Posted on 11/02/2009 8:14:07 PM PST by blam
The Government Will Default On Its Debts
Economics / Great Depression II
Nov 02, 2009 - 08:01 AM
By: Gary_North
The governments of every major nation are going to default on their debts. There are two relevant questions: (1) How? (2) When?
Establishments around the world all deny this. They have gained power and wealth by means of the expansion of government. They have justified their success by insisting that the government-business alliance is the only way to establish economic growth and economic security for the masses. This claim rests on a more fundamental claim, namely, that an unhampered free market is destructive of economic stability and will inevitably lead to economic depression.
The Establishments are universally Keynesian. John Maynard Keynes' book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, was published in 1936. It defended in theory what all Western governments had been doing in practice for at least five years, namely, running huge deficits. Keynes became as close to an academic high priest as any modern scholar ever has. He was the apostle of national government debt. His ideas today are more influential than they were at his death in 1946. We live in the age of Keynes.
I can think of only one major Establishment figure who has broken with the Establishment on the question of the great default: Peter G. Peterson, who was the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations until 2007. He now runs the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which focuses on the looming bankruptcy of the U.S. government. More than any other person of influence, he has warned of the bankruptcy of the Medicare/Social Security programs and their equivalents in the West.
Peterson a decade ago said that he had spoken with the major leaders of the West about the impossibility of funding these social programs. They all told him the same thing: "I will not be around at that time." In short, kick the can.
[snip]
And through it all, Pelosi will keep smiling—like the Joker.
what will happen if the world gov’ts default? I am a beginner at the high level financial stuff.
We were bankrupt long ago. Those that got us in this situation should be held for treason and strung up.
Easy.
We go to war. All out war. Then there afterward the spoils are divided among the victors, and then we start to recover. Worse case scenario mind you.
They have their safe havens somewhere. They are like the Nazis with their escape plans.
Haven’t trusted Gary North since Y2K.
“We were bankrupt long ago. Those that got us in this situation should be held for treason and strung up.”
- Well that would be Pelosi, Reid and Obama as the main catalysts which sped up this destructive reaction.
As for long ago, well I would pin that one on Carter. And to a lesser extent, Clinton and Barney Frank.
Funny how they all seem to be Democrats, eh?
Gah..is he still around?? Memo to me: read the author before the article.
And like the Nazis, they can run but they can't hide.
We are in the midst of that war already. It is a moral war, the death is that of those not born — I do not mean abortions, although abortions are part of it — I mean those families that never form and never fully form — the West has reached what seems a dead end.
A war of killing seems unnecessary. Why would there be one?
From the article:
The voters never learn. Congress never learns.
The coin of the political realm is the promise. Not money, not power: the promise. Politics sometimes looks like prostitution, with money at the center. This is an illusion. The voters do not come to Congress demanding money. They demand faithfulness. Congress is to the voters what a philanderer is to a mistress. He may shower her with presents, but the presents have meaning to her only because of the promise. "I plan to divorce my wife. It's just a matter of working out the details." She likes the presents, but she believes the promise: "You can trust me. We'll grow old together." She thinks the presents are forever.
He borrows the money to buy her the presents. When interest rates rise, she will find out just how reliable his promises have been.
This is the heart of modern democracy. Politicians promise undying faithfulness. Voters believe them.
So whose fault is it? Have we learned the lesson this time or should we do it again?,p>
*A war of killing seems unnecessary. Why would there be one?*
Was it necessary in 1914?
Was it necessary in 1939?
Whatever reasons one can ponder will be supplied. Just like the West strung Hitler along, so too do we string along the Muslims. After the nuclear Pearl Harbor, we’ll tear down and rebuilt the world order.
Later, rinse, repeat.
Wars cost money, lots of money. Not disputing your point, just ask yourself how it’s going to be funded.
Gary North? Nope. Pass.
Yep..That's how it's been for thousands of years. Nothing has changed. Get ready. It won't be pretty.
The US War against Islam seems more to parallel the War against the Indians — I’m not the first to notice that, Bibi Netanyahu’s Dad seems to have remarked on it.
Islam can’t raise armies in our era. Terror forces, not armies.
If and when China invades and wins against Viet Nam, I might reconsider.
