The Weiner Component #156 – Fear & the Economic Situation

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Starting slowly, probably around the 1970s, the process of splitting real estate loans into a few parts began, and then, with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981, the concept took off on a refined bases, with each real estate mortgage being broken into innumerable parts and having each piece put into a different hedge fund and sold as a safe investment. It was considered safe because any single or few losses on any one of these hedge funds would be so small that it wouldn’t be noticeable and would not really affect the amount of the dividend.

 

Two things occurred from the 1980s on: one was the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of the United States and the imposition of a total Free Market Economy and the other was an incessant need in the general society for a much greater cash flow.  We were in a period where there was not enough money available to serve the overall needs of the population.  More cash was needed for the economy to function.

 

The agency of Federal Government that was supposed to be keeping track of this problem and monetarily serving the needs of the nation was the Federal Reserve.  It’s Chairman from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan, like the President believed in a totally Free Market that would automatically adjust itself.  Consequently he and the FED did nothing to alleviate the problem. 

 

This in turn left the need prevalent and either purposefully or inadvertently it was picked up by the banks which were also deregulated by the Reagan administration.  They, at first, gradually and then, with ever increasing speed, using real estate as their base, picked up the speed of creating new value or money throughout the society.  This was to continue through late 2008 when the banks had far     exceeded the amount of money needed for the society to properly function and the Great Real Estate Crash occurred.

 

What happened was that the banks, by their lending policies from the 1980s until late 2008, over 28 years, created trillions of dollars of additional value based upon the public housing industry within the United States.  In addition deregulation also allowed them to freely invest their deposits into the agencies or funds that directly serviced this expansion.

 

By 2007 most bankers were aware that property values had far exceeded a sane level and that a crash was probable.  But by 2007 most of the bankers had been making high commissions on the property market for most, if not all, of their banking careers; they were in denial that conditions could ever change. 

 

The Real Estate Market crashed or the Real Estate Bubble burst in late 2008 under President George W. Bush.  Virtually overnight the economy of the United States went into an instant depression.  There was suddenly mass unemployment, many people owed more on their homes than they were then worth.  Some people just walked away from their homes, others stayed, the hedge funds, which many or the deregulated banks had also invested in, collapsed from non-payment on mortgages.  Bush and his Treasury Secretary bailed out some of the banks; then his term ended and Barack Obama became the next President of the United States.

                        ********************************

Barack Obama would spend his eight years in office dealing with this mess.  For his first two years he had a Democratic Congress and their full support.  From 2011 on the House of Representatives gained a Republican majority and thereafter passed no legislation that dealt with the economic emergency.  In fact they passed economizing laws that actually increased the disaster.  President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, using Creative Monetary Policy were able to change the depression into a recession.  The country is still dealing with this problem that the House of Representatives refused to deal with.

 

Conditions have improved.  Unemployment is now at about 5%, a long way from the initial 12½%  The Republicans still have done nothing to improve conditions, instead they have actually worsened them.  They are a great political party for complaining and blaming.  But what they are blaming President Obama for, is mainly for what they, themselves, have not done, passing fiscal laws creating jobs and upgrading the infrastructure.

                 *****************************

In 2008, the year of the Real Estate Crash, the Gross Domestic Product   was at 800 trillion dollars.  In 2009 it dropped to 700 trillion dollars.  By 2010 it was slightly above where it had been the year before.  By 2015 it was in the area of 17.95 trillion dollars.

 

Keep in mind that the GDP refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within the country during the fiscal year.  Interestingly the United States is now ranking first in the world’s GDP level.  That makes it, even now with 5% unemployment, the world’s richest nation.

 

If, as we’ve seen in the GDP, the overall wealth within the United States was continually increasing by 2010 above the 2008 Real Estate Crash level then why was the U.S. up to 12 ½% unemployment?  The answer, of course, comes into the area of spending priorities mostly by the United States Government and the overall population.

 

Congress, from 2011 on, with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, was on an economizing bilge. The country underwent and is continuing to undergo Sequestration, spending cuts across the board in virtually every area.  The President, on the other hand, particularly in 2009 and 2010 underwent expansive spending programs to avoid a depression greater than that of 1929.  Basically what started from 2011 on was a redistribution of income, with gradually more and more money going to the upper echelon of society and less and less being available for the middle and lower classes, these amounts increasing yearly.

 

In 2009 and 2010 the Obama Administration spent inordinate amounts of money extending unemployment benefits, saving the American banking and auto industries, among other things.  From 2011 on gradually most of these programs ended and government began a struggle between the House of Representatives and the President.  In 2013 we had both Sequestration and a shutdown of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, for 15 days.  The shutdown was over the issue of government funding for Planned Parenthood in the 2014 funding bill.  The Republican House of Representatives attempted to force its will upon the President and the Democratic led Senate.  The President and Democratic Senate would not cooperate with the Republican led House of Representatives.  In many cases Congress has refused, or through different Republican disagreements, has been unable to act.

 

The positive movement that had occurred in the economy, turning a potential Great Depression into a Great slow-moving Recession came about through Creative Monetary Policy, government spending policy, by the Federal Reserve with the compliance of the President.  In essence it’s been a battle between the President and the Republican House of Representatives, with the administration slowly winning since national unemployment is today in the area of 5%.

                  *****************************

The question that arises: if the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) today is greater than it was in the period prior to the 2008 Real Estate Crash then why is the middle class in the United States continually shrinking and why are more and more people continually having a harder and harder time economically surviving?  The answer to that questions is that the National Income is like a balloon filled with helium, slowly and continually rising and becoming part of the incomes of the top few percentile, the upper 5 or so percent of the population.

 

In essence the rich are getting richer and everyone else has less money.  It would seem that the society is geared so that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than everyone else does.  For example: Donald J. Trump, who is running for the presidency in 2016 as the Republican candidate, has refused to show his tax returns for any prior year.  Trump claims to have over ten billion dollars.  The probability is that he is not showing his income taxes because he doesn’t pay any of these taxes.  Being in real estate he would have endless write-offs and building depreciations.

 

But it isn’t just people in real estate who have these tax advantages, it’s anyone who earns over $464,850.  The income tax system is graduated up to that point; that is the more one earns, the higher a percentage of his/her income he/she pays in taxes.  Anyone earning over $464,850 pays the same rate as those earning that amount.  A person earning a million dollars or 25 million a year pay the same percentage of the incomes as the person earning the above figure.

 

While the number of individuals is not large compared to the overall population of 350 million people, yet the taxation system is rigged in favor of the very rich.  The more they earn over $464,850 the smaller a percentage of their income do they pay in taxes.

 

This change or decrease in taxes was brought about during the last five years of the Obama administration.  The Republicans actually lowered taxes for the very rich.  The Democrats were forced to go along with this in order to pass other similar required legislation.

 

The Republican argument for this action is that the rich need more money because they are the ones who invest in new industry.  Without them there would be no growth in the economy.

 

This argument that has been endlessly repeated over the years sounds wonderful.  But it is a myth.  It has never happened.  The rich invest their surplus incomes in old established industries that pay a set reasonable income or they, like Mitt Romney, bank some of it overseas where somehow they pay no taxes on the interest received.

 

Taxes are geared so the less an individual earns the higher a percentage of his/her income is paid in taxes.

 

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  Yet its unequal taxation system taxes the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy, they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  It also has an underclass that is so poor they live in the streets and even though these people pay no income tax they also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in other taxes than the rich.  The national distribution of income is today a farce.  Someone like Warren Buffet has remarked that it’s a strange situation where he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

                            ****************************

In 2016, the year of the next Presidential Election, this created a strange phenomenon within both political parties within the nation.  Currently there is a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress.  Very little if any needed legislation is being passed.  This situation has existed since 2011 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.  In both major political parties there are large numbers of people who are totally frustrated with their Federal Government.  Many of whom are not overly well educated or generally too busy with their lives to follow what is actually happening in Washington D.C.  Their knowledge of the government is what they’re told by the news media, which can be tilted to the right or the left by which channel they are watching.  This doesn’t really answer their questions or needs. 

 

What exists today are large segments of the population which are looking for easy answers to what seems impossible questions or problems.  They want a simplistic solution which, in essence, is a return to a past which never existed.  They want a simplistic solution to their economic problems, to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and allow people to earn more money so they will no longer be economically stressed out.  Whether this is real or not is beside the point; there is a strong desire among many for a simplistic change within the society.

 

For the Republicans the person who will do this is Donald J. Trump.  He claims that he will force the companies that have moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico to bring these jobs back to the U.S.  In addition he will get rid of all illegal foreigners in the U.S. and lessen competition so that there will be jobs available for everyone who wants to work.  He will also make the U.S. safer by not allowing alien radicals to migrate to the U.S. and keep Mexicans out of the country by building a wall between the United States and Mexico.  And so on.  He will bring us to a golden age that never existed in the U.S.

 

In essence Trump is feeding on all the basic prejudices and fears that seem to still exist in this country.  He is opposed to Mexicans, Hispanics, Muslims, Syrians, Blacks, Women having a right to deal with their own bodies, and the list goes on.  Trump has promised to take us all to-never-never land if he becomes president.  He seems to open up all the hidden prejudices in a large percentage of his followers.  He has also increased bullying among the children of his followers.

 

For the Democrats there is Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist.  Over a year ago he changed his party registration from an Independent Socialist who always caucused with the Democratic Party to a Democrat.  Sanders now calls himself a Democratic Socialist.  This has enabled him to run as a Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2016.

 

I strongly suspect that Bernie Sanders initially expected to run as a protest candidate with no chance of winning.  However he inadvertently tapped into the younger generation of voter; those who had been too young to vote in prior Presidential Elections.  To these people and the others who have joined them he offers a utopian future. Free education from pre-school through college and free medical coverage for everyone.  He supports abortion rights and a more liberal drug policy.  He believes in gun control, immigration reform, LGBT rights, expanding social security, and tax reform.  Among other things he has stated: “We need to get big money out of politics and restore our democracy,” and “Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity.”

 

He has also brought large numbers of Independents and some older Democrats to his cause.  His campaign took off like a rocket shooting upward and Bernie could almost taste victory.  But he never quite caught up with his competition, Hillary Clinton. 

 

He is promising a new society with benefits for everyone.  And all this will be paid for by the rich who have up to this point exploited their position in society.  The image is wonderful but the reality doesn’t exist.

 

I suspect that the majority of the population agrees with most of if not all of Senator Bernie Sander’s goals.  But they would have to be paid for if they were to be put into laws.  And his solution to this is rather naïve.  He says he would put a tax on Wall Street’s excess profits.  Traditionally in United States history, going as far back as the Revolutionary War from 1776 on the practice has been to make someone else pay for what you want.  The Southern planters owed millions to English merchants which they never paid after the Revolutionary War.  Afterwards Daniel Shay, a Revolutionary War veteran, led Shay’s Rebellion where the inland farmers refused to pay taxes that were brought into being by the Tidewater merchants in the coastal cities.  In recent years there was an attempt on the California side of Lake Tahoe to tax the Time Share facilities to pay for the public schools in the region; it failed.  It’s always nice to get someone else to pay for what is needed or wanted but generally it doesn’t work.

 

The term Wall Street is an abstraction; it has no specific meaning.  Are they talking about the banks or the large commercial corporations, or any company that sells stock?  An excess tax on the sale or purchase of stock or company profits would bring about economic disaster.  A tax on profits already exists, increasing it could destroy incentive.  Senator Bernie Sanders funding solution sounds just but it is nonsense.

 

Hillary Clinton is much more pragmatic.  The very existence of Senator Bernie Sanders has pushed her farther to the left in her own position.  She may be able to achieve many of Bernie’s goals which he should be able to get into the 2016 Democratic Platform. 

 

Sanders, on the other hand, as President would face endless frustration, even if he were to get Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, which is a low probability.  In all likelihood the House of Representatives will retain its Republican majority.  And even if Senator Bernie Sanders were to get an all Democratic Congress he would still have trouble both passing and funding his program.

                             ******************************

In the early 1800s England began the Industrial Revolution in the cotton industry.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which allowed the cotton plant to be quickly separated from it many seeds.  Machinery was developed for spinning the cotton plant into thread and machinery was also invented for weaving the thread into cotton cloth.  Overnight spinners and weavers became obsolete, their occupation ceased to exist.  Some became luddites, breaking into factories and destroying the new machines in an attempt to bring back the past when they had a functioning occupation.

