badly need high-quality collateral will pay just about anything to get it. One could argue that banks would be foolish to pass up such an excellent source of risk-free easy money.

There are several things that we CAN know for sure, however, about the current reverse repo explosion. One is that there is a strong market, or desire, for what is considered the safest form of collateral for collateralized loans. Indeed, the most preferred form of treasury securities lately is short term Treasuries (1-3 month duration). Why short-term Treasuries, instead of higher paying, longer dated Treasuries, of say 10 or 30 years? Again, those who know don’t seem to be saying, but there are two reasonable potential interpretations. One is that entities with money to lend see steep inflation ahead, making the very low real returns on longer dated Treasuries deeply negative. There would be nothing advantageous about holding onto a long-dated Treasury that’s losing significant sums of money every year. And with interest rates already so low, there’s almost no room for the Fed to cut them further and make bonds attractive as a potential sale later on. Although the mathematically astute know that there is money to be made if bonds bought at a positive rate of return are sold after rates turn negative, it’s become clear that the Fed is highly unlikely to follow Europe and Japan in pushing Treasury rates negative because doing so would create a crisis and collapse in the massive money market funds which are a backbone of the American economy.

Taken together, they paint a troubling picture. One of the easiest and most outstanding things one can verify is that, at least currently, the trend for this burst of reverse repo is not only steeply positive, but (so far) is accelerating. Rrepo hit its first, and very brief, peak of just over $134 billion on Wednesday, March 31. It very quickly dropped back down to $3.45 million the next business night, after which it began its rapid and so far unabated climb to its current level. Along the way, it hit a peak of almost $992 billion on June 30, after which it quickly pulled back to $731 billion before slowly climbing back to reach a new peak of $1.039 trillion on July 30. From the first, brief, and now almost comically small peak on March 31, it took 91 days for the reverse repo market to reach its second peak on June 30. It then took 30 days (from June 30 to July 30) for the total sum of reverse repo to reach its new, greater, second high. Although this second peak, like the others, was followed immediately by a brief but significant decline (it dropped to $909 billion), it also, like the others, began clawing back to yet another peak at $1.051 trillion on Friday, August 13. The number of days required to reach the third peak from the second peak was only 14.

Could A Couple Of Bad Hedge Funds Be The Main Reason?

One might be tempted to think that the closely timed and massively spectacular failures of Archegos hedge fund and Greesill Capital in England might be behind the sudden demand for high security loan collateral. The demise of Archegos meant billions in losses for other massive institutions such as Credit Suisse ($5.5 billion) and Nomura ($2.9 billion). (Morgan Stanley and UBS also lost out, though at a relatively paltry $911 and $861 million, respectively.)2 An important aspect of the Archegos failure, for our purposes, is the fact that when its brokerage account fell below the acceptable level, it was required to fund the difference between what was in the account and what was required by adding cash or collateral. Archegos had the requisite amount of neither. Public acknowledgement of Archegos’ failure was first acknowledged on Monday, March 29, although Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley each reportedly dumped billions’ worth of Archegos shares, ($10 B and $8B, respectively), on March 26, suggesting that insiders knew of a problem before the story broke widely on the 29th3. Interstingly, although the first significant increase in reverse repo in several years occurred on the night of Thursday, March 18, when it jumped to $26.6B from $0 on March 17, the size of the jump from March 26 ($11.45B) to March 29 (the next business night, at $40.35B), and then on to a peak of $134B on Wednesday, March 31, suggests that the massive Archegos debacle could plausibly have sparked a fear based demand for unquestionable collateral while multiple institutions tried to figure out whether, and by how much, they were exposed to losses from Archegos’ demise.

There are likely to be two primary effects of Archegos’ collapse. First, margin requirements are likely to be tightened and the way margin requirements are calculated is likely to be changed. Second, and more important for this investigation, is that the ways that risk levels of equity assets used to determine margin requirements are determined, are likely to be revised, In other words, there will likely be a reconsideration of how regulators and institutional risk management officers judge the fitness of various types of securities for use as loan collateral4. (https://opengamma.com/insights/failure-of-archegos-margin-requirements/ May 13, 2021) Regulatory change is likely to take time to implement, but there’s no reason why bans could not or should not more rapidly implement their own upgraded risk standards to avoid getting caught exposed to another Archegos (ibid). Considering that the global derivatives market is estimated to be in the quadrillions of dollars, extremely opaque and deeply intertwined among tens of thousands of institutions, and given the emergence of unique new sources of market volatility such as Wall Street Bets, there is little reason to believe that there are not quite a few Archegos-type time bombs ticking within the global economy. Banks, businesses, hedge funds and other institutions would do well to insist that any collateral they receive for taking the risk of loaning money into a deeply dangerous market, should be only top of the line.

Interestingly, Greensill failed on approximately April 8, 2021. That was actually the day it was put into Administration – the British process of filing for insolvency. Overnight reverse repo actually went from $35B on April 7 down to about $28B the night of April 8, but then up to about $31B the following night and pretty much straight up in a relatively unbroken climb from there on out. While correlation is certainly not proof of causation, the timing IS very interesting. There could be a reasonable case made that the two closely timed failures of Archegos and then Greensill could, together, have prompted institutions around the globe to reconsider what they believe to be safe collateral for taking the risk of lending out their money.

Could Archegos and Greensil Have Been the Skunks in the Global Economic Woodpile?

