Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the royal wedding, the disappointing GDP numbers, higher unemployment and Ben Bernanke.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Kiss me Kate! William and his new bride show their love for each other on Palace balcony as TWO BILLION watch Royal Wedding
Economic Growth Slow as Inflation Measure Spikes Up
More people applied for unemployment benefits
Bernanke Defends Fed’s Role in Running Economy
The Fed Will Make Sure Obama Wins in 2012: Strategist
(more…)

The experts charged with determining when recessions begin and end tell us that the latest of these unpleasant events ended a while ago. Technically, they are no doubt right. But that does not mean that the economic crisis we have been facing is over. I suspect that we have thus far only seen its first act. The drama to come may be far, far worse. To see why, one must recognize that economic downturns come in two different forms.

The economists who study recessions tend to think about them in turns of the business cycle – and rightly so, for in most cases it is the business cycle that produces the downturn. In the course of such a cycle, boom builds upon boom and bust upon bust. It is a bit like a game of crack the whip. Downturns occasioned by the business cycle are caused by overproduction. When businesses have more stock than they can sell, they stop producing and lay off workers. The workers laid off and no longer getting paychecks cut back on their consumption, and this in turn reduces the demand for goods and services and causes other businesses, which find their products and services no longer as much in demand, to curtail their efforts and lay off another set of workers. And so the recession grows, building on itself, until some businesses find that they have underproduced or underprovided for the services in demand. Then, the same process takes place in reverse with stepped-up production and a stepped-up provision of services requiring stepped-up employment, which occasions more consumption requiring another round of stepped-up production and provision of services and a further increase in employment and so forth – until production and provision once more overshoot demand. In the absence of perfect knowledge, human beings living in commercial societies are fated to suffer from an oscillation of this sort – between boom and bust.

When Barack Obama became President, his economic advisors appear to have been on automatic pilot and to have taken it for granted that this was the sort of recession that they were up against. And so they opted for a remedy that – if applied in the proper fashion, at the proper time, and  in the proper amount – might serve to hasten an economy’s recovery from a recession occasioned by the business cycle. That is, they sought to prime the pump – to increase consumption by artificial means, to borrow money from the future, put it in the pockets of certain citizens, and hope that they would spend it right away and thereby put others back to work.

Such was, at least, their pretense. In practice, of course, the so-called “stimulus bill” was a targeted measure – a massive pay-off designed to reward the public-sector employees and unionized workers involved in infrastructure construction who make up core constituencies within the Democratic Party and to do so at the expense of those whose taxes the Democrats intended in the future to raise. Obama’s advisors did not worry much about the manner in which the “stimulus” was to be applied, its timing, and amount, however. For they took it for granted that the expenditures would do no immediate damage to anyone and that the economy would bounce back quickly in any case, as it always does when the downturn is caused solely (or at least primarily) by the business cycle.

(more…)

On Wednesday, if all goes as planned, President Barack Obama will sign the financial-reform bill crafted by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, sponsored by the Democratic Party in both houses, and supported by three Republican Senators – Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. When the bill is signed, we will be told, as we have repeatedly been told in the last few months, that the measures included within it will prevent future financial crises of the sort that we have suffered from over the last two years.

By now, of course, most Americans have become skeptical of such claims. We were to told that the so-called “stimulus” bill would bring unemployment down, and we learned that its main function was to reward constituencies favoring the party in power. It increased dramatically the salaries of those within the federal civil service, it expanded that civil service massively, and it enabled the state governments and the localities to continue to pay those who worked within the public sector at those levels. Similar lies were told during the healthcare debate. We were told that no one would lose his coverage, that no one would be forced to acquire health insurance, that the cost curve would be bent downward. It is proper to ask whether we are being lied to now and whether Senators Brown, Collins, and Snowe have sold us down the river.

