Briefing on the Fiscal Cliff at Congress

flattr this!

This week’s post returns to the topic I dis­cussed just two weeks ago (Fis­cal cliff lessons from the ‘30s, Novem­ber 26). I wrote that last post after I had given Con­gress­man Den­nis Kucinich a pre­sen­ta­tion on the fis­cal cliff, and he asked me to return to Wash­ing­ton to give a pub­lic brief­ing in Con­gress. Today’s post is the doc­u­ment I spoke to at that brief­ing, and it’s sub­stan­tially more detailed than the draft pub­lished two weeks ago.

Click here to read the rest of this post

Video of the talk:

Video of the slides:

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Briefing on the Fiscal Cliff at Congress

  1. Lyonwiss says:

    Steve

    Busi­ness Spec­ta­tor is now MSM. It has lost all cred­i­bil­ity. A cou­ple of my com­ments crit­i­cal or ques­tion­ing of posts of Robert Got­tlieb­sen and Stephen Kouk­oulas have sim­ply been cen­sored. They often haven’t got their facts right and they don’t want to be cor­rected. Stephen Kouk­oulas is sim­ply your ortho­dox econ­o­mist, apologing for the Reserve Bank and the FIRE sec­tor, totally lack­ing in orig­i­nal think­ing. He lat­est post is that low inter­est rates is good for savers and retirees! Amaz­ing ignorance:

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RBA-interest-rates-superannuation-retirees-returns-pd20121211-2UR3U?opendocument&src=idp&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=147028&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary

  2. Steve Hummel says:

    Regard­ing http://t.co/x7JVpn2Z

    Quite right in its analy­sis. How­ever, ulti­mately the whole pro­gres­sive ver­sus con­ser­v­a­tive par­a­digm is just an exten­sion of the Good cop, Bad cop game. We need trans­for­ma­tion and mat­u­ra­tion of the mon­e­tary and eco­nomic sys­tems not just reform. The way to get what we actu­ally need is to syn­the­size these two sys­tems with human wis­dom. That way we can leave the too eas­ily exploited and unnec­es­sar­ily restric­tive RE-distributive money sys­tem for a prop­erly reg­u­lated Dis­trib­u­tive one. And like­wise we can trans­form a piti­fully imma­ture, waste­ful and too often uneth­i­cal profit mak­ing eco­nomic sys­tem into a profit mak­ing sys­tem that is based on ade­quately uni­ver­sal, eth­i­cal and accu­rate human ideas that poli­cies can be crafted from and bound back to so as to enable and encour­age an evo­lu­tion of soci­ety and the peo­ple in it instead of inhibit­ing such. We need a Mon­e­tary and Eco­nomic Sapi­ent Syn­the­sis. No more timid and inad­e­quate reforms while planet earth burns and we hur­dle toward social chaos and likely war in an age of mod­ern weaponry. Time for Human­ity to grow up and live up to its species des­ig­na­tion of wise and dis­cern­ing man, not live down to the “real­i­ties” and “ide­alisms” of homo eco­nom­i­cus. Time for adult and wiz­ened poli­cies to throt­tle and then trans­form the bul­lies and the prof­li­gates and cre­ate a cul­ture wor­thy of what is best in us.

  3. centerline says:

    nicely said Steve. I read once, some­where, a hypoth­e­sis that the uni­verse may not be teem­ing with intel­li­gent life capa­ble of trav­el­ing long dis­tances (seri­ously advanced tech­nol­ogy) because many do not make it past their ado­les­cence. From the per­spec­tive of where we are today, it sure seems like a rea­son­able con­clu­sion. We are at a real cross­roads, glob­ally. Not just in terms of economics/finance, but in terms of resources, dis­tri­b­u­tion, energy, etc. The next few decades will be piv­otal, I think.

  4. centerline says:

    ado­les­cence” meant in terms of level of social matu­rity that is…

  5. Steve Hummel says:

    Thanks. Yes, and the key to the suc­cess of advanc­ing into adult­hood from that ado­les­cence is lead­er­ship. That is why it is so dis­heart­en­ing to see the finan­cial, eco­nomic and polit­i­cal lead­er­ship so con­fused and restrained by self inter­est and ortho­doxy. Our spiritual/religious lead­er­ship should be in the fore­front on this see­ings how the only real way that the direc­tion of indi­vid­u­als and sys­tems actu­ally change.….is with the ideas in one’s head and that our var­i­ous sys­tems are based upon. Find these best ideas, align them with poli­cies and then “hit the streets” with a mass move­ment that herds and hope­fully awak­ens lead­ers of all dif­fer­ent sec­tors of society.