Although the known economic fallout from the fall of Archegos Capital seems to have stabilized by the end of March near a total of $10B, there’s no way for outsiders to the financial system to truly know whether there is anything else still brewing out of sight. One major victim, global banker Credit Suisse, was also one hit hard by the Greensill collapse. As a global banking ‘node’, what happens if Credit Suisse suddenly becomes too battered to meet its credit obligations? Although the other major Greensill victims, such as British rent-to-own housing retailer BrightHouse and Singaporean commodities trader AgriTrade 5, probably aren’t directly connected to Credit Suisse or any of the other institutions that lost substantial sums of money from Archegos, who knows in what ways they may be indirectly entangled through multiple daisy chains of secondary and tertiary derivatives made with intermediary entities?

Anyway, it’s certainly interesting that the amount of reverse repo required by the markets increased quickly, dramatically and probably irreversibly very quickly after the Archegos and Greensill shocks to the global economy. At the very least, it’s worth contemplating whether the sudden collapse of two massive financial businesses (one a hedge fund and the other a massive invoice finance company) could have given other institutions pause to consider the risks involved in lending to even apparently large and well-funded entities and the quality of the collateral required in return.

Now For A Prediction…

In light of the above facts and the order in which I’ve chosen to view them to create a possible story, I’d like to make a prediction based upon them. My prediction is set within the following context:

  1. The U.S. national debt has grown beyond mathematical possibility of repayment, and even the interest on the debt has become difficult to service with the help of rock-bottom interest rates
  2. The Fed can neither lower interest rates to make interest on the debt cheaper, nor raise them to combat inflation. Indeed, the government both wants and needs as much inflation as it can possibly inflict upon the people in order to keep the debt manageable for a little while longer through inflating its value away. Therefore, there is no realistic possibility that the economy will go into prolonged deflation, although a sudden, but brief, asset deflation crash is likely before permanent price inflation papers over the loss of real asset value.
  3. Even by the Fed’s own grossly massaged standards, inflation is rising in size and speed faster than government policy wonks predicted. Pandemic lockdowns, climate change and lucrative unemployment are conspiring to create price inflation pressure above and beyond the price inflation pressure being created by the distribution of trillions of dollars in “free” money to businesses and individuals under the guise of COVID relief. The U.S. is in intractable financial trouble and has just about run out of tools with which to stave off the inevitable.
  4. The IMF recently announced that they have scheduled the largest ever distribution of their global currency – Special Drawing Rights – for August 23. Since SDR’s are “a versatile asset that can be used to bolster a country’s (currency) reserves” and can be used by countries to pay for imports or used in trade if each country simply agrees to exchange them for their underlying currencies.7 SDR’s are being brought in under the cover of pandemic relief to begin slowly but surely replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
  5. Deliberate manipulation of the precious metals markets has been increasingly aggressive recently, and the drop in prices for gold and silver over he past couple of weeks, in the face of extreme demand from private investors, suggests that bullion banks are attempting to exit their massive short positions in both metals as cheaply and expeditiously as possible.
  6. Sunday is the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the gold window by Richard Nixon
  7. The average lifespan of paper currencies, globally and throughout history, is about fifty years
  8. The Federal Reserve of St. Louis web site (FRED for short) – the web site where data on repo and reverse repo are reported – is displaying a notice that it will be “down for scheduled maintenance” on Monday.

My conclusion? There’s a reasonable argument to be made that, possibly, our government is planning for a deliberate “economic event” to occur, or begin occurring, on Monday, August 16. Am I likely to be right? Given that I’m not a trained economist, I won’t make that assumption. I’ll admit that the possibility seems almost like conspiracy theory and too grandiose to appear real. Even the government probably realizes that doing something on the weekend of the 50th anniversary of the Nixon shock or on the first business day afterwards, is a bit obvious and heavy-handed. I have no doubt that there are much more compelling and informed arguments than mine to explain what’s going on. And as I mentioned earlier, correlation does not prove causation. However, my intent is not to advise anyone of what to do or think, but to reason out loud about things I observe. If any readers have comments or alternative perspectives on the data I’ve presented, I’d be pleased if you would share them. If nothing else, Monday will likely be a interesting day, if for no other reason than there are a lot of us out there all watching and preparing for something that most of us hope won’t happen.

References

1. Malinen, Tuomas https://gnseconomics.com/2019/12/14/repo-market-turmoil-staring-into-the-financial-abyss/ 12/14/2019)

2. Makertoff, Kaylena “Bank Losses Linked to Archegos Top $10bn After Latest Results”, April 27, 2021, http://www.TheGuardian.com

3. (McDowell, Hayley “The Collapse of Archegos Capital Management”, TheTradeNews.com, July 16, 2021)

4. https://opengamma.com/insights/failure-of-archegos-margin-requirements/ May 13, 2021

5. Bickers, Michael https://bcrpub.com/news/greensill-fallout-%E2%80%93-what-can-be-expected 3/10/21

6. (Araoye, Omataro https://www.arise.tv/imf-approves-650bn-sdrs-to-member-countries-effective-august-23/, August 3, 2021

Gold Investors Be Cautious – Is Another Scheme To Keep Gold Prices Suppressed In The Works?

In an column posted on May 21, 2021 in the Gold AntiTrust Action Committee (GATA) newsletter (see http://www.gata.org; also posted in its entirety at the bottom of this article), GATA Secretary/Treasurer Chris Powell takes a deep look into whether forthcoming rules that will force a re-evaluation of gold’s roles in banking for European and British banks will finally end the artificial suppression of global gold prices – or not? This question is of utmost importance for the banks themselves, of course, but also for investors in gold, institutions that do NOT invest in gold, retirement savers, and anybody who buys and sells anything in U.S. dollars or participates in the global economy (that is, YOU!)

Why Should Most Of Us Care About The Price of Gold?

It’s no secret to gold investors, or to anybody who has studied the economy for any period of time, that the global financial system is in deep trouble. It is also no secret that, when times get scary, both professional investors and ordinary people alike forsake some of their paper cash and use it to purchase gold (and silver) to protect their hard earned wealth.

