Showing posts with label Derivatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Derivatives. Show all posts

Monday, 5 August 2019

Sajid Javid is totally unfit to be Chancellor of the Exchequer


Boris Johnson's cabinet is full of extraordinarily inappropriate people like Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Gavin Williamson, and Liz Truss, but perhaps the most egregious appointment of all is Sajid Javid as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Before his move into politics Javid was a banker at Deutsche Bank, where he sold complex financial derivatives called Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs).

In order to have any coherent understanding of what caused the 2008-09 global financial sector insolvency crisis, you need to know what CDOs are, otherwise you could end up believing any old economically illiterate shit (like "Labour bankrupted Britain" for example).

CDOs were economic alchemy schemes designed to turn toxic bad debts into fake gold-plated investments.

The way they worked was to collect together thousands of bad mortgages (the kind of mortgages people are highly likely to default on if there's any kind of economic downturn) then grade them into bands from worst to least bad.

The lower ranked bad mortgages remained risky investments, but the top tranche of "least bad" sub-prime mortgages were packaged up together and sent to the Credit Ratings Agencies to be classified as AAA rated investment grade financial products, meaning that major banks, insurance funds, national and local governments, and pension funds bought them up in their £billions believing them to be safe investments rather than carefully repackaged junk.

The whole thing defied economic logic: High return investments are riskier, low return investments are safer.

But Sajid Javid and the other financial sector alchemists selling these toxic products convinced their customers that they'd managed to rewrite the basic laws of investment to create these high return + supposedly low risk investments.


But while they were singing their praises to their customers, loads of CDO merchants were secretly referring to them in the most derogatory of terms, like "shit breather" and "piece of shit" in private chats, because they knew they were junk investments that were bound to implode sooner or later.

Furthermore, several of the banks selling these ticking time bomb CDO "investments" were secretly buying up £billions worth of financial insurance on the products they'd just sold, looking for huge payouts when the junk products they were selling finally exploded (this special insurance is called CDS and you can find out more in this article).

So given that it was an open secret amongst CDO merchants that they were selling toxic junk that's bound to fail, and that several of the banks selling this stuff were opportunistically speculating on the inevitable failure of the junk products that they were selling to unsuspecting customers, what was Sajid Javid playing at?

There are only two explanations, neither of them good.

If we're charitable to Javid, then we could argue that he was a clueless dupe, naively selling a load of toxic junk in good faith simply because he was too stupid to investigate the products he was actually selling, and so poorly connected within the CDO industry that he was unaware of the open secret amongst his peers that the products he was selling as safe investments were actually bound-to-fail financial Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So what on earth is Boris Johnson doing promoting a clueless idiot like this to the most important economic job in British politics just a decade later?

The other explanation is, of course, much worse. If Javid was smart enough to realise that the CDOs he was selling were bound-to-fail junk, and he was in on the open secret within the trade that they were certain to implode one day, yet he carried on selling them as safe investments to oblivious customers like other banks, pension funds, local and national governments, and insurance funds as low-risk investment opportunities, then he's a cynical and duplicitous fraudster.

If he didn't know, he was an idiot and certainly shouldn't be running the UK economy, but if he did know, then he's a fraudster and should probably be in jail for wilfully selling toxic junk to unsuspecting customers, rather than running the UK economy.

It's absolutely extraordinary that Boris Johnson and the Tories have promoted one of the shady derivatives traders who caused the economic crisis to the top economic job in British politics, and whichever way you look at it, his damning history clearly indicates his unfitness to hold such a crucial role.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Monday, 13 July 2015

The delusion that the modern economy is a capitalist one



I'd like to begin this article with a quote from the legendary economist John Maynard Keynes about the role of speculation in the economy:
"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done." The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936
It is only necessary to have the slightest familiarity with the current state of the global economy in order to understand that these days, real enterprise has been totally subsumed under a massive tide of reckless speculation. 