  6. Vic Jones says:

    I like this analy­sis, but I have a seri­ous con­cern about some­thing it lacks: in com­par­ing the 1930’s with the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion, Steve appar­ently assumes that the gov­ern­ment now will be able to pro­duce the same GDP growth from addi­tional debt that it did then. Unfor­tu­nately, when the gov­ern­ment began to engage in heavy deficit spend­ing at the begin­ning of WWII, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was only around 50%. Cur­rent U.S. debt-to-GDP is around 100%. There is a body of evi­dence which sug­gests that, as debt/GDP ratios rise, the stim­u­la­tive effect of each dol­lar bor­rowed is less and less, to the point where each dol­lar bor­rowed cre­ates less than a dol­lar of GDP growth. It’s my under­stand­ing that we’re already at this point of inflec­tion, where each dol­lar of addi­tional debt cre­ates some­thing like $0.83 of GDP growth. At any­thing less than a 1-to-1 ratio, the results of addi­tional bor­row­ing become destruc­tive, not con­struc­tive. Nowhere in his analy­sis does he take this into consideration.

  7. Lyonwiss says:

    This is one of the most sig­nif­i­cant speeches by a cen­tral banker since the GFC:

    http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2012/sp-gov-121212.html

  8. koonyeow says:

    Title: A Response to Vic Jones

    Agree with your analy­sis. But I think Steve’s main con­cern is the “Rock of Damo­cles”, namely pri­vate debt. I think Steve’s main con­cern is delever­ag­ing of pub­lic debt induc­ing delever­ag­ing of pri­vate debt, induc­ing reces­sion. Since debt jubilee is unlikely, we are left with least bad solu­tion, namely pub­lic spend­ing (deficit) to cush­ion the reces­sion­ary effect of pri­vate debt delever­ag­ing. With­out debt jubilee, economies sad­dled with high level of Ponzi debt are likely to be Japanized.

  9. Steve Hummel says:

    Inten­tion is the strongest force in the uni­verse. There­fore if one hon­estly con­fronts the pri­mary inten­tions of a group and/or a society.….you’re going to see the direc­tion that group/society is going. Then of course you have to ask your­self whether that direc­tion is the proper one.

    The pri­mary inten­tion of the eco­nomic sys­tem is cur­rently profit.
    The pri­mary inten­tion of the eco­nomic, finan­cial and polit­i­cal enti­ties in the world’s soci­eties is the will to power of themselves.

    These are wholly unsat­is­fac­tory and inad­e­quate inten­tions. Why?

    Because sys­tems were made for Man, not Man for systems.

    The inten­tion of the will to free­dom for the indi­vid­ual is the best and proper one for a truly humane soci­ety. If the pri­mary inten­tion of the eco­nomic sys­tem were under­stood and made to be the mate­r­ial free­dom and secu­rity of the indi­vid­ual accord­ing to the level of pro­duc­tive capac­ity of the nation.…then profit and employ­ment could be intel­li­gently placed within and beneath that new pri­mary inten­tion. Of course the eco­nomic, finan­cial and polit­i­cal enti­ties’ being a part of that soci­ety would be sub­ject to that same inten­tion. This inver­sion of the cur­rent inten­tions from the will to power of the sys­tems to the will to free­dom for the indi­vid­ual must take place before the tyranny of the for­mer brings destruc­tion to itself and every­one and every­thing around it.

    Power is a super­fi­cial, inad­e­quate, inhu­mane and a non-self reflec­tive intention.

    Free­dom is deeper, more sat­is­fy­ing, humane and self reflective.

