Yugoslavia 1993-94

Under Tito Yugoslavia ran a budget deficit that was financed by printing money. This led to rates of inflation of 15 to 25 percent per year. After Tito the Communist Party pursued progressively more irrational economic policies. These irrational policies and the breakup of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia now consists of only Serbia and Montenegro) led to heavier reliance upon printing or otherwise creating money to finance the operation of the government and the socialist economy. This created the worst hyperinflation in history up to this time.

By the early 1990s the government used up all of its own hard currency reserves and proceded to loot the hard currency savings of private citizens. It did this by imposing more and more difficult restrictions on private citizens access to their hard currency savings in government banks.

The government operated a network of stores at which goods were supposed to be available at artificially low prices. In practice these store seldom had anything to sell and goods were only available at free markets where the prices were far above the official prices that goods were supposed to sell at in government stores. In particular, all of the government gasoline stations eventually were closed and gasoline was available only from roadside dealers whose operation consisted of a parked car with a plastic can of gasoline sitting on the hood. The market price was the equivalent of $8 per gallon.

The combination of the shortage of gasoline and the government confiscation of German Deutsche mark deposits created a bizaar episode. A man after repeated attempts to get the government to let him withdraw his Deutsche mark deposits as Deutsche marks announced the was going to commit suicide in front of a government building by dousing himself with gasoline and igniting it. On the appointed day he showed up with a canister of gasoline. The media was there to film his protest. The police were also there and arrested the man. Afterwards the television station got numerous phone calls asking what had happened to the canister of gasoline.

Most car owners gave up driving and tried to rely upon public transportation. But the Belgrade transit authority (GSP) did not have the funds necessary for keeping its fleet of 1200 buses operating. Instead it ran fewer than 500 buses. These buses were overcrowded and the ticket collectors could not get aboard to collect fares. Thus GSP could not collect fares even though it was desperately short of funds.

Delivery trucks, ambulances, fire trucks and garbage trucks were also short of fuel. The government announced that gasoline would not be sold to farmers for fall harvests and planting.

Despite the government desperate printing of money it still did not have the funds to keep the infrastructure in operation. Pot holes developed in the streets, elevators stopped functioning, and construction projects were closed down. The unemployment rate exceeded 30 percent.

The government tried to counter the inflation by imposing price controls. But when inflation continued the government price controls made the price producers were getting ridiculous low they stopped producing. In October of 1993 the bakers stopped making bread and Belgrade was without bread for a week. The slaughter houses refused to sell meat to the state stores and this meant meat became unvailable for many sectors of the population. Other stores closed down for inventory rather than sell their goods at the government mandated prices. When farmers refused to sell to the government at the artificially low prices the government dictated, government irrationally used hard currency to buy food from foreign sources rather than remove the price controls. The Ministry of Agriculture also risked creating a famine by selling farmers only 30 percent of the fuel they needed for planting and harvesting.

Later the government tried to curb inflation by requiring stores to file paper work every time they raised a price. This meant that many of the stores employees had to devote their time to filling out these government forms. Instead of curbing inflation this policy actually increased inflation because the stores tended increase prices by a bigger jump so that they would not have file forms for another price increase so soon.

In October of 1993 the created a new currency unit. One new dinar was worth one million of the old dinars. In effect, the government simply removed six zeroes from the paper money. This of course did not stop the inflation and between October 1, 1993 and January 24, 1995 prices increased by 5 quadrillion percent. This number is a 5 with 15 zeroes after it.

In November of 1993 the government postponed turning on the heat in the state apartment buildings in which most of the population lived. The residents reacted to this withholding of heat by using electrical space heaters which were inefficient and overloaded the electrical system. The government power company then had to order blackouts to conserve electricity.

The social structure began to collapse. Thieves robbed hospitals and clinics of scarce pharmaceuticals and then sold them in front of the same places they robbed. The railway workers went on strike and closed down Yugoslavia's rail system.

In a large psychiatric hospital 87 patients died in November of 1994. The hospital had no heat, there was no food or medicine and the patients were wandering around naked.

The government set the level of pensions. The pensions were to be paid at the post office but the government did not give the post offices enough funds to pay these pensions. The pensioners lined up in long lines outside the post office. When the post office ran out of state funds to pay the pensions the employees would pay the next pensioner in line whatever money they received when someone came in to mail a letter or package. With inflation being what it was the value of the pension would decrease drastically if the pensioners went home and came back the next day. So they waited in line knowing that the value of their pension payment was decreasing with each minute they had to wait in line.

Many Yugoslavian businesses refused to take the Yugoslavian currency at all and the German Deutsche Mark effectively became the currency of Yugoslavia. But government organizations, government employees and pensioners still got paid in Yugoslavian dinars so there was still an active exchange in dinars. On November 12, 1993 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 1 million new dinars. By November 23 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 6.5 million new dinars and at the end of November it was 1 DM = 37 million new dinars. At the beginning of December the bus workers went on strike because their pay for two weeks was equivalent to only 4 DM when it cost a family of four 230 DM per month to live. By December 11th the exchange rate was 1 DM = 800 million and on December 15th it was 1 DM = 3.7 billion new dinars. The average daily rate of inflation was nearly 100 percent. When farmers selling in the free markets refused to sell food for Yugoslavian dinars the government closed down the free markets. On December 29 the exchange rate was 1 DM = 950 billion new dinars.

About this time there occurred a tragic incident. As usual pensioners were waiting in line. Someone passed by their line carrying bags of groceries from the free market. Two pensioners got so upset at their situation and the sight of someone else with groceries that they had heart attacks and died right there.

At the end of December the exchange rate was 1 DM = 3 trillion dinars and on January 4, 1994 it was 1 DM = 6 trillion dinars. On January 6th the government declared that the German Deutsche was an official currency of Yugoslavia. About this time the government announced a new new dinar which was equal to 1 billion of the old new dinars. This meant that the exchange rate was 1 DM = 6,000 new new dinars. By January 11 the exchange rate had reached a level of 1 DM = 80,000 new new dinars. On January 13th the rate was 1 DM = 700,000 new new dinars and six days later it was 1 DM = 10 million new new dinars.

The telephone bills for the government operated phone system were collected by the postmen. People postponed paying these bills as much as possible and inflation reduced there real value to next to nothing. One postman found that after trying to collect on 780 phone bills he got nothing so the next day he stayed home and paid all of the phone bills himself for the equivalent of a few American pennies.

Here is another illustration of the irrationality of the government's policies. James Lyon, a journalist, made twenty hours of international telephone calls from Belgrade in December of 1993. The bill for these calls was 1000 new new dinars and it arrived on January 11th. At the exchange rate for January 11th of 1 DM = 150,000 dinars it would have cost less than one German pfennig to pay the bill. But the bill was not due until January 17th and by that time the exchange rate reached 1 DM = 30 million dinars. Yet the free market value of those twenty hours of international telephone calls was about $5,000. So the government despite being strapped for hard currency gave James Lyon $5,000 worth of phone calls essentially for nothing.

It was against the law to refuse to accept personal checks. Some people wrote personal checks knowing that in the few days it took for the checks to clear inflation would wipe out as much as 90 percent of the cost of covering those checks.

On January 24, 1994 the government introduced the super dinar equal to 10 million of the new new dinars. The Yugoslav government's official position was that the hyperinflation occurred "because of the unjustly implemented sanctions against the Serbian people and state."

Source: James Lyon, "Yugoslavia's Hyperinflation, 1993-1994: A Social History," East European Politics and Societies vol. 10, no. 2 (Spring 1996), pp. 293-327.


Inflation in the Roman Empire

The episodes of extreme inflation took a standard form. First the government started building up the army and undertaking public works projects. These projects increased expenditures drastically and the government raised tax rates. But the higher tax rates encouraged tax evasion and discouraged economic activity. The tax base diminished and soon the tax needs exceeded the tax capacity of the government. The government then resorted to debasing the coins of the realm. This took the form of replacing the gold and silver in coins with copper and other cheaper metals. Over the period 218 to 268 A.D. the silver content of Roman coins dropped to one five thousandth of its original level. Sometimes the size and weight of coins were reduced. It also meant vastly increasing the amount of coins in circulation. There was a corresponding increase in prices. The emperors usually blamed the price increases on the greed of merchants.

One famous episode occurred during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian in last part of the third century AD. Diocletian's predecessors had been issuing tin-plated copper coins for what had once been a silver coin. Diocletian tried to bring back some honesty to the coinage by issuing copper coins that were not purporting to be something they were not.

Diocletian ordered a vast increase in the armed forces to guard against further attacks by the barbarians. Taxes were increased to pay for defenses but much of the funds raised went to pay for public monuments as well as rebuilding his new capital of Nicomedia in western Anatolia. When he ran out of funds Diocletian resorted to the use of forced labor for his projects. But Diocletian had issued vast amounts of copper coins. This led to price increases. When prices rose Diocletian attributed the inflation to the greed of merchants. In 301 AD Diocletian issued an edict declaring fixed prices; i.e., price controls. His edict provided for the death penalty for anyone selling above the control prices. There was also penalties (less severe) for anyone paying more than the control price. Irate consumers sometimes destroyed the businesses of those who sold higher than the control prices.

In the short-run these draconian measures may have curbed inflation but in the long-run the results were disaster. Merchants stopped selling goods but this led to penalties against hoarding. People went out of business but Diocletian countered with laws saying that every man had to pursue the occupation of their father. The penalty for not doing so was death. This was justified on the basis that leaving the occupation of ones father was like a soldier deserting in time of war. The effect of this was to turn free men into serfs.