In order to illustrate this point I'll provide a few facts in bullet points:
  • It's very difficult to accurately assess the size of the global derivatives market because the gambling that goes on there is almost completely unregulated. Estimates range between $710 trillion and $1.2 quadrillion. To put these figures into perspective, the GDP of the entire world in 2014 was $77.3 trillion, which is only slightly over ten percent of the lower estimate of the size of the global derivatives casino.
  • The global financial sector insolvency crisis of 2007-08 was caused when banks and financial institutions all over the world realised that they had been gambling on highly complex sub-prime junk investments, that were packaged up and sold as AAA grade investments even though the people who designed them referred to them as "dog", "shit bag" and "shit breather" and then used Credit Default Swaps to bet against the very same products they were selling to their own clients.
  • The scale of the pre-crisis gambling was so bad that it took the biggest state sector interventions in history from the UK and US governments to save the financial sector from the bankruptcies they so richly deserved (funny how the free market anti-state intervention dogma goes completely out of the window when it's reckless bankers instead of factory workers in need of help isn't it?).
  • These days the vast majority of financial trading isn't even done by human beings any more. It's done by complex computer algorithms that can conduct vast numbers of trades in tiny fractions of a second (High Frequency Trading). Many people still seem to imagine the stock markets like they were in the 1980s with a load of sweaty and aggressive traders shouting buy and sell orders. Those days are well and truly gone. Nowadays the majority of financial trades are nothing more than extremely rapid computerised gambling.
  • Not only is speculation completely rampant in the modern economy, the entire system is skewed heavily in the favour of speculators. Just think about the fact that UK interest rates have been held at an all-time record low of 0.5% since March 2009. How many recklessly over-leveraged financial institutions and buy-to-let speculators would have gone under if interest rates had been anything like normal for the last six years? How much has this unprecedented period of all-time record low interest rates cost savers, pension funds, insurance funds and workers?
  • The private banks now create 97% of all money out of nothing at the moment they make the loan (you knew that right?). Of all of this electronic bank created money, only 8% gets loaned to businesses outside of the financial sector. The vast majority of the money created by the financial sector gets pumped into financial speculation (32%) and house price speculation (31%).  If we understand capitalism as capitalists using the means of production to create output and profits, then it's clear that the vast majority of the economic activity in the modern economy actually has nothing to do with capitalism. We're living in a post-capitalist speculation frenzy.
It seems that John Maynard Keynes fears about the capitalist economy turning into a dangerous whirlpool of speculation have come true. As usual Max Keiser has a compelling way of describing the situation:
"The means of production, which used to mean building factories and hiring labour, something that Marx talked about in his work, is no longer valid to describe the global economy. The means of production are now algorithmic trading."
Anyone who thinks that the modern economy is a capitalist one is simply betraying the fact that they either have a faulty understanding of the modern economy, or that they're unfamiliar with the actual definition of capitalism (perhaps using the word as a loose synonym for distinct concepts like "business" or "trade").

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.






MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
                 
Austerity is a con
                                       
Labour vs the Lib-Dems in the strategic ineptitude stakes
                
The Tory "economic recovery" mantra
                         
George Osborne has created more debt than every Labour government in history combined
                        
How Ed Balls' austerity-lite agenda ruined Labour's election chances
           
The Tory ideological mission
                     
What is ... a Credit Default Swap?
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  



Monday, 18 March 2013

Derivatives and Economic parasitism

Did you know that the untaxed and unregulated global derivatives market is many times larger than the GDP of the entire world?

There are several estimates for the size of this untaxed and unregulated derivatives market. Some estimates range as high as $1.5 quadrillion ($1,500,000,000,000,000) which is around 18 times the size of the entire productive output of the world. The IMF are more conservative with their estimates, but they still conclude that the global derivatives market has remained, on average, over 8 times the size of world GDP since the economic crisis of 2007-08.

To the economic layman it is pretty difficult to envisage how the derivatives market can be so many times bigger than the actual economy. The question that is raised is how all of these derivative trades exist outside the "real economy" of the world.