I won’t participate. To hell with them.
Because EVIL is alive and well.
Past events tell us that when the currency fails nobody wants it any more if there is a better alternative. If you look at the 3rd world, when their local currencies are driven into the ground sellers want something else - US dollars currently, or Euros, or anything else that still has value. If the foreign currency is not available then barter becomes popular: "you give me one chicken and I will give you two tin pots."
This scenario will be probably applicable in case of global financial troubles. If leading world currencies are no longer accepted by sellers (due, for example, to abuse they suffer by reckless printing of money) then sellers won't take your dollars in exchange for their perfectly good oil, ore, products and services.
If we live to see that, then barter is practically the only answer. There is not enough physical gold on the planet to service the global trade. Then if the USA wants to buy a batch of tin pots from China, the seller will want in return also something tangible, something that has a reasonably stable value - like aluminum pots, or raw copper. If the USA doesn't have that, or anything else, then there is no sale. China will keep the products, and the US consumer will have to make his own pot, or repair an old one.
Barter will be undeniably bad for all developed nations because those nations largely export intangible things - promises, financial services, intellectual property. These products will be greatly devalued because, literally, you can't eat them, and only things that can be measured, counted and used will be accepted for barter. Those subprime real estate mortgages are a good example of promises; they were valued at $100 one day and as $0.01 another day - that's why they are worthless as money. A ton of nickel ore, on the other hand, is still as valuable today as a year ago; perhaps today it costs even more because natural resources are finite.
To summarize, if the global financial crash happens then the USA, as well as every other country on the planet, will have to go back to basics and start to produce stuff that other people want. Products of agriculture probably would be on top of that list, considering the climate. Industry, on the other hand, is probably beyond saving - do we even have technologists still alive who know how to build factories? Recent university graduates probably haven't even seen a modern electronic manufacturing plant unless they visited Asia.
save
This is just as I thought.
The whole government take over of health care is nothing but a desperate scam to steal our money via mandatory health insurance ... a tax hidden in plain sight. Therefore they can kill medicare and ration the hell out of your families health care.
Their may be inflation coming with the printing presses running full speed, but I doubt it will become hyperinflation. Obama and the RATS are lining their cronies pockets with this cash before TSHTF.
Say hello to the greatest depression in the worlds history.
War is, indeed the worst case solution and it is the normal course of events when the major countries hyperinflate.
Hardly catalysts- they are prime movers, not passive facilitators of reactions.
If it comes to that, to currencies being valueless, then the value of gold will increase to cover transactions. Its value will increase to cover all remaining transactions that are not handled with pure barter or silver.
The Indians [feathers, not dots I assume] never had the potential to destroy a good portion of a city in one second. Islamaniacs, could, conceivably destroy the West in one well-planned series of simultaneous attacks that could cripple our financial way of life and then just see the rest crumble in the aftermath.
You mean to say the Iranians don’t have an army? Not their own? Not Hizballah?
Yep.
Nor myself. Truth be told I went for that Hook line and sinker.
That's the whole idea.
Our current economic problems are caused by the multi-national banks pulling credit.
This has lead to massive credit destruction taking place all around the industrialized world.
The United States is mired in a deflationary spiral. The Federal government is frantically trying to create new debt - at whatever cost - to equalize the debt destruction.
War is a fantastic way to create new debt. It is one of the few things that creates new debt fast enough to squash the deflationary debt destruction.
Plus, large wars typically have the "patriotic" backing of the public - making it easier for the government to pass new debt legislation.
We're used to thinking of debt destruction as a good thing.
Actually, debt destruction in our type of economy is horrendously bad. Our entire economic structure is built upon debt. That's what the bankers have done to us.
No.
It's what happens when major countries are caught in a deflation trap.
This causes them to have to create new debt as fast as possible. Large wars are a great way to do that.
The man is simply lying.
No further comment is necessary.
BINGO!!!
The whole health care fiasco is COMPLETELY about the Federal government STEALING 18% of our economy to put into a new government "trust fund" - so that they can steal the money not used for current year fiscal outlays and use it to keep the economic charade going a bit longer.
This was the sole purpose of Social Security, but the Federal government has now bled that dry. Social Security's fiscal year outlays are now larger than the annual Social Security contributions. The Federal Government needs a new source of money to steal from.