John Law and the Hyperinflation and Speculative Bubble in France c. 1719

The public and private extravagances of Louis XIV left France with a debt of 3 billion livres when the Regime of Louis XV came to power. Even with an excellent system of centralized administration and finance created by Colbert the new regime was finding it hard to meet the interest payments on the debt. John Law, a Scottish adventurer, was promoting policies which might help the Regime.

John Law was the son of a banker from Scotland. In London John Law was a gambler and playboy who killed a man in a duel. Law was arrested and convicted of murder but he escaped from prison and fled to the Continent. In Amsterdam he studied financial institutions and in 1705 he published a treatise entitled Money and Trade Considered in which he argued that the more money in circulation the greater the prosperity of a country. In his words,

Domestic trade depends upon money. A greater quantity employs more people than a lesser quantity. An addition to the money adds to the value of the country.
Law tried to interest the governments of several countries in his monetary schemes, but only the financially strapped regime of Louis XV gave him an opportunity to implement them. In 1716 Law was granted authority to create the Banque Generale with a capital of 6 million livres. Law raised only 25 percent of the capital in cash and covered the other 4.5 million livres with government debt (billets d'etat) which was worth only one fourth of its face value. So Law capitalization of the Banque Generale really only amounted to about 2.6 million livres.

Law's Banque Generale was authorized to issue interest-paying bank notes payable in silver on demand. It soon had 60 million livres in notes outstanding. The Regime required regional tax payments to be in the form of Banque Generale banknotes so there was a ready market for Law's banknotes. Because these banknotes paid interest and were convenient they sold at a premium over their face value.

The Regime also wanted to develop the territories of Louisiana in North America. Law was granted a charter for the Compagnie de la d'Occident and it was given a 25 year lease on the French holdings of Louisiana. In return the Compagnie was required to settle at least 6,000 French citizens and 3,000 slaves. The Compagnie was also granted a monopoly on the growing and sale of tobacco.

The Compagnie acquired the Compagnie de Senegal, which operated in West Africa, as a source of slaves. It then merged with the French East India Company and the French China Company to form Compagnie de Indes. This company had a virtual monopoly on French foreign trade.

Law's Banque Generale, under the new name of Banque Royale, was added to the combination which Law called his "System."

The Compagnie de Indes issued 200,000 shares at a price of 500 livres each. By 1718 the share price had fallen to 250 livres. In 1719 the Banque pumped up the supply of notes by 30 percent. It also acquired the right to act as the national tax collector for nine years. The Compagnie stock then doubled and redoubled in price.

Law then came with a plan to pay off the troublesome state debt. The Regime would issue notes paying 3 percent interest to its debtors. These debts could then be used to buy stock in Law's Compagnie de Indes. The Compagnie share price rose to 5,000 livres in August 1719 and 8,000 livres in October. People flooded into Paris to buy stock in Law's Compagnie. Speculation in Compagnie stock went wild. Stock was being purchased with only 10 percent downpayment. Fortunes were being made right and left. One beggar made 70 million livres.

John Law became an international celebrity. The Pope sent an envoy to the birthday party of Law's daughter. Law converted to Catholicism and was appointed Controlleur des Finances by the Regime.

Compagnie de Indes shares peaked at a price of 20,000 livres at the end of 1719. In January 1720 two royal princes decided to cash in their shares of the Compagnie. Others decided to follow their example. Law had to print 1.5 million livres in paper money. As Controlleur of Finances, John Law tried to stem the tide by making it illegal to hold more than 500 livres in gold or silver. He devalued banknotes relative to foreign currency to encourage exports and discourage imports. Nevertheless Compagnie de Indes stock fell from 9,000 livres to 5,000 livres. Law was denounced and stripped of his office of Controlleur. As head of the Compagnie de Indes and the Banque Royale he bought up stock and banknotes to try to raise their price, but by June 1720 he had to suspend payments.

John Law fled to Holland in 1720 and his properties in France were seized by the Regime. He lamented,

Last year I was the richest individual who ever lived, today I have nothing, not even enough to keep alive.

Hyperinflation in France After the Revolution

In the spring of 1789 the French Assemblee decreed the issuance of 400 million livres of notes, called assignats, secured by the properties which had been confiscated from the Church during the revolution. By the fall of 1789 the Assemblee approved the issuance of 800 million of noninterest-bearing notes and decreed that the limit on such notes was to be 1.2 billion livres. Despite this stated limit, nine months later another 600 million livres was approved and in September 1791 another 300 million. In April of 1791 another 300 million was approved.

Prices rose, but wages didn't keep up and in 1793 a mob plundered 200 stores in Paris. Price controls were imposed (Law of the Maximum). Output decreased and rationing had to be implemented. To force acceptance of its money the French government imposed a 20 year prison sentence on anyone selling its notes at a discount and dictated a death sentence for anyone differentiating between paper livres and gold or silver livres in setting prices.

By 1794 there were 7 billion livres (assignats) in circulation. In May 1795 this total reached 10 billion livres and by July 1795 it had gone up to 14 billion livres.

When the total reached 40 billion livres the printing plates for assignats were publically destroyed. A new type of note, called a mandat, was issued, but within two years these also lost 97 percent of their value. The printing plates for mandats were also publically destroyed. In 1797 both assignats and mandats were repudiated and a new monetary system based upon gold was instituted.


The Inflation in the Confederate States of America 1861-1865

From October of 1861 to March of 1864 the commodity price index rose an average rate of 10 percent per month. When the Civil War ended in April 1865 the cost of living in the South was 92 times what it was before the war started. This inflation was obviously caused by the expansion of the money supply. The role of the money supply in establishing the price level is confirmed even more strongly by the results of an attempt to curb the growth of the money supply in 1864.

In February the Confederate Congress decreed a currency reform. All bills greater than five dollars were to be converted into bonds paying 4 percent interest. All bills not converted by April 1 would be exchanged for a new issue at a ratio of 2 for 3. Prior to the reform people spent wildly and drove prices up 23 percent in one month. But, by May 1864, the reform had been completed and the stock of money was reduced by one third. The general price index declined. Eugene Lerner, an economist who studied this inflation, commented on this result:

This price decline took place in spite of invading Union armies, the impending military defeat, the reduction of foreign trade, the disorganized government, and the low morale of the Confederate army. Reducing the stocks of money had a more significant effect on prices than these powerful forces.
The increase in the money supply came as a result of the Confederacy inability to collect funds through taxes. Only 5 percent of its expenditures were covered by taxes. Initially the Confederate government tried to borrow extensively. This failed because the planters had funds only after the fall harvest, but the war started in April. The war interferred with the harvest and export of the cotton crop so the planters were asking the government for help instead of loaning it funds. Consequently less than 30 percent of the funds for the Confederacy came from bonds. Thus, the Confederate government saw printing money as an unavoidable method for financing the war. The Confederate Congress was reluctant to use this measure and stated in the act which authorized the printing of money that it was "not to exceed at any one time one million of dollars." Actually 1500 times this amount was printed.

The printing of such large sums created a major problem. Paper, engravers and printers were hard to find. In desperation, the Secretary of the Treasury recommended that counterfeit money be utilized. Anyone holding a counterfeit bill was supposed to exchange it for a government bond and the government would stamp it "valid" and spend it.

When the Union army captured sections of the Confederacy people took or sent their Confederate money to the areas where it still could be used. Thus the effect of the capture of Confederate territory was like an increase in the money stock in the remaining Confederate territory. The disruptions of the war also decreased production so it was a matter of more and more money chasing fewer and fewer goods.


The German Hyperinflation of the Early 1920's

Some say the German hyperinflation started when Germany entered World War I in 1914. At that time Germany opted to finance the war by borrowing rather than increasing taxes. The German policy makers chose borrowing because they expected to win the war and intended to force the losers to pay for the cost of the war. It was thus logical to the policy makers to use borrowing rather than taxation.

But Germany lost the war and the victors imposed heavy reparation payments upon her. The reparation payments were perceived as unfair in Germany and the social democratic government was reluctant to impose the burden of their payment upon the German population. In retaliation for the nonpayment France and the other allies occupied the industrial area of the Ruhr on the western border of Germany. Germany was forced to buy more using foreign currencies, while at the same time the occupation of the Ruhr area made it impossible to collect tariff on imported goods. The government, strapped for funds, resorted to printing money. The value of the mark relative to other currencies fell thereby increasing the cost of imported goods. Prices rose increasing the cost of running the government. This necessitated the printing of even more money. Prices rose further and the exchange rates for the mark dropped even more. The result was hyperinflation.

At first, Germans reacted to the higher prices by economizing and reducing their consumption. But when they realized that it was not just a matter of some things being more expensive but instead that the mark was losing value they reacted by spending their marks as fast as possible. This meant that there was little constraint on prices.

There were winners as well as losers in this hyperinflation. Those on fixed incomes and who were owed a specific amount of money found that the real value of their holdings reduced to zero. But those who owed money found their debt effectively wiped out.


Inflation in China 1939-1950

A state bank for China, called the Hu-pu (Board of Revenue) Bank, was established in 1905. By 1907 two other government banks, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications, were established and authorized to issue bank notes. The imperial government and all subsequent governments looked upon these banks as vehicles for creating money for the government to use to cover its deficits or for any other reason. There were severe penalties imposed for anyone discounting provincial government banknotes.

Despite attempts on the part of governments to abuse their control of the banking system, the banks were able to resist these attempts until the 1930's and the war with Japan.

