By Peter Schiff
Although it was labeled and hyped as a “jobs plan,” the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. But semantics are of supreme importance in American politics…some could argue that word choice is the only thing that matters. As a result, despite the fact that this plan bears no substantive difference from previous stimulus bills, the President never once mentioned the word “stimulus” in his hour-long speech. But a rotten banana by any other name still stinks.
By Peter Schiff
This morning many on Wall Street were stunned by the big fat zero put up by the August jobs report, the worst showing in 11 months. The data convinced many previously optimistic economists that the United States will slip back into recession. I believe that we have been in one giant recession all along that was only temporarily interrupted by trillions of useless and destructive deficit and stimulus spending. Unfortunately, the August numbers will increase the talk of government efforts to stimulate the economy.
But while President Obama prepares to unveil a new plan for the Federal Government to create jobs, evidence is rapidly piling up on how his Administration is actively destroying jobs with stunning efficiency. Recent examples of this trend are enough to make anyone with even a casual respect for America’s former economic prowess hang their head in disgust.
The assault on private sector employment began in April when the democrat controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint seeking to force Boeing aircraft to move Boeing’s newly opened non-union production facilities in South Carolina back to its union controlled plants in Washington State. Although Boeing simply says that it is looking to open a cost effective domestic manufacturing facility (an endangered species) to employ American workers, the NLRB alleges that the company was punishing union workers in Washington for past strikes. Despite a lack of any direct evidence that Boeing was being punitive, and the fact that the company was not laying off any union workers, the NLRB has not backed down. Against little public support and nearly universal revulsion among business leaders, the NLRB is continuing its campaign to keep Boeing from exercising its freedoms and to employ people in a manner that makes sense for its business.
The Boeing move served notice that the Obama’s loyalties were firmly tied to the Union interests that were so critical to his election in 2008. This week, the anti-business tendencies of the administration came into even sharper focus.
In the telecommunications industry, service provider AT&T made the seemingly essential move in its attempt to acquire wireless specialist T-Mobile. But the Justice Department sued to block the $39 billion deal on antitrust grounds, saying that the merger between the second and fourth largest cell phone providers would unfairly restrict competition and raise prices.
In so doing, the DOJ seems to be operating under the assumption, without any direct evidence, that at least four companies are needed to provide healthy choice in the marketplace, and that three providers simply won’t cut it. More broadly, competition may increasingly come from outside the telecommunications sector (in particular from cable and satellite industries). Plus, with the speed of technological change, who knows what types of competitors will arise in the years to come. The situation reminds me of the broken merger in 2004 and 2005 between Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video. Based on antitrust concerns emanating from the Justice Department, Blockbuster backed off from the deal. Of course, just a few years later the whole sector was made obsolete by Netflix, and any advantage Blockbuster would have gained would have only been temporary.
In light of the current and future competition that is sure to change the way consumers talk with one another over great distances, AT&T and T-Mobile are much better positioned to survive as a combined entity. In any event if AT&T can’t buy T-Mobile, someone else will. The company’s parent, Deutsche Telecom, has stated its intention to divest itself of its American subsidiary.
So why not help American business survive in an increasingly competitive market? Most likely antitrust lawyers at the DOJ have been otherwise bored with the lack of merger deals to scrutinize (another downside to a weak economy), and this transaction just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the legal activism will certainly cost jobs. Even the unions recognize this and have supported the merger.
But the absurdity of the current environment reached a peak when the DOJ, and agents from, get this, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, raided the Nashville factory of the legendary Gibson Guitar company. The raid resulted in agents carting off more than a half million dollars of supplies and essentially shutting the company down. The take down of one of America’s commercial icons apparently resulted from Gibson’s purchase of partially finished ebony and rosewood guitar fingerboards (these endangered trees are carefully managed) from an Indian supplier.
Now here’s the interesting part. The Indian government had issued no complaint about the transactions and there was no evidence that the company had violated U.S. law. The DOJ acted simply on suspicion that Gibson had violated Indian law. Since when do U.S. companies have to make sure that they comply with laws of every country in the world before they produce a product?
I had the good fortune on interviewing Henry Juszkiewicz, the CEO of Gibson on my radio show this Thursday.
After speaking to him, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the stunning economic incompetence of our government officials, who in the cause of arbitrary regulatory nitpicking, seem willing to sacrifice the reputation and prospects of one of the few remaining American manufacturers. God help us all.