  

 Even if Trump, by some strange miracle, were to get elected the probability is that the results of the 2016 Presidential Election would leave a number of people totally dissatisfied  with the changes that don’t seem to be happening,  You can’t bring back the past, real or otherwise. 

 

Can conditions be improved?  Jobs are available in the United States.  The problem is that they require training and mobility.  It now requires a trained skilled employee for the jobs that pay a decent wage.  For those who refuse to undergo any training or move to where these jobs exist there are public sector occupations that do not pay much but that take almost no skills to do.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

English: Seal of the President of the United States Español: Escudo del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Македонски: Печат на Претседателот на Соединетите Американски Држави. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

.

The Weiner Component #147 Part 1 – Development of Money & Its Uses

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only the designs of the $1 and $2 (the latter not pictured) are still in print. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Embed from Getty Images

Probably the most misunderstood entity that exists today is money, currency, what it is and all the ways it works in the existing societies.  The problem with money is its history, what it was and is, and how the concept is generally understood by most people today.

 

Originally money was an object of value like gold, silver, or some other precious entity.  Presumably, in places like early Phoenicia, well over two thousand years ago, goods were traded for precious metals.  This was done with scales; gold or silver would have a fixed value and an equal value of goods would be traded for a set amount of the precious metal.  Eventually someone or a group of someones came up with the idea of stamping a set weight on the gold and coins came into existence.  They were gradually refined, as time went on, with stamped pictures of the rulers profile and with these specific coins with set amounts of money came into existence.  From this, over the centuries, with occasional breaks in the sequence, the concept and use of money, set amounts of gold or silver, developed.  It was until the end of the first third of the 20th Century an exchange of value for value, the goods and services for the coins (money).  Money was as good as gold because it was gold.

 

The problem that developed over time was that the amount of gold and silver available for currency was dependent upon mining discoveries or exploitations of different parts of the world.  For example in the 16th Century Spain gutted the New World of its gold supply causing a 90 year period of inflation in Europe that lasted through most of the fifteen hundreds.  By the 17th Century there was again a shortage of the gold supply in Europe and not enough money (gold coins) available to supply all the monetary needs for economic growth on the Continent.  Consequently the value of gold rose and periods of deflation occurred, the value of the gold coins increased.

 

The problem here was that there were two totally different processes which were supposed to balance each other but never did.  Precious metals had to be discovered and mined at the same rate that business between and within nations expanded.  This never happened.  Added to this were economic systems like mercantilism, which hoarded gold by creating royal monopolies within European nations.  Economically much was not understood then.  And the amount of gold was never enough to cover all the needs for monetary growth.

 

The use of paper came into existence largely during the Renaissance with letters of credit, which allowed simple transfers of large amounts of currency.  This would eventually become paper money and checks.  Paper money was initially issued by banks and could, presumably, always be exchanged for gold or silver.  Of course if everyone decided to exchange their paper money for gold at the same time there would be a run on the bank and it would go bankrupt since generally they issued a lot more paper than they had gold.

 

Paper money was also issued by governments during times of crises when gold was in short supply, like the United States government did during the Revolutionary War or the Northern and Southern Governments during the American Civil War.  They did not have adequate gold or silver supplies to pay the cost of the wars.  Since the South lost the Civil War its money became worthless while the Northern greenbacks were eventually redeemed for gold coins.

****************************

Up until 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt had assumed office as President, money was mostly gold and silver.  Other metals like nickel and copper were used for smaller coins.  The paper one and five dollar bills could be redeemed for silver; they were silver certificates.  The larger denominations were presumably redeemable for gold; they were Federal Reserve Notes.

 

Actually after 1933, the use of large bills being exchanged for gold ceased.  In the U.S. the Roosevelt administration collected all gold coins, melted them down into gold bars, issued paper gold certificates that were held by the Federal Government, and issued paper money starting with the ten dollar bill and going up.  These were Federal Reserve Notes which the banks distributed then and thereafter.  They were used in place of the gold coins.

 

The gold standard was essentially a fiction.  In 1933 the money supplied was doubled as the value of gold was legally doubled, going from $16 an ounce to $36 an ounce.  This essentially paid for Roosevelt’s New Deal.  Similar actions would also be done in other industrial nations.  The problem that existed was that there still was not enough money in circulation to meet the actual needs of most nations.  There would not be enough money available until World War II when it tended to be freely printed by the various governments.  During the war, since most production was going toward the war effort, there was more money available than the goods and services that could be purchased.  People worked double shifts in the factories and earned lots of currency, far more than they could spend.  At the end of the war there would be a large buying splurge that would create jobs for a good percentage of the returning veterans.

 

In 1969, under President Richard M. Nixon, the last limited amount of stored gold behind the dollar would be removed and the Federal Government would sell a large percentage of its gold supply.  It would cease to legally buy all gold mined within the country.  Gold would within a relatively short period of time, several years, go from $36 an ounce to $800 an ounce.  It would later go to well over $1,000 an ounce and eventually rise to $1,800 an ounce.  At this time one of the agencies in Texas would buy gold and set up its own depository.  Later, gold would drop down to around $1,100 an ounce, where, with continued slight oscillations in price, it would remain in 2016.

 

This entire process has been going on for the last 46 years.  The value of gold is determined by the economic laws of supply and demand.  The value of gold, silver, platinum, titanium, and other precious metals are determined by the amount of supply and the demand for that supply.

 

In 1969 the silver would also be removed from new coins and all money would become tokens, generally copper sandwiches, having almost no value within themselves.  All money became a valueless instrument for the exchange of goods and services, having no real innate value in itself except that of the word of the nation issuing it.

 

Today money of one country has to be exchanged for that of another when one visits Europe or Asia or, for that matter anyplace else that isn’t part of one’s country.  With very few exception it has no relevance in another country but it does have an exchange value in the banks of other countries, where generally, for a small fee, it can be exchanged for the currency of that particular nation.

 

Money is no longer as good as gold, there is no longer any gold behind it.  The metal has become too expensive and its supply is too limited to be used for a base for currency.

 

This in a nutshell is a short simplified history of money and its uses.

****************************

Now, in terms of the modern world what is money and what are it uses?  Today money serves a myriad of purposes.  While it is no longer an object of intrinsic value it still serves as an object of inherent value.  It is, first of all, a form of score-card which demonstrates ones’ standing in the overall society, like Donald J. Trump the billionaire.  Mainly it allows the traditional exchange of goods and services within the society and between nations.  But in addition to this money also functions within the nation in relatively new ways.

 

According to most economists there are various forms of economics.  For our purposes the two more important ones are Microeconomics (small) and Macroeconomics (large).  Everything that has so far been considered falls into the area of Microeconomics (small economics).  In essence an individual has so much wealth (gold) or earnings that comprises what he/she possesses and earns.  That can be spent to satisfy needs and wants or saved for a future time of need or desire.  Some of it can be used as a commodity and invested in income gaining property or stocks and bonds or anything that will pay an income.

 

Virtually every individual or family unit fits into this category.  So also do government entities like municipalities and individual states.  Their incomes would be comprised of taxes and fines.  If any of these people or entities need more money than they are taking in or have then they can borrow.  For individuals and families there are banks and credit unit loans or credit cards.  For municipalities and states there are short and long term bond issues.  These eventually must be paid off with interest.  This is usually tax free for state and local governments and ridiculously high for credit cards.

 

Of course the object with individuals and families is to live within their incomes.  There are big-ticket purchases like automobiles and homes that generally do require long term payments or occasional emergencies like a large auto repair bill or a sick child.  With cities and states the taxes are supposed to be high enough to cover their expenses.  But they also have long term expenditures like roads and bridges which are inordinately expensive and must also be paid off over the long term.

 

The problem that comes up with individuals and families is when too many short-term expenses are charged to credit-cards, much more than can possibly be paid off in a billing cycle.  Then the recipients are paying 18 or more percent interest on these loans and life becomes an uncomfortable struggle to survive.  Particularly since the standard of living for many people will continually exceed their incomes.  This is not unusual with many families.

 

With municipalities and states the same pattern can occur.  The entities income does not match their expenditures.  This can be caused by a large number of reasons besides irresponsibility on the part of the city fathers.  Industry can move out of the area drastically reducing the tax base or other changes that drastically affect the tax base such as a natural disaster or a recession or depression.

*******************************

All this, prior to 1933, would also include the individual nations.  They would also be funded by their incomes in taxes and fines.  But from that point on, by changing from money being precious metals to printed paper, the situation became different for all the industrial nations that had switched to paper money.  And in the United States, particularly since 1969, all printed money is just that, official paper with numbers stamped upon it which in itself has no real value; it has become merely a means of trading goods and services for goods and services.

 

Federal or Central Governments still follow the age old practice of Microeconomics, collecting taxes and issuing fines for different forms of misbehavior.  But, more importantly, now in addition they also practice Macroeconomics, wherein they attempt to control the amount of money continually present within the nation.  They tend to try to keep inflation low and economic growth at a steady pace of about 3 to 4%.  Countries like modern China prefer a growth rate of 8% which they are no longer able to maintain.

****************************

Economics is concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.  What we have mainly looked at so far has been Microeconomics, dealing with individuals, families, local and state governments.  Macroeconomics deals with the National or Federal Government and applies these principles to the entire economy of the nation.  Its ultimate purpose is to use this knowledge to positively regulate the economy of the entire state in order to avoid economic downturns and keep the nation at its level of highest efficiency.

 

Consequently Macroeconomics (Big Economics) is now, in addition to collecting, controlling revenue, and attempting to maintain a regular level of growth a regulatory device, attempting to even out the overall incomes of the majority of the population.  Income taxes are graduated, that is, the more the individual earns the higher is his/her tax rate.  This is truer in European and Asian nations than in the United States where the graduated income tax rate is currently toped-off at $400,000 and the percentage of income paid at that amount stops rising regardless of how high the income is beyond that amount.

 

It would seem that the bulk of the Congressional Legislators, particularly the Republican legislators, have no real knowledge of modern economics and are still functioning with only an awareness of Microeconomics.  Some of the far-right, Tea Party, legislators have publically stated that they totally understand economics because they have raised families.  Consequently their reaction to economic downturns is to use a “common sense” approach which, in turn, worsens conditions.

 

It would seem that in the United States the one occupation that requires no knowledge of economics or government is that of a Republican Congressman.  Since taking over the House of Representatives in 2011 they have just passed one bill in 2015 that applied Fiscal Policy; and that was a continuation of a law that expired which added a small tax to the purchase of gasoline that has been used for road maintenance.  Every other bill dealing directly or indirectly with employment actually decreased it, adding to the level of unemployment within the nation.  One can safely say they have been penny wise and dollar stupid.  They have favored government economizing over growing employment.  And even here they have not been consistent, going on mad spending splurges like the 1.145 Trillion Dollar Funding Bill of 2015.

***********************

Basically the Central Governments issues paper money as it is needed by their particular society.  The National Debt is itself partly a fiction since the Government owns the majority of its own National Debt and will use it at times to adjust conditions within the nation.  The amount of money in circulation within the society is supposed to be the full amount needed for the nation to operate at its highest level of efficiency.

 

The Agency, in the United States, that does this is the Federal Reserve.  It continually monitors the entire economy throughout the fifty states and territories belonging to the nation.  On a constant basis it is supposed to continually fine tune the overall economy.  The Federal Reserve has twelve districts that cover the entire nation.  To a certain extent its powers are limited.  It can make adjustments to the economy but the changes or corrections it makes generally are slow in coming about.  Even though its’ Board of Directors meet once a month and carefully considers what is happening in the overall economy it can miss or misconstrue important economic changes within the society.

****************************

The Democrats, the political party begun by Thomas Jefferson in the late 18th Century which still persists, during the Great Depression of 1929 took control of the Federal Government in 1933.  They tended to totally dedicate themselves to helping the public pull out of the Great Depression.  They dedicated or rededicated themselves to helping the ‘forgotten men” survive in what had become almost overnight an alien world.  They became responsible for the welfare of all their citizens, creating what Franklin D. Roosevelt called a “New Deal” for everyone, caring for those who could no longer properly care for themselves.

 

Freedom to the Democrats meant freedom from want and need.  President Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) meant an extension of these rights.  To the Republicans, on the other hand, freedom means government withdrawal from the public lives, giving them, among other things, the right to starve, freeze, and die.

