Home > Uncategorized > Tonight’s Reveres

Tonight’s Reveres

Once again nightriders are warning the world that its economy is on the edge.  And if they are not listened to this time, the plunge will be deeper and longer lasting than the last. Here are bites with links from two voices in the night.  They are worth reading in full, especially Kaletsky. 

 

It’s Lehman the sequel, with Merkel as Bush

Anatole Kaletsky

And now, almost unbelievably, there is a serious risk that the world’s failure to understand the true lessons of Lehman will precipitate another financial disaster.

The key lesson from the failure of Lehman was that, in the midst of a systemic financial crisis, no significant bank should ever be allowed to fail. When an entire financial system is in peril, the cost of offering unlimited government guarantees and taxpayer bailouts will always be much smaller than the losses from allowing any significant bank to collapse.. . . In dealing with systemic financial crises, the risks of increasing moral hazard are irrelevant in comparison with the certainty of disaster triggered by the failure of any significant bank. . . . .

Today exactly the same analysis has to be applied to the risk of Greece or any other European government defaulting on its debts or dropping out of the eurozone. If any such default were to occur, it could trigger a global financial catastrophe even larger than Lehman. Yet the possibility of a Greek debt default or restructuring is being positively promoted by many of the world’s most respected economic and financial commentators. . . . .

The fact is that if Greece were allowed to renege on its debts, the foreign banks that held €338 billion of Greek debt at the end of 2009 would immediately move to dump their additional €333 billion of Portuguese debt and probably their €1,500 billion of Spanish debt. And who knows how well over two trillion euros of Italian debt would be treated? The plunging value of Greek and Iberian bonds would immediately threaten several of the main French and German banks with insolvency, requiring government guarantees that would run into trillions of euros.

 

 

Are we heading for another Lehman-style meltdown?

Tony Bonsignore

The immediate Greek debt crisis may have been moved to the backburner, but nothing has been resolved. The fundamental problem remains that the country will be very unlikely to pay back its debt on current terms, either now or in three years’ time.

In fact, the austerity cuts being forced on Greece probably make repayment even less likely in the longer term, as it is likely to push the country into a deep recession.

Concerns are also understandably rising about the state of the public finances in Portugal, Spain and Italy, with the latter country yesterday unveiling its own budget cuts worth some €24 billion . . . . .

More immediately, though, it is the threat of another financial crisis that appears to be most concerning markets, and the possibility that such a crisis could lead to a second global economic downturn, and this time without central governments having the option of further bailouts or fiscal stimulus. . . . .

The banking sector across Europe certainly seems to be coming under renewed pressures, with fears increasing about the sovereign debt exposure of major banks in France and Germany. And as we saw in 2008 and 2009, once one bank goes over the rest have a tendency to fall like dominos.

The irony would be laughable if it wasn’t so injurious to ordinary people.

First the banks lend themselves into the ground in the interests of chasing a quick buck; then their losses are socialised in the form of unprecedented levels of government debt while they are allowed to go about their business once more; and now this towering pile of government debt threatens to come back and bite them – and us – on the backside once more.

At some point, one fears, we must all face the possibility that there will be no one left to blame, and that governments will be too broke to bail out the banks. And what then?

  1. Jon Cloke
    May 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Is Kaletsky serious? “When an entire financial system is in peril, the cost of offering unlimited government guarantees and taxpayer bailouts will always be much smaller than the losses from allowing any significant bank to collapse..” The entire financial system is in peril *because* of the unlimited government guarantees and taxpayer bailouts, which not only haven’t changed/stopped/saved anything, they’ve only slowed down the onset of the next wave of collapses. TARP/bailout effects run out about now, US option ARMs re-set in a crescendo throughout this year climaxing in December, commercial real estate all over the world wobbling, and the answer is just to chuck more money at it? This is a global systemic failure of epic proportions and the solution is printing more money/ Some Revere!

    Caedite eos. Novit enim dominus qui sunt euis.

    • Bernard
      May 26, 2010 at 7:38 pm

      Jon,

      You do have a point. It is very frustrating to see nothing being done about regulating the financial services sector. Nevertheless, I also see Kaletsky’s point too. At this stage, given that we have a mess on our hands we have to see how to get out of it in the short run and also how to make things work in the long run.