Accordingly, the prices of gold and silver rise and fall over they years as investors become worried or complacent about inflation and the state of the economy. This is a natural state of affairs, and it occurs occurs when markets are allowed to operate freely. Although it’s been shown that this pattern has, indeed, held generally true over the years and gold has indeed been slowly increasing in inflation-adjusted value since its fall to its inflation-adjusted low in 2001 from its inflation adjusted peak in 1980, its price really hasn’t kept pace with the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar. In fact, currently, if measured against the increase in the money supply, gold is currently near an all time low price! Overall, but especially lately, the price for gold in dollars remains consistently far lower on average than it should be. As the prices of almost everything from corn to houses is rocketing skyward in an inflationary fit that Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and most stock market analysts brush off as “transitory” (though they fail to elaborate on how or when it might die back down), the price of gold should be rising, too – and quickly. But, it isn’t. Why? Are investors simply not willing to pay more to acquire gold because they’re not very concerned about inflation and the direction the economy is headed? Is there no reason to be concerned about debt and inflation because they’re actually signs that the economy is really getting better? Or is artificial gold price suppression hard at work?

All of the available evidence points to the latter as the main reason for gold’s only modest response to significant changes in our economy. Disappointed gold investors have long watched their precious metal investments lag behind the quickening pace of debt creation and inflation. Yes, gold reacts to economic deterioration, but for some reason it tends to lag a fair amount and it’s particularly behind the curve these days. Many blame the continual rise in the stock market for the modesty, then stalling, of gold’s price action over the past couple of years. Who wants to sit on gold when stocks are shooting up in value? Ditto for bonds. Even though the inflation-adjusted returns on most bonds (and even the REAL rates on many) are below zero, bonds still look more attractive to many than an asset that pays no interest, incurs costs or risk to store, and is not showing much price appreciation.

The important question here is why gold consistently underperforms until economic conditions begin to tip into crisis? Isn’t it odd that, whenever the price of gold begins to increase quickly or significantly, especially if no crisis appears to be imminent, it soon reverses (“corrects”), or at least stalls out? Is this really because investors, as a group, suddenly decide that it’s risen high enough, and all stop purchasing at about the same time? That’s not likely. As I’ve discussed in earlier posts, the repeated failure of gold (and silver) to keep rising in price even in the face of increasing demand and even to suddenly decline just when the market is demanding more of it, is no accident. Nor is it the result of normal market functioning. Instead, it’s primarily the result of a group of big banks and hedge funds, under the direction and approval of various governments (including ours), employing various tricks to bring the market price of gold and silver back down to where they, not the market, would like it to be. Why? Well, government don’t want precious metals to attract the attention of investors who might otherwise pump their dollars into stocks or bonds and keep those markets elevated. These markets are far larger than the gold and silver markets combined, and command much more public attention. Remember how President Trump, for example, bragged that his legacy would be built partially on the success of the stock market? This isn’t the only example of the importance of the stock and bond markets to the appearance of success of our economy, but it illustrates how much more important these markets are to the psychology of the nation. If the stock market rises, and, to a lesser extent, the bond market yields hefty returns, the average voter trusts that the economy must be OK. When the masses believe that prosperity is here, social stability is maintained and political volatility decreases. Everybody trusts in the future. But who cares about gold? More importantly, what would happen if the masses DID start to care about gold, and realized that suddenly rising or inappropriately falling of gold (and silver) prices were a sign that everything was actually NOT well in the economy? This would be a problem. Governments don’t want the public to see that gold has intrinsic value, start questioning the health of the dollars in their wallets, or using gold as a hedge against the falling value of the dollars they hold.

The Golden Trick and How Market Manipulators Pull It Off

One of the most effective methods for artificially suppressing the prices of precious metal involves creating the illusion that there is much more gold in the world than there really is and that far more people own gold than actually do. After all, if something is widely available and all of your neighbors and their brothers own it, how valuable can it be? How much would you want some and be willing to pay for it? In the process of creating the illusion of abundance, governments and the banks they operate through dampen enthusiasm and interest in owning gold. They make it seem much less scarce and desirable than it really is. However, in the process, they create a great deal of cumulative risk and instability in the banking system. The fraud could fall apart in various ways, unleashing unimaginable disaster in a global economy that is now well over a quadrillion dollars in debt if one counts personal debt, soverign debt, unfunded liabilities of many governments (including pension funds, welfare burdens and medical care), and the derivatives contracts traded among the world’s many banking institutions. Almost fifty years of failure to allow economic cycles to run their natural courses has resulted in the pile up of debt and systemic risk that is going to cause the mother of all conflagrations when regulators can no longer hold the system together. That day is no longer far off.

Paving the Road to Hell With Good Intentions (Or Maybe Bad Intentions)

Over the years, in a supposed bid to help keep the increasingly out-of-control global banking system from crashing and collapsing the global economy, the Bank of International Settlements – the Central Bank of Central Banks – has proposed and implemented a series of rules to curb the most dangerous banking behaviors, including curbing the price of gold by making it seem more abundant and easy to get than it really is. The rules, called Basel l, Basel ll, Basel lll and Basel lV, are named after theBIS’ headquarters town of Basel, Switzerland. Basel l and ll rules have already been implemented. Currently, the third in the series of rules, or Basel III, is on course to be implemented for European banks at the end of June and for the banks in London, where much of the world’s precious metals trade is conducted, on December 31.

