Government Spending and the Risk of Ruin
by
Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff
DIGG THIS
A company named
Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold recently suspended its dividend
and cut back its capital spending. It did this to preserve cash,
so that it can service its debt in light of the fact that its business
has fallen off sharply. These moves to "stop the bleeding"
were prudent. The company wants to avoid ruin (bankruptcy). It is
obvious that stemming the cash outflows will help it preserve its
capital and provide a reserve or bulwark against hard times that
may last for quite a long time. If it had not taken these steps,
its risk of ruin would have been much greater.
Any person
or enterprise that has cash inflows and cash outflows reaches financial
ruin when the cash inflows are not enough to pay the obligated cash
outflows. Clearly the risk of ruin is lower when the entity has
higher cash inflows, as from income and revenues, and lower cash
outflows, as from spending and debts. Just as clearly, the risk
of ruin rises when spending and borrowing are increased, while income
and revenues are going lower.
The risk of
ruin constrains profligate actions, but it does not always stop
them. There are those who direct themselves intentionally into financial
ruin. While a child can understand these facts, governments act
as if they can be disregarded. This leads to another fact of life:
governments often destroy themselves and take their citizens down
with them. They do this because, with their power to tax, they regard
all the assets of everyone in their realm as theirs for the taking,
albeit at some cost to them; and this induces them to multiply their
obligations recklessly.
The prudence
of Freeport can be contrasted with the imprudence of government.
Two recent examples are Great Britain and the United States of America.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is intent on borrowing and spending
more, with the hope of restoring demand. Barack Obama stands for
doing "whatever it takes to get this economy moving again that
we have to, we're going to have to spend money now to stimulate
the economy and that we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year
or even the year after." The $700 billion bailout bill passed
earlier this year is a third example. It allows the FDIC to borrow
unlimited amounts from the Treasury to cover losses on insured bank
deposits. This provision relaxes the pressure on banks so that they
do not have to cut back on dividends and spending.
Then we have,
as a fourth instance, the Federal Reserve making loans with abandon.
This is a novel way to increase the risk of ruin. If you make enough
bad loans that the borrowers cannot repay, then, like any bank that
makes bad loans, you risk ruin. The Fed’s risk of ruin is decidedly
higher today than three months ago or twelve months ago.
Alan Greenspan
mentioned a fifth example, which is likewise novel. One raises the
risk of ruin when one has the seemingly unlimited ability to borrow.
He mentioned this in testimony on April 6, 2005: "The government
guarantee for GSE debt inferred by investors enables Fannie and
Freddie to profitably expand their portfolios of assets essentially
without limit." One might think that an unlimited ability to
borrow is something that staves off ruin. The opposite is true.
It builds up obligatory interest payments. The result of that ability
to borrow without limit was the bankruptcy of Fannie and Freddie.
It was like a perpetual bailout fund to them. They did not need
to institute careful risk controls over their loans, the result
being they made too many bad loans. Soon their cash inflows were
not enough to service the payments on all that unlimited borrowing
they had done.
Notice that
the Fed’s ability to issue debt (currency) to any extent is equivalent
to the capacity to borrow unlimited amounts. The Fed’s higher risk
of ruin fits into this category too.
The risk of
ruin of the U.S. government was already large before the recent
financial problems occurred. The government already had made Medicare
promises that it could not keep without strangling the economy or
otherwise seizing wealth through high taxes and inflation. But now,
as it piles program on program, and contemplates huge public works
spending and the accompanying deficits, the risk of ruin is rising
even more.
Our officials
are not so much fearless in taking these risks as ignorant and unable
to adapt to reality. They are ignorant because they do not know
any better. They are both stupid and unable to adapt to reality
because they are turning to the same methods that have supposedly
worked in the past to stave off downturns in the economy. These
are deficit spending and money-pumping. They seemed to "work,"
but they never did. Not understanding logic, our officials mistook
their manipulations of economic activity combined with the normal
forces of economic recovery for a healthy economy.
What logically
and actually worked was that entrepreneurs in the business sector
were able to create new jobs and whole new industries. That covered
up the drag and distortions placed upon the economy by government
policies. That drag is now being magnified even more. Even Tiger
Woods won’t be able to drive a golf ball 100 yards if we load him
down with all sorts of weights, braces, and contraptions.
