Global Grand Policy Failure: Liquidity Traps and Financial Black Holes

(August 9, 2011)

"We are all Keynesians now," indeed. Keynesian policies have pushed the global economy into a financial black hole.

What we are experiencing is Grand Policy Failure on a global scale, a failure best understood by examining liquidity traps and the Keynesian plummet into Financial Black Holes.

What is a liquidity trap? Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Here's what that means in the real world. I have $100 in liquid assets, i.e. cash, I saved from my income. I could leverage that by borrowing $1,000 at low interest and devoting the $100 to service that new debt ( i.e. make a future monthly payment), but since my future income is in doubt, I have no desire to take on more debt, even at zero interest. How do I know if my income will enable me to pay back the principal?

I could spend the $100 on discretionary purchases, but since I have everything I need to get by and my future income is doubtful, I prefer the security of savings over the marginal return of owning more gewgaws.

I could use it to hire an assistant (presuming I'm self-employed or in business), but since revenues have been unpredictable, I'd rather work a few extra hours myself and keep the $100.

I could spend the $100 on some new software that might make me more productive, but why bother when business is at best flatlined and at worst, in a freefall?

That's a liquidity trap: those with cash and the ability to borrow have no desire to either spend or invest in new employees or business assets. Their cash (liquidity) is "trapped" in the sense they have no desire or need to spend it or invest it.

In standard Keynesian economics, the only thing holding back a tide of spending and investing is lack of faith in future growth.

This is of course wrongheaded. Keynesianism is blind to the black hole of debt: at a certain threshold (event horizon), the ability and/or willingness to borrow more vanishes. No amount of monetary easing or shoveling new money into banks can spark new debt and spending.

Keynesianism is also blind to the necessity of debt renunciation/forgiveness: the key to freeing up new spending and investment is not shoveling more liquidity into the system, it's blowing off all the bad/impaired uncollectible debt in the system, wiping out borrowers and lenders alike (recall that one man's debt is another man's asset).

That would mean wiping out the "too big to fail" banks, and for some reason the Keynesian cargo-culters (Krugman, Reich et al.) never once propose the renunciation of impaired debt as part of their "solution."

Keynesians also fail to see the black hole of delegitimization: one reason why nobody wants to spend or invest is the credibility of the nation's financial institutions has vanished into the black hole of lost legitimacy.

Now that institutional credibility has fallen below this critical threshold, it cannot be recovered without deep structural transformation that includes severely limiting the political and financial power of Wall Street and the "too big to fail" banks.

Since that's never on the Keynesian agenda, what we have instead is three failed policies, not just in the U.S. but globally. Finding a Prescription for the U.S.'s Money Trap: Three fixes to the "liquidity trap" (WSJ.com):


All three Keynesian policies have been tried, and all three have failed completely. The massive "shovel-ready" fiscal stimulus caused a minor blip up in activity, but it did not spark any regeneration of borrowing and spending. All it did was enable further deleveraging as consumers and businesses struggled to pay down their crushing debt loads.

As for devaluing the currency, the Fed's policies devalued the U.S. dollar 32% from the early 2000s, and 17% from 2008. Rather than spark a boom of spending and investment, this massive devaluation sparked a dramatic loss of purchasing power which households experience as high inflation.

No nation ever prospered in the long-term by devaluing its currency. Devaluation is just another Keynesian "quick fix." Borroing 40% of Federal spending didn't "fix" what's wrong with the economy? Then borrow 50%. That devaluation wasn't enough? Then takes the dollar down another 10%. These are the policies of debt-junkies, not legitimate long-term growth based on capital formation and productive investment.

As for inflation being the "solution," the Keynesians forgot that vast, systemic labor surpluses mean that wages and incomes don't rise with inflation, except for the top 10%. So rather than force people to spend, spend, spend, that higher inflation so beloved by Keynesians has sapped the purchasing power of the bottom 90% of households which have seen their incomes stagnate or decline for years.

Solution 1: Central State fiscal stimulus: failure.

Solution 2: central bank-induced currency devaluation: failure.

Solution 3: central bank-induced inflation: failure.

Every textbook Keynesian solution to escape the black hole of liquidity entrapment has been tried on a grand scale, and failed on an even grander scale.

The solution is simple: renounce/write down all impaired debt, wipe out the "too big to fail" banks, and restrict the reach and political power of the remaining banks and Wall Street.

Until we're willing to do that, then the liquidity trap will remain a black hole that the economy cannot possibly escape.

__________________

Propone un reset de las deudas.

Nacionalismo USA para escapar a sus deudas impagables (mayormente con terceros países como acreedores). Son capaces de todo.

__________________

Lo de poner impuestos a los ricos seguimos sin ponerlo en la mesa.

Las deudas crecen y crecen, y aquí a todo el mundo se olvida que cada deuda tiene un acreedor.

A los pequeños acreedores no tiene sentido hacerles el simpa. Ellos siempre acaban gastando su dinero, porque lo necesitan. Pero a los que drenan liquidez al sistema... impuestazo al canto.

logica aplastante la del articulo, si no recuerdo mal, diria que Rumania es el unico pais que ha pagado integramente el principal de sus deudas, alla por los '80.

Tu visión es reduccionista y maniquea: no existen esos señores con sombrero de copa y puro en la boca a quienes quieres subir los impuestos. Son empresas que dudan entre si deslocalizar sus factorías a China (ergo no interesa subirles los impuestos ni ponerles más trabas) o fondos de inversión que manejan los planes de pensiones de jubilados alemanes, franceses y holandeses.

¿Te das cuenta de que tu "solución" aumentaría la destrucción del tejido productivo y robaría parte de sus rentas a los jubilados?

Lo sé, el sistema es perverso.

"Viva el mal, viva el capital." (Bruja Avería, 1986)

__________________

Yo no digo ir por las empresas. Digo ir a por sus máximos accionistas.
Son personas, con cantidades groseras de dinero. Cada vez más. Y les deja a ciertas entidades financieras jugar con él como psicópatas, para ganar más dinero sin ética ninguna.
Es por ese dinero el que digo que es por el que hay que ir, no por las empresas, donde hay grandes accionistas, pero también pequeños.

Repito... se nos olvida que cada deuda tiene un acreedor. El mundo no puede estar quebrado, porque incluye a los acreedores. De momento no nos hemos endeudado con ningún extraterrestre.
En vez de un simpa global, hacer un simpa a los que tienen para vivir varias vidas a todo trapo. Incluso con los impuestos, seguirán viviendo mejor que cualquiera que nosotros.