|
Are you wondering why the U.S. economy has now stagnated — despite the largest government stimulus, bailouts, and money printing of all time?
Are you puzzled why the real income of American households has just suffered its worst plunge in recorded history — despite the so-called “recovery” of 2009-2011?
Do you want to know why it now takes 40.5 weeks for the average unemployed worker to find a new job — also the worst in recorded history?
And are you flabbergasted by the utter failure of the U.S. Congress to do anything about trillion-dollar federal deficits for years to come?
Then, let me tell you precisely what’s causing this mess.
The fundamental source of the nation’s troubles is DEBTS that are far larger and more destructive than Washington admits.
Indeed, the U.S. government is covering up the magnitude of the nation’s debt disasters with three major deceptions:
Debt Deception #1
Washington Excludes the Massive
Debts of Federal Government Agencies
“As long as the government’s debt burden is under 100 percent of GDP,” they say, “we can handle it. It’s only when it surpasses the 100 percent threshold that we’ll be in danger.”
True or false?
Let’s look at the numbers:
• U.S. GDP is $14.6 trillion. And …
• According to the Federal Reserve’s Flow of Funds, U.S. Treasury debts outstanding are $9.7 trillion.
• So that means the debts are well under the 100 percent danger threshold, right?
Wrong! The authorities conveniently ignore a massive $7.6 trillion of additional government debts that have piled up on the books of U.S. government agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These agencies were created by the U.S. government, have always been controlled by the U.S. government, and now, after the federal bailouts of the last debt crisis, are even owned by the U.S. government.
How in the world anyone could possibly exclude their debts from the U.S. government’s books is beyond me. And yet that’s precisely what Washington does.
Add those debts to the government’s total burden … and guess what! Instead of $9.7 trillion in federal government debts outstanding, the actual total comes to $17.3 trillion — a whopping 118.3 percent of GDP!
How bad is that?
Well, back in 1970, about eight months before President Richard Nixon devalued the dollar and abandoned the gold standard, all U.S. government debts (even including government agencies) was only 32.9 percent of GDP.
Now, at 118.3 percent, the nation’s debt load is nearly FOUR times worse — in an economy that’s far less competitive than it was in the 1970s.
Moreover, at 118.3 percent of GDP, the U.S. federal government now has roughly the same horrendous debt burden as Greece had before its collapse and as much as Italy has today!
Debt Deception #2
Wall Street and Main Street Are
Also Swimming in Excess Debts
The current debate in Washington seems to be focused almost exclusively on federal government debts and deficits.
However, the debt burden of U.S. households and corporations is also the biggest in history.
In fact, throughout more than two centuries of American history, total U.S. debts (including consumer debts, corporate debts AND government debts) never exceeded 200 percent of GDP; and when it did, it was invariably a cause for grave alarm.
Now, it has mushroomed from 154 percent of GDP in 1970 to a nosebleed level of 360 percent of GDP this year.
Needless to say, this is a massive, inescapable burden that pervades nearly every aspect of American life — via mortgages, credit cards, bank loans, municipal debt, and corporate debts of all kind.
Debt Deception #3
The Government Has Failed to
Admit that America’s Private-Sector
Credit Engine Has Collapsed
Since 2009, the giant U.S. engine for the creation of new PRIVATE-sector credit has utterly collapsed.
Sure, the federal government and its agencies continue to borrow money at a torrid pace — to finance their massive deficits. But …
In nearly all U.S. sectors outside of the federal government, instead of new credit being created, old credit is being destroyed.
I have never seen this happen before in my lifetime! Nor did my father, J. Irving Weiss.
Dad began compiling statistics on the creation of new credit in the early 1940s. And he introduced his methodology to the Federal Reserve’s research department soon after World War II, which they later adopted, calling it the Flow of Funds.
So if anyone could have been in a position to track this phenomenon, Dad would have been the one. But he told me — emphatically and repeatedly — that in all the years he tracked it, he never saw a sustained, outright NET contraction of credit.