This business
cycle is worse, much worse, and it will stay much worse than prior
recessions. The problems of the economy will not be resolved by
anything that the government and the Fed are now doing or contemplating
doing. These problems are too deep and structural. The financial
system has failed, but the problems are far more profound. They
arise from a long-term set of government and monetary policies,
and they go to the production structure of American business. They
reach overseas into trade issues. They reach into our poor educational
system. They reach into ethical failings. They reach into misguided
war policies. When a social and economic system has been misled
for decades, the results go deep. They can’t be altered by public
works spending and money-pumping.
The crisis
has firmly-set and long-established roots. Americans do not have
a stable medium of account that underlies their currency. The result
of that is to misdirect effort into speculation against both deflationary
and inflationary episodes. The lack of currency stability affects
investment. At times, it has shortened investment horizons unduly.
At other times, when interest rates have been too low, it has lengthened
them unduly. At times, the government has acted to mitigate the
speculative errors of business and financial interests, and this
has induced inordinate risk-taking behavior. The government has
attempted to provide a safety net for individuals as well. This
has induced anti-social, anti-family, and profligate behavior. People
have become less responsible and less oriented to planning and carrying
out long-term plans. Government policies put in place supposedly
to help people have, in the long run, undermined and distorted the
normal functioning of society and business.
America’s problems
run very deep. They will not be overcome by electing a candidate
of change who does the same old things, only more so. Universal
health care simply extends the problems besetting the health-care
system. Transferring the army from Iraq to Afghanistan simply extends
expensive and devastating war-making. Money-pumping simply repeats
the error that has helped bring us to where we now are. Public works
programs do not differ significantly from any other wasteful government
program.
Since this
crisis is bringing home to roost all of the errors of the past,
only very large government counter-measures can possibly induce
and manipulate the economy into a state of simulated recovery. The
government is trying to make the zombie go through the motions one
more time, with big doses of drugs and stimulants. This hastens
the demise of the system. America’s fall will be more rapid than
the fall of other nations who have faced ruin because of the enhanced
scale of America’s attempted recovery efforts.
These efforts
won’t succeed because they logically cannot succeed; they can only
further distort and deflect the economy from a healthy and progressive
course. The crisis will stretch out endlessly under these policies.
They will lead to worse policies, such as exchange controls and
controls over domestic investments. The Senate by the chances of
politics actually did something right by rejecting the auto manufacturers’
initial bailout. The White House will try to do it anyway. This
is what we are coming to, an economy that is more and more manipulated
by the government. Such an economy is a stagnant economy.
Under these
circumstances, unless the government changes its policies, capital
will more and more flee the country. People will flee. Domestic
conflict will rise. The dictatorship we already have will heighten.
This all will
have investment implications. Gold will rise in price. As the current
conditions take hold, I expect a gold price of $1500$1700.
That is, I expect the dollar to depreciate significantly. Don’t
ask me when.
We do not need
disaster scenarios for this to occur. All we need is what we are
now getting, which is the existing political policies. The commitments
for Medicare and the big deficits will cause the dollar to depreciate.
Battles in foreign lands add to the deficits. Public works add to
the deficits. There are nothing but large deficits as far as the
eye can see.
I
think interest rates will rise and bonds fall. The risk of ruin
will affect government bond pricing. Government bonds are short
sales. They've had a tremendous rally that looks irrational to me
in view of the big deficits that lie ahead.
I expect stocks
to be volatile or "messy." They will eventually go lower.
It was right
to get out of stocks in 2007 and 2008. It is right at this time
to get out of both bonds and dollars.
The old saying
is to never sell America short. Rules like that eventually are broken.
Buy and hold in the stock market is a broken rule. Even diversification
is a broken investing rule. Buy and hold has failed because it amounted
to a bet too. If one bets on the wrong market, buying and holding
it is useless. Diversification fails when it can't foresee the states
of the world and how the assets will perform in those states. And
it usually fails to see those critical details, so it does not know
how to diversify. Not selling America short is the next rule to
be broken.
December
15, 2008
Michael
S. Rozeff [send him mail]
is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Michael
S. Rozeff Archives
|