The answer is not a simple one, but for the sake of brevity I'll simplify it. Let's think of the GDP of the world as all of the actual goods produced and all of the services provided in the world in a year (the "real economy"). The derivatives market is like an untaxed, unregulated betting shop, where financial sector players can put bets on which of these "real economy" trades and transactions will succeed and which will fail.

As part of the financial sector deregulations inspired by the Randian neoliberal brigade, derivatives were exempted from regulation and taxation by the US authorities by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This legislation was like removing all regulation from the betting shop, allowing punters to have unlimited credit, allowing the bookies to rig the markets and to provide odds that they have absolutely no possibility of paying out on, then to top it all off, exempting the whole lot from taxation.

Following this deregulation the derivatives market boomed and rapidly grew to many times the size of the "real economy" of the world. In 2001 the derivatives market was around 9 times the size of the entire US economy, by 2008 it was more than 40 times as large.

Derivatives (like Collateralised Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps) were at the very epicentre of the global financial sector meltdown, yet since 2007-08 virtually nothing has been done to re-regulate the market, which has continued to grow faster than the real economy of the world.

To put the size of the derivatives market into perspective, if derivatives were included in the GDP of the world, banking activity would make up somewhere between 88%-98% of all the trade in the world. This means that in terms of cash flow, a few banks on Wall Street and in the City of London do many multiples of the economic activity of every factory, power station, hospital, school, army base, retail outlet, mining operation, hotel, farm and public transport operation in the entire world combined.

The idea that a few banks are more financially productive than the rest of world economy is just ludicrous.

Ever since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 it has been abundantly clear to anyone that takes an interest in such things, that the banks have driven themselves into insolvency through the ridiculous scale of their gambling. But instead of letting these institutions die (as neoliberal, free-market capitalism actually dictates) the governments of the world have decided to provide the largest state subsidies in human history to keep them afloat (and set about spreading the Great Neoliberal Lie: that the crisis was caused by excessive spending rather than financial sector speculation). 

The UK handed their financial sector over 90% of UK GDP in bailouts, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain subsumed the vast debts of private banks onto their public debts, the European Central Bank has handed out over €1 trillion in ultra-low interest loans to the European financial sector, the US, UK and Japan have been printing money like mad to flood it into the financial sector, yet the banks steadfastly refuse to lend out any of these unprecedented state subsidies, because they need virtually all of it to cover their mind boggling gambling losses.


The fact that the ordinary citizens of the world are being made to pay the price of keeping these hopelessly insolvent financial sector institutions afloat (through austerity, sequesters, cash grabs, hidden inflation and the devaluation of currencies, pension funds, wages and savings) is a clear example of economic parasitism.

The banking sector is now like a gigantic cuckoo chick, relying on the tiny reed warbler (the real economy) to make enormous sacrifices to continue providing it sustenance. The reed warbler does all of the actual work, whilst the cuckoo chick takes all of the rewards.

The difference of course, is that the reed warbler doesn't recognise that the cuckoo chick it is raising as it's own offspring for the parasite that it is. However, more and more people are realising that the financial sector institutions that caused the economic crisis are now nothing more than financial parasites, feeding off, and weakening the "real economy" of the world in order to keep themselves alive.

 Another Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   
                 
The Great Neoliberal Lie
           
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
        
What is ... a Credit Default Swap?
    
Too big to prosecute
        
Barclays defiling their Quaker roots
        
The economic case against tax-dodging
              
What is ... hidden inflation?
         
The golden hammer of neoliberalism

Saturday, 23 June 2012

Credit Default Swaps explained


Following financial sector deregulation in the US,
the CDS market grew exponentially
Credit Default Swaps are complex financial derivatives.
 
Although forms of Credit Default Swap had been in existence from at least the early 1990s, the financial giant JP Morgan is widely credited with creating the first modern Credit Default Swap in 1994.