On the other side of the coin, the government’s own efforts to create jobs in the private sector have met with little success. It was announced yesterday that Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. The development is notable because the company was a veritable poster child of the Obama Administration. The president himself visited their facilities in May of 2010 and touted the company as the template for America’s “green technology” future. As a result of its politically advantageous profile the company was able to secure $535 million in loans guaranteed by the government.
But apparently government blessing does not guarantee market success. Unfortunately, Solyndra could not sell its products profitably despite the government support and cheerleading. Instead $535 million in investment capital was diverted from potentially money making enterprises to a money losing enterprise. This is what happens when government calls the shots.
When it comes to the financial sector, the government can’t seem to decide whether it wants to preserve jobs or destroy them. After bailing out the banks three years ago (and making some of them too big to fail), it was reported today that the government is preparing to launch a multi-billion dollar lawsuit to recoup losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered on mortgage backed bonds (loans that the government itself encouraged the banks to make). If the government were to prevail, job losses would surely emerge in the sector, and the government may need to bail out the banks once again!
So as we wait with eager anticipation as to what the President may reveal in his jobs speech next week, you can be sure that it’s not going to help America regain its competitive edge. The sooner we regard the government as a job killer rather than a job creator, the sooner we can all get back to work.
Follow us on Twitter to stay up-to-date on Peter Schiff’s latest thoughts: @SchiffGold
Interested in learning about the best ways to buy gold and silver?
Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!
By Peter Schiff
The markets are going through another sell-off phase, yet the traditional notions of a ‘safe haven’ are changing. No longer is the US dollar the default shelter; instead, gold, the Swiss franc, and the Japanese yen are the preferred assets.
All three of these havens – gold, francs, and yen – have been surging upward this month. Two of them, however, are being actively devalued by central banks desperately (and foolishly) trying to curtail appreciation. The Swiss and Japanese are enlisting both policy measures and all the banker-speak they can muster to stem the tide of investment flows into their currencies.
The game is Last Haven Standing, and Spielberg has already acquired the movie rights.
Switzerland: From Neutrality to Intervention
Looking to Europe, the Financial Times now has the awkward task of reporting that mighty European Union’s currency is coming apart at the seams, while neighboring Switzerland has barely enough hotels to house the world’s waterlogged financial refugees. The franc is up 5.41% against the euro this year and almost 14% against the dollar. One wonders if the only way to prevent a collapse of the these major debtor currencies is to back them with Swiss-made wristwatches. At least then they’d have a partial gold standard and there’d be no excuse to be late for an austerity protest!
Unfortunately, the Swiss National Bank is so afraid of the franc’s rise that it has flooded the market with liquidity and cut interest rates to zero. The SNB even recently threatened to peg the franc to the euro. It’s as if survivors on one of the Titanic’s lifeboats were so confused and bewildered that they began tying their boat to the sinking behemoth out of a desire for a ‘stable relationship.’
Note to Japan: It’s Not the Speculators
Japan, ironically, has been blessed that while its debt problems are severe, they’ve been severe for so long that markets are willing to take that as a sign of stability. And, aside from the public debt problem, Japan does have fairly impressive fundamentals. They are still a productive economy with high personal savings and exposure to booming China. So, it’s no wonder the Yen has risen 6.63% against the dollar so far this year.
Former Finance Minister, and now Prime Minister, Yoshihiko Noda stated recently that he would “take bold actions if necessary and won’t rule out any possible options” to restrain the yen’s appreciation. Yet, while Noda has said the ministry will study whether “speculation” is behind the yen’s rise, he doesn’t seem to understand that this is a permanent move away from dollars and euros and into anything which might be a better alternative. This is not driven by Wall Street gamblers, but rather by everyday investors seeking shelter.
Clearly Shifting Sentiments
My readers know that I see these past years in the US markets as one ongoing crisis. We’re not “facing a double-dip recession” as the media suggests; instead, we’re really in the midst of a prolonged economic depression. The periodic market panics since 2007, both in the US and Europe, all stem from the same disease and, as such, ought to be properly understood as related symptoms, not as separate events.
And as one long, ugly narrative, these subsequent panics resemble a series of steps; sharp drops leading down either to a dismal “new normal” or – more likely – a collapse in both the fiat dollar and euro currencies and a widespread return to gold as money.