By John Browne

This week, based on indicators of improving Chinese manufacturing activity, commodity and stock markets surged in the Pacific Rim. It appears that China's recession-fighting policies are being judged successful. The 41% rally in Chinese stocks in 2009 from the 2008 lows dwarfs the single-digit rallies in the US and Europe. With Western economies still sluggish, eyes are turning eastward for solutions to the global economic riddle. As such, recent hints at the direction of Chinese monetary policy should be closely regarded.

At the recent Group of 20 London meetings, China called for a new international monetary order with a gold link. This was followed by the sudden disclosure that China had used part of its huge gold output to boost its own reserves by some 600 metric tons, a 75% increase in total holdings since 2003. In his first 100

days in office, President Barack Obama's administration has injected nearly US$40 billion each day into US economy. Given the inflationary impact that such a torrent of new cash will spark, it is logical that the Chinese hedge its $1 trillion position with a more reliable store of value.

International money continues to flood towards the Chinese economic sphere, leaving the "old" industrial economies of America and Europe out in the cold. The cause is quite simple: the economies of America and China are mirror images of each other. The China-centric countries are producer-dominated and America is consumer-dominated. Over time, this dichotomy is producing massive shifts in global wealth.

For a century, American administrations have relied on the inflationary powers of paper money to finance consumer growth. The fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency enabled this scheme to persist for longer than would have been tolerated otherwise. The "stimulus and bailout agenda of George W Bush and Obama is the same practice on overdrive. While driving the country further into debt, it also ensures that it will be progressively less competitive in the global economy.

China, on the other hand, is the world's largest producer and one of the top three exporters, piling up vast current account surpluses, especially in US dollars. In order not to boost its currency to levels that would make its exports less competitive, China maintained its US dollar surpluses in dollars, investing the bulk, almost $1 trillion, of them in US Treasuries. This acted as "vendor financing" for its exports to America. The technique is similar to television commercials that promise "make no payments for four years", except in this case the deal is pushing 40 years.

To combat the global recession, China spent some $700 billion on a stimulus package, primarily focused on infrastructure. As such spending adds more value to the economy than government make-work programs, it now appears that China's stimulus package is having positive results.

Increased economic activity in China will benefit American companies with China-sourced sales. But the majority of the American economy remains oriented toward the American consumer, and his ever-increasing ability to take on debt. This is obviously not sustainable.

The outlook for America is for hyper-stagflation, or continued economic recession accompanied by rapidly rising prices. This calls into question the continued role of the US dollar as the world's reserve. Surplus nations, particularly China, are voicing their growing concern. They are exploring other, less volatile arrangements. They may be considering a return to the bulwark of monetary stability: gold.

Now the world's largest gold producer, China would benefit tremendously from a shift away from the US dollar and toward gold. She is clearly interested in world leadership, but would never dream of challenging the US militarily. However, in the 21st century, the weight of economics renders martial might largely irrelevant. Still, she can't afford to act irresponsibly.

There are a few considerations that should temper her ambitions. Even with the 600 metric ton increase over the past five years, China's gold holdings amount to only 1.6% of its total monetary reserves. Also, at 1,050 metric tons total, China's holdings are still dwarfed by the 8,132 metric tons held by the US.

Nevertheless, the Chinese call for a new, gold-linked reserve currency, combined with the near doubling of their own gold reserves, points to a major strategic trend that can be expected to spread to other surplus nations. The biggest winners, personal or governmental, will trade their dollars for gold before there's a rush for the door.

Private investors can ride the wave created by China's strategic shift by continuing to add to their gold positions.

from LeMetropole

The much touted "stress test" of the U.S. banking system is nothing but a PR sham and in reality, completely meaningless. The "worst case scenario used is a 3+% drop in GDP, and a 10% unemployment rate. If real GDP and unemployment numbers were ever offered up, my guess is that we already have had a minimum 5% contraction in GDP and true unemployment is approaching 13-15%. The stress test only addresses "tier one capital", my question is this, what about all the "off balance sheet" crapola that surely renders these reckless banks insolvent? No, really, I WANT TO KNOW! By trying to control and manipulate ALL markets, these banks have taken $ trillions upon $ trillions worth of fraudulent transactions on (and according to their accounting, off) their books. They are walking corpses that cannot be saved.

On books, off books, what is this crap!? If you enter into a transaction, is it not still a transaction whether you "account" for it or not? Are you not responsible to perform on the contract, no matter how you account for it? I did business my entire life on a handshake, I never had "off balance sheet" business because A DEAL IS A DEAL. Period. Even if it was a bad deal, it was still a deal and I would learn a lesson but still perform.

The "originator", the biggest abuser, the teacher if you will, for off balance sheet shenanigans, IS the U.S. government. They have used fraudulent accounting for nearly 50 years. The have used a fraudulent currency for nearly 40 years, invoking the "never pay" model. And now they are providing a stress test for the banks? How quaint, how brazen of them. I believe that the biggest stress test of all time will be imposed on the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve very soon by Mother Nature (the markets). The Dollar has completed it's short covering rally, it has made no headway since last November. The Treasury market has retraced all of it's gains since the "quantitative easing" announced by the Fed in mid March. The 10 year has moved up from sub 2.5% to an even 3% in the span of 6 weeks, a move higher from here should accelerate this move. The equity market is at a moment of truth, in that it's momentum has also stalled but it must continue higher in order to "prove" all the talk of "green shoots" and to spur consumer spending and confidence.

Should ANY of these markets fail, the jig will be up for the other 2. Should the Dollar collapse, it will spur Treasury selling and thus higher interest rates. Should Treasuries collapse, the laughable "bottom" in real estate will be proven to be false, and thus will spur further negative sentiment and consumer retrenchment. Should stocks collapse, well, you will have pension shortfalls, even more consumer retrenchment, in short, a "depressionary environment". But here is the "big enchilada", it is the government who will be most harshly affected by this market imposed stress test. Uncle Sam cannot afford higher rates, the debt service alone will kill him. He cannot afford a lower exchange rate currency because this will spook foreigners into a "bank run", nor can he afford a lower equity market as that will expose the invalid "stimulus plans" and spook the entire world.

The current "remedies" virtually guarantee a lower Dollar and higher interest rates, the correct remedies (necessary almost 10 years ago) will result in the same, a collapsed currency and a debt market with few bids. In short, this credit contraction is now becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Tax revenue is imploding while at the same time they decided to spend like drunken sailors. This is rapidly becoming a sovereign bankruptcy that will spread faster than swine flu. Upon further thought, the real stress test will be how we, as individuals and family units, cope with the conditions thrust upon us. The past rewarded those who were blatantly reckless, now, even those who were prudent and played by the rules will get swept away by this perfect, man made storm. Only those that understand the difference between real money and fake fiat will stand a chance to survive and thrive as the paper promises get swept away. Quite stressful to say the least.

China called Sunday for reform of the global currency system, dominated by the dollar, which it said is the root cause of the global financial crisis. "We should attach great importance to reform of the international monetary system," Chinese Vice Finance Minister Li Yong told the spring IMF/World Bank Development Committee meeting in Washington. A "flawed international monetary system is the institutional root cause of the crisis and a major defect in the current international economic governance structure," Li said, according to a statement.

"Accordingly, we should improve the regulatory mechanism for reserve currency issuance, maintain the relative stability of exchange rates of major reserve currencies and promote a diverse and sound international currency system." As the world's main reserve currency, US dollars account for most governments' foreign exchange reserves and are used to set international market prices for oil, gold and other currencies. As the issuer of the key reserve currency, the United States also pays less for products and can borrow more easily. Li did not name the dollar but in late March the People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said he wanted to replace the US unit which has served as the world's reserve currency since World War II. "The outbreak of the crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Zhou said, suggesting the International Monetary Fund could play a greater role. Zhou's remarks sparked uproar and concern since China has the world's largest forex reserves at 1.9 trillion dollars. China became the world's top holder of US Treasury bonds last September, and currently holds around 800 billion dollars, according to official US data. Beijing has voiced increasing concern over its massive exposure to the US dollar as the global crisis has steadily deepened but after some tense exchanges, the issue appears to have eased in recent weeks…

-

Since the Chinese put a new global reserve currency on the table at the G20 summit which created $250 billion in new IMF Special Drawing Rights, discussion of the new currency has increased, and the logic of putting precious metals into this basket is clear.

Gold and silver have been used as money for several millennium because even the most artful alchemist has failed to find a way to manufacture precious metals. Over recent centuries, fiat or paper money collapses have always been followed by a reversion to gold and silver. Why should it be different this time?

Money supply inflation

Global governments are expanding money supply as though there is no tomorrow. Only yesterday, the British government unveiled plans to borrow more in the next two years than in the previous 300 years of its history, including two world wars and the creation of the welfare state.

It is clear that a day of reckoning is coming for the fiat or paper currencies of the world whose governments have lost all reason in their desperate pursuit of a magic bullet to solve the global financial crisis. Printing money is the last resort of bankrupt governments.

If we go back to the South Sea Bubble of the early 1700s in France, there is the first example of modern times, with paper replacing gold until a mammoth inflation sent the government scurrying back to precious metals. The revolution came later.

Or in ancient times, the Roman emperor Nero debased the currency and so did his successors and with it fell the Roman Empire.

But an orderly exchange of fiat currency for precious metals is perfectly possible, and the Chinese proposals for a new reserve currency have suggested using the commodities model suggested by Keynes in the 30s.

Stiglitz support

Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz is the latest economist to back a new global reserve currency, although he does not detail a role for gold and silver.

However, precious metals should be at the heart of a new global currency, partly to give it credibility as something really different to combining several paper currencies, and also because of the discipline of a fixed supply of precious metals that will stop governments from devaluing and inflating away people’s money.

