The Collapse of Our Corrupt, Predatory, Pathological Financial System Is Necessary and Positive

by Charles Hugh Smith

We are being throttled by the Big Lie: we're told that if the predatory financial system implodes, we'll all be ruined. The opposite is true: the only way to save our economy is to let the corrupt, pathological and flawed financial system implode.

I was recently challenged by a contributor to write something positive, and so I decided to write about the single most positive outcome of the current financial crisis in Europe: the complete collapse of the corrupt, predatory, pathological global banking sector and its dealers, the central banks. Exploring why this is so reveals the insurmountable internal conflicts in our current financial system, and also illuminates the systemic political propaganda which is deployed daily to prop up a parasitic, corrupting, pathologically destructive financial system.

Our first stop is modern finance itself. Modern financial "products" and "instruments" are often highly complex and abstract, but the entire edifice can be distilled down to this: the system is based on the assumption that all risk can be hedged, and the difference between the initial position's yield/gain (i..e. placement of capital at risk for a gain) and the cost of hedging the risk of the wager to zero can be skimmed from the system risk-free.
That is the entire system in a nutshell, and we can immediately see the advantages of this system over traditional Capitalism, where risk can be hedged but never to zero, and the return is correlated to the risk taken on.
In modern finance, high-risk "investments" (wagers) with high returns can be taken on without worry because any and all risk can be hedged to zero, even in super high-risk wagers.

And since even high-risk positions can be seamlessly hedged to zero, then there is no reason not to borrow money to increase the size of your wagers: since you can't lose, then why not? Wagering in risk-free skimming with borrowed or leveraged money is simply rational.

Put these together and we see how a system based on risk-free skimming eventually leverages itself to the point that the slightest disruption can bring down the entire over-leveraged, over-extended system.
Why is this so? Every hedge has a counterparty who is supposed to pay off if the initial wager blows up. A system based on risk-free hedging is ultimately a self-organizing system which maximizes return by increasing bet sizes, leveraging/borrowing to near infinity and hedging every hedge as well as every wager.
This creates long chains of hedges and counterparties. Here's an example based on an asset we all understand, a house. Let's say someone buys a house for $1,000 down, something that was common in the housing bubble. That $1,000 is leveraged up to buy a $200,000 house via a $200,000 mortgage.
The "owner" of the house then buys a hedge to protect himself from the house losing value, so the risk is reduced to zero: if the value rises, the owner reaps the gain and if it declines, then he collects the payoff of the hedge from the counterparty, for example, a Wall Street investment firm.

The counterparty calculated the risk of real estate declining and then priced the hedge accordingly. There is some small risk that the loss will exceed the cost of the hedge, so the issuer of that hedge bundles similar bets and then buys a hedge or "insurance" from another player, who makes the same calculations of risk and return.
Meanwhile, the mortgage has been tranched (sliced into principal and interest and into various pools of risk) and bundled with other "low-risk" mortgages and sold to investors, who also buy a hedge against any loss in the tranch, for example, a credit default swap (CDS) which pays out if a borrower defaults. Those hedges are sold or "insured" with another hedges.

All of this debt and all of these hedges are based on a mere $1,000 of actual capital. The players who originated each hedge are similarly leveraged, because since risk can be lowered to zero, who needs capital?
So what happens when one counterparty (issuer of a hedge) somewhere in the chain runs into trouble? The entire chain collapses. With razor-thin capital to cover any losses, then each link in the chain dissolves into insolvency if their counterparty fails to pay off.

This is how we get hundreds of trillions of dollars in "notational" derivatives: every hedged is hedged with another "instrument," "products" are bundled and insured, and so on. The system is based on the principle that risk can be reduced to zero, and so there is no need for capital.

Unfortunately, that premise is demonstrably false. Benoit Mandelbrot dismantled the notion that risk can be reduced to zero in his prescient masterpiece, The (Mis)behavior of Markets. The founder of fractal geometry showed that markets are fractal in nature, and are thus intrinsically prone to unpredictable disruptions. Simply put, risk cannot be massaged away.

Thus the fundamental premise of all modern finance is flat-out wrong, and this explains why systemic risk, rather than being eliminated, actually rises with every ratchet up in debt, leverage and counterparty hedging.
The entire global financial system is thus based on the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine: money can be borrowed or leveraged into existence in essentially unlimited quantities, and then deployed in risk-free skimming operations to harvest unlimited wealth.

What does this promise of using leveraged capital to skim risk-free fortunes do to the "real economy" of production and investment in plant and technology? It guts it. The risk of industrial Capitalism is real and cannot be hedged away; high-risk investments may blow up or they may return high yields. It literally makes no sense to risk real capital in productive Capitalism when a zero-risk skimming operation can be developed that essentially needs near-zero capital.