My brother, Andrew Schiff, wrote an article for my brokerage firm this month reviewing the market turmoil and how it compares to previous crises since ’07. He found a steady shift in what investors perceive as a safe haven.
During the depths of the credit crunch, from October 2008 to March 2009, the S&P lost over a quarter of its value, as investors flocked to the US dollar, driving it up 8%. Foreign stock markets sold off and most foreign currencies fell substantially. The Swiss franc fell over 3%. Gold rose some 6.5% and the yen rose 5.75%, but neither kept pace with the US dollar, which rose 13.5%.
Then, during the dip between April 23, 2010 and July 2, 2010, the S&P dropped again by almost 15%. The dollar rallied barely more than 3%. The Swiss franc gained slightly instead of falling. And this time, both the yen and gold beat the dollar, gaining 4% and 5.5% respectively.
Now here we are in August, and what’s happening?
In extreme volatility, the S&P fell over 13% before rebounding to its starting place. The dollar has remained essentially flat even with intensified fears in the euro zone. The yen is also flat, despite heavy intervention to push it down. The Swiss franc rose 8% before Switzerland’s central bank threatened to peg the currency to the euro, and gold has surged almost 12%!
See the pattern? On each step of this multi-year downward spiral, global investors are slowly but coherently altering their preferred safe haven. Alternatives are being desperately sought, though actions first by the Japanese central bank and more recently by the Swiss have prevented their currencies from fully realizing potential gains as dollar-alternatives.
Fortunately, gold doesn’t have a central bank, so it can rise as fast as the dollar falls.
The Fiat Downgrade
Whether it is in their interests or not – and I argue it is not – central bankers look set on continued competitive devaluation of their currencies so that their economies don’t have to do the hard work of retooling for the new reality.
That is why gold is doing so phenomenally well, and why it should continue to do so. New gold comes into the market at a rate of about 2% per year. This number has been fairly steady over time, and reflects the ability of mining companies to locate, finance, purchase, and develop new gold mines. I invest in these companies, and trust me, it’s not an easy job.
Contrast this with a paper currency – more dollars can be created by Bernanke simply printing extra zeros on his banknotes. See that $10 bill? Shazam, it’s a $100!
The reason currencies like the yen and Swiss franc are considered safe is simply a longstanding habit of their central banks not to print too much. But a habit is much less reliable than a physical constraint.
Think of a dog that has been trained not to eat steak. If you put it in a room with a juicy ribeye, would you be more confident the steak would be there when you came back if the dog was in a kennel or just sitting there? Just like a dog always craves steak, and will grab a bite when no one’s looking, central bankers always crave the printing press.
That’s why we need to hold an asset for which scarcity is dictated by nature itself – gold.
As this realization becomes more commonplace, and as this depression accelerates, I expect gold to be the Last Haven Standing. This will not be a “new normal,” but rather a return to thousands of years of economic tradition.
A Note About the Fundamentals
Those who do not really understand the fundamentals, such as commodity trader Dennis Gartman, continue to look at gold’s rise as a bubble. In fact, Gartman just called the top in gold, again, claiming that one of the “great bubbles of our time” had finally popped.
He cites as evidence the quick 200-point rise to over $1900/oz, which Gartman sees as a speculative blow-off top. He also cites the meaningless fact that one Gold ETF, GLD, has a larger market cap than one S&P 500 ETF. He absurdly compares this situation to the Japanese Emperor’s palace eclipsing the value of the entire state of California at the top of Japan’s real estate bubble. Those ETFs simply represent one way of owning assets, and do not, as Gartman contends, indicate that investors value gold higher than the entire US stock market. In fact, a true comparison of the two asset classes reveals gold’s value is historically low relative to the value of US stocks.
Rather than the bursting of a bubble, the recent technical action in gold is more indicative of a break-out. In fact, the positive divergence of gold stock from bullion in this recent correction is evidence that a more powerful leg in this bull market is about to begin. Up until now, the market for gold stocks has been characterized by fear. However, it now appears to me that gold stocks will make a new high before the metal itself. If the stocks finally begin to lead the metal, it means traders are finally starting to believe in this rally. Rather than evidencing the end of the trend, such a shift in sentiment likely indicates an acceleration in that trend. Maybe when the last skeptic finally throws in the towel, we may finally get the blow-off top Gartman thinks already occurred – but that day is likely many years into the future.