Will this happen as a result of informed debate? Probably not. The historical precedent is for a crisis followed by a reversion to gold and silver at prices far higher than those seen before the crisis

WSJ: BofA CEO Lewis testifies to NY AG that Bernanke, Paulson wanted Merrill losses kept quiet
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/WSJ-BofA-CEO-says-was-told-to-apf
-15006709.html?sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

A few comments from LeMetropole provide good insight into this amazing story....

Blackmail?

To all, so today we hear that Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America was told by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson to shut up about the "material adverse change" that took place at Merrill Lynch before their merger. I would call this "blackmail", but then again, who am I anyway, I think Gold is money so I must be a whacko. Mr. Lewis has testified under oath (whatever that means) that he was told to remain silent about Merrill, otherwise his board of directors would be disbanded and the management team would be fired. Appalling yes, but does this surprise you?

What would you do? Remain silent? Cancel the deal? I know what I would have done, I would announce the piece of crap Merrill had become, cancel the deal so my shareholders didn't get left holding the "bag of pooh", and then simply resign. How could you wake up and go to work in the morning knowing you just shafted your shareholders over a blackmail? How could you remain silent? Was his silence going to save the system? No, it can't be saved because "it is what it is", the debt, derivatives, mal investment, etc., were all already in place, NOTHING could reverse that. If the system was so close to collapsing just a few months ago, how far away can we be now?

So, as for Mr. Bank of America, either he is a spineless buffoon that threw his shareholders under a steamroller, or he lacks the moral values to tell the truth no matter what the consequences, even if they included losing your job. Maybe he was afraid of becoming Mr. "Freddie Mac" and turning up as a suicide. Who knows? The point here is the confidence (lack of) this instills in foreigners with investments in the U.S.

Supposing Mr. Lewis is telling the truth, this means that Paulson and Bernanke are both "blackmailers" and liars. They told us umpteen times that the "banking system is solid", the "system is sound". WHO to believe? I think they are ALL full of $#I+!!! The system is busted, the banks are broke, the Dollar has ZERO intrinsic value, and the Treasury has become the biggest beggar in the history of the world. And now we get the stress test results? Yeah, I can't wait to see these morsels of truth and wisdom!

This can of worms that Mr. Lewis has opened has huge ramifications, most importantly one of CREDIBILITY. I can only guess what my thoughts would have been as a child growing up in the 60's, the Sec. of the Treasury and Fed Chairman lied and blackmailed someone? So what if Merrill went down, they are only one Investment house, you mean the system is THAT fragile? This is the world's biggest debtor trying to hide JUST how weak, debilitated, and fragile the whole situation has become. One can only hope that foreigners go deaf, dumb, and blind for few a weeks since it is they, that Treasury relies on so heavily to fund our debt.

From today forward, it is now clear that ANYTHING can happen at ANYTIME. Everything is not what it seems to be, nothing is real in the financial world, and everything is worth nothing. As it turns out, the economy, real estate, and stock markets were all propped up and "Bulled" by borrowed money and dirty tricks. The entire "fiat" bull run has been bull shit, and to think we EVER questioned Gold ownership. No wonder we have been told on a daily basis that Gold is a "barbarous relic" and has no use. So they lied to us, what's the big deal? They will lie to us again tomorrow, ...and your point is? Clearly, things aren't what they used to be, now I sound like my parents. Sorry for the rant, I do feel much better though!

-----------------------------------

Bof A and the DYKE!

The revelation that Bank of America was forced to buy Merrill Lynch is the nail in the coffin, the straw that broke the camels back, the beginning of the end...how many more sayings do you we need??!!

There are no more fingers to stick in the dyke!

This revelation is HUGE on so many fronts I can't even begin. First of all Bank of America will be sued by EVERY SHAREHOLDER for accepting this deal, not disclosing the "material information", falsely promoting the deal to the public and hiding the truth. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be investigated for illegally forcing the merger without any congressional approval or ANY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE....

AND THEY HAVE BEEN LYING TO THE PEOPLE FOR MONTHS THAT WE WERE AT THE BOTTOM AND THE BANKS ARE FINE!

Bank of America will likely see a "Run"on the bank" within the next few weeks as the liability from this is incalculable!

It's about to get VERY UGLY out there!

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Cuomo's Smoking Gun

New York State Attorney General has unleashed a letter today which could well lead to an avalanche of lawsuits against, Bank of America, Ken Lewis and the BAC board, John Thain, Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury and Ben Bernanke et al at the Fed.

If you read through Mr. Cuomo's letter, there can no question in anyone's mind that Lewis, Paulson and Bernanke are guilty of committing fraud. This must be a serious issue because when it was being exposed on CNBC, CNBC quickly cut away just as Ken Lewis was telling Erin Burnett that he was told to keep his mouth shut.

At issue is whether or not Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, along with staff members wholly and severally at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, forced Ken Lewis and the board at BAC to complete its merger with Merrill Lynch, despite Ken Lewis' decision that the financial condition of MER at the time of the merger agreement had been fraudulently misrepesented, covered up and had materially changed.

It would appear from a close reading of the letter sent from Andrew Cuomo to Government officials listed, that Ken Lewis was going to invoke a Material Adverse Change clause, due to a substantial deterioration in the assets of Merrill Lynch which appear to have been covered up during merger negotiations (i.e. hidden from sight during the due diligence process), in order to either abort or substantially renegotiate the terms of the BAC/MER shotgun wedding. Here is what the MAC clause is all about:

"THE MATERIAL ADVERSE CHANGE CLAUSE (MAC) as a closing condition has achieved permanent status as one of the most highly negotiated parts of acquisition agreements. The basic premise underlying a MAC is that the purchaser should receive the benefit of the bargain. In practice, a MAC included within the closing conditions of an acquisition agreement provides purchasers with an "out" in the event of unforeseen material adverse business or economic changes affecting or involving the target company or assets between the execution of the definitive acquisition agreement and the consummation of the transaction"

Please read the Cuomo letter in its entirety, as it contains statements and accusations from both Lewis and Paulson that are both accusatory of each other and self-incriminating. Here is just one snippet:

"Bank of America's attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21, 2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America still wanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulson then advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, its management and board would be replaced" page 2.

There is much more in that letter which can be used to go after every person listed above. Bernanke has denied making any of the statements contained in that letter. My bet would be that Bernanke is now on record lying.

At the very least, all the people listed above will subject to massive lawsuits by Bank of America shareholders. Hopefully Mr. Cuomo will prove to be more forthright than his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer who used his attacks on Wall Street to launch his bid for Governor of New York, and will use this as an opportunity to pursue justice for all the parties involved, not the least of which is the U.S. Taxpayer.

Here is the letter from Mr. Cuomo:

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/cuomo-letter-exposing-paulsons-and.html

------------------------------------------------

This Cuomo thing is getting gooooood

This is a postcard perfect example of what happens when rats are trapped in a corner - they turn on each other:

Paulson Contradicts Bernanke, Blames Bernanke For Lewis Threat

"Hank Paulson admitted to Andrew Cuomo that he threatened to oust Ken Lewis and the Bank of America board if Bank of America invoked a Material Adverse Change (MAC) clause to block the deal, Cuomo says. Paulson also added, however, that he made this threat at the request of Ben Bernanke"

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-paulson-contradicts-bernanke-blames-bernanke-for-lewis-threat-2009-4

Ken Lewis Shafted Bank Of America Shareholders To Save His Job (BAC)

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-ken-lewis-shafted-bank-of-america-shareholders-to-save-his-job-2009-4
I think the media is either being told to not report all of this, or they are vastly underestimating the seriousness of what Cuomo has unleashed today. This is going to be epic entertainment watching this unfold.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The cover of the latest Time magazine includes the headline story -- THE NEW FRUGALITY. The story is about Americans cutting back everywhere and in everything. Personally, I think the frugality trend is just starting. Right now, I don't think most people view the current recession as a major economic phenomenon. I think the public impression is that the government "won't let it happen," and that the government will stabilize the economy by the end of the year. The public reads about the trillions of dollars the Fed and the Treasury are spending, and it believes what we are going through is just a deeper version of the recessions that have plagued the US since WW II.

I've thought all along that the steadily rising rate of unemployment and loss of income will be the surprises of this bear market. Unemployment will produce a downward spiral of negative growth in the US. When an individual or a family leader is laid off, the full impact of a loss of income hits the unit. They will immediately cut back in every area possible -- doctor's visits, dentistry, meds, clothes, automobiles, travel, vacations, expensive colleges, food, entertainment, etc. This sets off a "downward spiral." It's a spiral that only halts with exhaustion.

-----------------------------------------------

Most Americans still cannot fathom what lies ahead … still believing that once the correction is over, life will go back like it has been for so long. Don’t think so. Years ago it was my contention that the standard of living in America would go down by 35%. I am sticking with that notion.

from LeMetropole cafe

I cannot emphasize this enough. The collapse in the U.S. Treasury’s financial condition is accelerating much faster than I thought would happen. While everyone is worried about higher taxes, the exact opposite is occurring. Personal and corporate tax receipts are plummeting. Corporate profits have vanished faster than any time in American history; profits are not coming back any time soon. With continuing claims hitting new highs, with commercial and residential foreclosures hitting new highs and with credit card delinquencies hitting new highs, it is simply not credible to believe that there will be any improvement in the financial condition of the U.S. consumer anytime soon. U-6 unemployment has gone from 9.1% to 15.6% in one year. Consumers continue to deleverage and banks refuse to lend to anyone with less than stellar credit. Meanwhile, social welfare payments and financial institutional bailouts are accelerating. Last week Goldman raised financing needs of the Treasury to $3.25T for this year.