There have been inflations - not "hyper", but doublings of the price level in a short span of a few years - caused by wars. But not the other way around. Ever.
But I bet you didn’t make a cottage industry out of it.
Completely, utterly, untrue. Commodities have wild price swings!
INDEX NAME VALUE CHANGE OPEN HIGH LOW TIME
(red) UBS BLOOMBERG CMCI 1247.04 16.95 1232.60 1245.32 1228.64 11/02
(orange) S&P GSCI 503.63 6.82 500.33 505.15 495.90 11/02
(green) RJ/CRB Commodity 273.50 3.12 272.29 273.67 270.38 11/02
(blue) Rogers Intl 3159.00 -5.16 3160.04 3160.06 3158.43 02:40
This goof made his money selling Endudda World Y2K BS. I pay him no mind.
“This goof made his money selling Endudda World Y2K BS. I pay him no mind.”
Actually, he made his money buying (and recommending to his newsletter audience that they buy) area cell phone rights back when the government auctioned off local cell-earmarked bandwidth to the highest bidder. Those who followed his advice made considerable fortunes, as he did.
He (appropriately) suffered a huge loss of credibility over his wrong call on Y2K. His taxonomy of official default scenarios is nevertheless worth digesting. He’s a better historian than prognosticator. The basic advantage that the governments and their “independedent” (snicker) central banks have over Bernie Madoff is that they can transform their IOU’s into money (for a while, a long while as it turns out). As Madoff proved even without the ability to monetize his IOU’s, it is possible to run a financial scam for many decades. Discount North all you like, but keep in mind that since its founding in 1913, the value of the Federal Reserve Note has plummeted by over 95%.
As I said, North is a better historian than prognosticator. He offers several historically plausible scenarios for governments to follow as they stiff their creditors, and offers his guess as to which scenario will emerge in the US (without being so cock-sure about it as he was about Y2K). So, he has learned something from his misfortune. Perhaps you can too.
NORTH’s DEFAULT TAXONOMY
Default has four major forms. We need to consider all of them.
1. OUTRIGHT DEFAULT
This scenario assumes that the central bank refuses to buy the government’s debt. This has not happened since 1694.
At some point, the government will not be able to find buyers at low interest rates. Rates will rise. The economy will sink into a depression. Revenues will decline. Expenditures will rise. The government will not be able to pay all of its obligations. So, it will raise taxes. The depression will get worse. Revenues will again fall.
Investors will know that the government is likely to default. No credit-rating service will have the courage to downgrade the government’s debt, but rates will rise as if they had. The government will reach the day of reckoning. It will default on all of its debts.
Every institution that has government debt in its portfolio will suffer a loss. Its share price will fall. The depression will get worse. Insurance companies will be hit hard. The largest banks, which swapped their toxic debt with the FED at face value in late 2008 will find that they own the most toxic debt of all.
Foreign central banks will refuse to buy any more American Treasury debt. Technically, their portfolios fall to the extent that they held Treasury debt. Then those governments must decide. Should those banks be allowed to inflate to overcome these losses?
The inverted pyramid of debt will topple. The great default will produce the great depression. Unemployment will rise. Depositors will finally go to their ATMs to draw out currency. The banks will default: no withdrawals of currency.
The division of labor will contract. Everyone will get much poorer.
Because a default on all Treasury debt would have such widespread consequences – immediate consequences – economists have argued that this will not be allowed to happen. The central bank will buy the debt. But if it does, at some point it must stop buying or else create hyperinflation. Hyperinflation has the same consequence as default and deflation: a contraction in the division of labor.
I know of only one economist who predicts an outright default: Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. On August 3, 2009, he published an article on the free market site, Library of Economics and Liberty: “Why Default on U.S. Treasuries is likely.” His argument is simple: the only alternative is the Zimbabwe option: hyperinflation.
He goes through the numbers. He makes an impressive case. He does not discuss the level of interest rates that would bring on the crisis, but at some point, the Treasury will have to offer high rates unless the FED intervenes.
He says that the welfare state is going to die, all over the world. I think he is correct. I am not convinced that outright default is likely – not before much higher price inflation arrives.