In fact, all the talk about a gold bubble seems to be based on the fact that so many investors are now talking about gold. However, the problem with this argument is that despite all the talking, very few investors are actually buying. Bubbles are not formed by talk, but by action. Before we get a gold bubble, all those investors talking about gold actually have to buy an ounce. In fact, before a bubble pops, its not just investors, but the average man in the street who will have to be buying. Thus far, he has not even joined the conversation.
Follow us on Twitter to stay up-to-date on Peter Schiff’s latest thoughts: @SchiffGold
Interested in learning about the best ways to buy gold and silver?
Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!
Casey Research’s Gold Commentary
By Jeff Clark
With gold a stone’s throw away from $2,000 and already up 27% on the year, the objective investor might begin wondering how much higher both it and silver can climb. After all, gold is nearing its inflation-adjusted 1980 high – and that peak was a spike that lasted only one day.
So, how much upside is realistically left in each metal? And is one a better buy than the other? There are dozens of ways to calculate price projections, but I’m going to use data based strictly on past price behavior from the 1970s bull market.
First, let’s measure what today’s inflation-adjusted price would be if each metal matched its respective 1980 high, along with the return needed to reach those levels:
Based on the CPI-U (the government’s broadest measure of inflation), gold is a couple jumps away from matching its 1980 high of $850. Silver, meanwhile, has much further to climb and would return over three times our money if it reached its former peak.
But the CPI is a poor measure of real inflation. Let’s use John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics. His data is much closer to the real world and is calculated the way it was during the Carter administration, stripped of later manipulations.
Check out how high gold and silver would soar if they adjust to this level of inflation:
Clearly, both metals would hand us an extraordinary return from current prices. Those are some admittedly high numbers, but remember, that’s what the CPI figures above would register if government officials had never changed how it’s calculated. What’s interesting about these prices is that we’re not even halfway to reaching them.
Let’s look at one more measure. I think another valid gauge would be to apply the same percentage gain that occurred in the 1970s to today’s market. From their 1971 lows to January 1980 highs, gold rose 2,333%, while silver advanced an incredible 3,646%. The following table applies those gains to our 2001 lows and shows the prospective returns from current prices:
Gold would fetch us over three times our money, while silver would return us almost four times.
Regardless of which measure is used, it’s clear that if gold and silver come anywhere close to mimicking the performance of the last great bull market, tremendous upside remains.
You may be skeptical because these projections are based on past performance, and nothing says they must hit these levels. That’s a valid point. But I would argue that we’re in unchartered territory with our debt load and money creation – and neither shows any sign of ending. We had a lot of problems in the 1970s, but our fiscal and monetary abuse now dwarfs what was going on then. The need to protect your assets gets more pressing each day, not less so. That, to me, is the key signaling this bull market is far from over.
You may also be skeptical because the media continue to claim gold is in a bubble. To date, their proclamations have been nothing but a great fake-out, every time. Want to know when we’ll really be a bubble? When they stop saying it’s one and actually start buying and recommending gold. When they begin running 15-minute updates on the latest gold stock. When you are sought out relentlessly by your friends and relatives because they know you know something about all this “gold and silver stuff.”
All told, I think the baked-in-the-cake inflation – rooted in insane debt levels and deficit spending – will be one of the primary drivers for rising precious metals this decade. This means the masses will look for a store of value against a plunging loss of purchasing power. Enter gold and silver.
The current correction may not be over, and you can count on further pullbacks along the way. But the data here suggests the upside in gold and silver is much bigger than any short-term gyration or any worry that may accompany it.
By Peter Schiff
Picking up where they left off in 2008, the media is in the midst of a campaign to ignore and undermine the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul (they gave me even rougher treatment during my 2010 Senate run). Political pundits just do not know what to do with a candidate who fails to fit into the blue and red boxes that form the simple narrative of American politics. They are perturbed by the grass roots nature of the campaign, by the strange honesty and earnestness of the candidate and his supporters, and the odd mixture of conservative values and liberty-minded policies. And like most adolescents, they reject what they don’t understand.