Thus financial capital has come to completely dominate industrial or productive capital. The pernicious consequences of this dominance have poisoned the economy and culture on multiple levels.
In the political sphere, the aggregation of hundreds of billions of dollars in skimmed profits gave Wall Street and the banking sector unlimited budgets to buy political influence. This created a monstrously pathological feedback loop: the more political influence Wall Street bought, the higher their returns on financialization skimming.
Consider housing as an example. Housing was once a simple, barely profitable long-term investment for both the buyer, who had to place substantial capital at risk (20% down payment) and the holders of mortgages, who took a modest yield for 30 years in trade for low risk.

Wall Street and the banks financialized housing via political influence. opening up a vast new territory to be exploited via skimming. Since capital wasn't necessary in no-risk skimming, then down payments were dispensed with to increase the pool of debtors, as they are the foundation of all skimming operations.
the cost of servicing that debt was manipulated via "teaser rates" and "interest only" loans, further leveraging up American home buyers' modest income streams. Mortgages were bundled, tranched and hedged, and the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were sold to trusting investors aroudn the world.

It was a bonanza of unprecedented wealth creation from financial skimming. $1,000 down and a few hundred dollars a month for a "teaser rate" interest-only loan was leveraged into a global chain of "products" and counterparties that could be skimmed all along the chain.

That deepened the political corruption that fed the skimming operation, and introduced the "no risk" pathology into Mainstream America. Since real estate never went down in value, then buying a second, third or fourth home on leverage was simply rational; in a Federal Reserve-controlled world of near-zero yields on cash, it was irrational not to.

But there were two intrinsic flaws in the skimming operation: while the Wall Street players were hedged (or so they reckoned), the average Americans buying homes with near-infinite leverage were not hedged. That meant that when their razor-thin capital went to zero, they were insolvent. Once they defaulted, then the income stream feeding the chain of skimming went away and the chain collapsed.

Once one counterparty failed in the chain, the entire chain collapsed as well. As Mandelbroit explained, such disruptions were an intrinsic feature of the system; though the timing of a systemic disruption could not be predicted, the fact that disruptions would occur on a regular basis could be predicted.

Some players knew this, of course, but that led to another pathology: those investment players who avoided the "no risk" skimming casino could not generate the yields being "earned" by the leveraged skimmers with legitimate investing, and so their investors abandoned them for the fully rational reason that "no risk" yields were higher elsewhere.
This too created a feedback loop, where the capital available to be leveraged grew rapidly, while the pool of capital available for "patient" risky investments in actual productive assets declined. Capital available for productive investment thus became costly and scarce, while capital available for leveraged skimming became cheap and abundant.

The Federal Reserve bankrolled the skimming to the hilt. Indeed, the entire pathology of low-interest, unlimited leverage skimming was based on the Federal Reserve's manipulation and intervention. That remains true today.

What happens when the whole chain blows up and the foundation of debt is impaired? Since the whole system is based on the debt and the income streams devoted to servicing it, the entire edifice collapses when the debt is impaired--debtors default and the system clogs with bad debt, i.e. uncollectable debt.
In a transparent Capitalist system, the debt would be written down and all the insolvent borrowers, lenders and counterparties would be wiped out. But the political corruption that enabled modern finance to poison the American economy and culture has stopped that cleansing from occurring.

Such a systemic writedown of bad debt in a system with only razor-thin capital to support a mighty edifice of leverage and debt would wipe out Wall Street and the banks and reveal the skimming operation of modern finance as an impossible perpetual motion machine rigged to enrich a thin crust of citizenry at the expense of the rest. And since they skim enough money to buy political protection, Capitalism has been strangled and tossed in a shallow grave lest it disupt the skimming and the political corruption that keeps the machine running.
What we end up with is artificial valuations, endless propaganda and a zombie economy. When borrowers are left dangling in default and the assets left on the books at full value, you end up with zombie debtors, zombie lenders, a zombie government that only has one lever to pull to keep the whole corrupt pathology going--borrow and squander more money-- and ultimately a zombie economy, drifting and decaying in a fetid pool of lies, shadow banking, ceaseless official propaganda, jury-rigged "fixes," manipulated statistics, corruption, predation, exploitation and pathology.

That's the U.S. economy, and indeed, the economies of the E.U., China and Japan in a nutshell.
The only way to clear a zombie economy is to write off uncollectable debt and liquidate all the assets, loans and hedges. That would collapse our financial system, but since it is the cause of our political and economic dysfunction, that would be the highest possible good and extremely positive.
There is a great final irony in the scare-mongering threats of the skimmers and their political toadies. If the taxpayers don't bail out the skimmers, then we'll have martial law by the weekend, the smouldering fires of Europe will rekindle into open warfare, and so on.