During the Great Depression? Perhaps. But we have no reliable data from that period.
Now, though, it’s happening — and in a big way. Here are the facts …
Until the housing bust, the massive private-sector credit engine in the U.S. was robust and booming: At its peak in 2006, the U.S. added a net of $3.5 trillion in new mortgages, consumer credit, and other nonfederal debts.
And in 2007, it added another $3.3 trillion, according to the Fed’s Flow of Funds.
Then, suddenly, in 2008, banks began cutting back on new loans. Hundreds of billions of mortgages went into foreclosure. And combined, the net overall expansion of credit outside of the federal government plunged by a shocking 83 percent from the prior year — to a meager half-trillion dollars!
Can you imagine that?
Think about what the impact would have been of an 83 percent plunge in the stock market … or in any sector of the economy!
Yet here you had precisely that kind of a collapse in THE most fundamental source of stimulus for the U.S. economy — credit!
But if that sounds bad, wait till you hear the rest of the story …
In 2009, as millions of Americans defaulted on their mortgages, auto loans, or credit cards … and as thousands of banks tightened up their lending standards for new credit … we actually witnessed a massive liquidation of private credit.
When the dust settled, the Fed tabulated a net destruction of credit to the tune of $1.99 trillion in mortgages, consumer credit, bank loans, and other nonfederal debts.
It was literally the biggest decline of credit outstanding in recorded history.
If it ended there, it would have been bad enough. But it didn’t. The credit carnage continued in 2010 and is still taking place now in 2011:
All told, in the 30 months between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011, the U.S. has witnessed the net destruction of nearly $3.2 trillion in nonfederal credit.
Remember: Credit is the stuff that drives the U.S. economy … that millions of American families are addicted to in order to maintain their spending habits and lifestyle … that businesses count on to keep their sales and earnings flowing.
So now do you understand why the economy is stagnating? It’s quite simple when you think about it:
Washington is hogging nearly all the new credit available to finance its out-of-control deficits. But nearly everyone else is sucking hind teeth or, worse, getting kicked out of the pen entirely!
No wonder households are suffering such huge income declines despite the “recovery”!
No wonder it’s taking an average of 40.5 weeks for folks losing their job to find a new one!
No wonder Congress is hopelessly deadlocked on budget fixes! With households and small businesses already suffering massive credit withdrawal, no politicians in their right mind would to go to their home district to impose even more pain.
Bottom line:
1. Don’t count on the Treasury or the Fed to rescue the U.S. economy. Even with the biggest bailouts and lowest interest rates in American history, we are still witnessing net destruction of credit RIGHT NOW!
2. Don’t count on Congress to make any major progress in reducing our nation’s massive federal deficits.
3. Don’t expect an end to the liquidation of private credit — and the damage it’s doing to the economy — anytime soon. So …
4. Stay on course with the safety-first approach we’ve been urging here!
Good luck and God bless!
Martin

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Well written article that didn’t force me to sit though one of those long,untimed videos.
I agree. Basically, what goes must come down. This never ending bull market has been around for nearly 30 years. So, we should we looking at at least 10 years bear market, starting from 2007 top.
Hi Martin
There is another reason for this current state of affairs as seen through the eyes of the ordinary man in the street. To many, they feel let down because after the several incompetent administrations they were told “Yes we can” only to find out ‘no we can’t’. Without some controls over casino activity by banks, people are losing heart while the one percent grow wealthier at the cost of the many. The complete freedom to abuse the system and call it ‘Too big to fail’ represents a cost and that is a loss of faith, hope and trust. Hard to put a price on that.
It goes beyond your comments, think of a fishing fleet, that is allowed to fish as it pleases. Here in BC, Canada, some species of fish can only be fished, for a few hours a day, like 4 hours, and only in certain areas on certain days, thus their total fishing time is about 16 hours for the year for this species.
Both of us live under a Government structure, that allows legalized stealing to the point that there are not enough fish (people) to survive this legal and illegal stealing.
Martin,
Thank you for the “Flow of Funds” data. Please include this info in future write ups on the economy as this is new data is extremley helpful. Also, going forward I am looking to get build a big position in the interest rate market. As a former gold and silver speculator in futures I sense that eventually interest rates are going to go up to the levels of 1980. However, I do not see that eventuality in the forseeable future. I will be building positions in the next 1-2 years with a possible 10 year cycle. I am looking see what vehicles would be bst to be involved with.
Ron
what shal we do
If this massive Wall Street rally is because of massive debt, well bring on a total collapse because making money in stocks is what its all about baby!
Martin thinks too much…he truly has a case of paralysis by analysis…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45193137
Does Canada not still have a AAA – triple credit rating?
Martin, another very well-reasoned piece, thank you. Time is short. Is there ANY way to get the lamestream media (Fox here too) to publicize these facts — and AWAKEN people to move beyond the silly gamesmanship now dominant in politics?? Blaming donkeys (Obama), elephants (GOP), or PIIGS — it’s all drivel, those are out of the barn. Can we get anyone to pay attention to the kind of banking and securities reforms that Shah writes about? Can the GOP grow up and move beyond the mindless “less regulation is needed” mantra?
God bless.
Since 2002., per Stand/Poors….
Since July this year, per Moody……
http://www.afponline.org/pub/res/news/Moody%E2%80%99s__Canada_to_Keep_AAA_Rating.html
Actually the true reason is much simpler – the government, Dems and Reps alike, has become fascist. The best government money can buy. Government of and for an by the big corporations. Mostly by and for and not really of…
Good morning, Martin….I’m wondering if you are planning an update to your column regarding the apocalyptic date of Nov 23rd…or??..that’s how you coined it…..
Are there any survival tips for our money or ourselves forthcoming??..i think you should address this as any coming apocalypse I think needs such attention..
is there a spaceship we should reserve aspot on??..a pod we should put our money in??
thank you….
Thanks Martin for a very well written article. I would like fro someone to go one step farther. How many billions have the international banks taken from this country and moved to their overseas operations. don’t forget the billions they got in the bailouts.
Powerful rhetorical force! Yet fallacious and inconsistent reasoning. You obfuscate by using two words — synonyms, mind you — that at first blush seem to be distinct. Debt vs credit.
You say that TOO MUCH debt is the cause of the trouble. Then in “deception #3″ you conclude that the huge drop in “new credit” (aka debt) is also a cause of the trouble. So you are arguing that too much total debt and too little new debt is the cause of the trouble!
The truth is that the loss of purchasing power is the cause of the trouble. Real income has dropped and that is the first and primary source of purchasing power for households. After spending real income, households may choose to purchase on credit — if it is available to them — which means going deeper into debt. If too much debt is a problem — and it is — then a shrinking of the credit market is a GOOD thing! This leaves the problem of DECLINING REAL INCOME as the true source of the problem.
You side-stepped this rhetorically because it logically necessitates a conclusion that your brand of economics does not wish to see: that markets are not perfect and that MARKET FAILURES HAPPEN. The solution to market failure is appropriate government action. The government has the power to fix the problem of DECLINING REAL INCOME in 99% of households with some simple “old school” tax policies.
Instead government is occupied by Wall Street and is choosing to transfer the banks’ bad debt to the US Treasury for as long as they can get away with it.
@Steve Loebs
I believe that Martin is suggesting that too much Federal Debt has crowded out the non-federal credit markets – which is correct, and quite an understatement. Federal Debt IS different than non-Federal Debt — just like Federal Spending is different than consumer and investment spending.
I also believe that Martin is pointing out (not necessarily agreeing with) how our economy is structured, with a debt-based currency, we MUST increase our debt/’credit’ in order to see what we have been taught is ‘growth’.
BTW any multiplier or comparison against GDP, is flawed, since GDP is a bogus number to begin with. GDP is calculated ‘off the calculator’, with weighting, and the ridiculous logic of Hedonics.