Basel III is a very complex and lengthy set of rules. However, their basic purpose can be boiled down to supposedly to end the massive selling of unbacked paper promises of gold by banks and investment firms to investors. From implementation forward, Basel lll will supposedly make each investor claim to an ounce of gold be actually backed by an ounce of gold. Currently, for every ounce of gold actually held for investors in the massive “unallocated” gold accounts in the vaults of bullion banks, as many as 100 paper claims on that ounce may have been issued by those banks! This means that, if more than one person ever wishes to exercise their claim to “their” ounce, they might discover that somebody else has beaten them to it. Not that holders of unallocated (literally, NOT assigned to anybody) gold are always able to get their metal, anyway – in the two largest precious metal ETF’s – SLV and GLD – only twelve “authorized participants”, all big banks and hedge funds, are actually granted access to the gold they own. While all investors in Sprott-owned gold and silver ETF’s and most other ETF’s can turn in their paper for actual metal, there’s no way to be absolutely certain that all ETF’s have sufficient metal to fully back every paper claim. The ETF’s are supposed to make good on every claim with real metal. But if they can’t, or won’t, they legally don’t have to. Buried within the reams of fine print in investors’ contracts are clear (at least to lawyers) statements guaranteeing only that investors gain exposure to the price movements of the metal, NOT actual ownership of any metal. Only the twelve “authorized participants” are guaranteed to get actual metal back when they wish to redeem their holdings. So, if an ordinary, or non-“authorized”, investor wants to take possession of the gold that he or she thought they purchased and which they paid storage fees on, the issuing institutions are allowed to say “sorry, no”, and settle with them for the value of the metal in cash. The same thing holds for silver. Some system, huh?

But It Works! (For Who, Exactly?)

It’s a system that has worked well for decades. By “working well”, I mean that it has kept the global public demand for gold in line with existing supply since millions of investors who want gold are actually holding only paper claims to it, instead of actual metal. So, if there’s no metal to back their claims, no problem! Unless they all want it back more or less at once, in the style of an old-fashioned bank run. But as long as the vast majority of investors never know they’re being sold something that really doesn’t exist, no problem! Besides, many investors are larger and more sophisticated institutions that really don’t want to gold in their possession, anyway. They just want claim to it, and they make money by trading their claims back and forth, with hopes of making a profit on most of their trades. So it looks like the world is awash in gold! Enough for everybody who wants to to claim it to hold it until they want to sell or trade their claim (and supposedly thereby the physical gold that backs it up) to somebody else for a profit. Judging by this paper charade, there’s gold aplenty for anybody who wants it! So why should it be expensive to buy?

It’s not clear how many institutional investors really understand the ruse – or possibly care about it – but for Mom and Pop holding on to a few ounces for emergencies or retirement, the consequences of this trickery can be devastating. They don’t realize that that the amount of gold actually available for purchase or trade is limited while the amount of paper claims to gold are infinite, thus allowing the paper gold market to prevent gold from naturally rising in value as inflation erodes the purchasing power of the dollar. Mom and Pop’s golden nest egg thus never reaches the heights in value that they should have a right to expect it to. Nor would they ever become the wiser to the fakery that’s costing them dearly if not for pesky organizations like Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee that actually look into the situation.

The issuing of multiple paper claims on each ounce of gold, called hypothecation for the first time and rehypothecation thereafter, is key to keeping the price of gold suppressed below the value it would command in a free market. And why is price suppression so important? Because the illusion that gold is abundant and cheap is critical to maintaining the U.S. economy and the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency. The value of the dollar is ultimately measured by its value in gold, even though it is no longer backed by gold. Gold is the foundational measure of the value of all currencies. If there were no gold, there would be no way to value paper currency because gold possesses inherent value and paper does not. Cheap gold masks the reality that the dollar is losing value. When the dollar weakens, or loses value, the process is signaled by increases in price inflation and everything of value becomes more expensive. Investors naturally flock to gold and silver during times of inflation to protect their purchasing power. As the dollar loses purchasing power, it takes more dollars to buy an ounce of gold. Gold therefore becomes more expensive and retains its value when redeemed for dollars – or even used directly to pay for goods and services.

Because gold, along with silver, are sensitive barometers of the health of the dollar -and by extension of all other currencies because they’re all directly or indirectly tied to the dollar for value – governments as well as banks have a hugely vested interest in keeping the cost of gold and silver very low. Because free markets tend to drive the value of gold up when the currency sinks, governments and banks, usually acting in concert, will push the price of gold back down by whatever artificial means necessary. A valuable dollar supports the illusion that the economy is growing, and hides the fact that since 1971 when Richard Nixon severed the last link of the dollar to gold, all global growth has been sickly, false growth based not upon the natural increase in goods and services commensurate with the slow natural increase of the gold and silver supply, but upon the rapid and unconstrained explosion of debt.

To manage this problem and perpetuate the illusion that economic growth is based on growth in value and not debt, the U.S. government uses the authority granted to itself under the Exchange Stabilization Fund to intervene in every commodity market anywhere in the world and manipulate prices to its advantage. In this endeavor it is helped by various organizations, most importantly The Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the world’s most powerful, secretive and lawless bank. When it was formed after World War I, the BIS was granted the privilege by its founding governments of operating beyond the laws of any government or international body so it could do pretty much whatever it pleased. And while the BIS has made much noise in recent years of bringing stability to a banking system which is now in almost infinite debt and at great risk of collapsing from a variety of problems, there is much reason to question whether a totally unaccountable institution that sits at the apex of the global economy and puts its own growth and power at the top of its priorities, really has the best interest of the rest of the world at its heart. After all, a planet full of people who are poor, hungry, and continually distracted by war, racial tensions, despair and fear of being “cancelled” by governments that electronically monitor their money and their movements, is a great place to be for those who crave ultimate wealth and total control.

BASEL lll – Cure or More Snake Oil?