By Peter Schiff
This week’s wild actions on Wall Street should serve as a stark reminder that few investors have any clue as to what is really going on beneath the surface of America’s troubled economy. But this week did bring startling clarity on at least one front. In its August policy statement the Federal Reserve took the highly unusual step of putting a specific time frame for the continuation of its near zero interest rate policy.
Gold Mining Commanding a Premium
Financial Post – Gold, like oil, is getting harder and harder to find. That is the conclusion of a recent report by Clarus Securities. Employing data from the Society of Economic Geologists, analyst Laurie Curtis finds that deposits yielding high quantities of gold per ton of ore extracted peaked in the 1980s. The cost of discovery, in particular, has nearly quintupled to $47 an ounce in 2009, up from $10 an ounce during the 1980s. Higher capital expenditure and a steadily increasing gold price will be the only way for supply to keep up with today’s surging demand. Read Full Article>>
Gold Standard Emerging as World Order Unravels
The Telegraph – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, international business editor of The Daily Telegraph, writes that with Japan and the West likely at debt saturation, gold is making a comeback to its historical role as an anchor of stability in a sea of liquidity. Squabbling politicians in Washington and Brussels make for good theater, but generate little confidence in the eyes of investors as regards the medium- to long-term resilience of the purchasing power of their respective fiat currencies. No alternative asset class exists that is capable of absorbing the impending wave of wealth on the lookout for safekeeping. With the post-Bretton Woods global monetary order growing increasingly threadbare by the day, a new gold standard is just over the horizon, forecasts Mr. Evans-Pritchard.
Read Full Article>>
Swiss Mull Re-Linking Franc to Gold
MarketWatch (WSJ) – The Swissie has performed admirably over the course of past three years as the flight to quality has taken center stage. But for the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a strong, resilient Franc is not enough, and certainly does not equate with a bulletproof Franc backed by solid gold. Later this year, the Swiss Parliament, which decoupled the Franc from gold as recently as the year 2000, is expected to debate the introduction of a parallel Gold Franc. The little Alpine nation still holds almost as much bullion as gargantuan China. Per capita, it is #1, with $6K in gold per person – six times the amount per person held by the US.
Read Full Article>>
Get Peter Schiff’s latest gold market analysis – click here – for a free subscription to his exclusive weekly email updates.
Interested in learning more about physical gold and silver?
Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!
By Peter Schiff
Perhaps the debt ceiling should be renamed the “national debt target,” for it seems Washington is always trying to reach it. One could say it’s their only reliable, time-tested achievement. And without fail, upon reaching their national debt target, they promptly extend it further in order to discover how quickly it can once again be attained!
While I have little doubt that the ceiling will be raised, my readers have been curious as to the implications for gold in each of the debt and “default” scenarios possible after August 2nd. This month, I’ll outline how each outcome could affect the price of gold and silver.
Bearish Gold Case #1: Debt Ceiling Not Raised – Enough Cuts Made to Avert Default
My readers know that this scenario is actually what the US government should do. The debt ceiling should not be increased and massive cuts must be made. We know this outcome is extremely unlikely – it would require not only a resolute steadfastness to sound money, but also a 180-degree change of philosophical beliefs by the majority of Congress (and the American public) overnight.
Yet in our fantasy world, if this did occur, it would be bearish for gold. It would mean the US government was shrinking, that debts were being paid, that the entire US economy was becoming more solvent and viable. Gold would be less important to own, as the risk of both currency crises and sovereign debt crises would be lower.
Bearish Gold Case #2: Debt Ceiling Raised – Federal Budget Balanced
If the debt ceiling is raised in order to avert imminent default, but the spare time is used to truly bring the federal budget into balance, the US economy might still be saved. But when I say “balanced,” I mean it. This would mean not only eliminating the entire $1.5 trillion deficit, but also leaving enough of a surplus to cover all outstanding debt and unfunded liabilities. For perspective, Senator Rand Paul’s proposal to but $500 billion a year, widely considered more radical than landing a man on Mars, would only address 1/3 of the annual deficit – it would take cuts many times that for the US to return to solvency.
But let’s be optimistic: if the budget could be balanced, then the fact that the debt ceiling was being increased yet again would not be so awful. Since the US government’s fiscal policies would be completely reversed, we could expect to start seeing a strengthening of the dollar (so long as Bernanke stopped the printing presses too) and a weakening of gold and silver.
