Sunday, January 17, 2010

A, B, or C

ModernMystic has a great video up discussing what he sees as 3 possible options on how governments are handling the collapsing world economy. A) let it go and chips fall where they may B) slow fall over the next decade C) Massive spending aka New New deal.   There may be other options.

In my view C) is not viable because it assumes existing fiat currency sustainable, which it is not.

So is it A) Fast or B) Slow.

There a quite a few bloggers and analysts, including Roubini and Faber,  predicting a slow fall and the benefits to this are obvious.  The problem with the slow fall argument is simple.  If Obama et al were intending a slow fall, why accelerate the bankruptcy of the United States?  Why in 2008 acknowledge that "Too Big to Fail" was a systemic risk and then in 2009 make TBTF banks even bigger?  Joesph Stiglitz and many others have gone on record saying the risk now is greater than the risk in 2007 and 2008.  In other words why has the US government accelerated and made risk even greater if the intent is have a slow collapse?

The recently passed financial reform bill in the House has provision of $4 trillion to bail out wall street and limits debate to ten hours.  So the government has provided for the possibility of another bailout of wall street if necessary.  How serious is this?  On the one hand you have legislation preparing for another wall street bailout.  On the other hand you have Obama,  congress and the media bank bonus bashing pointing out record wall street profits while main street is ignored and continues to economically deteriorate.  As always the medium is the message. 

What is the message?  Wall street made record profits in 2009 because taxpayers bailed them out in 2008.  Without taxpayer bailout these firms would not even exist today.  They owe their existence and 2009 profit because of taxpayer bailout.  Taxpayers bailed them out, they made record profits, taxpayers saddled with debt, rising unemployment, depreciating wealth, access to credit and so on.  In other words wall street reigns while main street suffers. 

I think there is a very real possibility this is all a setup. 

When the next financial crisis comes, there will be no bailout.  These firms will be allowed to fail and congress has laid the grounds for denying another bailout.  They are and have made the public so angry at the last bailout this will give congress the cover they need for not authorizing another one.  No bailout, firms will go bankrupt, financial system will collapse, chips fall where they may.

So next question is when?  Impossible to predict but can speculate...haha

In 2010 real unemployment will continue to increase, the economy will continue to deteriorate.  (Fake employment will include 1.3 million census workers)  Lets suppose the situation is allowed to continue.  That will mean in 2011 wall street will again make record profits and bonuses.  In 2012 wall street makes record profits, 2013 and so on.  How logical is this?  It's possible but is it logical?

Currently the most telling indicator of timing for the next crisis is Obama's recent executive orders, declaration of national emergency and so on.  If. and big IF, Joesph Stiglitz and others are right, the situation is worse now than in 2007, the risk greater than before and getting greater, that essentially means another crisis is inevitable.  So another crisis is inevitable.  Obama knows this and is preparing for it by taking extraordinary measures.  The state of national emergency because of the "Swine Flu" has not been lifted.  How long will this national emergency go on for?  One year? Two years? Three years?  If the next crisis is three years away why create this "Council of Governors" now?  Along with the litany of other things Obama has done such as enlist the post office for a national emergency.  Why all this preparation for an l emergency if next crisis is years away?

I am changing my mind that the next big leg down is a long way off.  When the earthquake hit Haiti I thought to myself, right, the next phase will be delayed because of this.  That still may be true, it might be put off, but I don't think it is ten years away or will be a slow fall. 

My rational fundamentally has always been the sooner they get this old system over with the sooner they can restart with a new system.  That to me is logical and rational.  The idea will be a slow decay makes little to no logical sense.  Why elect Obama to preside over a slow decay?  Why has hollywood and the entertainment media incessantly bombarded its audience with "end of the world as we know it" theme if going to be a slow decay?  What will 2010 theme be?  2011? 2012?

No comments:

Post a Comment