The strategy of the FED is the same as the strategy of Congress: kick the can.
SELECTIVE DEFAULT
Hummel admits that selective default is a possibility. I think it is more than a possibility. I think it is likely. He writes:
The Zimbabwe option illustrates that other potential outcomes, however unlikely, are equally unprecedented and dramatic. We cannot utterly rule out, for instance, the possibility that the U.S. Congress might repudiate a major portion of promised benefits rather than its debt. If it simply abolished Medicare outright, the unfunded liability of Social Security would become tractable. Indeed, one of the current arguments for the adoption of nationalized health care is that it can reduce Medicare costs. But this argument is based on looking at other welfare States such as Great Britain, where government-provided health care was rationed from the outset rather than subsidized with Medicare. Rationing can indeed drive down health-care costs, but after more than forty years of subsidized health care in the United States, how likely is it that the public will put up with severe rationing or that the politicians will attempt to impose it? And don’t kid yourself; the rationing will have to be quite severe to stave off a future fiscal crisis.
The rationing will have to be severe. The promises will not come true.
INFLATION
There are two forms: mass (up to 50% per annum) and hyper (the sky’s the limit).
Mass inflation seems more likely over the next decade. If the world’s central banks can coordinate the expansion of money, thereby funding the national welfare states, the public will not be able to escape. They will pay the inflation tax.
The ways around this are limited to investing in real goods: commodities, small farms, used goods stores, small-town real estate. Not many people will see this in time. Of those who do, few will take action. These escape hatches are for people who are hedging against default. The average voter has no financial reserves. Of the 20% who do have reserves, 80% will be stuck in conventional investments. They will believe the Establishment’s Keynesian line. “The government can fix it if you just hang on.”
Inflation means the erosion of money. It means a hidden default on the political promises. Why hidden? Because the politicians will blame speculators. They will not blame the Federal Reserve for having bankrolled their promises.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, it is either the great depression or the Zimbabwe option. Ludwig von Mises called this the crack-up boom. It means the destruction of money and the collapse of the division of labor. It would mean devastation.
I think central banks will at some point refuse to fund governments any longer. They will bail out the largest banks instead. Foreign politicians may force hyperinflation on their central banks, as agents of the government. But as long as the Federal Reserve System maintains its selective independence, it will not adopt hyperinflation as a policy. That would not be in the interest of the largest banks. It would also not be in the interest of central bankers. Their retirement promises would die.
‘That’s what the bankers have done to us. ‘
I think the word is banksters.
I dont see how. Their debt is in their own currencies. Will the federal government default on it’s debt to the federal reserve?
Guerrilla warfare. In the forests, in the swamps, in the mountains. For examples, see "Red Dawn", "The Patriot", "Mad Max", etc.
Th Iranians do not have a cohesive army in the first world sense of an army. Remember how Saddam’s was a cobbled together mix of poorly motivated units.
The tax rate chart is intriguing. What is implied that after 1960 two forces that act like taxes really came to outweigh all others and ran out of control. One force is monetary inflation. The other — a novel intellectual speculation just come to my mind — is the “swag”. The bezzle.
The portion of economic wealth denominated in debt which is stolen by any means out of the treasury — hidden off-books entitlement programs, poor accounting, fraudulent accounting, outright theft.
When the US announces it will not honor it's debt, a third party occupies the US in order to secure it's assets for the creditors of the US.
Some believe the third party will be the UN, others say NATO, still others say it will be the actual Chicoms, who will stage in Mexico (with the approval of Mexico in return for a cut of the spoils, namely lost territory along their border) and from there they will invade in a multi-pronged attack in an attempt to secure both California (the actual breadbasket of America) and the refineries along the Gulf coast.
I think that scenario is unlikely, but not impossible.
"Good" being suubjective, but I read a lot of post-apocalyptic literature for free on the Net. I guess you get what you pay for!
If they ALL default, doesn’t it kinda just wash itself?
If I owe Joe $1000 and Joe owes Frank $1000, and Frank owes me $1000, and nobody can pay, does it really matter?
Assets could be sold off to pay the debt. The federal government owns most of the land in the West and much of it in the East.
I was under the impression he was citing the claim of Keynesians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