In the wake of anticipation that the BASEL lll banking rules for gold put forth by the BIS may finally end paper manipulation of the gold markets and thus allow gold to rise to the value that truly free markets would give it, Chris Powell of GATA puts forth an interesting perspective that this may NOT be the intent of the BIS and BASEL lll at all, In fact, he makes a plausible case that the Bank of International Settlements may be faking out gold analysts and the public by creating the illusion of free markets once again. Behind the scenes, though, it may be using its vast powers to actually protect the paper games under its nearly impenetrable cloak of secrecy. It this is the case – and it wouldn’t be inconsistent with the interests of either the U.S. government or the BIS itself – then gold investors are going to be in for a fresh and even deeper fight to free the gold market and expose the gold and paper money price frauds for what they truly are.

The practical consequences of allowing the gold price suppression scheme to continue include the continued erosion of the middle class; intensification of class, racial and intergenerational warfare; the unabated growth of both the welfare and warfare states, and the final, giant, shuddering, thundering collapse of the entire global economy when the charade can simply no longer be maintained. This collapse may be close to an extinction level event for humanity, and, if effectively mandated by BIS policy, is likely to overshoot the “prison planet” dreams of its leadership and bring down even the BIS itself. A deeply chilling thought, but I don’t expect the people of such cold arrogance as BIS bankers to consider that they could ever possibly fly too close to the sun.

With those thoughts in mind, I now turn to the GATA article authored by Chris Powell, for your consideration. Many thanks to Chris for thinking deeply about this issue, and giving us a heads up on what to watch out for as the Basel lll banking rules rush closer to taking effect. If you invest in gold (or silver) ETF’s, make sure to turn any unallocated positions you may hold into allocated positions, and demand delivery of the metal you paid for. As the old saying goes, ‘if you don’t hold it, you don’t own it”. And if you hold physical, reserve judgment as to what the pricing will be at any time in the future, but do not lose long term hope! Gold and silver are ultimately the only ways to keep your wealth outside of the banking system and the clutches of hungry and desperate governments. Also, the fight to free the precious metals markets has taken a dramatic upswing in just the last few months, with various groups including GATA, WallStreetSilver (follow them on Reddit or Twitter), and Arcadia Economics (www.arcadiaeconomics.com) converging to bring that fight to the sources. In the end, gold and silver are truth, and truth always wins. Just don’t be lulled into believing that the worlds’ most corrupt institutions have your best interests at heart, and prepare accordingly.

And with that, I present Chris Powell’s most interesting and thought-provoking column in its entirety here. I hope you enjoy and find his ideas worth considering.

Why Basel lll Might Not Bring and End To gold Price Suppression (authored by Chris Powell of GATA)

“Much hope has been engendered in the monetary metals sector by the “Basel 3” banking regulations being recommended to the world by the Bank for International Settlements, since the regulations might make prohibitively expensive the business of unallocated or “paper” gold — the business of creating vast supplies of imaginary gold for price suppression purposes. The regulations are said to be taking effect in Europe at the end of June and likely in the United Kingdom, the headquarters of bullion banking, at the end of the year.

The conclusion that the Basel 3 rules will smash the “paper” gold system is drawn not just by advocates of liberating the gold market from price suppression but also by the proprietors of the “paper” gold business themselves, the London Bullion Market Association and the World Gold Council, which the other day issued a panic-striken public protest:

https://gata.org/node/21135

But even if this interpretation of the Basel 3 rules is correct, Basel 3 might not necessarily stop gold price suppression by governments and central banks.      

The LBMA banks create the “paper” gold for price suppression purposes and provide camouflage for central bank interventions. In exchange the LBMA banks have been essentially underwritten in their gold dealings by certain central banks that arrange gold swaps and leases for them. These interventions can’t work as well without such camouflage. For if central banks had to intervene directly and openly to control the gold price and protect their currencies, intervention would be visible and more easily defeated by the market. 

That openness is what helped collapse of the London Gold Pool in March 1968 —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Gold_Pool

and is why the secret March 1999 staff report of the International Monetary Fund warned against requiring central banks to disclose their gold swaps and leases — disclosure would expose their interventions, and their interventions wouldn’t work very long if they couldn’t deceive the markets:

https://www.gata.org/node/12016

But central banks probably could find mechanisms other than the LBMA for creating “paper” gold and imaginary supply. Indeed, even in the era of the gold standard governments didn’t back their currencies with gold at a 100 percent ratio. They managed with gold coverage of well less than 50 percent, trusting that responsible monetary and fiscal policy would suppress demand — and they were right. That is, the gold standard itself was a fractional-reserve gold banking system, though its coverage level was far higher than it is in today’s gold banking system, where there may be as many as 90 or 100 claims to every ounce of gold.

So central banks hoping to continue gold price suppression might exempt their banks or certain of their banks from the Basel 3 rules on gold. These exemptions might be kept secret, and such banks might get secret government guarantees. With such guarantees, these banks might function perfectly well while providing camouflage for interventions.

Of course this would be fraud, but the whole system is already a fraud, As early as 1961 Federal Reserve officials were secretly proposing falsifying U.S. government records to facilitate manipulation of the gold market:

https://www.gata.org/node/7096

Or, since the Basel 3 rules would choke the bullion bank business in “paper” gold by requiring those banks to hold enormous collateral against their “paper” gold obligations, perhaps central banks engaging in gold price manipulation could simply supply that collateral to the bullion banks via huge cash deposits, thereby relieving Basel 3’s increased costs to the banks. After all, central banks have no trouble creating money. They just “type it in” and wire it out and are perfectly able to deploy it in secret, even in nominally democratic countries like the United States.