 

In solving societal problems the Federal Government in 2009 and 2010, with the Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, saved the banks and the United States auto industry by extending them massive loans and the Public by enacting Affordable Health Care.

 

According to Mitt Romney, speaking for the Republicans during his 2012 Presidential Campaign, he would have done neither of these.  It should be noted that the Affordable Health Care Law was modeled after a similar law which Romney had signed into law during his one term as governor of Massachusetts.

 

The probability would have been in 2009, if Republican actions were taken by the Republican candidate, John McCain that the United States and the industrial world would have fallen into a depression far greater than that of 1929.

*******************************

What we are dealing with here is Macroeconomics (Big Economics).  The application of vast amounts of money to parts of the economy to avoid an economic disaster that would affect everybody in the U.S. society.  President Obama did this upon assuming office over a two year period.  At the end of that time two important events occurred: first, for various reasons during the Midterm Election of 2010 the Republicans achieved a majority in the House of Representatives and second, 2010 was a census year in which the seats in the House of Representatives were reapportioned to adjust for the increase in the national population.  In those states which the Republicans controlled they gerrymandered the new voting districts to their advantage whereby they were able to get enough seats in the House to maintain control of that body.  In fact they were able to get and keep their majority in the House even though more votes were cast for Democrats throughout the United States in the next Midterm Election.

 

What followed from 2011 on was that no fiscal policy bills were passed.  In fact what the Republicans did in Congress was to shrink the size of the Federal Government when possible and actually increase the unemployment problem by decreasing funding for both federal and state governments.  The chairman of the Federal Reserve at this time was Ben S. Bernanke.  After unsuccessfully requesting that Congress pass Fiscal Policy laws numerous times he came up with Creative Monetary (Money) Policy.

 

Both Bernanke and Obama were able to work through the Great Recession and point the country toward recovery by the use of massive blocks of spending, adding large amounts of currency to the National Cash Flow.  What was being dealt with here is called Macroeconomic (Big Economics), the Federal Government controlling the economics of the nation and freely spending money in order to avert disaster.

 

The question arises: How much currency can the Federal Government print and distribute without destroying the economy?  That’s an interesting question?  Remember the money itself has no inherent value.  Theoretically any amount can be printed and issued.  But if it is done endlessly growing inflation will occur and the value of the currency will systematically decrease until it becomes valueless.

 

The limitation in terms of the amount issued would be determined then by the rate of inflation.  Once inflation reaches some single digit point, say 5 or 6%, then the limit would be reached.  But this limit was never reached.  Inflation stayed at 2 to 3%.  In 2009 President Obama added well over a trillion dollars through bank and auto loans, plus other forms of expenditure and the inflation rate stayed at its original level.  Later in the Presidency the FED for a period of well over two years added 85 billion dollars a month to the Nation Cash Flow, $45 billion buying up pieces of mortgage paper and adding $40 billion directly to the National Cash Flow. The FED added well over a trillion dollars.   Again there was no change to the inflation rate.

 

Interestingly, with all this cash being added the indication was that the country had a phenomenal need for additional money to circulate so that economic growth could occur.  Congress should have been the agency applying most of these funds.  If they had the monies could have been more focused on upgrading the dated infrastructure of the United States.  Instead over half the funds resolved the Housing Dilemma created by the deregulated banks from the 1980s on.

 

It should be noted that the money spent on mortgage paper, unlike the bank and auto loans which were repaid with interest, was never directly recovered.  The mortgages in all 50 states had been fractionalized into well over a hundred parts each and applied to many different Hedge Funds.  The record-keeping that the banks had set up to expedite the financing and refinancing was unbelievably sloppy.

 

In essence no one owned a fair percentage of those houses because it was almost impossible to put enough pieces of mortgage paper together to make up over 50% of the ownership in these properties.  Consequently how could anyone foreclose on any of these homes?  The spread sheet or sheets that the government would need to determine when it owned enough of any property would probably cost more to generate than the properties were worth.  In any event the Federal Government was more interested in solving the Housing Problem than in collecting on its debt.

 

In addition all those people would no longer be deducting their interest payments on their income taxes.  And a percentage of the home owners suddenly had more disposable income which they spent on short term activities like more eating out, infusing the additional currency into the National Cash Flow which, in turn, increased productivity and employment in the nation.  The government would indirectly get a good part of this money back in increased taxes across the nation.  Here the Federal Government was spending vast amounts of money, which Congress refused to do, upgrading the entire nation.

 

 

 

 

The Weiner Component #146 Part 2 – The Republican Party & the Future

English: Woodrow Wilson.

English: Woodrow Wilson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4 U.S. Presidents. Former President Jimmy Cart...

4 U.S. Presidents. Former President Jimmy Carter (right), walks with, from left, George H.W. Bush (far left), George W. Bush (second from left) and Bill Clinton (center) during the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas, November 18, 2004 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Franklinas Delanas Ruzveltas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the effects of the American Civil War was the industrial concentration of large groups of people needed to manufacture the goods required by the military confrontation.  This slowly began the movement which would become, through the rest of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, known as the Rise of the Cities. This Industrial Revolution would increase after the War, people would leave the rural areas and numerous immigrants would come to the ever-growing cities and the United States would become mainly an urban nation.

 

From 1877 on, when the Southern occupation or Reconstruction by a Northern army of occupation ended as a result of a deal made during the disputed Presidential Election of 1876 in which the Republicans got the presidency and Reconstruction ended, with the South becoming freely again a part of the Union.  The Senate barely remained Republican and the House had a Democratic majority.

 

A Republican, James A. Garfield was elected in 1881.  He was assassinated four months into his term and was replaced by his Vice President, Chester A. Arthur, who served out the four years.  The Senate had an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and the House had a Republican majority.

 

There were an equal number of Republican and Democratic presidents after until you get to the reform presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, who are both Republicans.  They are followed by the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, and World War I.  He will be succeeded by three Republican Presidents: Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover.  At that point we have the Great Depression of 1929 which lasts until World War II.  The Congress will generally follow the lead of the reigning president.

 

The next President in 1933, by a landslide, was the Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Both the House and Senate maintained a Democratic majority during his terms in office.  He is reputed to have brought unemployment down from 25% to 2%.

 

After his death, during his fourth term, his Vice President, Harry S. Truman, served the rest of his fourth term and an additional one of his own through 1953.  During his last two years in office the Congress had a Republican majority.

 

Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, during his eight years in office, intermittently had both Democratic and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.  Democratic Presidents, Kennedy and Johnson had Democratic majorities in Congress.  The same is true of Republicans, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford.  From January 1977 to 1981 President Jimmy Carter had Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.  Ronald Reagan had Democratic majorities in the House and mostly the same in the Senate.  George H.W. Bush had to work with Democratic majorities during his four years in office while Bill Clinton had them only during his first two years in office.  George W. Bush had both during different times and Barack Obama had a Democratic majority only during his first two years, then a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, and a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress during his last two years in office.

***************************

In the post-Civil War period, as earlier, recessions and depressions came, at the best, every few years or at the worst, almost successively, with occasional major downturns like the Bankers’ Panic of 1907 at the New York Stock Exchange.

 

On December 23, 1913 Congress passed and President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act bringing financial regulation into existence in the United States.  Prior to this time Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” which he defined as the motivating force behind the Market System, determined which way the Stock Market would run.  The “invisible hand,” self-interest, individual greed, had historically caused continual large fluctuations in the Stock and other Markets.

 

The mission of the Federal Reserve was through Monetary (money) Policy to maximize employment, keep prices stable, and moderate long term interest rates.  This purpose was extended with bank regulation during FDR’s New Deal.  In the 1980s the Reagan administration canceled the bank regulation.  This, in turn, led to the Real Estate Bubble two decades later.  And because of the banking-caused Real Estate Debacle of 2008 the Federal Reserve’s purpose was again expanded to supervising and regulating banks, maintaining stability of the financial structure, and providing financial services to depository institutions, the United States Government, and foreign official institutions.

 

Of course the banks objected to the 2009 reforms and in the 2014 Federal Government’s Finance Bill, Citibank was able to slip in a section into this 1,600 page law limiting this power.  This was done the night before the bill had to be voted upon.  Naturally the banks object to any regulation that limits them.  I would also suppose that their executives would equally object if any of them were sent to jail for illegal activities instead of having the bank just paying fines as they have been doing since 2009.

 

In the 2012 Presidential Election the Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney, publically stated, more than once, that after he was elected he would do away with the Dodd-Frank Banking Reform Bill that was passed in 2009.  His statements called for a return to the good-old-days before the 2008 Real Estate Crash when the banks and bankers were making inordinate amounts of money and getting phenomenal compensation packages.

***************************

If we look at the economic patterns that occurred during the last hundred and some years what emerges is the fact that the major economic downturns were preceded by Republican Presidents.  The three presidents during the last three major downturns were: Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush.

 

While they were not individually responsible for the depressions it was both the Republican policies and the general ignorance of how the economy works that brought the economic collapses into being.  In 1907, there was no central bank, money, in the shape of gold coins, moved freely according to the needs of the nation.  The Panic of 2007, also known as the Banker’s Panic, more or less, began in October of that year when the New York Stock Market dropped about 50%.  There had been an assault upon the Stock Market that blew up the economy and there was no Central Bank at that time to infuse currency into the National Cash Flow.  A few years later in 1913 this depression brought about the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

 

For 1929s depression, and all the minor recessions up to that time, there was a bland reliance upon the forces of the Marketplace to continually determine what had supposedly been long term prosperity.  In essence the Market forces, the “invisible hand,” self-interest, was the determinate.  After years of pushing stock prices upward the Stock Market was severely overpriced.  This could not go on forever and it collapsed in 1929 dropping to a fraction of what it had been earlier, and in the process bringing the entire economy down.

 

In 1933 the new Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, doubled the money supply by collecting all the gold coins, melting them down into gold blocks, burying them in depositories like Fort Knox, legally doubling their value, and issuing paper money presumably backed by gold.  It was a fiction that lasted until 1969 when, then President Richard M. Nixon took away the last bit of gold supposedly behind the dollar.

 

This action by Roosevelt, doubling the money supply easily paid for the New Deal but it wasn’t enough to offset the 1929 Depression.  It would have taken four to eight times the money then in circulation to end the economic situation.  Unfortunately the problem wasn’t understood properly at that time and it took a major war from 1939 to 1945 to offset and end the Great Depression.

 

The explosion of the 2008 Real Estate Bubble toward the end of that year also occurred during a Republican presidency.  Here the next President, Barack Obama, applied all the money needed; and what could have been a Greater Depression than that of 1929 became a major recession that should have been resolved in a year or two with applications of both Monetary and Fiscal Policy.  But the Republicans, following their historic philosophy which had caused most of the economic downturns, exacerbated the situation by refusing to pass any Fiscal Policy laws.  Virtually every economic move they made tended to worsen economic conditions.  It took the efforts of the President and the Federal Reserve to keep a depression from happening.

 

If the Republicans had been solely in charge, not only the United States but the entire world would currently be in a Great Depression that would  make 1929 look like a weekend holiday.

**********************

Much has been learned and understood as to how National Economies work from the latter half of the 20th Century on.  Economic changes like recessions and depressions can be lightened or even avoided.  The National Economies are not like wild animals that inevitably rear their heads and bring about indiscriminately varied levels of misery to their populations.  In 2009 a multi-gigantic depression was avoided by actions of the Central Government.  Economic catastrophe or lack of prosperity can be avoided and controlled.  It was in 2009 by President Obama and his administration.

 

Yet none of these practices are or have been accepted by the members of the Republican Party.  They still follow Adam Smith’s late 18th Century work, An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, which in itself was, in part, a reaction against the 16th Century economic practice known as Mercantilism.  Smith defined the Free Market controlling entity as the “invisible hand,” self-interest.    What Smith did not foresee was that the Free Market led to Monopoly and Oligopoly, which led to societal economic decision-making by the few who were still motivated by self-interest.

 

This is the Free Market in which Ronald Reagan and the Republicans believe.  This is what the Reagan and his administration utilized for their newly discovered Supply Side Economics.  Lower taxes, particularly for the upper echelon of society (the rich), and they will automatically invest that new income in new industry, creating new jobs, and new productivity which will supply new goods and jobs for everyone.  And everyone will live happily ever after.  A nice fairy tale!  It never happened.