However, this is just as much of a pipe dream as the first scenario. No government in history has dug itself out of the hole we now face without defaulting. If Congress even tried to enact a plan like this, people would be rioting in the streets over their lost entitlements. And we’d suddenly have millions of unemployed soldiers. Not exactly a recipe for peace and prosperity.
Bullish Gold Case #1: Debt Ceiling Not Raised – US Defaults on Treasury Debt
This is the scenario that President Obama and Secretary Geithner are threatening. They claim that if the debt ceiling is not raised, they will have to immediately begin defaulting on Treasury interest payments. This is rather unlikely, as interest payments make up only 10% of spending, but let’s say they stop paying anyway.
If they do this, market interest rates for US debt would skyrocket, meaning the only buyer left at rates the Treasury could afford would be the Fed. In other words, if they default on August 2nd, QE3 will start on August 3rd. Of course, a default would be absolutely devastating to the dollar and a boon for gold and silver. Global confidence in the invincibility of the United States would be shattered, and the underlying problem of excessive spending would still remain to be addressed.
Another interesting scenario would be if Congress didn’t raise the debt ceiling and the Treasury just kept borrowing anyway. It’s not like the Executive Branch follows laws scrupulously nowadays. What if they just ignored it? Someone could challenge the act in federal courts, but the odds are often in the President’s favor. In this case, gold and silver might experience less of an initial spike, but their long-term prospects would be elevated as the world recognized that we were one step closer to becoming a banana republic.
Bullish Gold Case #2: Debt Ceiling Raised – Symbolic Cuts in Spending
This scenario is by far the most likely outcome of the debt talks in Washington; they will raise the debt ceiling and make spending cuts which sound substantial, but which only mange to slow the accumulation of new debt.
The plans on the table suggest cutting a couple trillion in cumulative spending over the next decade. In other words, they propose cuts that only reduce deficits by about 10-20%; they do nothing to reduce actual debt levels. So if these talks are successful, then instead of a $1.5 trillion deficit each year, perhaps we only suffer a $1.2 trillion deficit. Meanwhile, the debt continues growing. This is “success” in Washington.
Clearly, this is bullish for precious metals. It means more of the same – more spending, more debt, and necessarily more money-printing.
The Empire Has No Ceiling
Over the past 50 years, the US debt ceiling has been raised over 70 times. In other words, there is no ceiling at all – it is as fictitious as the idea that central planning works, or that the US has anything resembling a “free market.”
So, I guess it stands to reason that regardless of the debt ceiling increase, it is likely that the US will be downgraded by one or more ratings agencies. The effect will be massive because the world’s largest pension, mutual, and sovereign wealth funds typically mandate investment only in AAA-rated securities. A downgrade of US debt means those funds must immediately sell off their primary reserve asset. The effect of this cannot be overstated, and gold would be the first and best refuge for an onslaught of orphaned capital.
Despite gold once again hitting new highs, I can only recommend my readers continue to keep a healthy portion of their portfolio in precious metals. Given the sad realities of the US fiscal and monetary situation, it’s prudent to assume that nothing will be solved by August 2nd.
Follow us on Twitter to stay up-to-date on Peter Schiff’s latest thoughts: @SchiffGold
Interested in learning about the best ways to buy gold and silver?
Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!
By Peter Schiff
By supposedly compromising to raise the debt ceiling, Congress and the President have now paved the way for ever higher levels of federal spending. Although, the nation was spared the trauma of borrowing restrictions, the actual risk of default existed solely in the minds of Washington politicians. But the real crisis is not, nor has it ever been, the debt ceiling. The crisis is the debt itself. Economic Armageddon would not have resulted from failure to raise the ceiling, but it will come because we succeeded in raising it. This outcome falls along the lines that I had forecast (See my commentary, “Don’t Be Fooled by Political Posturing” from July 9th).
Both parties are now pretending that the promised cuts in spending outweigh the increase in the debt limit. But the $900 billion in identified cuts are spread over a decade and are skewed toward the end of that period. There are an additional $1.4 trillion in cuts that the plan assumes will be identified by a bi-partisan budget committee. But similarly empowered panels in the past have almost never delivered on their mandates.
Michael Pento’s Market Commentary
The debt ceiling debate that has dominated the headlines over the past month has been thoroughly infused with a string of unfortunate misconceptions and a number of blatant deceptions. As a result, the entire process has been mostly hot air. While a recitation of all the errors would be better attempted by a novelist rather than a weekly columnist, I’ll offer my short list.