  10. mahaish says:

    inter­est­ing speech by glen stevens,

    all this talk of cen­tral banks expand­ing their bal­ance sheets,

    what he doesnt dis­cuss, is the ele­phant in the room,

    the bank­ing sys­tem try­ing to by-pass its bal­ance sheet con­straints through finan­cial engi­neer­ing through the cre­ation der­av­i­tive products

    and the inabil­ity or un will­ing­ness of cen­tral banks to super­vise such arrangements.

    the pay­ment sys­tem fail­ure that occurred when lehmans went down didnt hap­pen in the tra­di­tional bank­ing sys­tem. it hap­pened when the pay­ment sys­tem failed in the der­a­tives mar­kets, and due to shonky enron style account­ing prac­tices had a spill over effect on the , on bal­ance sheet of the bank­ing system.

    and by the time the fed started going through the books, the rot had well and tru­ely set in, and all trust had disappeared.

    and guess what cen­tral banks around the world had to expand their bal­ance sheets to make a mar­ket and restore trust.

    fun­nily enough you dont find too many cen­tral bankers talk­ing about this stuff ;)

  11. Steve Hummel says:

    What Lietaer is speak­ing about with the Swiss Weir is actu­ally just an incom­plete and prob­a­bly an insuf­fi­cient Social Credit. He even says the same thing as Dou­glas said which is that the real prob­lem is the monop­oly on credit cre­ation that the Pri­vate and Cen­tral Banks and their var­i­ous cap­tured gov­ern­ments have. Some one can refresh my mem­ory about whether the Swiss Weir is actu­ally earned or not. That will deter­mine whether or not it is ade­quate to do the job because if it has to be earned its inad­e­quate by cost account­ing con­ven­tion. Social Credit has been so sup­pressed and inval­i­dated for var­i­ous rea­sons that Lietaer is prob­a­bly not even aware that he is dupli­cat­ing Dou­glas in what he says.

    Grace, a mon­e­tary pol­icy of grace, is nec­es­sary. A sense of Grace in human rela­tions is nec­es­sary or we’d all end up at each other’s throats. Because the is a canon to human life, and there IS a human canon for any­one but psy­chopaths and sociopoaths, there NEEDS to be a human canon for human systems.…otherwise they are not humane. Grace has its coun­ter­parts in the eco­nomic sys­tem and they are either miss­ing and/or ind­e­quate. Grace, the will­ing­ness to for­give, (bank­ruptcy, inad­e­quate and recently biased in favor of Cred­i­tors), Grace, as unmer­ited favor, (the idea of a cul­tural inher­i­tance of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion, whose value is cur­rently usurped entirely by the finan­cial tri­opoly men­tioned above and so forces us all to con­tin­u­ally “re-invent the wheel” of that value instead of mon­e­tiz­ing it, and Grace, the free gift, the citizen’s div­i­dend which redresses that usurpa­tion and enables indi­vid­ual eco­nomic free­dom and sov­er­eignty for the indi­vid­ual as well.

    As inside so should it be out­side. As above, so should it be below. This is Wis­dom. This is the human canon. Sys­tems must adapt to IT, not FORCE Man to adapt to systems.

    Money and Wis­dom, The Way Out, The Way Home.

  12. Steve Hummel says:

    Sorry, that was a repost of mine on Ellen Brown’s Pub­lic Bank­ing forum.

  13. Lyonwiss says:

    Mahaish Decem­ber 14, 2012 at 9:00 am | #

    What cen­tral bankers say mat­ters much more than what aca­d­e­mics and oth­ers say, because eco­nomic pol­icy and reg­u­la­tion have imme­di­ate impact on our lives. But pub­lic opin­ions do have influ­ence if they are lis­tened to by author­ity. It is a hope­ful sign that Glen Stevens’ speech is evi­dence of “new thinking”.

    Refer­ring to the Great Mod­er­a­tion, he said, “The suc­cess in less­en­ing volatil­ity in eco­nomic activ­ity, infla­tion and inter­est rates over quite a lengthy period made it fea­si­ble for firms and indi­vid­u­als to think that a degree of increased lever­age was safe.” This is a rare acknowl­edge­ment of Minsky’s hypoth­e­sis: “sta­bil­ity is destabilizing”.

    Stevens noted, “a big role in caus­ing the cri­sis – the major role in fact – for poor lend­ing stan­dards, even fraud in some cases, fed by dis­torted incen­tives and com­pounded by super­vi­sory weak­nesses and inabil­ity to see through the com­plex­ity of var­i­ous finan­cial instru­ments”. This is admit­ting a lot (for a cen­tral banker), includ­ing fraud, dis­torted incen­tives and not under­stand­ing derivatives.