The Federal Reserve’s response of monetizing the debt is something I predicted. This is accelerating as fast as the deficit expands. This is what happened in the Weimar Republic (no political will to raise taxes yet a political decision to accelerate spending to keep the labor force from rebelling). I have been expecting a currency collapse for more than a year. I was early on my prediction of the Internet Bubble collapsing and the housing market collapsing also. In the end the fundamentals mattered. The most important emerging trend which I can identify currently is the collapse of the condition of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet and the cash flow requirements of the U.S. Treasury. IMHO Operation Green Shoots is a concerted and intentional effort spearheaded by Larry Summers (Harvard Behavioral Finance) to convince everyone that the worst is over. In essence he is attempting to start the third bubble of the decade. They have encouraged banks to report fraudulent earnings by forcing a change in FASB. Operation Green Shoots is based on spin and not reality; therefore, it sprouts will wither shortly. Caveat Emptor!

The United States, the world's most developed country, is scrambling to answer the question "Who will 'feed' the US?" [Answer: “no one”] years after it had asked the most populous developing country a similar question: "Who will feed China?"

Is it sensational to ask the richest country the same question that China faced more than 10 years ago? The reply is "No." This time, it is not about "grain supply", but "capital supply" and "supply of order."

An unprecedented financial crisis that originated in the US is shattering the world, without exception to any region. In response, the US has announced massive rescue plans to revive the economy, and is ready to roll out more such plans, yet leaving a big question mark as to how it will get enough money to finance those plans.

The US Congress sanctioned a $787 billion stimulus plan submitted by the Obama administration last month, which media reports said is only a small fraction of the overall plan.

The US-based San Francisco Business Times reported on Nov 26 that the US government and the Federal Reserve is harboring a huge $8.5 trillion rescue plan, or about 60 percent of the country's GDP.

US President Barack Obama is expecting a record $1.75 trillion in federal fiscal deficit this year. The fiscal figure reached a high of $459 billion last year.

This year's deficit would account for 12.3 percent of the GDP, the highest since the World War II and far exceeding the recognized 3-percent alarm level.

In addition, Obama also foresaw an average $1 trillion in deficits each year for 2010 and 2011.

Many US experts said Obama's estimate was too optimistic [Agreed], and the actual deficit would be even bigger, as the president excluded the country's liabilities in his projection.

Where does the money come from? [Answer: “printing press”]

Who will be able to provide the financial support for the enormous fiscal deficit of the US government?

The US Treasury Department estimated the US government would issue up to $2.56 trillion of treasury bonds this year, and at least $1.14 trillion more next year. [It will be far more.]

By the end of last year, outstanding treasury bonds stood at $10.7 trillion. About 29 percent, or $2.862 trillion, is held by foreign governments or investors. That means the country's reliance on overseas investors holding treasury bonds has been raised by 10 percentage points from eight years ago.

"The world simply cannot buy any more new issuance of US treasury bonds," [Agreed] said Yu Zuyao, an honorary economist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), who used to head the CASS Institute of Economics.

Many countries have their own hands full, like the US, using their capital to counter the financial crisis, consolidate their financial system, and fuel their own stimulus packages to revive the real economy, even though they have some foreign exchange reserves in US dollars.

Thanks to trade surpluses, emerging economies hold a combined $5.5 trillion in forex reserves [more when sovereign wealth funds are added in], but most of the reserves have already been used to buy US treasury bonds, said Yoko Kitazawa, an expert on international affairs, in a February issue of Sekai (The World), a Japanese monthly journal.

However, trade surpluses of these regions and countries are eroding because of a collapse in global trade.

As a result, forex reserves of these regions and countries are expanding at a slower pace, or even declining. The latest forecast from the World Trade Organization said global trade may shrink by 9 percent, or more, this year.

As the largest holder of US treasury bonds and the world's second largest exporter, China had seen exports decline since November last year, with its actual use of foreign capital falling since October.

Media reports said China's forex reserves may have decreased by more than $30 billion in the first two months. China's forex reserves stood at about $1.95 trillion at the end of last year, the largest in the world.

The Xinhua-run newspaper Economic Information Daily reported this month China had liquidity of only $300 billion to $500 billion in forex reserves, citing a report from an unidentified ministry-level research institute.

Crowding out effect of US capital pool

Yang Bin, also a CASS economist, said the US was luring capital scattered all over the world to pool in the US by floating excessive treasury bonds, which could be a threat to developing countries which are crying out for capital. [The US treasury market is sucking the life out of the world economy. Capital needed to fund economic growth in developing countries is being used to bail out doomed US financial institutions via treasury sales. The sooner the treasury market and the dollar collapse, the sooner the world can begin to heal.]

Economic development in many developing countries is, to a large extent, counting on such an influx of overseas capital.

The US-based Institute for International Finance warned in January that capital flows into emerging markets are in danger of collapsing this year as a result of the financial crisis.

The association of large banks estimates that net private sector capital flows to emerging markets will be no more than $165 billion this year, which is less than half of $466 billion in 2008 and only a fifth of $930 billion in 2007.

The crisis and a global economic recession are also aggravating the world poverty. The United Nations said in a report published this month that reduced growth this year would lead to a total income loss of around $18 billion ($46 per person) for 390 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa living in extreme poverty.

The projected loss represents 20 percent of the per capita income of the poor in Africa, far exceeding the losses of developed nations.

The majority of low-income nations, or 43 out of 48, are incapable of providing a government stimulus for the poor, according to the report.

In addition, the excessive US treasury bonds, its enormous fiscal deficit, and issuance of the dollar that far exceeds the demand of the economy would drive the world nearer to inflation and a depreciating US dollar. This could be another heavy blow to the world economy in a downturn and to developing countries in particular.

Worries over dollar-denominated assets

"The immense 'US treasury bonds bubble' has not only badly weakened new demand among investors, but also put foreign investors in danger of seeing their dollar-denominated assets shrink in value," [Agreed] said Yu.

The US Treasury Department said the US government bonds held by foreign countries were down by $4.7 billion at the end of January from a month ago.

This is the first time for other countries to sell US treasury bonds since March 2007.

China's purchase of US treasury bonds decelerated. The country purchased $12.2 billion in treasury bonds in January, the smallest monthly increase since the second half of last year.

Capital is fleeing the US in January, foreign investors sold $43 billion of long-term US bonds, compared with an inflow of $34.7 billion into the country.

The US is facing a capital account deficit of $148.9 billion, if short-term bonds are included, as foreign governments and institutions became reluctant to buy more US bonds. The deficit compares to $609.9 billion in surplus for the whole of 2008.

Returns on US government bonds will be down by 2.69 percent in 2009, according to the Caijing Magazine, citing a treasury bonds index of Lehman Brothers. In 2008, returns on US government bonds were almost 14 percent.

China held US treasury bonds worth $740 billion by the end of January, about 7 percent of the total of US government bonds. In all, the country holds $1.2 trillion of dollar-denominated assets, including institutional bonds and equity investment as well.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on March 13 expressed worries over the safety of these assets and called on the US to keep to its commitments and ensure the safety of such assets.

More than a week ago, however, US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, dubbed "Helicopter Ben" for his speech about using a "helicopter drop" of money into the economy to fight deflation, actualized his threat to print more greenbacks.

He said on March 18 the Fed would purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months, along with an additional $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

It is the first time since World War II that the Fed has bought long-term government bonds.

The Fed's decision to print more money to finance the purchase immediately led the greenback to fall against all other major currencies.

The San Francisco Business Times reported the Fed's printing press is financing about two thirds, or $5.5 trillion, of the $8.5 trillion of the US rescue money. The Fed needs no approval from the Congress to start the printing press.

Analysts said the Fed is left with no other option but to print, with the key interest rate staying at a record low of zero to 0.25 percent.

"The US is indeed capable of paying off its government bonds, but, what is the real value of bunches of dollars by the time the bonds are due," said Yang.

In a move to dispel concerns over the US extravagance in spending, the Obama administration said it aimed to halve the country's fiscal deficit to $533 billion in 2013. The goal is based, however, on optimistic estimation of a strong rebound in the US economy.

"People have every reason to doubt whether this could be possible," Yang said.

Over the next 10 years, the federal fiscal deficit is bound to swell as the government will have to address the structural problems of the US social insurance and medical insurance plans.

US economists believe that a ballooning deficit would be inevitable, regardless of the status of the US economy.

Finding a way out

China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan last week suggested the creation of a super-sovereign reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, to avoid inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.

The repeated and escalating financial crisis since the collapse in 1971 of the Bretton Woods system showed the whole world may be paying more than what it gained from the current currency system, he wrote in an article.

As the world's reserve currency, about two thirds of the international trade and financial transactions are priced and settled in the US dollar. [That is a disaster waiting to happen.]

At the core of the ongoing financial crisis that started in the US are the fundamental flaws of the US economic systems and the neo-liberal economic policies of US that led to tremendous trade deficit, fiscal deficit and personal credit deficit, Yu Zuyao said.

"It is not in the least a problem in US financial regulation," Yu said. "What is needed is to overhaul the US neo-liberalist system, reform the current international financial system and restore the world's economic order, otherwise, such crises will be repeated." [Agreed]

A currency is intended to serve the economy; however, Wall Street took the lead in creating a currency-focused economy that is parallel to the real economy.

The market value of US financial assets is $40 trillion to $50 trillion, but market capital has been indulged to operate in away that makes financial derivative products spiral up to more than $600 trillion in value, about 50 times the 2007 US GDP.