After having failed utterly to warn investors of the dangers associated with the toxic debt of entities like Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, as well as the perils of investing in mortgage-backed securities and sovereign debt of various bankrupt countries, the credit ratings agencies (CRAs) have now apparently decided to be more vigilant. Hence, many have offered conspicuous warnings that they may lower U.S. debt ratings if Washington fails to make progress on its fiscal imbalances. But then, just in case anyone was getting the impression that these rating agencies actually cared about fiscal prudence, Moody’s suggested this week that its concerns would be lessened if Washington were to make a deal on the debt. The agency has even suggested that America’s credit could be further improved if Washington would simply eliminate the statutory debt limit altogether. In other words, Moody’s believes that our nation’s problems are more a function of squabbling politicians rather than a chronic, unresolved problem of borrowing more than we can ever hope to repay.
With or without a deal, the CRAs should have already lowered their debt ratings on the $14.3 trillion of U.S. debt. In fact the rating should be lowered again if the debt ceiling IS raised. And it should be lowered still further if we eliminated the debt ceiling altogether. To lower the rating because the limit is NOT raised is like cutting the FICO score of a homeless person because he is denied a home equity loan.
Republicans are making a different misconception about the debt ceiling debate in their belief that they can dramatically cut government spending without pushing down GDP growth in the short term. In a recent poll from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed 53% of G.O.P. and 65% of Tea Party members said there would be no economic crisis resulting from not raising the debt ceiling.
They argue that leaving money in the private sector is better for an economy than sending the money to Washington to be spent by government. That much is undoubtedly true. But a very large portion of current government spending does not come from taxing or borrowing, but from printed money courtesy of the Fed. If the Fed stops printing, inflation and consumption are sure to fall. While this is certainly necessary in the long run, it will be nevertheless devastating for the economic data in the near term.
Over the last decade and a half our economy has floated up on a succession of asset bubbles, all made possible by the Fed. Our central bank lowers borrowing costs far below market levels. Commercial banks then expand the money supply by making goofy loans to the government or to the private sector. As a consequence, debt levels and asset values soar and soon become unsustainable. Ultimately, the Fed and commercial banks cut off the monetary spigot, either by their own volition or because the demand for money plummets. The economy is forced to deleverage and consumers are forced to sell assets and pay down debt. Recession ensues. That’s exactly what could happen if $1.5 trillion worth of austerity suddenly crashes into the economy come August 2nd. Although they don’t seem to realize it, this will create huge political problems for Republicans.
And then there is the deception coming from Democrats who argue that we need to raise taxes in order to balance our budget. This is simply not possible. The American economy currently produces nearly $15 trillion in GDP per annum but has $115 trillion in unfunded liabilities. With a hole like that, no amount of taxes could balance the budget. Raising revenue from the 14% of GDP, as it is today, to the 20% it was in 2000 would barely make a dent toward funding our Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Therefore, we need to cut entitlement spending dramatically. But the Democrats refuse to face the obvious facts.
With the Tea Party gaining traction in Congress, and causing nightmares for incumbents, Republicans have little incentive to raise the debt ceiling (although they raised it 7 times under George W. Bush). Democrats aren’t going to reduce entitlements without raising taxes on “the rich” and Republicans aren’t going to raise taxes when the unemployment rate is 9.2%. There’s your stalemate and anyone expecting a significant deal to cut more than $4 trillion in spending by the August 2nd deadline will be severely disappointed. Although there has been some movement by the so-called “Gang of Six” centrist senators in recent days, a substantive deal may be more unlikely than most people think. And even if a much smaller deal can be reached in time, the credit rating agencies may follow through on their promise to downgrade our sovereign debt. The fallout could be devastating to money market and pension funds that must hold AAA paper. But an even worse outcome will occur when the real debt downgrade comes from our foreign creditors, when they no longer believe the U.S. has the ability to pay our bills.
In my opinion, the best news for the long term future of this nation is the Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan that just passed the House. It now heads to a much harder hurdle in the Democrat controlled Senate, and if it passes that, to a certain veto from President Obama. At least something so promising got to the table at all. However, I think the country needs some more tastes of brutal reality before such bitter medicine has a chance of going down.