    But it is not accu­rate to say that there is an “inabil­ity or unwill­ing­ness of cen­tral banks to super­vise such arrange­ments” (ie deriv­a­tives). And you are right in say­ing that “you dont find too many cen­tral bankers talk­ing about this stuff”, because they sim­ply don’t under­stand the stuff.

    Reg­u­la­tors do not under­stand deriv­a­tives, because OTC deriv­a­tives are not reg­u­lated. Few peo­ple appre­ci­ate the rigid­ity of gov­ern­ment: reg­u­la­tors can­not get infor­ma­tion or data on things they do not reg­u­late. They can­not spend scarce resources on mat­ters out­side their juris­dic­tion. More­over, even if they did know some­thing (eg Mad­off tip-off by Harry Markopo­los), they can do lit­tle legally if deriv­a­tives are involved.

    For this setup you have to thank Sum­mers, Greenspan and oth­ers for the “Over-the-Counter Deriv­a­tives Mar­kets and the Com­mod­ity Exchange Act”, Novem­ber 1999, which effec­tively allowed the cre­ation of the unreg­u­lated deriv­a­tives bub­ble which is still inflat­ing to this day:

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/documents/otcact.pdf

    The doc­u­ment for­mally removed any CFTC threat of OTC deriv­a­tives reg­u­la­tion, which “could dis­cour­age inno­va­tion and growth of these impor­tant mar­kets and dam­age U.S. lead­er­ship in these are­nas by dri­ving trans­ac­tions off-shore.” The CFTC is restricted to reg­u­late stan­dard­ized deriv­a­tives on “orga­nized exchanges”.

    It is a mat­ter of time before we have the final denoue­ment of the cri­sis induced by deriv­a­tives implo­sion. Super cheap money from ZIRP and QE merely pro­vides stronger lever­age, by swap­ping “good” gov­ern­ment debt for toxic pri­vate debt, to pre­vent imme­di­ate sys­temic col­lapse. But what is fun­da­men­tally unsound and unsus­tain­able can­not con­tinue indef­i­nitely. One thing to watch is gold and sil­ver deriv­a­tives which may be manip­u­lated to shore up con­fi­dence in fiat cur­ren­cies, which are being widely debased.

  14. Steve Hummel says:

    Here’s what I actu­ally meant to post in response to Mahaish:

    Derivaties should prob­a­bly be wisely unwound and then banned. Money can­not be rehy­poth­e­cated into infin­ity with any sense of secu­rity or respon­si­bil­ity. Nor­mal spec­u­la­tive means are prob­lem­atic enough with­out invit­ing the chaos of these “finan­cial weapons of mass destruc­tion.”
    Wis­dom, the intu­itive sci­ence whose 8000–10,000 year old obser­va­tions are really just the coun­ter­part to the purely abstract sci­ence of math­e­mat­ics, CAN be trusted to point at humanly inte­grated solu­tions. Wis­dom that is in its ulti­mate and most rel­e­vant condensations.

    All you really need is Faith….as in Con­fi­dence, that this is so, and which con­tin­ued over time becomes Hope, both of which are con­ducive of a secure envi­ron­ment which would undoubt­edly enable more of the human capa­bil­ity for Love which in turn makes the abun­dant expe­ri­ence of Grace within one’s self more real, and also the aware­ness of the out­ward poten­tial abun­dance for all due to technology…..if the nec­es­sary mon­e­tary pol­icy of Grace was wisely applied.

  15. Harry Smith says:

    Today is 21 Decem­ber 2012, 1am Syd­ney time. I pro­vide a 5.5 degree Global Finan­cial Mar­ket Alert. Please check the result in the next sev­eral weeks.

  16. John Colr says:

    The sec­ond com­par­i­son lets us decide the “smaller cri­sis” ver­sus “some­thing hap­pened” issue: even though the fall in GDP was much worse then than now, the level of pri­vate was much lower in the 1920s (com­pare Fig­ure 8 on page 9 with Fig­ure 2 on page 3), … ”

    A word miss­ing after ‘private’?

  17. Steve Keen says:

    Yes: it is debt. I will amend…

Leave a Reply