More than 97.5 percent of the world's capital in circulation is speculative capital and only 2.5 percent is enough to meet the demand of the real economy, said Yoko Kitazawa.

In the meantime, the US has long been a supreme power in the world.

The US-led developed countries are actually receiving $3.5 from developing countries for every dollar in aid that goes to the developing countries, Yoko Kitazawa said.

Paradoxically, as the world's largest debtor with more than 20 years of consecutive years of trade deficit, the US is witnessing, at the same time, a surplus in capital account and in capital inflows. This is a testimony to the unfairness in the international financial system and the global economic order.

"It's time to have the resolution to change it," Yang said. "It is what the financial and economic crisis has told us."

"Our fractional reserve financial system is just a gigantic Ponzi scheme. It can only survive as long as it expands, which is to say, as long as new debt is flushed through the system to finance old debt. But like all Ponzi schemes, the larger it grows the more unstable it becomes. Eventually, it collapses of its own weight." … James Sinclair.

Five major trading cities have got the nod from the central government to use the yuan in overseas trade settlement -- seen as one more step in China's recent moves to expand the use of its currency globally.

Shanghai and four cities in the Pearl River Delta -- Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Zhuhai -- have been designated for the purpose, said a State Council meeting chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao yesterday. The Pearl River Delta boasts the country's largest cluster of export-oriented manufacturing operations.

The move is aimed at reducing the risk from exchange rate fluctuations and giving impetus to declining overseas trade, according to a statement posted on the government website.

Analysts said the experimental use of the yuan in trade settlement also reflects policymakers' rising concern over the shaky prospects of the US currency, of which China has large reserves from previous trade growth, and their willingness to gradually expand the yuan's use globally.

"The trial is the latest move toward making the yuan an international currency," Huang Weiping, professor of economics at Renmin University of China, said. "The prospect of a weaker US dollar is making the transition more imperative for China."

The mainland is trying to promote the use of the yuan among trade partners and, in the past four months, has signed 650 billion yuan ($95 billion) worth of swap agreements with Argentina, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Belarus, and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The agreements allow them to use their yuan reserves to directly trade with the Chinese mainland within a set limit in volume.

Stephen Green, head of China Research of Standard Chartered Bank, said the swap deals would help encourage the use of the yuan as the currency of choice for international trade.

"In the longer term, if countries around the region and beyond start pricing their trade in yuan, this will also lead to increased internationalization and status for China's currency," Green said.

China now uses the US dollar to settle most of its international trade but the drastic swings in the greenback have become a risk for Chinese exporters in recent years.

Dong Xian'an, economist with China Southwest Securities, said: "For many exporters, the dollar's fluctuation is a serious concern. The ability to settle trade in the yuan would reduce such risk," he said.

Chen Xianbin, chairman of Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group, told China Daily that his company lost more than 150 million yuan in the past three years from international trade due to the exchange rate changes between the yuan and the greenback. Chen's company, a ceramic tableware exporter, relies on Southeast Asian markets for 15 percent of total sales.

China's foreign trade has been on a continuous decline amid the current global financial crisis. Exports plunged 25.7 percent year on year in February, one of the sharpest falls ever, while imports dived 24.1 percent.

Analysts said the US Federal Reserve's decision to buy long-term Treasuries, which means printing new money, may also lead to a depreciation of the US dollar. That is also one reason for China to reduce the use of the dollar in trade so that the value of its $1.95 trillion foreign exchange reserves does not depreciate.

Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank governor, said last month that in the long run it may be ideal to replace the dollar with a new international reserve currency under the mechanism of the International Monetary Fund

Russia has become the first major country to call for a partial restoration of the gold standard to uphold discipline in the world financial system.

Arkady Dvorkevich, the Kremlin's chief economic adviser, said Russia would favour the inclusion of gold bullion in the basket-weighting of a new world currency based on Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.

Chinese and Russian leaders both plan to open debate on an SDR-based reserve currency as an alternative to the US dollar at the G20 summit in London this week, although the world may not yet be ready for such a radical proposal.

Mr Dvorkevich said it was "logical" that the new currency should include the rouble and the yuan, adding that "we could also think about more effective use of gold in this system."

The gold standard was the anchor of world finance in the 19th century but began breaking down during the First World War as governments engaged in unprecedented spending. It collapsed in the 1930s when the British Empire, the United States, and France all abandoned their parities.

It was revived as part of fixed-dollar system until US inflation caused by the Vietnam War and "Great Society" social spending forced President Richard Nixon to close the gold window in 1971.

The world's fiat paper currencies have lacked any external anchor ever since. It is widely argued that the financial excesses and extreme debt leverage of the last quarter century would have been impossible -- or less likely -- under the discipline of gold.

Russia is a major gold producer with large untapped reserves of ore, so it has a clear interest in promoting the idea. The Kremlin has already instructed the central bank to gradually raise the gold share of foreign reserves to 10 percent.

China's government has floated a variant of this idea, suggesting a currency based on 30 commodities along the lines of the "Bancor" proposed by John Maynard Keynes in 1944.

MOSCOW, March 28 (Reuters) - Russia supports expanding the IMF's Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to include the rouble, the yuan and gold, but sees no chance of the G20 Summit accepting a new reserve currency, a Kremlin aide said on Saturday, agencies reported.

"It would be logical for the set of currencies (that make up the SDR) to be expanded, and it could include other currencies, including the rouble, the yuan and perhaps others," state RIA news agency reported the Kremlin's senior economic aide Arkady Dvorkovich as saying.

China this week caused a stir ahead of the April 2 Group of 20 meeting of rich and emerging economies when it suggested the world move towards greater use of the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights, created by the IMF in 1969 as an international reserve asset.

G20 leaders have made clear that for now the dollar's status as the dominant reserve unit remains, but the idea of creating a new reserve currency system based on SDRs has not entirely been knocked down.

Dvorkovich said he sees no chance of the G20 accepting a new reserve currency next month, but his comments suggest the issue will be in the spotlight at the meeting, where world leaders will discuss ways to combat the global economic crisis.

"We could also think about more effective use of gold and gold and forex reserves in this system," Dvorkovich said, RIA reported. For its part, he added, Russia would support the broad use of the rouble and the yuan as reserve currencies, Itar-Tass reported.

(Reuters)In remarks on the People's Bank of China website yesterday (23-Mar in China), governor Zhou Xiaochuan outlines how the IMF's special drawing rights could become the world's main reserve currency. Citing "institutional flaws" with the current system, the comments do not explicitly mention the US dollar, which would be replaced. Zhou says global liquidity would be enhanced by not having a country's currency as the yardstick for global trade.

Bullionmark comment:
Momentum is accelerating. The G20 meeting in London April 2nd is likely to be the tipping point where China and Russia finally hold the US to account over the US dollar reserve currency status. Don't expect the US to give this up without a fight. Lets hope the tensions remain economic and don't deteriorate into military conflict. Remember as the reserve currency of the world and with no gold backing the US Treasury and Fed can essentially print all the money they want (and havent Tim and Ben done this so well recently. This is exit strategy for the US from its current woes. The next few months promise to be the most interesting in currency markets since Nixon removed the dollar and gold link in 1971, maybe even the original Bretton Woods in 1944. Stay tuned.

Got gold

from Jesse's Cafe Americain

To net today's FOMC statement for you, the Fed today made an aggressive commitment to monetary expansion today in the expansion of its balance sheet to support the financial system.What was particularly repugnant was the co-ordinated actions in the market ahead of this announcement. This included a major bear raid on the precious metals, and the panic-covering of the financial shares before the official announcement. The cure of the crisis ought not to be an occasion for looting, fraud, deception, and personal enrichments by insiders who in many cases caused the problems which are facing today.The US government is engaging in the same artificial tactics that lead to the tech bubble and the housing bubble. They are artificial because they are not accompanied by systemic change and meaningful reform. We are shooting the patient with morphine so they can go back to work without treating the disease.The next phase of this financial credit crisis may be take down the US Bond and the dollar. That is what is known as a financial heart attack.

Release Date: March 18, 2009FOMC Statement

For immediate release Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in January indicates that the economy continues to contract.Job losses, declining equity and housing wealth, and tight credit conditions have weighed on consumer sentiment and spending. Weaker sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories and fixed investment. U.S. exports have slumped as a number of major trading partners have also fallen into recession.Although the near-term economic outlook is weak, the Committee anticipates that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, together with fiscal and monetary stimulus, will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth.In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability.The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and anticipates that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housingmarkets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of thesesecurities to up to $1.25 trillion this year, and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion.Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.The Federal Reserve has launched the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses and anticipates that the range of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded to include other financial assets. The Committee will continue to carefully monitor the size and composition of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet in light of evolving financial and economic developments

The rumblings for change are growing growing louder...........

from the Moscow Times

The Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.

The International Monetary Fund should investigate the possible creation of a new reserve currency, widening the list of reserve currencies or using its already existing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, as a "superreserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community," the Kremlin said in a statement issued on its web site.

The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries.

The Kremlin has persistently criticized the dollar's status as the dominant global reserve currency and has lowered its own dollar holdings in the last few years. Both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have repeatedly called for the ruble to be used as a regional reserve currency, although the idea has received little support outside of Russia.

Analysts said the new Kremlin proposal would elicit little excitement among the G20 members.

"This is all in the realm of fantasy," said Sergei Perminov, chief strategist at Rye, Man and Gore. "There was a situation that resembled what they are talking about. It was called the gold standard, and it ended very badly.

"Alternatives to the dollar are still hard to find," he said.

The Kremlin's call for a common currency is not the first in recent days. Speaking at an economic conference in Astana, Kazakhstan, last week, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed a global currency called the "acmetal" -- a conflation of the words "acme" and "capital."

He also suggested that the Eurasian Economic Community, a loose group of five former Soviet republics including Kazakhstan and Russia, adopt a single noncash currency -- the yevraz -- to insulate itself from the global economic crisis.

The suggestions received a lukewarm response from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Saturday.

Nazarbayev's proposal did, however, garner support from at least one prominent source -- Columbia University professor Robert Mundell, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1999 for his role in creating the euro.

Speaking at the same conference with Nazarbayev, he said the idea had "great promise."

The Kremlin document also called for national banks and international financial institutions to diversify their foreign currency reserves. It said the global financial system should be restructured to prevent future crises and proposed holding an international conference after the G20 summit to adopt conventions on a new global financial structure.

The Group of 20 industrialized and developing countries will meet in London on April 2.

from MarketWatch

Gargantuan derivatives market weighs on all other issues

There's a $700 trillion elephant in the room and it's time we found out how much it really weighs on the economy.
Derivative contracts total about three-quarters of a quadrillion dollars in "notional" amounts, according to the Bank for International Settlements. These contracts are tallied in notional values because no one really can say how much they are worth.
But valuing them correctly is exactly what we should be doing because these comprise the viral disease that has infected the financial markets and the economies of the world.
Try as we might to salvage the residential real estate market, it's at best worth $23 trillion in the U.S. We're struggling to save the stock market, but that's valued at less than $15 trillion. And we hope to keep the entire U.S. economy from collapsing, yet gross domestic product stands at $14.2 trillion.
Compare any of these to the derivatives market and you can easily see that we are just closing the windows as a tsunami crashes to shore. The total value of all the stock markets in the world amounts to less than $50 trillion, according to the World Federation of Exchanges.
To be sure, the derivatives market is international. But much of the trouble we're in began with contracts "derived" from the values associated with U.S. residential real estate market. These contracts were engineered based on the various assumptions tied to those values.
Few know what derivatives are worth. I spoke with one derivatives trader who manages billions of dollars and she said she couldn't even value her portfolio because "no one knows anymore who is on the other side of the trade."
Derivatives pricing, simply put, is determined by what someone else is willing to pay for the contract. The value is based on an artificial scenario that "X" will be worth "Y" if "Z" happens. Strip away the fantasy, however, and the reality of the situation is akin to a game of musical chairs -- without any chairs.
So now the music has finally stopped.
That's why stabilizing the housing market will do little to take the sting out of the snapback we are going through on Wall Street. Once people's mortgages were sold off to secondary buyers, and then all sorts of crazy types of derivative securities were devised based on those, and those securities were in turn traded on down the line, there is now little if any relevance to the real estate values on which they were pegged.
We need to identify and determine the real value of derivatives before we give banks and institutions a pass-go with more tax dollars. Otherwise, homeowners will suffer as banks patch up the holes left in their balance sheets by the derivatives gone poof; new credit won't be extended until the raff of the old credit is put behind.
It isn't the housing market devaluation, or the sub-prime mortgage market defaults that have us in real trouble. Those are nice fakes to sway attention away from the place where greed truly flourished -- trading phony instruments to the tune of $700 trillion.
Let's figure how to get out from under that. Then maybe the capital will begin to flow again through the markets. Right now, this elephant isn't just in the room, it's sitting on us.

by Axel Merk

With gold reaching $1,000 an ounce and posting new highs versus all currencies, are there any hard currencies left? Over the past 100 years, we have moved further and further away from the gold standard. We see no indication for that trend to reverse; if anything, it may accelerate. As a result, we have cautioned long before this credit crisis erupted that there is no such thing as a safe asset anymore; investors may want to take a diversified approach to something as mundane as cash. This lack of confidence in cash goes beyond “cash equivalents” such as money market funds, commercial paper, auction rate securities, to currencies themselves. We all rely on cash for liquidity, but are concerned about purchasing power. While we are told that equities outperform in the long run, the deflationary forces in the equity markets, and the threat of a depression, has many looking for ways to avoid systemic risk affecting equity markets. While there are deflationary forces, there is also the threat of inflation because of the governments’ efforts to restart the economy; as a result, investors do not want interest and credit risk, either. Is physical gold the only answer? Possibly, but even the staunchest gold bugs rarely ever invest all their net worth in gold, if for no other reason than it is impractical. The principal motivation to invest in other currencies is to diversify based on concerns that the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power may not hold up and that – on a relative basis – it may hold up better in other currencies. We have long promoted baskets of currencies to mitigate the risks associated with the policies of any one country’s monetary policies. This analysis is intended as an overview of where we believe currencies stand.



This analysis is one in a series; today, we focus on the U.S. dollar and the euro.



The U.S. dollar



We are rather concerned about the U.S. dollar. Because it has been in the interest of other countries to have a strong dollar to export to U.S. consumers, the U.S. has gotten away with policies that – in our assessment – would have been detrimental had the U.S. not enjoyed its safe haven status. But the status as a reserve currency has to be earned on an ongoing basis – at some point, the abuse may come back to haunt the U.S.; some say that they will take action only if and when the dollar falls sharply. We would like to remind everyone that gold has quadrupled from a low of $250 to now around $1000. Further, the dollar nearly halved between October 2000 and the spring of 2007 versus the euro; it has since rebounded a bit, but make no mistake about it: the U.S. dollar has been in a long-term downward trend.



In making investment decisions, we take into account risk based scenarios. We do not know whether policy makers will come to their senses or whether they will continue to pursue policies to the potential detriment of the U.S. dollar. But if investors believe that there is a risk that policy makers will continue to make bad decisions, then investors may want to take that into account in their portfolio allocation.



A key concern we have is that inflation may become embedded long-term into the U.S. dollar. For now long-term inflation expectations influence the way the Federal Reserve (Fed) monitors them – the spread between 10-year inflation protected securities (TIPS) and 10-year government bonds – are low. In our humble opinion, that’s not good enough. Specifically, look ahead at the exit-strategy for the current monetary and fiscal stimuli. Fed Chairman Bernanke, in a speech on February 18, 2009, tried to persuade the public that the Fed can mop up all the liquidity fairly easily: the Fed would simply let many short-term programs expire. That may well be the case with short-term funding facilities. But that is not the case, for example, with the $500 billion program to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) before the middle of the year, a program that may be expanded. In our view, it will simply be impossible to sell these securities back to the market. The Fed’s balance sheet before the credit crisis hovered around $800 billion. Adding $500 billion permanently is inflationary unless the Fed somehow “sterilizes” it; quite possibly, the Fed’s recent interest to issue its own debt may serve this purpose (the Fed would be competing with the Treasury if it were to issue its own debt). More importantly, however, the policies we have seen encourage maintaining high levels of consumer debt. Unless we have a surge in real wages, consumers will remain extremely fragile even as the economy shows signs of improving. While we believe that both fiscal and monetary stimuli are rather ineffective, at some point, some of the money will stick. The Fed says it knows how to fight inflation. We don’t believe so: in our view, there is no way that policy makers will be willing to raise interest rates like Volcker did in the early 80’s to weed out inflation – it would cause a collapse of economic activity, if not a revolution. At “best”, the Fed will start to tighten when inflation starts to show in the statistics they follow, but may have to revert course right away as economic activity falters as a result.



In the same speech, Bernanke also said that the Fed’s activities do not add to the budget deficit. That’s why Congress loves the Fed – the Fed can print money that is off balance sheet. However, as the Fed veers closer into fiscal policy by providing not just money to the banking system as a whole, but to specific industries and companies, the love affair with Congress may end. We believe the Fed underestimates the political fallout that will result from all the policies pursued; ultimately, the credibility and with it the effectiveness of the Fed may suffer. This credibility is not bolstered by Bernanke’s comment that Congress will benefit from the Fed’s activities as the Fed starts to pay taxable interest on deposits held by banks with the Fed. This sort of comment shows the audacity of the Fed – John Law could not have made a better sales pitch as the interest the Fed is referring to is printed by the Fed at will. The “benefit” to Congress will be dubious at best.



The Fed has been actively engaged in the purchase of agency securities, those of Fannie and Freddie. In doing so, many have praised how the cost of mortgages has come down. However, the flip side is what has us concerned: in buying agency securities, the Fed drives up their prices (lowers the yields). What rational market participant would want to buy securities that are intentionally overpriced? This is relevant to the dollar as foreigners, in particular the Chinese, are the traditional buyers of these securities. As these securities are now labeled “overpriced”, we fear that foreign buyers may abstain. Last summer the Treasury had to provide an explicit government guarantee to Fannie and Freddie as foreign buying of these securities vanished. Zooming in on China: the Chinese may now be discouraged from buying U.S. agency securities; they may need to deploy their reserves at home for their domestic stimulus package; on top of that, they get insulted by the new administration. It seems like a real possibility to us that at least on the margin, the Chinese may buy less U.S. debt, just as the need to raise money for the U.S. government explodes. We don’t need foreigners to sell the dollar for the dollar to be under pressure: because of the current account deficit, foreigners need to buy over $2 billion dollars every single day, just to keep the dollar from falling. By the way, contrast that with the comments by Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, who says he wants to use his country’s reserves to buy U.S. and European technology while downplaying efforts to convert some of their reserves to U.S. dollars. The Chinese have no interest in a plunging dollar and work hard to be constructive in the public policy debate; as we elaborate more below, the Chinese may be the most prudent in the world right now – that in itself should give everyone pause to think .