In 2000, neoliberal financial sector deregulations in the United States meant that the Credit Default Swap market was exempted from virtually all regulation.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, (which was also responsible for the Enron loophole) specifically stated that CDSs are neither futures nor securities and so are outside the remit of the SEC and CFTC.  After these deregulations, the Credit Default Swap market grew exponentially. In 2000, the market was worth $0.9 trillion. By the time the global financial sector insolvency crisis occurred in 2008, the CDS market was worth more than $30 trillion (more than 15x the size of the entire UK economy at the time).

The easiest way to imagine a CDS is to think of it as a kind of financial sector insurance. The similarity between a traditional insurance policy and a CDS is that the buyer pays a premium and in the case that one of the specified events occurs (a company goes bankrupt, a currency loses value, a state defaults) the buyer receives a payment from the issuer of the contract.

The main difference between an insurance policy and a CDS is that the buyer of a CDS does not necessarily have to own the financial product they are "insuring", in fact the buyer does not need to have even suffered any financial loss at all in order to claim their payout. This creates a situation where Credit Default Swaps can be used to speculatively bet against troubled entities. In the last days before the American bank Bear Stearns went bankrupt, a large number of Credit Default Swaps were purchased on their stock, and during the Greek economic crisis a huge market for Credit Default Swaps on Greek government bonds developed.

These kinds of speculative CDS contracts, where the buyer is not interested in taking out insurance against the failure of one of their investments, but simply making a profit out of someone else's misfortune are often called Naked Credit Default Swaps. It has been estimated that Naked Credit Default Swaps account for over 80% of the global CDS trade.

To put Naked Credit Default Swaps into a simple context, lets use the analogy that they are like strangers buying insurance on your house because they think that there is a strong possibility that it will be robbed or attacked by arsonists. Since there is no need for the owners of the Naked Credit Default Swaps to have any financial interest in your house, lets say 200 speculators buy this kind of insurance on your house. The first and most obvious problem with this situation is that in the case that the house is attacked by an arsonist, the issuer of all of the Naked Credit Default Swaps is going to face an insurance payout 200 times the size of the actual economic damage of your house fire, because they must pay out over and again on the same event. This kind of multiplication effect contributed to the collapse and subsequent taxpayer bailout of the American insurance giant AIG, which issued hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDS contracts without bothering to hedge against the possibility that the reference entities might lose value, meaning that when the 2008 financial sector meltdown hit, they faced CDS payouts in excess of $100 billion on the collapse of Lehmann Brothers bank alone.

The AIG collapse and taxpayer funded bailout illustrates another fundamental difference between CDS policies and ordinary insurance policies. In order to sell home/car/travel/contents/life/health insurance, the insurer must comply with strict insurance industry regulations and demonstrate that they actually have the capital reserves to pay out on the policies they have been issuing. There are no such constraints on issuers of CDS policies, meaning that AIG issued billions of dollars worth of CDS contracts with no obligation to actually maintain the credit reserves necessary to pay out on them. After the financial sector meltdown AIG received a $182 billion bailout from the government, At least $90 billion of which went towards payouts on AIG's unhedged Credit Default Swap policies. Most of this taxpayer funded cash mountain went to pay out on Naked Credit Default Swaps owned by large American and European banks, including Goldman Sachs which received a $12.9 billion taxpayer funded windfall.

The second problem with Naked Credit Default Swaps is that they actually provide a financial incentive for the buyers to then do whatever they can to increase the probability that the troubled assets that they are betting against will fail. In our analogy, the 200 strangers who have bought insurance policies on your house now have a financial incentive to increase the chances that your house burns down, since they have nothing to lose in financial terms from a house fire on a property that they don't own, and a lot to gain. They don't necessarily have to turn to arson and burn it down themselves, however they could easily ensure that all the local arsonists and vandals have your address and a good supply of petrol and matches.

there are two particularly egregious examples of financial institutions using Naked Credit Default Swaps to profit from the misfortune of their own clients. In 2001 the American financial giant Goldman Sachs received a $300 million payment from Greece for helping the country to hide the true extent of their debts from the European regulators. This deal shows that staff at Goldman knew that the Greek economic situation was far worse than the official figures stated. At the same time as they were helping Greece to cook their books they were also buying up Naked Credit Default Swaps on Greek assets, meaning that they would make large profits if the true extent of the debts they were helping Greece to hide became public. To return to the analogy, Goldman Sachs knew the Greek house was likely to burn down, as they had helped them to hide the fact that it was full of financial dynamite from the European safety inspectors, using this insider knowledge they bought a load of CDS insurance policies and waited for the financial bomb to explode and the cash to start rolling in.