      Accordingly, it would be best to bail ‘the bastards’ out and to make sure that this mess does not come to pass again. Because of the very powerful interests involved, I am sure the former will happen but I have no faith that the second will – and this worries me a real lot.

  2. May 26, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Do umbrellas cause rain?

    Did the band playing “Nearer My God to Thee” cause the Titanic to sink?

    Did irresponsible lending/borrowing cause the Global Financial Collapse?

    Correct answer to all three questions is “No!”

    Irresponsible lending/borrowing did NOT cause the collapse, though it was often criminal and the guilty should be punished.

    Meanwhile, blaming the crash on irresponsible lending/borrowng is greatly distracting us from the real cause of the collapse.

    Total debt, public and private, long ago reached unsustainable levels. The crash would have occurred much earlier if all lenders and borrowers had been prudent and honest, and lending simply stopped when creditable borrowers could no longer be found. Once total interest payments reach some limit as a fraction of GDP, increasing total debt with further responsible lending and borrowing is simply impossible.

    Instead, banks kept making loans to borrowers mahagement knew would never pay them back-“liar loans”

    What were bank CEO’s and their loan officers thinking, knowing it was only a matter of time before the roof fell in?

    “IBG,YBG”, the most corrosive meme of the new millenium -“I’ll be gone,you’ll be gone” – with our bonuses, posh severance packages and profits intact.

    THAT is what enabled their irresponsible lending. But it didn’t cause the crash – it just delayed it.

    And it isn’t over yet.What’s coming is not “another downturn”. It’s Phase II of a collapse whose real cause has been missed even by many of the “nightriders” who correctly warned of Phase I, but who mistakenly blamed it on irresposible lending/borrowing. . . .

    The financial system won’t be “fixed” until total debt is massively reduced and we devise a money and banking system that does not depend on debt increasing without limit forever..

    Let’s hear more about debt reduction and monetary reform and less about miscreants making liar loans.

  3. May 26, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Do umbrellas cause rain?

    Did the band playing “Nearer My God To Thee” cause the Titanic to sink?

    Did irresponsible lending & borrowing cause the Global Financial Collapse?

    The correct answer to all three quesions is “No!”. To answer any of them “Yes” is to confuse cause with effect.

    Irresponsible lending & borrowing did NOT cause the collapse, though such loans and what was done with them was often criminal and the guilty should be punished.

    Meanwhile, blaming the crash on irresponsible loans is greatly distracting us from the real cause of the collapse.

    Total debt, public and private, long ago reached an unsustainable level. Once total interest payments as a fraction of GDP reach some ceiling beyond which it is impossible to pay any more interest, increasing total debt with responsible lending simply can’t be done. If all lenders and borrowers had been prudent and honest, lending would have stopped when that point was reached years ago, and a crash would have ensued then.

    Instead, when creditable borrowers could no longer be found, banks kept the game going, making phony profits by issuing loans to borrowers management knew would never pay them back – “liar loans”.

    Since they must have known it was only a matter ot time before the loans failed and the roof fell in, what were bank CEO’s and their loan officers thinking?

    What they told each other was the most corrosive meme of the new millenium, “IBG, YBG”. “I’ll Be Gone, You’ll Be Gone” – gone with their bonuses, posh severance packages and profits intact.

    THAT is what enabled their irresponsible lending. But those “liar loans” didn’t CAUSE the crash, they just delayed it.

    And it isn’t over yet. What’s coming is not another downturn. It’s Phase II of a collapse whose real nature was missed even by many of the “nightriders” who correctly warned of Phase I, but who mistekenly blamed it on irresponsible lending & borrowing. Alas, this is what almost everyone now believes.

    The financial system won’t be “fixed” until total debt is massively reduced to a sustainable level, and we devise a new money and banking system that does not depend upon debt increasing without limit forever.

    Let’s hear more about debt reduction and monetary reform, and less about miscreants making or taking liar loans. The crash would have happened even without the bad loans – in fact, sooner.

  4. May 31, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Most debt is backed up by land as collateral. Lenders have now rediscovered that land values can fall. If all land rent were collected for public benefit, the capital value of land would tend to zero and lenders would no longer be able to rely on this asset class. They would then have to earn their keep by performing careful risk analysis rather than maintaining their current position as rent-seekers.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.