Should protectionist sentiment flare up further, countries with current account deficits are most vulnerable. Trade barriers punish those who have adjusted to the world we live in. In recent years, when trade barriers have been discussed, the dollar has generally suffered; that’s because we are dependent on foreigners buying U.S. dollar. If there is less trade, there are fewer dollars to be reinvested in the U.S.



So far, the types of protectionist activities we have seen are unconventional, let’s call them “stealth protectionism”, and have actually favored the dollar. Specifically, the expanded guarantees on bank deposits have drawn money away from weaker countries, specifically from Eastern Europe and some Latin American and Asian countries, to the U.S. and the eurozone. Separately, the enormous amount of debt the U.S. government needs to raise this year is a form of protectionism: as over $2 trillion is likely to be raised, this is money not available to the corporate sector or weaker sovereign countries. At home, even if there were a magic wand to cure the ills of the banking system, the clients of financial institutions – corporations and sovereign countries – will continue to pay a high price to access the credit markets; in this environment, economic growth is likely to continue to lag behind expectations. Internationally, however, weaker countries will see the pain in their reduced ability to raise money; we see this already in the downgrades of sovereign debt of Spain and Greece; we see it in Eastern Europe; it is also possible to see both higher borrowing costs and a weaker currency as foreign appetite to provide funding is lackluster – one need to look no further than the U.K. In this environment, protectionist measures will be called upon to counter the stealth-protectionism pursued.

The potentially most serious threat to the dollar: the Fed. In our view, the Fed wants to have a substantially weaker dollar. Bernanke has repeatedly praised Roosevelt for devaluing the dollar during the Great Depression by taking the U.S. off the gold standard. Bernanke argues that the countries that came off the gold standard had more rapid growth recovery. Bernanke is right, naturally so: when your savings lose their purchasing power, you have a greater incentive to work. There are those, however, that don’t love work so much that they would be willing to give up a good portion of their purchasing power for the incentive to work harder. A Fed that doesn’t like home prices to fall because of the fallout of having too many homeowners “upside down” in their mortgages, prefers to have the overall price level rise so that the relative prices of homes aren’t as overvalued anymore. In our view, the Fed wants to have inflation. The purchase of agency securities and the potential increase in purchases of Treasury Bonds speaks for itself. We are concerned that the Fed may be getting more than it is bargaining for, especially since we believe the exit strategy for this risqué approach is doubtful.



The rally in the dollar we saw in the second half of 2008 was reflected in a surge of buying interest in U.S. Treasury Bills. Typically when a currency rises, inflows from abroad are deployed throughout the economy, not just short-term Treasury securities. As the panic abates, we fear that some of this money will flow out of the country again, putting renewed downward pressure on the dollar.



The Euro



Everyone loves to hate the euro these days. We are not as negative about the euro, mostly because the European Central Bank (ECB) for years has shown more restraint. As a result, the bulk of European consumers are in far better shape than their American counterparts. When European consumers were told there would not be money for their retirement, they stopped spending earlier this decade; in contrast, American consumers racked up their credit cards.



Conventional wisdom says one needs growth to have a flourishing currency. True, growth helps, but it is countries with significant current account deficits that require growth to sustain their currencies. The eurozone has a rather small current account deficit – the area’s “worst” deficit of 2008 was still smaller than a single month’s deficit in the U.S. Think about what Bernanke says about countries that went off the gold standard during the Great Depression and devalued their currencies: those who did not devalue recovered more slowly, but had stronger currencies. Indeed, we believe the eurozone is likely to have a rather painful recession; if the U.S. and Asia manage to reflate the world economy, the eurozone may experience a bout of stagflation. However, we believe the euro will be surprisingly strong in this context.



There are both fiscal and monetary reasons why we like the euro more than others. At the peak of the financial crisis in the fall of 2007, Europe (first the UK, then the eurozone) was faster than the U.S. in guaranteeing the banking system. In the meantime, the world has shown that a disorderly collapse of the financial system will be avoided at just about any cost. The next phase should be to allow an orderly adjustment to weed out the excesses of the boom. However, most policy makers around the world are not willing to let the markets adjust; instead, there is a drive to re-inflate the system. In our view, the U.S. will be far more “efficient” at this process than the eurozone. In 2009, the debt to GDP ratio may go as high as 18 percent in the U.S. In contrast, the eurozone growth and stability pact requires that this ratio not exceed 3 percent of GDP. Granted, that pact has more holes than Swiss cheese and member states may deviate from this goal for just about any “emergency” as long as they pledge to revert to the 3 percent ceiling in reasonable time; however, we believe the bureaucratic structures of Europe will prevent the eurozone from being as forceful with its stimulus as the U.S. As a result, growth may lag in the eurozone, but the currency may be stronger as fewer long-term inflationary seeds are planted.



On the monetary side, we also see far more restraint. Trichet, the head of the ECB, has repeatedly expressed his dislike for a zero percent interest rate policy. He seems more concerned about the downside risks of such a policy than its advantages. Instead, the ECB has opted to provide almost unlimited liquidity to financial institutions. Eventually, this may allow zombie (technically insolvent) banks to survive, but it will avoid the inflationary or even hyperinflationary risks that the U.S. approach may be risking.



The ECB has for years been reluctant to join the U.S. and Asian growth frenzy; one can of course argue that this hasn’t helped the eurozone much as they now also suffer in the downturn. However, the ECB policies make European consumers in particular more shock resistant; there will be suffering, but that is nothing new to European consumers. Retail stores in Germany, for example, had an extremely tough couple of years before the credit bubble burst. Even Wal-Mart withdrew from Germany as margins were too thin to compete with domestic discounters.



ECB president Trichet is the only central banker governing a major currency we are aware of that believes money supply plays a role – all other central bankers have joined the academic bandwagon that money supply is irrelevant as long as “inflation expectations are firmly anchored”.



All the prudence at the ECB hasn’t stopped European financial institutions from leveraging up their balance sheets with toxic assets. The motto in Europe has been to copy any idea Goldman Sachs has, but being late to the party, they engaged in greater leverage when pursuing them. A lack of understanding of the instruments purchased was, and in some cases still is, prevailing at many institutions. Whereas in the U.S., money to support the banks can simply be printed, the structure in the eurozone requires that member states – or in some cases regional governments – must finance any bailouts. As a result, the fear that some institutions may be “too big to bail” has spread. Rather than injecting capital, European governments have favored to a “ring fence” approach where the debt of institutions is guaranteed, thereby avoiding the deployment of cash until it is called upon.



While European financial institutions loved all that are now considered toxic securities, they have been suspicious of the U.S. dollar for some time. As a result, many institutions hedged their dollar exposure. Ironically as the value of the toxic securities plunged, the hedging position was still based on the full value of the securities. That meant that those institutions had to buy dollars in 2008 to bring the value of their hedging positions in line with the value of the securities. A good portion of the dollar rally in 2008 may have been attributed to this alignment.



There have been calls to create European bonds, i.e. bonds issued by the European Union rather than member states to address this issue. Currently, when we, or anyone, buy European sovereign debt, one buys, say, German or French government bonds. If the euro were really to break up, one would still be left with the bonds issued by the respective governments and they would revert to, for example, Deutsche mark or French franc bonds. However, the current proposals provide for bonds guaranteed by the member states. Unfortunately that seems too much like a structured product to help the weaker member states Greece and Spain; we don’t think there is a market for such a product at this stage. If one wants to pursue this route, a true European bond issued by an EU Treasury with independent taxing authority would be needed; then, if a member state were to break away or default, the debt would truly be EU debt and not shaken by turmoil in any one country. Having said that, adding another layer of taxation in Europe is the last most want to see. While the idea may work on paper, it may easily create another runaway bureaucracy in the long run. Europeans are also deeply suspicious of whether providing such power could lead to excessive spending.



We don’t think the euro is at the risk of a breakup because a breakup would be far too expensive for all involved; the pain of staying together is the lesser evil. This doesn’t mean that a member state couldn't break out of the eurozone in a bad case scenario, but the euro itself, in our view, is here to stay. In our view, widening risk spreads in different eurozone countries should be embraced, not fought. Member states with fiscally sustainable policies should be rewarded by the markets through lower interest rates; those who promise too much to their pensioners or make too many concessions to unions should pay the price through a higher cost of financing. In the U.S., different states also have varying costs of financing, something to be embraced rather than shunned.



Earlier, we mentioned the stealth protectionism the U.S. and Europe has engaged in by guaranteeing their banking systems. These guarantees have now come back to haunt those institutions that have heavily invested in Eastern Europe. Austrian banks in particular, but also banks in other European states, have bought many Eastern European banks or extended loans to Eastern Europe. The trouble is that Eastern European homeowners and many businesses have been lured by low interest rates available in Europe, particularly Switzerland, taking out loans denominated in Swiss francs or euro. The banking guarantees provided in the eurozone exacerbated a flight of money from Eastern Europe to the eurozone, thereby placing downward pressure on Eastern European currencies. That is a major problem for those who borrowed heavily in euro or Swiss franc as the value of the collateral in local currency has diminished.



In our view, European governments will ultimately provide support to their financial institutions exposed to Eastern Europe. Moreover, after the typical grudging discussions taking place in Europe, support may likely also be provided to Eastern Europe itself. Much of the industry in the European Union has focused on building the infrastructure in Eastern Europe. It may be cheaper for the European Union to subsidize its customer, Eastern Europe, than to allow market forces to cause massive failures. This is not a judgment of whether this is desirable or not from a free market perspective, but our assessment of how the politics will play out.



Note that while it may be cheaper for the European Union to bail out Eastern Europe, the same cannot be said for China; for China, it will be cheaper to stimulate its domestic economy than to prop up U.S. consumer spending through cheap exports.