 

What did happen was that a very large percentage of the people who benefited from the tax cut gave these new savings to financial experts who invested them in old productivity, stocks and bonds.  New startup companies, when they came into existence and had proved their durability, tended to be financed by the large banking houses.

 

The theory was nonsense.  It never worked.  But the 2016 Republican candidates for the presidency are all still adhering to it.  They want to cut taxes for the very rich which currently stops being graduated after their income reaches $400,000, with the percentage the Federal Government receives staying fixed no matter how many millions or billions it goes into.

 

Why is it important for the Republicans to be Supply Siders?  Because these people are their main financial contributors.  They are the ones who pay for their political campaigns.  And the Republicans are very good at combining need (endless contributions) with political philosophy.

 

This is also true with most pharmaceutical companies.  Their products can be purchased at lower prices outside of the United States.  Congress has passed laws fixing their prices in this country and not allowing any government agency to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry.  They are large contributors to political campaigns, particularly Republican political campaigns and Republican Congressmen are utilizing the principle of self-interest.

*************************

Of the two major political parties in the United States the Republicans are the minority party; there are far less of them than there are Democrats.  But they are far more vociferous than the Democrats, never ceasing their loud complaining about the other party.  While the Democrats seem to keep a more or less polite silence.  The Democrats are blamed for everything wrong with the country, particularly those items caused by Republican actions.  The Republicans never take responsibility for any adverse action; they are either ignored or blamed on the Democrats.  Their theories of economics are self-serving and absurd.  And ultimately in percentage of the population they are actually shrinking in number as time moves forward and they become slowly an ever-decreasing minority.

 

They, the Republicans, have been successful politically in the last six years mainly through voter apathy and disgust.  They have done far better in Midterm Elections than in Presidential ones when a good percentage of the citizenry in disgust or disappointment for what has not happened during the last two years don’t bother to vote.  This has been added to by various forms of voter suppression in states the Republicans control.  In essence they have greater political victories when more people stay home on election days.

 

In addition to this in order to gain the support of the evangelicals the Republicans have incorporated the concept of the holiness of life from conception onward into their philosophy.  Statements have been made about passing an amendment to the Constitution giving the fetus full Constitutional rights from conception on.  This will never happen but it gives them a certain credence with the far right evangelicals.

***************************************

In the 1973, the Supreme Court found, by a 7 to 2 decision, in the Roe v. Wade case that abortions were legal; that women had a right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.  The evangelicals (religious right) have resisted this decision from the beginning.  At some point the Republicans latched onto this cause and made it their own, gaining the support of this group.

 

To many Republicans today, women are not capable of dealing with their own bodies.  They state and believe there should be no abortions allowed, not even in cases of rape, incest, or where the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life.  It would seem that they have and are trying to endanger women’s lives, both psychologically and physiologically.  In their view women are not capable of making certain decisions concerning their own lives.  It must be done by elderly white men who make up the bulk of the Republican Party.  This is, without question, War on Women,

 

In addition to this the Republicans are an extension of the National Rifle Association.  They tend to be against any laws regulating weapons, ammunition, and magazine size in any way.  No atrocity will deter them from this belief.  A goodly percentage of their blue collar membership, more or less, holds this belief.  To many members of the NRA the fact that this hasn’t happened is proof that it will happen if they allow any changes to occur to the gun laws.

 

It seems, if we consider the group in Oregon which has recently taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, that having weapons, like thousand dollar plus assault rifles, will keep the Government respectful.  Of course the fact that the Federal Government doesn’t want another blood bath is beside the point.  They have been there since January 2, 2016 and the few that have not been arrested and are still remaining there have stated that they will stay until the Federal Government gives the land to the original owners, the local ranchers.  It must be nice to just sit around indefinitely and wait for the Federal Government to give the land to the local ranchers.  Of course following their argument the land really belongs to the local Indians who have inhabited the area for at least the last two thousand years and claim it as their own.

 

It would seem that the Republican battle cry for a large number of its members is God and Guns, or is it Guns and God?  It’s often hard to tell which should come first.  I suppose it depends upon which Republican you ask.

******************************

The American society has needs which have to be handled by necessary legislation.  These societal needs have been avoided by the Republican dominated legislature and in many cases by Republican dominated state law making bodies.  Congress has attempted to deal with these problems by ignoring them, especially since 2011 when the Republicans, by gerrymandering the states where they had a majority in the legislatures, gained control of the House of Representatives.

 

If anything what the House of Representatives has done is to shorten its meeting days until 2016 when they were reduced to 110 days for the year, to a three day week with holidays.  This allows the new Speaker, Paul Ryan, to spend four days a week home with his family: wife and two children, in Wisconsin and three days in Washington, D.C., as Speaker of the House.  A good job, if you can get it!

 

The Republican dominated Senate will meet a bit more often for the year.  Both Houses of Congress are ignoring the needs of the people within the nation and expect to maintain their majorities in both Houses of Congress after the 2016 Presidential Election and get a Republican elected to the presidency.  And they believe they can do this by antagonizing most of the other minorities and the one remaining majority, the women of the United States.

 

Speaker Paul Ryan has stated that after having passed a law doing away with Affordable Health Care (Obamacare) which the President vetoed, they will continue to pass laws embarrassing the President by forcing him to veto them.  They do not have enough votes to override his vetoes.  And in that way they, the Republicans, will show the public what they will get in the way of new laws in 2017 if they elect Republicans in both Congress and the Presidency.  I would imagine that if Donald J. Trump were to become the next President of the United States then all bets are off!

 

So much for Republicans!  They are, after all, the minority party which tends to win elections when only a minority vote in Midterm Elections.  2016 is a Presidential Election.  The majority of the population will be voting in that election.  The probability is that the Republicans, at best, will retain the House of Representatives; and that is because in 2011 they gerrymandered the Districts within the states they controlled.  In this way they choose their own voters instead of having the voters choose them.  Remember in the 2014 Midterm Election well over a million more votes were cast throughout the United States for Democrats in the House, but the Republicans still retained control of that body.

**************************************

It should also be noted that large, and, in some cases almost unlimited, contributions give immediate access to legislators and Congress by those making them.  These contributors to elections can and have influenced legislation or the direction the government is going.  The Republicans have integrated into their psyches the desires or needs of most of these individuals or corporations. For example, the Koch brothers of Wichita, Kansas, who are involved with oil, have had their state pass legislation against green energy.  Citibank has written financial regulation which has been inserted into Congressional Bills and become laws.

 

The Republicans are after all the party of business and of the individual.  They believe in everyone having as much freedom as possible.  Their solution to adding jobs is to increase pollution and other unsafe conditions.  No one forces anyone to take a job.  Everyone has choices, even the choice to starve or live in the street.

 

Finally it should be noted that even with voter suppression the Democrats are the majority party.  States like Texas have been able to limit rural voters by two or three hundred thousand by making it very difficult and expensive for these people living in rural areas, mostly, if not all, Democrats, to get proper identification and/or register to vote.  This was proven in the last Midterm Election of 2014.  But even so, the probability is that the Democrats will gain back the Senate and keep the presidency.  The probability is that the House is the one body the Republicans may still be able to control.  If my prediction is correct we will have total gridlock in the Congress for an additional four years.  It’s a depressing thought!

The Weiner Component #140C – Congress & the National Debt

National-Debt-GDP

National-Debt-GDP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The National or Public Debt is money that the United States has borrowed above what it collects in taxes and which, with taxes, it uses to operate the country.

 

The high current level of the National Debt was brought about by the three last Republican Presidents: Ronald Reagan and the two Bush presidents, father and son.  The majority of the balance came about by policies and wars by these three men.  Prior to Reagan assuming office the National Debt, which had existed since the inception of this nation, was under one trillion dollars.

 

Republican led economizing actions toward the Public or National Debt have been penny wise and dollar stupid; particularly since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011.  Since this period their economizing policies have actually exacerbated both the unemployment situation and lowered the overall economic health of the United States, actually keeping the GDP (Gross National Product) considerably lower than it could or should have been.    Their tactics of forcing their agenda through by refusing to enact necessary legislation unless their economizing bills were also passed have cost the government millions, if not billions.  This is particularly true with bills funding the Federal Government or raising the nation’s debt limit that they mostly caused to be as high as it is.  In fact we are just passed a point in time when the government once again needed to have the debt limit raised above the 18.1 trillion limit or cause financial crises by not allowing the Treasury to have enough funds to pay the continuing costs of running the Federal Government.

 

Fortunately this was one of the final acts of the retiring Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.  He, with the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, and with President Obama worked out a compromise bill through a telephone conference.  They raised the National Debt so that it will not have to be adjusted for two years and also funded the military properly for the oncoming year.  This was done in both Houses of Congress with Democratic help.

 

The conservative Congress presumably wants to or was attempting to use this as a bargaining/blackmailing tool to force the President to cut discretionary spending, which already has been and will again be automatically cut by the sequester at the beginning of the New Year.

************************

The National Debt, all 18.1 trillion of it, consists of two categories, Public and Private Debt.  The Federal Government owns through its assorted agencies probably, at least, 50% of its own debt.  It could be a lot higher than that.

 

Question: Can an entity owe itself money?  Can any individual or entity owe itself money and legally charge itself interest on these funds?  Apparently only the Federal Government can and does do this.

 

But is it real?  Since money has no intrinsic value the Federal Government could print any amount it wishes.  There is absolutely nothing behind the dollar but the word of the National Government.  There are, of course, reasons why it doesn’t but the Federal Reserve can and does occasionally increase the amount of money in circulation in the National Cash Flow.

 

Of course if any agency like Social Security, which has been showing a profit since 1983 when it was last adjusted and is currently owed about three trillion dollars, were to need any of its additional funds or some of the monies owed to it, that would create problems since the monies has been and are continuing to be spent, both the principle and the interest, and Social Security is given book credit for all these amounts.

 

This process is also true for a large number of government funds that run a surplus; the excess money is freely added to the general fund.  The major exception to this practice would be the Federal Reserve which will and has used debt funds to make adjustments in the National Cash Flow, adding money when there is a shortage during periods of deflation or recession and taking funds out of the National Cash Flow during periods of increasing inflation when there is too much money available in the flow.

 

The rest of the Public or National Debt is private, borrowed on a short or long term basis, from individuals, countries, and other entities.  The major foreign holder of American debt is China, (whether its individuals, companies, or the government itself is another question), holding about 3 trillion dollars’ worth of this loan paper.  Japan is next holding a little less.  The third, I believe, is India.  Companies and individuals hold this mortgage paper.  The FED has sales of it going on all the time, selling short to long term bonds.

 

In addition people buy EE bonds as gifts and as a form of savings.  These bonds function over a 5 year period and their cost is less than the face value of the bond which is the value after 5 years.  They make nice gift for youngsters in that they cost less than their face value and if they are held over 5 years pay additional interest.  I bonds tend to cost more and generally pay a higher rate of interest.  Here the interest is added on to the bond.  There are no state or local taxes on these bonds.

 

How real is the Public or National Debt if the Federal Government owns a large percentage of its own debt?  An interesting question and different economists have different conclusions or interpretations of this fact.

************************

Alan Greenspan, a conservative economist, was appointed Federal Reserve Chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987 and served until January of 2006.  He held that the Free Market was essential in making economic decisions.  Reagan and his advisors followed the same principle.  They deregulated the banking industry and allowed them to move freely forward.

 

Greenspan served for almost 20 years as Chairman, the second longest tenure of any chairman in the FED and was looked upon by many members of Congress almost as a seer who could foretell the economic future.  Unfortunately Greenspan, even with all the information provided by the Federal Reserve’s constant monitoring of the economy missed the major change that occurred during his term as Chairman.  That was the need for rapid monetary expansion by a rapidly growing economy.  Instead of the FED increasing the money supply in a sane fashion it was left to the unregulated banks to expand the amount of currency in circulation.  This was done slowly at first and then gathered speed like a free moving vehicle rushing downhill.  By 2007 the signs of eminent economic collapse were present.  But they were faced with denial by a generation of bankers who had known only rising real estate values.  The Real Estate Crash came in late 2008 when the entire real estate market disintegrated overnight.  So much for economic awareness by the experts!

*****************************

First, what is the real National Debt?  Is it just the Private Debt or is it both, the Public and the Private Debt?  The American dollar today is still considered one of the most prized currencies in the world.  The FED has never had any trouble selling its bonds both domestically and to foreign investors.   Most other nations rank their currencies to the value of the dollar.  Some economic theories or beliefs seem to occasionally be in a process of change.  Finally the United States does not seem to be even near the point of going bankrupt.

