Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 10, 2011
How A Fiscal Policy Gridlock Creates Revolutions

There was a pessimistic but mostly unremarkable speech by Fed chief Bernanke on Tuesday which the stock markets did not like. But the Economist finds that Wednesdays speech by the New York Fed chief Bill Dudley was more revealing. It headlines accordingly: Read this speech, then sell the dollar.

Dudley analyzes what the Fed is to do to help revive the U.S. economy. He essentially says that the U.S. has to deflate the dollar to export more and it can not help if that drives up commodity prices around the world. Like Bernanke he did not announce a third round of "quantitative easing", i.e. large scale money printing by the Fed, but that is the logical consequence of his analysis and the major tool the Fed has to drive the dollar down.

I do not agree with Dudley. What is primarily needed is more demand stimulus in the U.S. This is a fiscal task, not a monetary one. It could be achieved by taking money from the richest 1% and distributing it to the poorest 25%. It could also be achieved by the government spending more and taking on more debt. But Obama and Congress are not in the mood to do their job and therefore the Fed will be pressed to help out.

As long time Fed watcher William Pesek explains it:

The first round of quantitative easing stabilized the U.S. financial system and calmed nerves around the globe. The second one disappointed, as evidenced by the slowest pace of growth in U.S. payrolls in eight months during May.

Congress is gridlocked, making new fiscal stimulus measures unlikely. That leaves the onus on Bernanke to pump liquidity into the economy. He will face huge resistance from those worried that he’s debasing the dollar, yet Bernanke may have no choice.

Political gridlock in Washington makes sane fiscal policy impossible. The Fed will be asked to help out. This even while the negative consequences of further money printing are much larger, locally in the U.S. but also world wide, than those of more U.S. government debt.

Currencies in the emerging economies, especially in Asia, are rising against the dollar. Dollar denominated commodities are also again on the rise. For the people in the U.S. this will mean higher cost of living even while the high unemployment rate will prevent any wage increases. The standard of living will go down.

But rising commodity prices has also large geopolitical consequences. The two graphs in this piece make pretty much clear that the Fed's second round of quantitative easing led to a lockstep increase in commodity prices. Sharply increasing bread prices (food is just an energy storing commodity) in some poor countries then led to revolution attempts in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. Sure, rising bread prices were not the only reason for those revolutions, but as the second chart in the link above shows, they are historically a very significant factor.

As the Fed now plans again to use its magic by creating more dollars from hot air, thereby increasing dollar denomitated commodity prices, brace yourself for more upheaval all around the world. And for more wars.

Comments

Hey, maybe this tidbit from a white paper from Advertising Age, referred to in this Forbes article, helps explain why most of us little people are getting so little attention, for anything, with the elephant in the room being the huge unemployment problem. Well, big problem for the unemployed…and non-wealthy.
Maybe it’s just not much of a problem for our US business leaders. WalMart may give a rip, since it aims at a lower earning demographic, but not the overall business community, which seems to be aiming at rising middle classes abroad and the wealthiest here in the US.

…. Within the United States, Madison Avenue is discovering that the age of the American mass consumer may be drawing to an end. Instead, a new white paper by Ad Age, the industry’s trade journal, argues that growing income inequality means the only buyers who count are those at the top.
“Simply put, as the discrepancy between the rich and poor has become more and more stark, a small plutocracy of wealthy elites drives a larger and larger share of total consumer spending,” the paper concludes, citing research that shows the top 10 percent of U.S. households account for nearly 50 percent of all consumer spending. “It appears that mass affluence may be a thing of the past — and that luxury marketers should reconsider how their products appeal to elite consumers.”
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of this business shift from the U.S. middle class to the rich at home and the hundreds of millions graduating into the middle class in the emerging markets. (My emphasis)

The non-wealthy are not needed, either as workers or consumers!

Twentieth-century American capitalism was built on what you might call the Henry Ford model — generously compensated workers (Ford paid double the existing rate) created a mass middle class that bought the products of the country’s entrepreneurs. That virtuous circle made the United States the world’s economic behemoth, and created a society and a political discourse defined by a proudly acquisitive middle class — the United States’ much admired and much maligned consumer culture.
Snip
The creative destruction of 21st-century capitalism seems to be requiring U.S. companies to learn to prosper with fewer U.S. workers and with fewer U.S. middle-class consumers. We do not know yet how American democracy — where the middle class has the votes, but the business class has the money — will respond to this tough new economic logic. (My emphasis)

Hhhmmm. I wonder how those percentages figure into Obama’s attitude about, oh, Medicare and SocSec…. Since leading edge Baby Boomers have lost quite a bit of their wealth as they go into retirement, does that make us less desirable to, well, keep healthy? To keep around if only for votes?
Soylent Green time?
The younger non-wealthy make good cannon fodder.
Via Dakinikat at Sky Dancing.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 10 2011 19:50 utc | 1

I’m not convinced about the effect of US QE on food prices. Though the argument has some interest.
1) While ‘too high’ food prices in Egypt certainly contributed to the ‘uprising’, as b says or implies the causes of the ‘uprising’ are multiple and discussing which is more salient is an exercise in interpretation. Prices that rise shockingly and steeply not only cause real pain for many but provide something concrete to point to. Vs. gaining more ‘freedom’ or becoming more ‘democratic’ or ‘modern’, ‘better schools’, etc. So there is *that*, to begin with.
2) To even vaguely grasp the impact of food prices, one has to take into account all the other family expenditure. For ex. in Egypt, housing/rents tend to be low and very stable, I have heard and read (for the lower sections, not condos with golf course in the desert of fancy flat in Cairo..)… Ppl in the West seem to assume that the rising price of wheat, for ex., somehow desperately affects all ppl in non-developed countries, as if they lived in a kind of vacuum where all their pennies go to food, and that they all eat wheat. _Post colonialism!_
It is true for some, and the socialised nature of say Egypt, Lybia does mean that ppl are more exposed to prices shocks for goods which are internationally traded rather than local.
So the analysis would hold for e.g. copper and cement…are those stellar price rises related to US QE? Naturally such commodities don’t have daily prices and don’t appear in family budgets, or only indirectly. Then there is the State response: the Egyptian Gvmt. did nothing much to attenuate the rise (afaik?), Kadhafi slashed all taxes, import duties, etc. and maybe even shunted some subsidies along – delving into Lybian finances is tough.
3) Food prices are the very devil… Vulnerable to all kinds of events – an extremely long list. From acts of God (drought) to fashion, to the price of oil, etc. etc. Picking out one correlation doesn’t sit well.. Prices of food doubled and more in Bahrein and Jordan in 2010 because of a pest, some killer moth.
4) Is food used as a weapon? You bet. Is food – the price of it as compared to everything else – some kind of expression of power relations? Yes, absolutely. Can that fully explain rising or for that matter lowering food prices, or create a link between the price of food in Egypt, the uprising, and QE? No. Plus, if anything, the articles in this direction make it seem like an unintended consequence.
5) Rising food prices in some parts of the world are an inevitable result of energy and production stress: peak oil, peak energy overall, distribution difficulties, big agri which counts on steady and augmenting inputs, etc., global warming, in short *overshoot.* (Not to mention speculation, profiteering, dumping, hoarding, by individuals, groups, or Gvmts; and subsidizing or giving by the same..)
Currency matters and the printing presses (QEs) play a role but they are dikes with gaping holes that aim to extend and pretend. In the grander scope, blaming one country’s central bank policy is missing the boat.
OK this was rather one-sided, in a dead thread…

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 13 2011 13:52 utc | 2