The answer depends – to a considerable degree – on what were the causes of the recent financial crisis. Was it caused by a market failure? If so, is it likely that governmental regulation will prevent such failures in the future? These are the claims advanced by Paul Krugman and the like; these are the claims put forward by President Obama, Senator Dodd, and Congressman Frank. And, on the face of it, they would appear to be true. There was, after all, a bubble in the real estate market. Goldman Sachs and the like marketed junk bonds, made up of mortgages, on a gigantic scale and managed to get for them a triple-A rating from S&P and from Moody’s, and insurance against default was purchased from outfits like AIG that had no idea of the risks involved. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve could and should have intervened.

But one must be cautious about calling what happened “a case of market failure,” for the real-estate market was not a free market. One could, of course, reply that no market is a genuinely free market. The “free market” is an ideal type. It does not exist in reality. The government interferes and gives shape to virtually every market through taxation, regulation, and laws detailing how contracts are to be enforced.

(more…)

Today the leading Austrian economic think tank, the Ludwig von Mises Institute held a conference at the University Club in Manhattan in which Marc Faber, famed contrarian investor and publisher of the “Gloom, Boom and Doom Report” gave his perspective on the financial crisis and his outlook for the future.

Below are his main points and entertaining quotes:

• Central banks will never tighten monetary policy again, merely print, print, print
• Bubbles used to be concentrated in 1 sector or region in the 19th century, but off of the gold standard this concentration has ended
• “The lifetime achievement of Greenspan and Bernanke is really that they created a bubble in everything…everywhere.”
• “Central banks love to see asset prices go up,” and their policy reflects their desperation to perpetuate this
• US housing bubble that Greenspan could not spot (even though he has recently spotted bubbles in Asia) stands in stark contrast to that of Hong Kong in 1997, where prices fell by 70%, yet none of the major developers went bankrupt; this was a result of a system not built on excessive debt like that of the US
• “You have to ask what they were smoking at the Federal Reserve,” during the housing bubble, as prices were increasing by 18% annually when interest rates started to steadily rise in 2004
• Over the last couple of years, when the gross increase in public debt has exceeded the gross decrease in private debt, markets have risen, whereas when private debt growth has outpaced public debt growth, markets have tanked
• The next 3-5 years will be highly volatile

(more…)

From today’s New York Times:

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of theSocial Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.

(more…)

With the publication of The Fountainhead in 1943 and Atlas Shrugged in 1958, Rand became a full-blown cultural phenomenon, selling millions of books and inspiring countless readers-ranging from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Playboy founder Hugh Hefner to actress Angelina Jolie-with her moral defense of capitalism.

A refugee from Soviet Russia, Rand argued that capitalism was the best way of organizing society not simply because it was more efficient than communism but because it allowed the individual to fill his or her potential. A self-declared “radical for capitalism,” Rand emphatically rejected collectivism of all stripes and embraced “man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

Decades after her death, Rand’s work is hotter than ever.

(more…)

Despite the few voices of caution, risk and leverage had become a national fixation, embraced both on Wall Street and in government. The SEC and the Fed, the main regulators in charge of monitoring the buildup of risky assets on the banks’ books, together with the rating agencies, were the modern-day equivalents of Nero fiddling as Rome burned.The fire in this case was the massive and rapid buildup of mortgage debt on the balance sheets of the banks; by 2006 it was approaching $1 trillion and heading higher without so much as a peep from the traditional watchdogs.

Still, the risk taking and leverage went beyond the brokerage houses and the banks. The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were in the game as well. By now, Fannie and Freddie had fully and completely conceded their original mandates to the whims of the Washington political class, which demanded “affordable” housing for all, even those who couldn’t afford it. The politicians were giddy with Fannie and Freddie’s conversion from staid mortgage banks to subprime lenders that would make Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of the largest subprime lender in the markets, Countrywide Financial, envious.

It was an evolution that took years in the making. As HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo boasted in one report in the late 1990s that the new mandates he was imposing on Fannie and Freddie to ramp up subprime lending “could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas.”

(more…)