 

We are moving into economic areas where it would seem new laws of economics seem to be about to be discovered.  Money, in terms of Macroeconomics, is related to the system of taxation but not dependent upon it.  Money, to the state, is a tool utilized to enhance productivity and the levels of national consumption and standards of living for the entire population.

 

The determining factor of how much money should be in circulation is or should be determined by the level of inflation or deflation that exists in the nation.  A high rate of inflation determines that not enough goods and services are being produced. People are bidding up the price of everything.  A rapid drop in prices indicates that too much goods and services are available and there is not enough cash in the general society to purchase them.  One of the main jobs of the Federal Reserve is to maintain a balance between these two forces. For this process the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are supposed to constantly monitor their areas of responsibility.

 

This was not done properly by the FED from the 1970s through 2008 and the Real Estate Collapse was brought about by the deregulated irresponsible banking industry that created excess trillions of dollars that were added to the National Cash Flow.  If the increased cash needed for the economic growth for this period had gradually been added to the national economy by the Federal Reserve there would never have been the 2008 Real Estate Disaster.  The FED, under Alan Greenspan, allowed the Free Market or unregulated Capitalism to bring about economic disaster.

****************************

Many economists believe that as long as the Public Debt does not exceed the Gross National Product (GDP), which is all the goods and services produced in the nation in one fiscal year, the country is safe.  The GDP is estimated to be 17,419 trillion dollars for 2015, the Debt Limit has to be raised beyond 18.1 trillion dollars.  The estimated growth in the GDP between 2014 and 2015 is estimated to be 651 billion dollars.

 

There have been times in the past, usually during major wars or economic emergencies like the Great Depression, when government spending has exceeded the value of the GDP.   These have lasted for short periods of time.  Once it regularly exceeds that level there is, according to some economists, a serious problem.

 

Also as we move toward the middle of the current century the retired population and those needing more continual medical treatment will increase significantly raising the costs of Social Security and Medicare.  Both of these programs will take a larger and larger percentage of discretionary spending continually bringing up the Federal Government’s costs.  Presumably the costs will increase far above the GDP.  At this point, according to some economists, the ever growing National Debt could cause continual economic harm to the country.

***************************

If we accept this premise as accurate there are certain known variables that have not been factored into this premise.  There may also be other unknown variables that could come up.

 

The first major factor to consider is time.  Most of these future projections are based upon the present; that is, given a future of a decade or two or more, if everything remains exactly the same except for what is being discussed, then the projection will happen.  Generally no one can accurately project all the changes that will come about ten or more years from now.  On that basis any prediction is flawed.

 

Think of your own lives.  What was your world like ten or more years ago?  Could you even imagine being where you are now?  Could you imagine the world as it is now?  I recently found myself standing in a supermarket checkout line looking at a display of chocolate bars.  They were on sale, 4 for five dollars.  For no reason I said aloud, “What happened to the 5 cent bars of chocolate?”  The person in front of me, who was being checked out, start to muse aloud about how, as a child, how much candy he could buy then for a quarter.  He was in his mid-fifties.  Values or prices have changed considerably since then.  Money has decreased in value.  That is one variable that no one really projected.

 

Social Security was last fixed or its premiums were raised in 1983 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  It has had since then and currently still has a surplus.  Presumably sometime well past the middle of this century it will begin using this surplus and toward the end of this century will have used it out and have to be readjusted, if this is not done earlier.  Medicare was separated from social security in the late 1980s.  From that time on it was funded by an additional payroll tax paid by, like social security, both by employees and employers.  Both or either of these funds can be again increased or fixed.

 

What many economists are projecting into the future is what will happen if the present becomes the future.  Essentially with no other changes in the future except the increase in the elderly population they are predicting what will happen.  They are not taking any other variabilities into consideration.  The probability of the projection coming true as stated is very low, probably well under 25%.

 

In the last few years the amount of money, as a percentage of taxes collected, has been significantly decreasing but so has the cost of running the Federal Government.  We could possibly in Barak Obama’s last year as president actually have a slight surplus decreasing the National or Public Debt.  This did occur during Clinton’s last year as President.

*******************************

Will the Federal Government raise the National Debt further toward the end of this century?  We still haven’t defined what is the real National Debt or, for that matter, the reality of the National Debt as a factor in the operation of this nation in terms of Macroeconomics.  We are moving forward in time with assorted future projections by assorted economists, some of these forecasts contradicting other forecasts.

 

Has Congress even begun to study this problem?  Most of what I have heard from Republican Congressmen has been doom and gloom, the country is headed for bankruptcy unless we cut down Federal spending.  Yet the Republican headed Congress can spend well over 4 and 1/2 million dollars holding numerous standing committee hearings trying to tear down or blame Hillary Rodham Clinton for what happened in Benghazi, Libya while Clinton was Secretary of State.  And this same Republican Congress earlier wasted over a billion dollars shutting down the Federal Government by refusing to fund it.  Some of the potential Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Elections seem to want to massively expand the war against ISIS.  They seem to have a problem dealing with the real world!

English: The holders of the United States nati...

English: The holders of the United States national debt as of December 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #124 – Justice in America Part3: The Big Banks & the Federal Reserve

The big banking houses, like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and J.P Morgan-Chase to name a few, that have member banks throughout the United States, seemingly are sacrosanct, they can be fined for illegal or immoral actions but no perpetrator ever goes to prison.  Presumably the reason for this is that currently the country is dependent upon them for the movement of money throughout the national economy.  It is felt that if anything were to happen to them then the nation would go into a serious depression. Since they are presumably indispensable they can and do generally get away with actions that would cause people ordinarily to be sent to prison,

This condition exists because people are afraid of change; they are used to what they have and see anything different as too big a risk.

The banks exist in a free market economy as entities that persist for profit using money, people’s deposits, the safety of which the Federal Government guarantees, for their own general speculations.  In point of fact they are an oligarchy, which under the late 19th Century Sherman Anti-Trust Act is an illegal combination in restraint of trade.  It’s a no lose situation for the banks whose management have no morals in the use of the people’s money

***************************

Following is an edited version of The Weiner Component #57D -The Federal Reserve,

It became obvious during the Panic of 1907 that the Federal Government had no controls over banking practices in the United States.  The Panic was caused by speculators attempting to corner the market on United Copper Company stock.  Failure to do this led to the collapse of the Knickerbockers Trust Company, New York City’s third largest trust.  The failure spread fear throughout the City’s Trusts.  Panic extended across the nation as large numbers of people withdrew their deposits from regional banks.  At the time the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.  The following year a Senate commission investigated the crisis and proposed future solutions, leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

The Federal Reserve (FED) is the central banking system of the United States.  It was created in December of 1913 by the passing of the Federal Reserve Act.  This was largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly the Panic of 1907.  The Federal Reserve consists of twelve regional Banks located throughout the United States, with the main branch in Washington, D.C.  The chairman of the Federal Reserve heads this bank.  Over time the roles and responsibilities of the FED have expanded and its structure has evolved.  It is still in this process of evolution as new financial crises occur.

It was through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, with the compliance of Presidents Bush and Obama that the nation was saved from total economic disaster caused by the Real Estate Debacle of 2008 that was brought about by the Financial Institutions within the United States.  The assorted banking houses had been bundling and selling mortgages for about the last thirty years; maintaining control over these mortgages with no cash investment in them and then continually using the funds from the sales to issue new mortgages.  The banks made fat profits from continually handling all this paper.

There had been a need for more funds in the National Cash Flow and, in this manner, the banks kept adding money to the economy.  By 2007 the level of money creation reach a point of insanity with a larger and larger percentage going to the banks.  At this point most bankers were in denial that the system could crash and the insanity continued until the crash came toward the end of 2008.

The problem that existed from the 1970s on was a great need for a continual increase in currency in the National Cash Flow to keep up with needed economic growth.  The FED was not in a position to fulfill this need; the banks did so by inflating the value of property, particularly owned homes; and the process became a way of life until it was abused and over-abused and the bubble burst to the point of destroying the economy, if the Federal Government had not interceded and saved it.

Paul Volcker headed a committee that proposed new laws that would reign in bank excesses and put the country on a solid financial footing again but bank lobbyists got these proposals watered down and since 2009 the major banking houses have again endangered the economy by their excesses.  This does not even consider the damage that has been done to a multitude of individual households where, in many cases, the homeowners have lost their homes through bank foreclosures, a number of which were illegal, mainly because the banks did not own the mortgages.  The Federal Government has responded with massive fines for malfeasance but with no criminal cases against any banks or individuals who have brought these abuses into being.  It is time for a change in the situation.  For one or many forms of reform to bring these banks into line with the needs of the American public.

In 2014 Senator Elizabeth Warren made a public statement which was that the big banking conglomerates should be broken up.  A similar situation had occurred at the beginning of the 20th Century when President Theodore Roosevelt had gone after a number of monopolies and caused them to break up.  John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, among others, had been broken up into a number of companies, all with the title of Standard Oil of a particular state.  Each controlled by John D. Rockefeller.

The only way this process can be successfully done and end the irresponsible banking oligarchy in the United States is to upgrade the powers of the Federal Reserve so they can fully and effectively carry out their function of keeping the public safe from the excesses of the financial institutions and also keep the economy at a healthy level.

***************************

How can this be done?  The major banking houses must once again become institutions that deal specifically with people and businesses.  They must become either commercial banks or investment banks; they can no longer be both.  And if some or many continue as investment banks then the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) must no longer insure their deposits.

Also the Federal Reserve must have its power extended to be able to instantly add or subtract currency from or to the National Cash Flow.  Ben Bernanke did this as the FED chairman.  But he did it in a very interesting or sneaky fashion.  He added 45 billion dollars a month to the National Cash Flow by buying up mortgage paper within the 50 states and then ignoring the paper because they were fractional bits of mortgages which didn’t give the FED control of any of the properties. Instead they also solved the housing crisis mess that the banks created and put money in the pockets of a number of homeowners who had stopped paying their mortgages.  These people suddenly had money to spend.

In addition Congress needs to take a revolutionary step, it has to increase the power of the FED so that it is able to lend money directly to homeowners and small businesses. Each of the Twelve Federal Reserve Banks must also get the power to set up their own lending banks within each of the Twelve FED Zones.

After the 2008 & 2009 Bailouts the banks did not function as they had before the crash. They hoarded their funds and looked for investments that would give them large returns; these were largely in the futures market.  In essence from 2009 on the major banks, which had been saved by the Federal Government and indirectly the taxpayers, found ways to exploit the general public for their own benefit.  They actually worked against economic recovery.  The contention at that point in 2009 that once the Financial Institutions were saved they would return to their traditional roll was a myth since the large banks were solely motivated by the profit motif and could care less about the welfare of the individual worker and homeowner, or for that matter, the welfare of the country.

Since private enterprise, particularly private enterprise backed economically by the Federal Government cannot be trusted with the welfare of the nation it has become necessary for the Government to insure that welfare and that can only be done by the Government taking over the financial structure of the nation in the name of the “People” for the “Common Good” and not for profit.

There will be problems in establishing this system but they can gradually be resolved. There are the smaller banking houses and the Credit Unions that have generally functioned for the welfare of the general public.  Should they continue to be part of the system?  Do they continue to have FDIC insurance?  These questions will be answered as we go along.

The major banks in the United States, JP Morgan Chase, the Bank of America, Wells Fargo, to cite a few examples, have grown in size since the 2008 Disaster.  They are today too big to fail.  Their demise could bring down the economy of the United States and possibly also some of the European nations.  In essence they hold the world prisoner while they act making all sort of economic decisions for their own benefits using public funds.

We need, at this point, to take a closer look at the banks and their ownership and control.  The stockholders obviously own the financial institutions but the people who control these companies and make all the decisions would be the CEO and all the upper management.  The actual owners of the banking concerns have almost no say in what happens in these companies.

The compensation packages of the upper echelon runs into the multi-millions of dollars. The stock dividends of a company like the Bank of America runs into the pennies. The Bank of America pays one cent per share per quarter or four cents per share of stock each year, actually within the last year or so B of A raised its dividend 2 cents a year; it now pays 6 cents a year per share.  One hundred shares of stock that cost anything from $14 to $17 per share pays 6 dollars a year.  For an investment of approximately $1,500 the shareholder earns $6.00 per year.  So much for owning stock in The Bank of America!  The other major banks pay more but not significantly more in dividends.