This week GoldMoney’s outstanding analyst Alasdair Macleod wondered aloud if the BIS really knows what it’s doing to the gold market with Basel 3:,potentially destroying the fractional-reserve gold banking system:

https://www.gata.org/node/21170

If the BIS didn’t know when devising the new rules, it surely knows now because of the anguished protest from the LBMA and/ WGC. But it is hard to imagine that the BIS didn’t contemplate such an impact from the start. After all, as GATA consultant Robert Lambourne long has shown, the BIS is a key player in the gold market, a gold broker for central banks helping to manage their interventions every day, and a crucial part of their camouflage:

https://www.gata.org/node/21154

Besides, Basel 3’s rules for gold banking are entirely sensible for their recognizing that “paper” gold creates huge systemic risk for the international banking system. One big buyer of physical gold — a sovereign or even an ordinary billionaire, might crash the system by purchasing and taking delivery of enough real metal, since all the bullion banks are terribly short, are connected by their derivatives, and might be pulled down together. Averting such a systemic collapse by helping bullion banks cover their huge short positions as the gold market reversed upward seems to have been the purpose of the Bank of England’s strange gold-selling program in 1999:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999%E2%80%932002

The Bank of England lost a fortune for the United Kingdom by selling so much of its gold reserves at the bottom of the market, but it accomplished something considered much more important than the national interest: It saved the banks.
 
So Basel 3’s rules for gold banking prompt questions about the BIS’ underlying intent. 

Is BIS’ gold policy now being set by a majority of directors from countries that are sick of U.S. dollar imperialism, the increasing “weaponization” of the dollar, and want to weaken the world reserve currency to diminish U.S. power? 

Are the Basel 3 gold rules an attack by European Union members on London bullion banks in resentment of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU? 

Are the Basel 3 gold rules meant to precipitate the sort of resetting of the international financial system envisioned years ago by the U.S. economists Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance and the Scottish economist Peter Millar, a resetting in which currencies and debt are devalued but governments are reliquified against their debts by assigning much higher values to their gold reserves?:

https://www.gata.org/node/11373

https://www.gata.org/node/4843

Various interests are likely in play here. Since mainstream financia l news organizations don’t dare to do serious journalism about central banks and gold, outsiders can only speculate about what is happening in that snakepit. 

It all may evoke the legend about the Congress of Vienna, which in 1814 aimed to redraw Europe’s borders after the Napoleonic wars. Understanably enough, the congress was rife with intrigue. Supposedly one day an aide visited the Austrian foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich, and reported: “My Lord, the Russian ambassador has died.” 

Metternich supposedly answered: “Hmmm. … I wonder what his motive was.”

Since central banking is conducted in secret, at least we can be sure that nobody’s motives here are good.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
CPowell@GATA.org

Inflation vs. Deflation: Is There Any Way to Determine Which One Will Win the Economic Tug of War?

With the domestic and global economies currently in a historic state of flux, one fundamental question weighing on every investor’s mind is: who will win the current economic tug of war? Inflation? Or Deflation? Getting the answer right will have serious consequences for both individual and institutional investors, probably for decades. While nobody can know the answer until it arrives, of course, we can hedge our bets in any of several ways: by tossing a coin, listening to the opinions of pundits (who can’t seem to agree on anything whatsoever), or taking a logical, structured look at the connections between inflation and changes in interest rates, debt, consumer habits, the policies of the Fed, and the actions of the banks. It’s my opinion that we’re not likely to have a strict “either/or” scenario, but rather a ‘both’ scenario in which the proper question to ask isn’t “which one?”, but rather “what circumstances favor the arrival of one vs. the other?” If we have some understanding of what triggers either inflation or deflation, then we can look for clues as to how strong or likely those triggers will be and have a rational basis to predict whether inflation or deflation is headed our way. As circumstances change, we can look again and see whether the triggers, and therefore the odds, have changed, and plan accordingly. That’s a much more dynamic and fluid way to approach the question of inflation vs. deflation, in my mind.

To help cut through the morass of confusing information on actions, policies and circumstances that may affect the odds of having either inflation or deflation, I’ve created a table in which I’ve sorted out the connections as I see them, and made them easy to understand and simple to use. If my table is anywhere close to being correct, then it would provide a quick and logical reference for taking inflation and deflation into account when making investment decisions. First, let’s run through a few things you should be familiar with to discuss the issue, and then let’s move on to my table and see what it tells us!

Like Goldilocks’ Three Bears: Three Types of Inflation

To better understand inflation, it’s helpful to divide it into three categories: Price inflation, asset inflation, and monetary inflation.

Price inflation is the one which most of us are familiar with. This is is the simple and obvious type in which the cost of consumer goods (like bread) and services (like haircuts) goes up. This is the inflation that the Fed claims it’s currently trying to get “just right” at about 2% per year.

The second type of inflation is a subset of price inflation called asset inflation. Asset inflation refers to the increase in cost specifically of the things that grow or preserve capital.  Simple and common examples of assets include stocks, bonds, personal businesses, and maybe our homes (although your home may not actually be a financial asset. It depends. I’ll tackle that in a separate blog. But for now you can follow convention and treat it as an asset). To give a simple example, a share of Acme Tech Overlord Co. would be considered an asset because it would be expected to grow your initial investment if you owned it. (As an aside, I find it interesting that we call certain items assets even though we know that under certain, and not very rare, circumstances, they will actually lose us money. This is an example of subconscious conditioning to accept a lie as a reality.)  Getting back to the point, though, if you purchased a share of Acme for $150 last year and this year the market will buy it back from you at $300, some people would call that inflation of value in that share. Yes, but what kind of inflation is the critical question? Because the value of your stock asset is supposed to grow, or appreciate, over time, it would be suffering from price inflation only if your price gains exceeded any rise in the underlying value of the share for the period during which you held the stock. So if the ACME company doubled its output and sales over the past year and looks poised for even greater growth in the future, then a doubling in share price would be due entirely to asset inflation (absent any ‘creative accounting’, of course). When I refer to asset inflation, I’m referring to this ‘natural’ base rise in price that occurs because of an increase in the inherent value of the underlying asset. A rise in cost over and above the inherent rise in appreciation of the underlying asset would be price inflation.

The third type of inflation, and the type with which most of us are least familiar, is monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is simply a fancy term for when the government prints new money out of thin air, backed by no assets or value whatsoever, and puts it into circulation alongside, and in addition to, existing dollars. Monetary inflation, combined with the speed at which the population grabs that money and runs out to spend it, causes price inflation. There is a term for the rate at which a dollar turns over as it passes form hand to hand; it’s called the velocity of money. While the velocity at which money exchanges hands may not, at first glance, seem to have much to do with the rate of inflation, the relationship becomes more clear if you consider what would happen if everybody put every new dollar the government was pumping into the market under their mattresses and never spent it. All the extra money might as well not exist! If none of the extra money actually changes hands, it will have no effect on the economy. If, on the other hand, it’s very “loose” and spends around, if you know what I mean, then everybody who has anything to do with it can be said to be more wealthy as a result. This turnover is the basis for the term ‘money multiplier’, whereby the economy is said to grow if dollars change hands more often and more quickly. The money doesn’t actually multiply, but it gets counted over and over as it travels from one owner to another. This not only allows more businesses and people to exist on the same amount of money, but is a great boon to governments who can brag about growth in their economies and levy higher taxes even if there aren’t actually any more dollars spending around.

How Do We Keep Tabs On Loose Money?

One of the unwritten, but implied, mandates of the Fed (and the bullion banks, but they are another issue), is to manipulate both the money supply and investor expectations so as to keep the markets afloat no matter what. Unfortunately, because of the extraordinarily complex nature of the financial system, and because several parts of it are run in almost complete secrecy, hazarding a guess as to where the various forms of inflation are headed is extremely difficult at best. However, if we resign ourselves to accepting a simplified structure, then we can create a table of sorts to at least lay out the main visible components of the system and explore how they’re linked together. Once that’s done, making logical and data-based inferences about where each type of inflation is likely headed becomes easier. Hopefully this will help us sort out some of the confusion, such as why prices aren’t going up at the grocery store as much as one would expect given how many dollars have been printed out of thin air in several attempts to rescue our economy.

A Simple Confusion Reduction Table

The table below is my attempt to organize the factors and circumstances that, as I understand them, affect the three types of inflation. It’s divided into an “If…And…Then” format to be easy to follow as I puzzle out how the various possible actions of the Fed, combined with the various possible reactions of the public, would combine to create inflation or deflation. This is by no means a perfect, comprehensive, and final assessment of the issue, and it leaves a lot of factors out. But I think it rests on the biggest moving and shaking parts of the economy and creates a picture that is generally in the right ballpark even if all other issues are factored in. At any rate, it’s really a starting point that can be expanded and refined as new data becomes available and my understanding of the links among the various factors improves. Reader comments on these points are welcome.

Base Assumptions

As with any sort of speculation or theory development, we have to start with some base assumptions. I’m choosing to start from current economic reality:

  • America’s national debt is extremely high and growing. While sources differ in regard to exactly how great the debt is in regard to various measures of economic health (usually the GDP) and where the “tipping point” at which economies can no longer support their debt, lies, for my purposes, exact numbers don’t matter. What’s important is the overall status of the economy, the trends, and the size and momentum of those trends.
  • Because of the size of the debt, as well as the annual deficits, and the fact that both are growing rather than shrinking, interest rates absolutely must be kept near zero nearly in perpetuity, or even go negative. I speculate that they will skyrocket shortly before the final collapse of the American and major global economies, with my reasoning explained in the table.
  • Mirroring the national debt, American consumer/household debt is also very high. Again, exact numbers don’t really matter as the point of my charts is to serve as a thought exercise, to better see the linkages between Fed’s actions, the public’s aggregate response, and the overall outcomes.
  • America is mired in a service economy, with no realistic policies, plans or resources with which to bring back a solid manufacturing economy. In addition, a deteriorating academic infrastructure decreases prospects of growing or even maintaining a global lead in a science and technology based economy.

OK, without further ado, here is my inflation/deflation scenario sorting table:

IFANDTHEN
The Fed gives money directly to consumers (i.e., “stimulus’)Consumers use it primarily to pay off debt and bolster savings (while keeping overall household spending relatively constant)Near term: Monetary inflation with little consumer goods price inflation (Because price inflation will be in proportion to the small amount of stimulus being used to purchase goods and services in excess of what would have been purchased without stimulus cash.)Most assets will neither inflate nor deflate. Credit card stocks, however, will deflate as consumers pay off high-interest charges and tighten belts.Overall economy will neither grow nor shrink while debt is being paid off. (Banks will have more to lend, but fewer businesses will open or expand if consumers aren’t spending more). Markets will stagnate as potential fresh cash finds its way back to creditors and savings accounts, instead. The markets will cry to the Fed for more monetary easing and/or lower interest rates and the Fed will oblige, unless crashing the system serves a larger political goal. Medium term: Price inflation rises as consumers pay off debts and decrease saving to put dollars back into the consumer economy. The rate of monetary inflation eases, though total monetary inflation probably continues because the markets require constant infusions of new money to keep rising. Debt- laden, unprofitable zombie businesses will continue to survive and produce a drag on economic growth because consumers will be once again consuming, while higher interest rates (the cost of which would crush the businesses) will be suppressed by the Fed. Longer term: Excessive rates of malinvestment and excessive numbers of zombie businesses will put such a drag on the economy that “direct to the people” stimulus will again be required, but this time no amount of stimulus or interest rate suppression will rescue the economy. Interest rates will soar, despite the intervention of the Fed and the world’s other central banks, and the value of the dollar will take its final collapse
The Fed gives money directly to consumers (either by check, or by electronically crediting bank accounts with ‘electronic cash’)Consumers use it primarily to purchase assets instead of paying down debt (and assuming relatively steady  everyday household spending before and after stimulus)Near Term: Monetary inflation with little price inflation because most of the cash is going into assets, not consumer goods and services. Asset inflation, even bubble if stimulus is large and mostly directed to asset purchases. Credit card stocks will soar in proportion to the amount of money going into ccard stock purchases and amount of new debt taken on by consumers. Neither inflation nor deflation in overall economy b/c few new dollars are chasing consumer goods (they’re going into assets, instead). Banks have neither less nor more to lend b/c consumers aren’t saving. Few businesses will open or expand. Medium term: Asset deflation as bubble(s) pop and holders must simultaneously sell assets into declining market. High probability of price deflation as asset holders lost high proportion of their wealth and can no longer maintain their usual levels of consumer spending. High risk of yet more government “stimulus” to bail out consumers hurt in asset bubble blowout, starting process over from beginning. Longer term Debt, low interest rates, and the high number of zombie corporations together place such a drag on the economy that the dollar loses all worthDespite the best efforts of the Fed and major central banks, the dollar will lose its value, interest rates will explode and the synchronized global collapse will occur.
The Fed gives money to the banks to stimulate the economy by lending moreConsumers fail to take out more loans because they’re already having difficulty managing debt from previous loans -or- Banks refuse to make new loans to consumers and businesses who are higher risk.Near term: Neither inflation nor deflation as new dollars aren’t released into the market, or mild deflation if consumers focus on getting out of debt instead of consuming more Medium and Longer Term: The Fed, the banks, or both may lower interest rates to stimulate demand for consumer and business loans.Lower interest rates may increase demand for loans, especially for rolling over of existing debt. The money saved by lowering the interest payments on debt is likely to be spent, causing mild inflation.Housing bubble likely to form Longer term: Default rates on homes and businesses both become increasingly likely
DittoConsumers and businesses have room to take on more debt and choose to do soNear term: The economy experiences a “growth spurt”. Monetary inflation increases in proportion to the number and size of loans created. Asset inflation increases in proportion to the number and size of loans created, as well as to the proportion of the cash used to purchase assets. Price inflation increases in proportion to the number and size of loans created, as well as the proportion of cash used to purchase consumer goods Medium term: All of the above. Asset and price inflation continue modestly upwards as growth is sustained at reasonable levels. Since the bulk of the loans went to creditworthy consumers and fundamentally healthy businesses and entrepreneurs with solid business plans, relatively strong economic growth is maintained for a long period before the economy matures and slows. Longer term: Monetary inflation slows as strong, mature businesses with fewer borrowing needs begin to dominate the economic landscape and consumer consumption of their products reaches a stable plateau Same for same for asset and price inflation. Long-term stability replaces growth
The Fed gives money to the banks and requires lowering of lending standards to encourage consumer and business loan uptake. May be accompanied by lowering of interest ratesHigher risk consumers and businesses begin taking out more loansNear term: Economy sees a “growth spurt”. Monetary inflation increases in proportion to the number and size of new loans made from freshly printed money. Price inflation, like monetary inflation, increases in proportion to the number and size of previously ineligible consumers and entrepreneurs who now receive loans, but also in proportion to the speed (velocity) at which they receive and spend them. Medium term: Asset bubbles in housing and stock market begin to form. ‘Unicorns’ and other nascent manias begin drawing interest from investors moving away from lackluster returns in a maturing/slowing economy. Monetary inflation increases if interest rates drop, encouraging and businesses and consumers to extend further or refinance at cheaper rates. Rate of price inflation will either increase or decrease depending upon interest rates: If interest rates rise, a wave of business closures, defaults and consumer bankruptcies will drive inflation lower, or even cause deflation. If interest rates stay steady, inflation will decrease, but if at a slow enough rate, the economy will adjust and avoid significant long-term effects. If interest rates decline, price inflation may increase mildly as failing businesses and debt-laden consumers will roll over loans at cheaper rates, and use the savings to fuel investment or consumption Longer term: Asset inflation increases dramatically until asset bubbles reach their peaks. Sudden, rapid and severe asset deflation follows pop of the bubbles. Monetary inflation increases to the extent that companies take out loans to give the appearance of growth and lure in more investors, and consumers increase loans to service previously acquired debt. Monetary inflation stops as bubbles pop and businesses and consumers stop taking out loans. Price inflation increases as long as businesses and consumers are continuing to take out loans. Price inflation halts as bubbles pop. Deflation may occur at this point. Otherwise, inflation will occur if the Fed begins to furiously print money and stimulate price inflation to paper over the asset deflation.
The Fed gives money to the banks and simultaneously offers them interest to keep it as “excess reserves” in their mandatory reserve accounts with the Fed.Banks accept the Fed’s offer and park the stimulus money in their excess reserve accounts because earning the lower level of returns risk-free is likely to be more profitable in the long run than giving out loansNear, Medium and Longer Term: All forms of inflation should remain unaffected if the banks don’t make loans and consequently don’t release stimulus money into the economy

I hope my table is helpful to you if you’re attempting to make spending and asset allocation decisions based on whether we will be encountering inflation or deflation in the future. I think this table at least gives clues as to where to look for underlying drivers of inflation or deflation and how strong they are (for example, examining lending data to get an idea of how much new lending banks are engaging in and comparing that to the total size of the stimulus to get a rough idea of how much new cash is actually coming into the economy and how that compares with what the government wants). Reader comments are welcome.