Another example of firms betting against their own clients can be seen in the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Many American banks packaged up their worst mortgages into financial instruments called Collateralised Debt Obligations, paid the Credit Ratings Agencies to stamp them with AAA, top grade ratings then sold them on to their customers as valuable assets, rather than the toxic sub-prime junk that they knew they actually were. Packaging toxic junk as valuable assets and selling it to your unsuspecting customers is bad enough, but many banks went even further by taking out Naked Credit Default Swaps on the dodgy assets they had just sold. Returning to the house insurance analogy once again, this is as if an estate agent had made a hefty profit selling you a dangerously constructed house that they knew would be certain to burn down within a couple of years, then taken out insurance policy to make sure they made another profit when the fire actually happened.

There are currently debates in the United States and Europe about whether speculative uses of credit default swaps should be banned, however there is vociferous opposition from the financial sector players who have been allowed to use these products to make huge profits on other people's misery. Financial misery that in many cases they actively helped to create. The case for the regulation of the CDS market is an undeniably strong one, especially given that the American business magnate Warren Buffet (who is hardly some kind of socialist free market critic) described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction".

The huge obstacle to sensible regulation of the CDS market is that the financial interests of those who would lose out under a properly regulated system have enormous influence over western political systems. The UK is run by a political party that is majority funded by the financial sector, meaning that the Tory party happily kicked UK financial sector reform into the long grass and spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' money on actively opposing virtually all new financial regulations proposed by the EU.

In America Barack Obama has surrounded himself with the very same bankers and economists who were at the epicentre of the global economic meltdown. People who were instrumental in the creation of the highly unstable derehulated financial sector in the first place. Any effort to regulate the CDS market in the US would be seen as a huge political u-turn and an admission of responsibility for the global economic crisis for whichever party did it, since both the Democrats and the Republicans introduced ideologically driven measures designed to remove regulation from the CDS market.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Who is to blame for the economic crisis?



The reckless gamblers at Bradford and Bingley  
were responsible for their own downfall.
I decided to write this article after I came across an absurd comment trying to absolve the financial sector from any responsibility for the neoliberal economic meltdown, the guy said;


"We are being told to blame the bankers but the banks were the victims of the fraud."
 My immediate response was:


Nope, they were victims of their own stupidity.
In order to portray the financial sector as the unfairly criticised innocent victims of the economic crisis, it would take willful ignorance of what actually happened, which was this:

The parasitic "shadow banking sector" lobbied and demanded to be freed from the burden of regulation, which the "orthodox neoliberal" politicians were more than happy to oblige with.

Both sides of the so called political spectrum in the US and UK repealed legislation which was designed to prevent banks from destabilising the economy. Margaret Thatcher's Tories began the deregulation process in the UK in the absurd attempt to create a post-industrial London based financial services economy. The Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown further deregulated the financial sector in the 1990s ceding all democratic control of the Bank of England to the private sector in compliance with neoliberal pseudo-economic theory. In the United States, Bill Clinton's Democrats set about dismantling the legislative firewalls that were put in place in order to prevent another Wall Street crash and George Bush's Republicans intensified the process in the 2000s. The European Union and other countries such as Argentina also set about enacting absurd neoliberalisation reforms and financial sector deregulations.


Once the financial sector were freed from the legislation which was originally put in place to prevent their reckless gambling tendencies from creating economic instability, most of them quickly set about over-leveraging themselves to the max (using mortgage payments, savings and pension schemes as their reserves) in order to make all kinds of insane bets on crap like Spanish and Irish property assets, Greek government bonds and complex derivatives (like Collateralised Debt Obligations) that they clearly didn't even understand. 