What happens to all the fabulous profits that the Bank of America makes?  Most of it goes to management as salaries, compensation, and bonuses.  If the Bank of America is a true example of American banking then the financial institutions are making money for the sake of making money.

It is a sad commentary if one remembers President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s comment that he made once during the Great Depression and again later during World War II that an individual can only spend so much during a year, that to earn far more is a total waste in terms of society and that this excess should be taxed, which currently it is as an unbelievably low rate.

The heads of the various banks earn more, in many cases, in one year than they can reasonably spend in a lifetime.  Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase had his yearly compensation package cut, after bank losses, from 22 million to only 11 million a year.  This, then, becomes the function of banks in the United States and beyond. It is a silly or stupid reason for running the finances of a nation.

The American economy deals with the needs of over 350 million people.  This is a complex issue.  The large banking houses have failed the public.  To what extent should they be allowed to continue to exploit them?  Or should these major Financial Institutions go off on their own in a Free Market System, functioning within the law and succeeding or failing without protection from the Federal Government and the taxpayers?

Taken together all the games, illegal and otherwise, that the banks have played have been in the trillions of dollars, the fines that the banks have paid have been in the billions of dollars.  How many trillions have the banks extorted; how many average Americans have the banks ruined; and how many additional trillions will they extort before this current system is changed?  Even with new Volcker rules the current system is bankrupt, incapable of working for the welfare of the people.

It is time for a basic, realistic change in the way finance works within the nation.  The needs of the people are far more important than the quirks of the modern day bankers.

As a footnote: considering the blog before this one, the teachers who were found guilty of the RICO Act and given jail sentences and fines for cheating on their student’s tests were guilty of far less criminal acts than these bankers.  If any of the bankers were tried under the same RICO Law they would all get far greater sentences and fines than were given to the teachers.  It would seem that this is an excellent example of Justice in America.

 

 

Logo of the United States Federal Deposit Insu...

 

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow Wilson signs creation of the Federal Reserve. Source: Date: 24 December 1913 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

English: A map of the 12 districts of the Unit...

English: A map of the 12 districts of the United States Federal Reserve system. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The Weiner Component #117A – The United States & the Eurozone: Growing Interdependence: Working For the Common Good

English: A map of the 12 districts of the Unit...

English: A map of the 12 districts of the United States Federal Reserve system. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Countries using the Euro de jure Countries and...

Countries using the Euro de jure Countries and territories using the Euro de facto Countries in the EU not using the Euro (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Toward the end of the year 2008, while George W. Bush was still President of the United States, the Real Estate Bubble exploded in the U.S. causing phenomenal economic misery throughout that nation and, on a slightly lesser level, throughout the Industrial World.  Many of the major European banks and many European citizens had purchased and held onto Hedge Fund Real-Estate bonds that now became worthless or nearly worthless. In essence the entire civilized world took a downward economic fall. This included for both banks and many individuals, particularly in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland and Italy. In fact the three major banking houses in Iceland all went bankrupt. Some nations fared better than others but all were hit to some extent.

The real estate hedge fund sales, dividing up mortgages into microscopic parts, selling them through numerous hedge funds, and continually driving up real estate values,   had been going on for over thirty years. The process had existed through the entire careers of many bankers and investors. It had been a traditional safe hedge or investment which paid reasonable dividends. Suddenly all this ended with trillions of dollars’ worth of bonds being virtually worthless.

***************************************************

The Federal Reserve tends to supervise the United States and the European Central Bank controls the Eurozone. They can add or subtract money from within their domains. Unfortunately this process can work toward solving economic problems but within a relatively slow period of time.

Economics tends to be a loose science that seemingly becomes better understood as time and situations happen.  Economic recovery is a gradual process and the FED or ECB does not have total control of the tools of recovery.  In the case of the United States the legislators, whether they understand it or not, control fiscal policy and by some of the laws they pass can hinder or aid recovery . In the case of the ECB there are 19 separate nations, with separate histories, languages, and a sense of nationalism, that have agreed to cooperate together with a single currency, for the mutual benefit of all of them.

Some of these 19 nations are currently in a dire economic condition with high unemployment and heavy debts exceeding their GDP and undergoing extreme austerity as they attempt to pay off their killing loans to those members who have supported the bailouts of their economies. Greece, for example currently is the worst off of all the nations in the Eurozone. She has 25% unemployment, has been bailed out at least twice by the ECB and is needing another loan in order to not go bankrupt.

In addition the agencies within each country that control the currency flow, and can increase or decrease it by their actions, are the banks within each nation.  These operate separately and for profit. Under both the Federal Reserve and the ECB the interest they can charge is largely controlled. They, however, until the end of 2008, were the instruments that filled the void where the societies needed freer flowing cash. They did this for three decades and finally continued forcing the process in such a way as to bring about the recessions of 2009 throughout most industrial nations.

In the United States the Federal Reserve, despite the actions of the Republican led House of Representatives whose policies tended from 2011 on to shrink the size of the Federal and State Governments creating even more unemployment, was able by creative Monetary Policy to work toward improving economic conditions within the country

The Federal Reserve largely solved this problem for the United States by both adding money at the rate of 40 billion dollars a month to their economy and by buying up 45 billion dollars a month’s worth of mortgage paper. Without ever announcing what they were doing the Fed forgave the mortgage holders their property debts. This, in turn, added much of this money to the cash flow as it was spent on new productivity rather than retiring debt.

The European Central Bank is currently facing a similar problem; they are currently facing the beginnings of deflation. Their GDP is actually decreasing while their population is increasing. The ECB’s immediate solution for all 19 nations in the Eurozone is to add 60 billion euros to the overall economies every month until September 2016. This is a giant economic stimulus plan that will hopefully boost the sagging economies and fend off deflation bringing about recovery.

Will this help countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy who are currently following intense austerity programs in order to pay back their debts to other Eurozone countries?  This is an interesting question?  These nations have been directly aided by the ECB.  At different levels they are undergoing stringent living in order to pay off individual and government debt.  Will the people in these states continually be willing to undergo a lower standard of living than the rest of the Eurozone?

Greece, which is probably in the worst shape of all of these countries, has voted No in its last election. Their new government, with the support of the bulk of their population, is currently attempting to negotiate an easing off or forgiveness of some or all of the debt.  Will they succeed?

If the negotiations break down and nothing is resolved then Greece will be forced to leave the Eurozone and probably, sooner or later, declare bankruptcy and the ECB will collect nothing. If the ECB attempts to force payments from Greece, who currently needs a further bailout of a billion or more euros and attempts to make the repayment even more stringent than its current state, then the Greeks will be forced to withdraw from the Eurozone. If a compromise is reached then, at least, part of the debt will have to be forgiven.

If that happens then the other countries that are in extreme debt to the Eurozone will also want and expect their debts to be modified.  Spain, for example, has an extreme left party that will be running in the next election on a platform of ending stringent living in Spain.

***********************************

There are certain factors we should keep in mind.  Up to the 2008 Crash virtually all the banking houses were encouraging all the people and governments to borrow money. Times were good and could only get better was the popular belief. Not all the nations within the Eurozone took this up; some were much more conservative in their borrowing and spending habits than others. Five or six within the Eurozone did take it up and carried the borrowing as far as they could. There was a similar situation within the United States and in some of the other industrial nations.

It should also be remembered that money is no longer gold coins. That ended in the 1930s. Today money is paper which is used as a means of exchange and has nothing behind it except the word of the government that prints it. Also that the amount in circulation is determined by the particular government or the ECB or in the case of the United States by the Federal Reserve.

The amount is arbitrary and can be increased or decreased at any time. The Federal Reserve forgave many of its debtors and the country now seems to be rapidly moving toward recovery. The ECB needs to rethink its position. Many of its members still have the fixation that money is gold or that those who had been living freely through 2008 must pay their debts. It is time for these people to mentally enter the 21st Century and ask themselves what is best for all of its members. After all, Europe is probably one of the major industrial centers of the world and cash or money serves only as a means of exchange. Punishing the people of a country for careless living which was encouraged by the financial institutions does not solve major economic problems. It can, if fact, exacerbate them so that everyone will economically suffer.

In the United States a goodly percentage of the homeowners in 2008 ended up owing more on their properties than they were worth. The Federal Reserve forgave many of them what they owed. It never admitted that it did this. If it had there might have been a hue and cry against this action.   If that had happened the U.S. would probably still be in a deep recession or another Great Depression.

This is a strange issue. Given a choice, what would the American people have chosen? Allowing a large number of people undeservedly to be forgiven their debts and see the country head in the direction of a return to prosperity or fair and equal treatment of everyone and a major depression.

This is actually the problem the Eurozone is facing now. Currently the Greek government is negotiating to either reduce or be forgiven its debts. Germany and France want it to pay its debts.  After all, they have to be punished for overspending prior to 2009.

Is the issue economic justice or a solid return to prosperity for all the nations in the Eurozone? Which is more important to see immediate justice or deal with what is best for all the nations within the Eurozone? An interesting question!

Fortunately the Federal Reserve in the United States was able to act surreptitiously. The European Central Bank does not have that option. The only realistic action it can take is to partially forgive the loan in the present and eventually drop it completely. If it does this, combined with the stimulus the Eurozone will once again reach a high level of prosperity. If the ECB demands the full return of what is currently owed in order to negotiate a further stimulus, that is, equal fairness for every country; then these nineteen countries face a hard economic future.

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at a negotiating meeting of Eurozone finance ministers a compromise was reached giving Greece four more months on its bailout. One result of this temporary compromise sent the Dow Jones industrial average and S&P 500 to new highs. The Euro resounded to $114 and Germany’s DAX index closed at a record high.

Depending upon the actions of ECB in June the situation could be back to where it was a week before the temporary compromise. By then it should be obvious to everyone involved that rigid enforcement of the original agreement would have strong adverse effects upon all the nations involved. What will happen will depend upon the ability of all these people to define the best common goal for all of the Eurozone.

English: The European Central Bank. Notice a s...
English: The European Central Bank. Notice a sculpture of the euro sign. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #116 – The U.S. & the Federal Reserve

In 1935, Cret designed the Seal of the Board o...

English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Ch...

English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Friday January 9, 1915, the Federal Reserve had turned over $98.7 billion to the Treasury for the year 2014. In 2013 it was $79.6 billion and in 2012 it was $88.4 billion. All of this was the interest on the National Debt bonds, much of which the Federal Reserve had purchased since 2009.

In 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration, the country faced the explosion of the Real Estate Bubble that had been gradually building over the prior thirty years. The big banks had been going crazy with denial in 2007 with their abuses when the oncoming failure became obvious. In essence every dollar in circulation suddenly dropped in value to about a dime. The Obama Administration did two major things in 2009 and 2010. They were able to avoid through rapid action an economic crash potentially larger than the Great Depression of 1929 and they passed Affordable Health Care (Obamacare). In 2010 the country elected a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and thereafter nothing was done by the House to alleviate conditions caused by the Real Estate Bust. In fact Congress passed laws to exacerbate the negative conditions.

*************************************

It should be noted that the Federal Government has two major tools to deal with downturns in the economy. One, used by the Federal Reserve, is Monetary Policy and the other, used by Congress and the President, is Fiscal Policy. This is Macroeconomics.

Fiscal Policy has to do with Congress passing bills that add money to the economy. Keep in mind that all currency has nothing behind it other than the word of the National Government. All money is now a means of exchanging something of value for something else of value, goods and services for goods and services.

In 2011 or 2012 President Obama proposed a bill that would create jobs by updating the infrastructure of the United States. The electric grid across the U.S. is well over fifty years old, much of it predating World War II, and parts of it are in constant danger of breaking down. It has not dealt with the changes in demography or increases in population that have occurred over that period. The country has come close to power outages because of cold weather conditions or for other reasons. Many of the bridges throughout the nation are also well over fifty years old. A number have collapsed; many are still waiting to be refurbished.  Also many schools, some of which were built over one hundred years ago, also need refurbishing or replacement throughout the country. Many of the sewers in cities are well over one hundred years old; a few have collapsed in parts.

All of these and many other projects will have to be done at some point in the future. Maintenance is required to keep all aspects of society properly functioning. From 2011 on the House of Representatives with its Republican majority has tended to squeeze the society, downsizing government and adding to unemployment, in fact at one point it closed down the Federal Government by refusing to fund it. The present is an ideal time to do a lot of these fiscal projects as interest rates are at just barely above 0.