The irony is the propping up of a deeply, intrinsically pathological and destructive financial system is not saving the economy, it's the reason the economy is imploding. The Big Lie technique of propaganda is to reverse the polarity of reality: we are told up is down until we believe it.

We are told that liquidating the overhang of bad debt, leverage and hedges would "destroy the world as we know it." The truth is that keeping the zombie system from expiring and covering up the corruption with propaganda is what's actually destroying the world as we know it.
Thus the collapse of the current financial system of central banks, pathological Wall Street and insolvent banks would be the greatest possible good and the greatest possible positive for the global economy and its participants.

courtesy Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Pareto's 20-80 Law Still Applies Everywhere, Except When It Becomes the 20-85 Law, as It Has in the United States.

Feb. 5, 2011

Vilfredo Pareto was an Italian engineer-turned-economist teaching in Switzerland at the turn of the 19th century. In 1896-97, he published a book on economics, Cours d'économie politique. It included a section on the distribution of wealth in Europe. He announced his famous finding: 20% of the population owned 80% of the wealth. He examined several Western European nations. The pattern held.
Ever since then, economists have studied wealth distribution in other nations. The law holds.
This is the single most important social law ever discovered. It is probably the most important economic law. No one has explained it. It defies reason. So, academic economists ignore it. Pareto's Cours has never been translated, despite being a universally acknowledged classic. It is arguably the most important still-untranslated book in the history of economic theory.
No one wants to deal with the 20-80 law in a scientific fashion. Pareto could not explain it. He devoted the last decade of his life to a study of society, trying to explain it. Nothing came of this. His explanation is hardly known. Yet this exercise moved him from an economist to a sociologist.
I list several academic discussions of the 20-80 law at the end of this article.
Pareto's law applies to society. It applies to biology. Pareto discovered that 20% of his garden's pea pods produced 80% of the peas. Here is a summary, found on a site selling a book on 20-80. These observations have been discovered over the years.

(a) 80 percent of the results are achieved by 20 percent of the group.
(b) 20 percent of your effort will generate 80 percent of your results.
(c) In any process, few elements (20 percent) are vital and many elements (80 percent) are trivial.
(d) If you have to do ten things, two of those are usually worth as much as the other eight put together.
(e) 20 percent of the tasks account for 80 percent of the value.Pareto analysis can be effectively employed for separating the major causes (the "vital few") of a problem, from the minor ones (the "trivial many"). Such an analysis focuses your attention to tackling the major causes of the problem at hand rather than wasting time on the minor ones. The 80/20 rule has been tried and tested over the years but it has withstood the stringent scrutiny that it has been subjected to.
Application of the 80/20 rule in management
The Pareto Principle or the 80/20 rule proves its mettle in practically every area of management some of which are given below:
(a) 20 percent of the customers account for 80 percent of the sales.
(b) 20 percent of the products or services account for 80 percent of the profits.
(c) 20 percent of your stock takes up 80 percent of your warehouse space.
(d) 80 percent of your stock comes from 20 percent of your suppliers.
(e) 80 percent of your sales will come from 20 percent of your sales force.
(f) 20 percent of your staff will cause 80 percent of your problems.
(g) 20 percent of a company's staff will output 80 percent of its production.

It applies all the way up. If you add up the wealth of the ten richest men on earth, the top three -- Buffett, Gates, and Carlos Slim -- own 70%.
In other words, this is a true sociological law. If sociologists were really serious, their discipline would begin with this law, for it really is a law. There is only one law of sociology that is more universal: Some do. Some don't. Pareto's is more useful. But the sociologists can no more explain it than the economists can.


http://www.garynorth.com/public/7595.cfm

The Tragic Decline of US Dollar

By Eric Fry

02/02/11 Laguna Beach, California – In 2013, we Americans will commemorate a century of wealth destruction in the United States – the Federal Reserve will be 100 years old.

In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act became law – granting sole authority to the Federal Reserve to “issue legal tender.” Armed with its new power and its good intentions, the Fed embarked on a 98-year process of currency debasement. That’s not what the Fed set out to do; it’s just what it did do.
In the early days of the Federal Reserve, this monetary authority enjoyed the support of a gold standard. 

Few Americans doubted that the Fed’s new greenbacks would be as good as gold. As such, gold coinage and paper dollars intermingled effortlessly in the US economy for most of the Fed’s first two decades.
But as the wheels of progress roared ahead, America’s “hard money” coinage disappeared and soft promises took its place – soft promises and lots of chatter about hard money. As it turns out, chattering about hard money does not preserve wealth as well as hard money itself.