As long as it was stamped with a decent rating from the (either corrupt or utterly clueless) Credit Ratings oligopoly, they racked up vast debts to throw money at it without bothering to assess the risk for themselves. Trying to absolve the financial sector of responsibility for their own reckless speculation on inaccurately rated and often fraudulent "investments" is as absurd as trying to absolve the customer from blame had they borrowed beyond their means in order to buy a wreck of a second hand car without negotiating any warranty coverage or even bothering to take a cursory glance at the vehicle first.


The run on Northern Rock was caused by their own
gross mismanagement of risk.
After years of reckless speculative gambling, the inevitable neoliberal meltdown happened. I the wake of it, instead of letting the reckless gamblers die (as neoliberal theory actually specifies) the western governments and central banks shat themselves, decided that many of the institutions were "too big to fail" and started pouring countless trillions into the debt riddled institutions, in order to pay out on what should have been losing bets. In order to try and cover the cost of these financial sector interventions Western governments set about inflicting harsh self-defeating austerity measures on the "real economy" (jobs, wages, pensions, welfare provision, infrastructure etc) using the Great Neoliberal Lie as their justification narrative.

It is transparently clear that "austerity" is just the same old neoliberal claptrap rebranded as something urgent and necessary, rather than the defunct ideologically driven gibberish that actually caused the economic crisis in the first place.

Massively reducing government spending on infrastructure and causing a dramatic reduction in household disposable income led to the transparently obvious consequence of reduced aggregate demand and economic stagnation, which in turn led to increases rather than decreases in budget deficits and national debts as the pace of cuts failed to match the falls in tax revenues. The harder they cut the "real economy", the bigger the debt burden they ended up creating.


It is clear that for decades the global economy has been run by economic illiterates; by people that don't give a damn about economic history (the most stable and productive period was the mixed economy era, which their craze for greed-is-a-virtue, privatise everything, more riches for the rich and screw the workers, neoliberal pseudo-economics has ruined). They don't bother with vital regulations to prevent anti-competitive practices (monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, information asymmetry, subsidisation of failure...) from developing because the simplistic neoliberal mantra says that "all regulations are evil" and they don't even seem to understand really fundamental economic concepts such as aggregate demand, value multipliers and false economies.


The only people more culpable for the economic crisis 
than the bankers themselves, are the politicians that
  meekly abdicated their responsibilities to protect
 the economy from their reckless gambling urges.
Many of the biggest culprits in the neoliberal financial sector meltdown are directly involved in Barack Obama's government and nobody in the US has even been prosecuted for the economic chaos they have created. In the UK the Tory party came to power on the back of public discontent at Labour's handling of the crisis, yet the financial sector have an effective controlling interest in the Tory party, providing more than 50% of their political donations. It is absolutely no surprise that proposed reforms to prevent the banks from recklessly gambling with our mortgage payments, savings and pension funds has been booted into the long grass (2019 at the earliest) by the banker funded Tory party.

The financial sector are to blame for the economic crisis. They caused it by inflating a giant bubble of "easy credit" and using it to fund their reckless speculative gambling instead of making carefully hedged long-term investments. The politicians that meekly enabled their risky gambling habits by deregulating them, then bailed them out, and are now working to make the "real economy" pay the costs of the financial sector gambling debts through "self-defeating austerity" and even now refuse to prosecute or even re-regulate the banks.

The lessons of history are pretty clear, the free market fundamentalists / neoliberals / anarcho-capitalists (call them what you want) have tended to create the economic crises through enabling risky short-term profiteering and it has been government's job to clean up their messes and prevent them from doing it again, two things that the impossibly compromised "orthodox neoliberal" politicians of the West are abjectly failing to do at present.


So in conclusion, the people that are to blame are the reckless bankers that mismanaged the risk that they are supposedly paid their obscene salaries in order to manage, and the politicians that enabled this reckless gambling spree by deregulating the financial markets.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
What is ... Neoliberalism?
               
                         

             
           

Saturday, 28 April 2012

The case for a National Investment Bank


As an economic recovery strategy austerity is not working. Defenders of the "orthodox neoliberal" response to the ongoing economic crisis often demand to know what the alternatives are to their favoured cut-now think later strategies. In this series I'm going to explore what some of these economic alternatives could be.


Decades of orthodox neoliberal politics meant that huge sectors
of the UK economy went to ruin for lack of state intervention,
however when the neoliberal financial sector elite got into trouble
the state immediately tore up the neoliberal rule book to provide the
biggest state subsidies in UK history to their financial sector mates.
The UK economy is stagnating in the wake of the neoliberal economic meltdown because corporate banks are too busy deleveraging and gambling on the unregulated derivatives market to make loans to people and businesses in the "real economy". Without finance, small and medium sized businesses are unable to expand and create employment, while many larger businesses are being forced to downsize due to lack of credit and the weakness of the wider economy.

For decades the UK political establishment concentrated on turning the UK into a London centric financial services based economy, leaving large sectors of the real productive economy (manufacturing, mining, steel, ships, train building, HGV production) to decline and ruination for the lack of government support. What makes this neglect so much worse is that when their beloved neoliberal financial sector experiment collapsed under a landslide of debt, the Neo-Labour government of the day piled in to save the financial sector elite with the largest state subsidies in British history (90%+ of GDP on bank bailouts and the nationalisation of debt riddled institutions). After sitting on their hands and allowing British industry to fall into desperate decline in compliance with the neoliberal mantra that "state intervention is bad", they immediately ditched the principle in order to bail out the financial sector temples of neoliberalism that had so enthusiastically supported the government's destructive hands off economic approach.

The financial sector lapped up the government cash, took hundreds of billions more in secretive ultra low interest loans from the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve and another £325 billion in freshly printed quantitative easing cash from the Bank of England, yet virtually all of this cash was simply used to pay down their extraordinary gambling debts (deleveraging), with little of it filtering through to the "real economy". Any money that did filter through to the "real economy" came in the form of loans with interest rates way above the minimalist rates of the secretive central bank loans. It is quite clear that the financial sector simply set about profiteering with their bailout funds rather than using them for the best interests of the wider economy.

It is a widely accepted economic theory that at times of economic crisis the government (and central bank) need to stimulate the economy, however in the wake of the neoliberal economic meltdown, virtually all of the economic stimuli have been gobbled up by the very same financial institutions that caused the crisis in the first place. What is worse is that the ideologically driven Conservatives have spent the last two years extracting the cost of these stimuli from the genuinely productive economy in the form of austerity measures and welfare cuts, using the great neoliberal lie that welfare spending rather than financial sector incompetence caused the economic crisis as their justification.

It is quite clear that these policies of economic stimuli for private financial sector institutions and austerity for the wider economy have resulted in stagflation and economic chaos. The policy needs to be reversed, economic stimuli should go to the "real economy" and the financial sector that created the crisis should suffer the austerity measures.

The state owns an 84% stake in RBS
and subsidiaries such as NatWest. This infrastructure
could be used to establish a National Investment Bank.
The state should should step in to provide economic support to the "real economy" and with the nationalisation of several debt stricken financial institutions during the financial sector meltdown the United Kingdom government has already acquired the infrastructure to operate a National Investment Bank.

The role of the National Investment Bank should be to make low interest loans to projects that further the national economic interests. If corporate banks are too busy deleveraging and gambling on the unregulated derivatives market to make economically beneficial loans, the National Investment Bank should step in to finance entrepreneurs, wealth creators, research and development, employment providers, economically valuable public services (healthy & educated workers are productive workers) and infrastructure development.

The National Investment Bank should also invest in affordable housing construction and provide low interest finance to hard working families, lowering the absurd cost of housing in the UK and creating a stream of disposable income to stimulate the economy.

The National Investment Bank could also be used as a tool to counter the economically destructive practices of tax dodging by making sure that any recipients of low interest NIB loans pass a financial fair play assessment by demonstrating that they avoid using offshore tax avoidance structures or non-dom statuses. If companies and individuals are not prepared to pay their fair share of UK tax, they should not be allowed to access the benefits of low interest NIB loans.

Imagine how much better the economic outlook could have been if the £325 billion in quantitative easing cash and £1 trillion in financial sector bailouts had gone directly to the real economy of jobs, manufacturing, education, research and services instead of being used just to prop up the debt riddled, tax dodging, derivatives gambling, financial sector elite.

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Recurring questions: Do stock market gains equate to economic recovery?


Do gains in World stock markets mean that the long awaited economic recovery is underway?

If you choose to believe the reaction of economics "experts" in the mainstream media, then the gains are really positive news meaning that the global economy is finally coming out of recession and that the recent falls can be forgotten about.

If however, you are disinclined to believe the media "experts" that were incapable of spotting the sub-prime mortgage scam for what it was and ignored the pre-2007 warnings that reckless borrowing to fuel property price inflation was going to end in economic disaster, perhaps you should ask another question:

Who are the beneficiaries of increasingly dramatic fluctuations in the money markets?

Hint: The unregulated speculative derivatives market is estimated to be worth 20x the GDP of the entire World. Nowadays there's vastly more money invested in bets about whether stocks are going to go up or down than is invested in actually making or doing things in the "real economy".

To take the UK as an example, the much hyped national debt of 876 billion (58% of GDP) was borrowed to spend on all kinds of beneficial stuff like universal healthcare, universal education, the military, infrastructure projects, science, research subsidies, policing, welfare, local services, libraries, foreign aid, industrial support and even a few ill advised and not very beneficial foreign invasions, while the sum just unconditionally handed over to the banks to pay down their appalling gambling debts (which is misleadingly excluded from the national debt calculations) is £1,376 billion (91% of GDP), this figure doesn't even take into account the economically destructive consequences of holding interest rates artificially low for years, a £325bn money printing scam (quantitative easing) and the countless $trillions in secretive ultra low interest loans to British banks from the US Federal Reserve.

Meanwhile neoliberal politicians are queueing up to shaft ordinary working & taxpaying people with their "austerity measures" based on the great neoliberal lie that "the state has been spending too much on welfare, healthcare, education and other services" when they know full well that the state has borrowed far more in order to prop up the corruption riddled, unstable and transparently defective neoliberal economic system.

The uber-rich neoliberal financial services clique are laughing all the way to the bank. They have benefited from taxpayer funded bailouts to kept their reckless money making scams from collapsing into the chasm of debt they had created. Now they are enriching themselves in the game of short selling sovereign debt before their self fulfilling prophecies about imminent downgrades come true, then brazenly chelping away that ordinary people need to suffer more "austerity" because their governments have too many unaffordable debts.

The $1.2 quadrillion speculative derivatives market dwarfs all of the real economies of the World, (it is 80x the size of the much hyped US government debt). The reason for this is that it is far easier to make money in unregulated financial speculation than it is to invest in employing anyone in the real (and regulated) economy to actually make things or to provide real services. The unregulated and unstable debt fuelled behemoth of the speculative derivatives market leaks it's inherent instability into the comparatively tiny real economy. The tendency to look for causal factors in the real economy is the same kind of futile outdated thinking as maintaining traditional twentieth century tribal political allegiances when all of the mainstream political parties have been infiltrated by followers of hardline neoliberal orthodoxy. Claims that worries about the Greek sovereign debt crisis caused the latest global market collapse are not so much "tail wagging the dog" theories as "flea wagging the dog" theories.

In order to make their obscene amounts of money, the speculative derivatives traders need to create unstable market conditions in order to maximise their gambling yields. All the talk about market confidence is as meaningless as the jumbled post hoc list of factors media "experts" like to espouse as reasons for the latest market surge/market collapse. Derivatives traders want the stock market to rise in order that it can crash again, they want it to crash again in order that it can rise.