Monetary Policy is a tool of the Federal Reserve. It can be used to increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation. Ordinarily the Fed adjusts the money flow in the economy by increasing or decreasing the amount of money it borrows through the sale of bonds. What happens is decided by the rate or non-rate of inflation. The Fed is always cashing out and selling bonds. There are short term, medium term, and long term bonds, lasting from a few months to a number of years. The rate of sale is determined by the level in interest paid on these bonds. The higher the interest the greater the sale and the lower the interest the less the sale. These interest rates are determined by the level of inflation in the country. The higher the inflation the higher the interest. Here money is taken out of the national cash flow so that there is less available to be spent, thus gradually forcing down the rate of inflation. If the opposite is true then the Fed will sell less bonds than it cashes out and continually add currency to the national cash flow.

With no help from Congress during a period of recession or depression the Fed under the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke had to be quite innovative to pull the nation out of the Real Estate Debacle. This was done by the Fed buying $85 billion worth of bonds each month for well over two years: $45 billion in mortgage paper and $40 billion in government bonds. The effect of these two actions was to add well over a trillion dollars to the national cash flow per year; and also to essentially resolve the big banks activity in splitting up individual mortgages into well over one hundred parts. By my estimate it would have taken well over twenty years to straighten out the housing mess if the Fed had left it alone. The Fed did it in a relatively short time by buying most of the pieces. We again have new construction and older houses are being resold.

What is interesting to note here is that 40 billion was utilized on traditional monetary policy while 45 billion dollars was used to purchase mortgage paper from the assorted hedge funds which each owned fractional pieces of mortgages in each of their funds that had been very sloppily catalogued. For the Fed to collect or foreclose on any of these properties it would have to set up a table of all the homes on which it held mortgages within the 50 states and gradually build up its portfolio to the point where it owned over fifty percent of each particular mortgage. The cost of setting up this information bank would have been prohibitive even for the Federal government. The probability is that the Fed did nothing with this paper and a percentage of the population ended up living in their homes for nothing, in essence the government forgave these loans.

Of course the people living in these houses still had to pay property tax. If they did not the municipality would eventually foreclose on the property and sell it for back taxes. These people would suddenly have a lot of disposable income, which many of them spent freely, and they could not claim any home interest payments on their income taxes. This, in turn, added billions of dollars circulating in the National Cash Flow throughout the country.

The practice of adding money to the economy was ended in October of 2014. Janet Yellen, the new Fed chair left the ending of the policy tentative. It could be started up again if the need arose.

Interest rates had also been dropped to a fraction of one percent, practically giving the banks free money from all the savers and checking accounts which they could lend out at a decent rate of interest. Currently the Fed is considering when to raise interest rates. Meanwhile most of the larger banks have announced large profits for 2014.

What is interesting here is that the Federal Reserve used part of the National Debt as a means of positively controlling the amount within and the flow of national currency. They actually increased over time the flow of money by trillions of dollars and, in this way, diminished the effects of the Real Estate Debacle caused recession.

*********************************

What Bernanke did was to use part of the National Debt as a means of getting the country out of a serious recession. Since Congress would not act he used the Debt itself as the tool by which a large percentage of recovery was gradually brought about.

The National Debt is divided into two parts: public debt which the government owns and private debt which is held by private countries and by individuals. For example the two largest holders of U.S. debt are China which as of November 2014 held 1.25 trillion and Japan had 1.24 trillion.

All foreign holdings at that time were 6.11 trillion dollars. It should be noted that the National Debt currently is 18 plus trillion dollars. Who owns the balance? Private individuals and companies within the United States and elsewhere would hold at least another trillion dollars. The balance would then be held by the U.S. government and its agencies. For example Social Security has well over 2 1/2 trillion in government debt. All this means that the Federal Government holds well over 50 percent of its own debt and pays the interest on that debt to the U.S. Treasury.

It should be noted that Treasury securities are seen as one of the world’s safest investments. This has been the situation in the world and will, in all probability, remain so.

The 114 Congress, which recently met for the first time and has a Republican majority in both Houses, shows no indication that it is even slightly interested in fiscal policy. While unemployment is down to 5 plus percent for the first time in the nation since the 2008 Debacle it still could be a lot lower with fiscal policy.

****************************************

Another factor of importance here is population; it is always gradually increasing. According to the Census Bureau’s Population Clock: there is one birth every 8 seconds, one death every 12 seconds, and one international migration every 33 seconds. The result of all this is a net gain of one person every 16 seconds.

That is an increase in the population of the United States of 3.75 people per minute, 225 per hour, 5,400 persons per day, and 1,965,600 people per year, if we count each month as 30 days and do not allow for each leap year. The current overall number of people in the country is in excess of 350 million people.

Most of these new settlers will reside along either of the coastal areas. In order for standards of living to not decrease with this additional population the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has to increase one or two points yearly. If it stays at exactly the same point or decreases slightly then the overall standard of living has dropped for the bulk of Americans.

***************************************

What will happen with this new Congress should be interesting and economically uninspiring. From now until July 2016 when the Republicans hold their Presidential Convention there will be a lot of jockeying for the lead position in the Republican Party. The major issues like immigration, fiscal policy, job creation, plus whatever else comes up will be largely ignored. They will try forms of blackmail with the President in order to achieve some of their goals. This will be done by attaching riders that he will not approve of to necessary bills. That means that President Obama will probably have to veto the necessary legislation causing all sorts of economic and other problems. The question there is who will take the blame for causing all these disasters?

The Republicans will certainly not be creating any new jobs. Janet Yellen, the current chair of the Federal Reserve may have to restart the program of buying bonds for economic recovery to continue since the Republicans will be doing their dandiest to constrict the economy and inadvertently increase unemployment. What will probably occur between the present and the next presidential election is two years that the future historians will in all likelihood essentially ignore.

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow W...

Description: Newspaper clipping USA, Woodrow Wilson signs creation of the Federal Reserve. Source: Date: 24 December 1913 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #89 – Money, Economic Growth, & The National Debt

English: President Barack Obama confers with F...

English: President Barack Obama confers with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke following their meeting at the White House. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to the last time I checked the Census Bureau the population of the United States was increasing at the rate of one person every 11 seconds. This included births, deaths, and immigration. This increases the overall population by about 117,818 people per year. In order for the per capita level to remain at 0% it must rise several points every year. In order for the economy to grow it has to rise beyond this point.

In order for the economy to function positively there must be a reasonable level of growth. For this to occur there must be a reasonable yearly growth of the money supply. If the amount of currency in circulation is stultified or decreases the country is in recession moving toward depression.

By the mid1970s the money supply in circulation was not increasing at a rate needed by the country for economic growth. At this point the banks by their lending policies, gradually began to fill the currency void. They gradually discovered that they could bundle their mortgages, dividing them up into infinitesimal pieces, set up hedge funds, sell the mortgage shares like stock, recover their investment, lend the money out again, and continue to do this endlessly, charging assorted fees on every level of this process. In doing this they created first billions of dollars and then trillions, always keeping a good percentage of this in the form of fees. While this process was needed for growth within the nation eventually, thirty odd years later, it had become a mad race for endless profits by the banks.

In 2008 this housing bubble the banks created burst and the country fell almost instantaneously into economic depression. What had been a dollar in value a few days earlier now became worth a nickel or at most a dime in value. The country was headed for a depression deeper than that of 1929.

Newly elected President Barak Obama and his administration stepped into the void and the Federal Government made massive loans to the banks and later to the dying American auto industry. Where did they get the money? They printed it and temporarily took on additional massive debt. All the loans were repaid within a few years with interest.

A word about the National Debt. What is it and where does it come from? The Debt is money the government spends in excess of the taxes it collects. It is currently more than 17 trillion dollars. The money is borrowed and has interest paid on it. This money is owed to individuals in and out of the United States, it is owed to countries like China and Japan, to both of whom is owed in excess of one trillion dollars, and mostly the money is owed to itself and its agencies such as Social Security, who is owed well over 2 1/2 trillion dollars, and Medicare. In fact just about all government agencies that have a surplus have had their excess taken and used in the General Fund. The interest on all of this is paid by the Federal Reserve to the General Fund. I remember reading several months ago about 88 or 89 billion dollars being transferred from the FED to the Treasury.

The National Debt is divided into two parts, public and private. Public would be what is owned by individuals or countries like China and Japan, generally acquired to balance international trade. Private ownership of the Debt is what the Federal Government owes itself. It admits to owning about 50% of its own debt. By my estimate the Federal Government directly or indirectly through its agencies actually owns roughly about 75% of its own debt.

Where does it get all this money? Simple! It prints it and issues the currency as needed. After all there is nothing behind the United States dollar but the word of the U.S. Government. There is nothing behind any currency but the word of the government using it.

By the year 2000 the banks had created trillions of dollars and were going strong with mortgages, both new ones and refinanced ones. Money that had been needed for economic growth and development was being readily supplied with the banks taking a good share of this currency. Large numbers of people were using their homes as bank accounts, refinancing again and again. The major banks were making billions in fees and wanted profits of many more billions. The mortgages were considered safe investments and they sold like shares of stock with a promised safe return. These were the Hedge Funds bought nationally and internationally that were touted as hedges against any type of financial loss and they paid nice dividends.

The situation grew more-tense as time went by with many bankers encouraging homeowners to lie on their applications. After all prices had been and were continually rising on real estate. Anything that could be mortgaged was mortgaged more than once. The situation grew more and more chaotic, until toward the end of 2008 when the entire economy collapsed. Shortly thereafter Barak Obama took office as the 45th President of the United States.

His theme had been “It’s time for a change.” By 2010 the economy had been saved but there wasn’t enough “change” to satisfy the majority of the voting population and the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives. The Tea Party was in control of the Republican Party, moving its position far to the reactionary right. All possibility of fiscal policy ended. There would be no more government projects. In fact the Republicans had two specific goals: one was to shrink the economy by curtailing spending and the other was to make Barak Obama a one term president by not allowing him any legislative victories or successes.

They successfully achieved their first goal of contracting government expenditures, particularly on entitlement programs to the poor and to the states, forcing state governments to shrink their services, and they added to the unemployment caused by the Real Estate Bubble bursting. The House of Representatives would not even take up fiscal policy, keeping unemployment high and forcing the country to continue with an infrastructure well over fifty years old. They left any possible improvement to the economy to the Federal Reserve which, under Chairman Ben Bernanke’s guidance, used imaginative Monetary Policy to bring about some recovery.

Two major problems developed from the 2008 economic crisis: first the amount of money in circulation had to be increased significantly and second, many people were underwater on their mortgages; that is, they owed more on their property than it was worth. Something had to be done to alleviate the housing crisis. An additional crisis was who controlled the mortgages that had been broken into hundreds of pieces and attached to innumerable hedge funds. What the FED came up with was to add 85 billion dollars to the economy; 45 billion was spent buying up mortgage paper and 40 billion was used to buy up government debt. This was done monthly for several years, adding trillion of dollars in currency to the economy.

Toward the end of his tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke announced that the FED would decrease its purchases by 10 billion monthly. The new chairperson of the FED, Janet Yellen, stated that she would continue the policy, ending it in October of 2014.

Many prices had been gradually rising and the fear was that the country might fall into an inflationary spiral, too much money being in circulation and forcing prices up.

Toward the end of 2013 the housing crisis seems to have leveled off. There has been new construction throughout the United States and property values have gradually risen, taking a lot of people out from being underwater.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2014 Federal Reserve Chairperson Janet Yellen announced in her report to Congress that the FED might not completely stop buying debt and mortgage paper at the end of October.

What will happen should be very interesting. Following October is the 2014 Midterm Election. How will the country react if there is a stoppage of all Monetary Policy? Will there be a significant drop in the Stock Market, which today is far higher than it was just before the 2008 Crash?

How will the country react? Will they even notice the change? Will the election be affected in any way? The times are certainly changing!