The (or A) accurate comparison would be to use National Income – ‘strictly sticking to the calculator’
Think about it – in your personal/business life — does the Bank ask you to come up with your Personal Gross Product(ion)? Some BS number that you come up with to snow the guy behind the desk? No, the Banker compares debt ratios to how much money you make! Period.
In August of 2010, the U.S. National Debt reached 110% of the U.S. National Income (average income * population). (Not including guaranteed debts of Fanny & Freddy) (Not including future liabilities of so-called entitlements).
Hmmm.. a familiar ratio… when did that happen before? Ah ha, it was 1770. Great Britain had amassed a National Debt of £140,000,000.00 which was equal to 110% of its National Income.
That my friends is the ‘rest of the story’. Steve, Martin is correct, too much National Debt IS the problem. The saying about seeing the trees through the forest didn’t become a saying without good reason.
Yes, loss of purchasing power is what we feel at home, but it is a symptom, not a cause.
Furthermore, I doubt that Martin believes that Markets are perfect, hardly. Free flowing markets have ups and downs – cycles that are normal. We as a society have been duped into thinking that Politicians are either to blame for the down cycles.. or that Politicians can rightly claim responsibility for the up cycles. We have ridden this horse of rhetoric so long, we fell asleep on the saddle. We woke up and found out that now, we really are in a financial mess because of Government! (unlimited growth — and tinkering into Capital markets).
Steve, ‘appropriate Government action’ I think we’ve had enough of this.
Brent wrote: “I believe that Martin is suggesting that too much Federal Debt has crowded out the non-federal credit markets – which is correct, and quite an understatement. Federal Debt IS different than non-Federal Debt — just like Federal Spending is different than consumer and investment spending…”
Martin will have to answer that himself, but I doubt he believes that. The reason being that you don’t have any crowding out when interest rates are not rising and have instead fallen to record lows. Due to the current Fed policy, the fact is that banks can pull all of the reserves they need from the Fed for near zero cost. The fact is that corporate America is sitting on record amounts of cash. There is NO SHORTAGE of financial capital…there is no crowding out effect.
Despite the supply-side nonsense of Say’s [mistaken] Law, the reality is that marketing is the alpha and the omega of business. Intelligently run companies will not invest in plant expansion when they are way below 85% of capital utilization and their marketing research is forecasting anemic or declining demand schedules. Banks will not originate new loans when their assessment of risk of default is too high. Those banks will not portfolio fixed interest rate loans when even a small up tick in interest rates presents high risk of capital losses on those assets.
The point is, Brent, that loose monetary policy is like “pushing on a string” when WEAK DEMAND LEADS business managers’ decisions to ignore the abundant cheap capital from that monetary policy (and from their fat cash accounts). The little investment that continues is coming from the intelligent manager that is displacing expensive labor with less expensive software of offshore outsourcing. The intelligent manager is chasing profits with cost cutting in the face of anemic demand. That is why the high productivity numbers and corporate profits have been strongly correlated these last few years. However, this method of profit maximization is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Why? Because cutting labor costs contributes to even weaker demand!
To be clear, I do not disagree with Martin’s prognosis. I disagree with his diagnosis. For example, if one argues that the sun will rise tomorrow because of roosters crowing cock-a-doodle-do, it may appear to be an accurate prediction. However, as we well know, a high correlation does not mean you have accurately found the real cause.
The U.S. is not in any imminent danger due to monetary policy. We are in danger due to poor tax policy. Simple old school tax policy can make it too costly for corporations to sit on boatloads of cash and/or to hold cash off shore. Simple tax policy changes cause increasing aggregate demand and reduced trade imbalance. Even threatening protectionist tariffs is a trump card when you suffer deep trade deficits and will get results with our high trade surplus partners!!
There are many tools in the tax policy tooklit to solve the economic problems we face without the imminent economic collapse that Martin is asserting. Martin is NOT advocating those simple and APPROPRIATE government fixes to the problem of market failure and weak aggregate demand. He comes from the Austrian perspective that markets don’t fail and that only government interference causes the problems.
Steve, I agree that loose monetary policy is like pushing a string. However, that loose monetary policy you speak of is/was considered ‘appropriate Governmental action’ by many people, especially those who are in the opposite corner of supply side economics. ah hem.. should I search the net for your postings over the last several years?
Furthermore, I did not say that we have a shortage of capital, we have a shortage of credit! Much different as I’m sure you’ll agree second time around.
Agree with your assertion on corporate trimming and profits — the diet is now taking the muscle, little fat remains.
Steve the U.S. is in imminent danger due to a number of things. Monetary policy is one of the corner stones of this financial mess — among others (off-shoring of millions of jobs along with them our manufacturing edge and know how, highest corporate tax rates among developed nations, highest regulatory burdens for businesses among developed nations).
Your inference to ‘simple old tax policy’… why don’t you just say it? Let’s institute a 90% tax rate for corporations! Now I understand your loathing of supply side.
Steve, there is not a high enough tax rate to pay for this bloated Government we have today, repeat, even if the Government taxed corporations AND individuals 100%!! There wouldn’t be enough revenue to balance the books. I assume that you passed grade school math, with this fair assumption, I don’t understand how you can point to tax policy being the culprit here.
Granted there are many culprits – however, history has shown us in no uncertain terms, that a nation is destroyed by two methods — the sword, or by debt.
BTW I agree with your comments about tariffs — and if you are willing to give up the notion that we can tax corporations into our prosperity, I’ll give in to your definition of tax policy ‘fixes’ if we’re talking about our trade deficits.
Martin is drinking the Asian tea for sure, that is why he is mum about tariffs.
Have a good one.
Brent, you are assuming things that contradict my previous writings. For example, I advocate that C corporations be treated like other business forms. Therefore, I would not want to see corporate income tax raised…but instead lowered to ZERO! If C corps are treated like other business forms — e.g., llc’s, partnerships, S corps and sole prorietorships — then all income would pass through to the shareholders each tax year. No double taxation, but wealthy shareholders in the highest marginal tax brackets would not be able to evade paying their taxes on what is now called unrealized capital gains.
Your assertion that the government is so bloated as to exceed the GDP and, therefore, there not being enough income to equal government spending…well that is just absurd. Brent, REAL GDP per capita has never been higher!!! We have never been RICHER as a nation. Only the tax policies have changed over the last 30 years and jobs have been outsourced due to neoliberal globalization.
I think you are both right, a credit squeeze is occurring, because the banks believe that the current asset valuation, is wrong, and overvalued, thus, they want greater equity, thus the credit squeeze.
Thus difficult for business to expand, to create jobs. Thus too many, chasing too few jobs, thus wages are suffering.
Legalized stealing, and illegal stealing is ubiquitous, Justice does not for the most part does not exist.
Our World has changed, and those in Power do not want to adapt..
@Steve Loebs: Well said. I still wish M&M would offer you a guest article to write occasionally. It would provide needed balance.
Also…the European debt is very good debt…..the US debt is very bad debt….Martin neglects to qualify and define “debt”,,,
Finally, why is the Euro still more valuable than the dollar??..Hmm..maybe this Euro crisis is overblown for the two aforementioned reasons…but..fear-mongering has value…
David P. Goldman made the following calculation. First compute the real estate taxes on residential mortgages in the 50 states. I mean the state and local real estate taxes. Then compute the value of residential mortgages with an average rate of 4 per cent. The two sums are almost equal. In other words when you buy a house you not only get a mortgage which dies over time but you get and eternallifeage which doesn’t die. No wonder people can’t afford houses.
YAHOO would like to dispute this.
In simple the concise terms : American politicians are getting insane.
They blame all their self made problems on others. Even their impotance
was due to breathing inported Chinese air. The commend did not see
daylight. OK maybe because of ‘ the American empire is ending ‘.