The purchasing power of a one dollar bill has plummeted more than 95% since the Federal Reserve first began printing its legal tender in 1914. Although the dollar’s epic decline began glacially, it has gathered luge-like momentum.

The greenback’s value dropped only 50% during the first 33 years of the Fed’s stewardship – i.e. between 1913 and 1946. But the 1946 dollar would lose half its value in just 24 years, while the 1970 dollar would lose half its value in just nine years. The rate of decay slowed somewhat during the Volcker years, as the 1979 dollar did not lose half its value until 14 years later.

Nevertheless, the dollar’s progression toward zero since 1913 feels more geometric than arithmetic.

In 1914, the year the Federal Reserve began conjuring dollar bills into existence, 700,000 shimmering new $10 Indian Head Gold Eagles rolled out of the Philadelphia, San Francisco and Denver Mints. Once in the hands of a working stiff, each $10 coin would buy $10 worth of goods and services. Likewise, the Fed’s crisp, new McKinley $10 bill would also buy $10 worth of goods and services.

Over the ensuing 98 years, a succession of Federal Reserve Chairmen labored to “preserve” the purchasing power of their McKinleys, Washingtons and Lincolns. The Gold Eagles had to take care of themselves. The results are in; the unprotected Gold Eagles flourished, while the “protected” Mckinleys withered. Based on its metal content, a 1914 $10 Indian Head Gold Eagle is worth $643.45. A 1914 $10 bill is still worth ten dollars.

To examine this contrast from a slightly different perspective, consider the divergent paths of the two $50 bills pictured below.

The first $50 bill is a 1913 “Gold Certificate,” issued directly by the US Treasury and fully convertible into gold. The second $50 bill was issued by the Federal Reserve in 1914 and was convertible into nothing. Both versions of this $50 bill circulated freely in American commerce.

Any holder of the $50 Gold Certificate held title to 2.41896 troy oz. of Gold – at the fixed rate of $US20.67 per troy oz. These certificates could be redeemed at any bank or from the US Treasury itself at any time…until 1933, when FDR outlawed gold ownership.

Notwithstanding this little nuance, let’s consider the plight of two hypothetical buddies from 1914. The first buddy, Caleb, stashes a $500 “rainy day” fund under the floorboards of his house – a roll of ten $50 Ulysses S. Grant dollar bills. The second buddy, Josiah, also stashes $500 under the floorboards – he walks into the neighborhood bank with ten $50 Ulysses S. Grant Gold Certificates and exchanges them for gold. Josiah then takes his gold and hides it under his floorboards.

Both buddies forget about their hidden stashes. Eventually, let’s say 2010, the respective heirs of these two long-deceased buddies happen to conduct simultaneous renovations of their respective residences. Caleb’s heirs find the ten ancient $50 bills. “How quaint,” they think to themselves. Josiah’s heirs find $32,172 worth of gold!

Thus, 98 years of history demonstrates conclusively that a blind monkey could have preserved the dollar’s purchasing power better than a Federal Reserve Chairman. Unfortunately, it’s tough to find a blind monkey who will take the job.

courtesy Eric Fry for The Daily Reckoning

2011 – THE YEAR OF CATCH-22

As I began to think about what might happen in 2011, the classic Joseph Heller novel Catch 22 kept entering my mind. Am I sane for thinking such a thing, or am I so insane that asking this question proves that I’m too rational to even think such a thing?  In the novel, the “Catch 22″ is that “anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy”. Hence, pilots who request a fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one (i.e. they can never be found “insane”), meaning he must also fly in combat. Therefore, Catch-22 ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane – even if he were. The absurdity is captured in this passage:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed. - Catch 22 – Joseph Heller

The United States and its leaders are stuck in their own Catch 22. They need the economy to improve in order to generate jobs, but the economy can only improve if people have jobs. They need the economy to recover in order to improve our deficit situation, but if the economy really recovers long term interest rates will increase, further depressing the housing market and increasing the interest expense burden for the US, therefore increasing the deficit. A recovering economy would result in more production and consumption, which would result in more oil consumption driving the price above $100 per barrel, therefore depressing the economy. Americans must save for their retirements as 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 every day, but if the savings rate goes back to 10%, the economy will collapse due to lack of consumption.

Consumer expenditures account for 71% of GDP and need to revert back to 65% for the US to have a balanced sustainable economy, but a reduction in consumer spending will push the US back into recession, reducing tax revenues and increasing deficits. You can see why Catch 22 is the theme for 2011. 

foto TED SZUKALSKI

(read the rest of this excellent article at  THE BURNING PLATFORM)