There is enough money now in circulation, far more than there was in 2008. The problem is its distribution. More and more of it seems to go to the upper 20% of the population, forcing many in the middle class economically downward. Unemployment has dropped to a fraction above 6%. What the country needs is a redistribution of the National Income downwards and a rebuilding of its infrastructure. Affordable Health Care should have a single entity running it and not for profit. This would be the Federal Government and it should be paid for out of taxes like Social Security and Medicare. Instead we allow private companies to become richer running it. We need a greater level of fairness in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Weiner Component #67 – Monetary & Fiscal Policy & The National Debt

During the late 18th Century, when the United States first came into existence and for the majority of the 19th Century, the U.S. Government followed a policy of laissez faire; with the exception of import duties, used to run the government, they kept hands off all economic activity within the nation.  Toward the end of the 19th Century, with the growth of cities, rapid industrialization and the emergence of monopolies, society became too complicated to be left alone by the Federal Government.  State and   National regulations began to come about attempting to control the economic ravages brought about by the moneyed classes which had and continued to lead to miserable conditions for the masses, and included both recessions and depressions.

In addition to assorted laws regulating conditions with the society in 1913 the Federal Government created the Federal Reserve as a semi-autonomous agency whose mission was to control the National Cash Flow, the amount of money available throughout the economy.  They were to add or subtract cash as needed to keep economic growth regular and avoid rapid upturns or downturns in the economy.

This became one of the major tools in attempting to control economic conditions within the nation.  Were they always successful in what they did?  The answer is obviously, No.  Witness the Great Depression of 1929 and the Real Estate Debacle of 2008.

The other major tool which the Federal Government had/has was Fiscal Policy.  This is the power to spend money by passing a law.  Congress, with the signature of the President can appropriate money for any purpose it deems necessary.  This was done during the Great Depression and enabled Roosevelt to propagate his New Deal and later to pay for World War II.  Congress, at the time, spent much more money than it took in in taxes.  Eisenhower did the same thing in the 1950s, both to build a national highway system across the United States and to fight the Korean War (police action).  This use of fiscal policy has been used over the years of our history to do numerous things, generally for the benefit of the entire country.

During the Great Depression the economist, John Maynard Keynes, promulgated what is called Keynesian Economics, which stated that during periods of economic contraction the government has to spend more money than it takes in in taxes and during periods of expansion or growth it can balance that by taking in more money than it spends.  He is considered the progenitor of Macroeconomics.

While this is not always true, generally because of war or police actions, still, historically, the economy has grown to the point of decreasing the percentage of debt in relation to the Gross Domestic Product, the amount of wealth produced in one fiscal year.  The National Debt has never been a problem in our history for future generations.

It should be noted that the Debt reached its astronomical level beginning with the Administration of Ronald Reagan and his Star Wars policy.  It went from 848 billion in 1981 to 2.698 trillion by 1989, a 218% increase.  Then it continued to zoom with George H.W. Bush and his Desert Storm operation increasing another 55% to 4.188 trillion.  It increased another 37% with Bill Clinton and was actually reduced during his eighth year in office.  The Nation Debt took off like a high flying rocket with the Administration of George W Bush and his policy of two wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq, while at the same time he lowered taxes.  It rose 86% to 5.778 trillion.  With Barak Obama the amount of the Debt initially increased but by the end of 2013 reached a surplus.  The National Debt grew voluminously under Republican presidents and tended to decrease under Democratic Presidents after rising somewhat.

The National Debt is currently at about 17.3 trillion dollars.  Is this too high?  Is this amount endangering the country in any way?

It should be noted that the nation began in debt.  During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress issued paper money, called Continentals, to pay its debts.  The value of this money varied depending on how well we were doing in the war at the time; it never commanded full face value.  The British paid for everything in gold. After the war the new government, under the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, redeemed this paper for full face value.  There had been speculation with the Continentals and a number of people, not the original possessors of the funds, made a fortune on this.  They had bought up the currency for pennies on the dollar. (See Charles Beard, The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.)

Jefferson hated the debt and tried to get rid of it, but under his presidency the United States got involved in an undeclared war with the Barbary Pirates, the North African nations along the Mediterranean.  Other presidents had similar occurrences, facing military crises not of their making.  There have been a few short periods over our history when there was no National Debt; but generally the United States has always had one.  The question in terms of today is: Does the current debt endanger the welfare of the nation?

The National Debt consists of two parts, one public and one private.  The public part of the debt is owned in various ways by the Federal Government, the private section is money borrowed for short to long periods of time by individuals, foreign nations, and other entities.

The Federal Government admits to owning, through various government agencies like Social Security and Medicare at least 40% of its own debt.  Social Security, for example, holds well over 1 ½ trillion dollars in debt paper.  This was several years ago.  Today, I would estimate, the Federal Government holds 60 to 70% of its own debt.  I would be inclined to quote the higher figure.

During the last quarter of 2013 the Federal Government collected more in taxes than it spent.  There was a surplus.  This would indicated that the GDP has grown to a point where it is or can handle the National Debt and in all probability very gradually decrease it.

It should also be noted that since 2011 when the Republican majority first took over the House of Representatives there has been no fiscal policy.  If anything Congress has reduced government spending to the point of shrinking the government and entitlement spending.  This process together with the shrinkage of State governments because of decreased taxes has phenomenally decreased government employment on all levels and exacerbated the 2008 Recession.  What has saved the country from another Great Depression has been imaginative Monetary Policy.

Had there been Fiscal Policy since 2011 unemployment would have dropped to about 3% or less and the Gross Domestic Product would have been far higher than it is.  Virtually everyone in the country would have been better off.

With Republican help we are doing a good job of holding back economic growth and not bringing the United States solidly into the 21st Century.

 

 

 

 

 

The Weiner Component #57D – The Federal Reserve (Part 5 of 5)

English: A map of the 12 districts of the Unit...

English: A map of the 12 districts of the United States Federal Reserve system. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It became obvious during the Panic of 1907 that the Federal Government had no controls over banking practices in the United States.  The Panic was caused by speculators attempting to corner the market on United Copper Company stock.  Failure to do this led to the collapse of the Knickerbockers Trust Company, New York City’s third largest trust.  The failure spread fear throughout the City’s Trusts.  Panic extended across the nation as large numbers of people withdrew their deposits from regional banks.  At the time the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.  The following year a Senate commission investigated the crisis and proposed future solutions, leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

The Federal Reserve (FED) is the central banking system of the United States.  It was created in December of 1913 by the passing of the Federal Reserve Act.  This was largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly the Panic of 1907.  It consists of twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located throughout the United States, with the main branch in Washington, D.C.  The chairman of the Federal Reserve heads this bank.  Over time the roles and responsibilities of the FED have expanded and its structure has evolved.  It is still in this process of evolution as new financial crises occur.

It was through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, with the compliance of Presidents Bush and Obama that the nation was saved from total economic disaster caused by the Real Estate Debacle of 2008 that was brought about by the Financial Institutions within the United States.  The assorted banking houses had been bundling and selling mortgages for about the last thirty years; maintaining control over these mortgages with no cash investment in them and then continually using the funds from the sales to issue new mortgages. The banks made fat profits from continually handling all this paper.

There had been a need for more funds in the National Cash Flow and, in this manner; the banks kept adding money to the economy.  By 2007 the level of money creation reach a point of insanity with a larger and larger percentage going to the banks.  At this point most bankers were in denial that the system could crash and the insanity continued until the crash came toward the end of 2008.

The problem that existed from the 1970s on was a great need for a continual increase in currency in the National Cash Flow to keep up with needed economic growth.  The FED was not in a position to fulfill this need; the banks did so; and the process became a way of life until it was abused and over-abused and the bubble burst to the point of destroying the economy, if the Federal Government had not interceded and saved it.

Paul Volcker headed a committee that proposed new laws that would reign in bank excesses and put the country on a solid financial footing again but bank lobbyists got these proposals watered down and since 2009 the major banking houses have again endangered the economy by their excesses.  This does not even consider the damage that has been done to a multitude of individual households where, in many cases, the homeowners have lost their homes through bank foreclosures, a number of which were illegal.  The Federal Government has responded with massive fines for malfeasance but with no criminal cases against any banks or individuals who have brought these abuses into being.  It is time for a change in the situation. For one or many forms of reform to bring these banks into line with the needs of the American public.

The only way this can be done is to upgrade the powers of the Federal Reserve so they can fully and effectively carry out their function of keeping the public safe from the excesses of the financial institutions and also keep the economy at a healthy level.

How can this be done?  The major banking houses must once again become institutions that deal specifically with people and businesses.  They must become either commercial banks or investment banks; they can no longer be both.  And if some or many continue as investment banks then the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) must no longer insure their deposits.

Also the Federal Reserve must have its power extended to be able to instantly add or subtract currency from or to the National Cash Flow.  In addition Congress needs to take a revolutionary step, it has to increase the power of the FED so that it is able to lend money directly to homeowners and small businesses.  Each of the Twelve Federal Reserve Banks must also get the power to set up their own lending banks within each of the Twelve FED Zones.

After the 2008 & 2009 Bailouts the banks did not function as they had before the crash.  They hoarded their funds and looked for investments that would give them large returns; these were largely in the futures market.  In essence from 2009 on the major banks, which had been saved by the Federal Government and indirectly the taxpayers, found ways to exploit the general public for their own benefit.  They actually worked against economic recovery.  The contention at that point in 2009 that once the Financial  Institutions were saved they would return to their traditional roll was a myth since the large banks were solely motivated by the profit motif and could care less about the welfare of the individual worker and homeowner, or for that matter, the welfare of the country.

Since private enterprise, particularly private enterprise backed economically by the Federal Government cannot be trusted with the welfare of the nation it has become necessary for the Government to insure that welfare and that can only be done by the Government taking over the financial structure of the nation in the name of the “People” for the “Common Good” and not for profit.

There will be problems in establishing this system but they can gradually be resolved.  There are the smaller banking houses and the Credit Unions that have generally functioned for the welfare of the general public.  Should they continue to be part of the system?  Do they continue to have FDIC insurance?  These questions will be answered as we go along.

The major banks in the United States, JP Morgan Chase, the Bank of America, Wells Fargo, to cite a few examples, have grown in size since the 2008 Disaster.  They are today too big to fail.  Their demise could bring down the economy of the United States and possibly also some of the European nations.  In essence they hold the world prisoner while they act making all sort of economic decisions for their own benefits using public funds.

We need, at this point, to take a closer look at the banks and their ownership and control.  The stockholders obviously own the financial institutions but the people who control these companies and make all the decisions would be the CEO and all the upper management.  The actual owners of the banking concerns have almost no say in what happens in these companies.

The compensation packages of the upper echelon runs into the multi-millions of dollars. The stock dividends of a company like the Bank of America runs into the pennies.  The Bank of America pays one cent per share per quarter or four cents per share of stock each year.  One hundred shares of stock that cost anything from $14 to $17 per share pay four dollars a year.  For an investment of $1,500 the shareholder earns $4.00 per year.  For an investment of $15,000 he earns $40.00 a year.  That is a return of .0027%, twenty-seven thousands of one percent.  By putting that much money in a commercial bank the return is at least one tenth of one percent.  So much for owning stock in The Bank of America!  The other major banks pay more but not significantly more in dividends.

What happens to all the fabulous profits that the Bank of America makes?  Most of it goes to management as salaries, compensation, and bonuses.  If the Bank of America is a true example of American banking then the financial institutions are making money for the sake of making money.

It is a sad commentary if one remembers President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s comment that he made once during the Great Depression and again later during World War II that an individual can only spend so much during a year, that to earn far more is a total waste in terms of society and that this excess should be taxed.

The heads of the various banks earn more, in many cases, in one year than they can reasonably spend in a lifetime.  Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase had his yearly compensation package cut, after bank losses, from 22 million to only 11 million a year.  This, then, becomes the function of banks in the United States and beyond.  It is a silly or stupid reason for running the finances of a nation.

The American economy deals with the needs of over 350 million people.  This is a complex issue.  The large banking houses have failed the public.  To what extent should they be allowed to continue to exploit them?  Or should these major Financial Institutions go off on their own in a Free Market System, functioning within the law and succeeding or failing without protection from the Federal Government and the taxpayers?

Taken together all the games, illegal and otherwise, that the banks have played have been in the trillions of dollars, the fines that the banks have paid have been in the billions of dollars.  How many trillions have the banks extorted; how many average Americans have the banks ruined; and how many additional trillions will they extort before this current system is changed?  Even with new Volcker rules the current system is bankrupt, incapable of working for the welfare of the people.

It is time for a basic, realistic change in the way finance works within the nation.  The needs of the people are far more important than the quirks of the modern day bankers.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta