Global Economic Crisis

Treasury departments and central banks far and near assured their publics that this speedy borrowing spree by the decision-makers had rescued the world’s financial system, thus serving the interests of the now heavily-leveraged taxpayer. Now, only three months later, it is clear that at a terrible financial cost, at most a short respite was purchased. The temporary lull in the LIBOR rate cannot, however, camouflage the essential truth; the major banks and financial institutions in many major economies, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, are for all practical purposes insolvent.

A banking system that is insolvent is dysfunctional in the extreme. That is the core of the credit crunch that has now precipitated a Global Economic Crisis so egregiously destructive, it will likely exceed the Great Depression of the 1930s in its impact. This is why all the costly deficit spending on economic stimulus packages being enacted in the G7, BRIC and eurozone countries are doomed to failure. The key decision makers are aware of this conundrum, which is why they are frantically searching for a solution to the banking disaster that has frozen normal credit flows throughout the global economy.

The new U.S. Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, postponed his speech on how the Obama administration intended to resolve the banking and credit crisis by 24 hours. Whatever solution he ultimately proposes it will probably, like TARP before it, be insufficient and require further interventions by the Treasury Department and the U.S. taxpayer. Indeed, dark clouds are obscuring an horrific reality; the American banking sector is insolvent to such an immense degree, it would in all likelihood require recapitalization at a level counted not in hundreds of billions, but rather trillions of dollars.

The paradox is that the U.S. economy, as with any other, cannot function without a solvent banking sector. At the same time, it cannot afford the cost of salvaging its banks. Consider what Professor Nouriel Roubini said in a recent interview with the Financial Times: “In many countries the banks may be too big to fail but also too big to save, as the fiscal/financial resources of the sovereign may not be large enough to rescue such large insolvencies in the financial system.”

Thus, the United States created a banking system with large institutions that are too big to fail, due to the systemic risk such a collapse would impose on the national and even global economy. It compounded this roll of the dice by removing any coherent regulatory regimes, instead trusting in the “self-correcting” character of the unregulated marketplace, which encouraged risky behaviors, otherwise known as “innovation,” leading to the creation of unsustainable asset bubbles.

Geithner may try to sugar-coat what in effect will be a TARP II, knowing that the public and its congressional representatives will be reluctant to mortgage the financial future of their children for the sake of another bank bailout. However, no matter how the Obama administration packages its own TARP II bank rescue effort, it is increasingly likely that the foreign credit markets the United States relies on for financing its grandiose deficit spending will simply lack the capacity to loan all the money needed to recapitalize America’s banks.

In the event the credit markets are unable to finance the rescue of the U.S. banking sector, then the lender of last resort will undoubtedly be the Federal Reserve. By resorting to quantitative easing, the Fed may purchase Treasury bills with bank notes it simply generates off of its printing press. In essence this is legal counterfeiting, conjuring up fiat money out of thin air. It may lead to the recapitalization of the banks, on paper. But the net cost will be the destruction of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, along with the displacement of the current trend of deflation with a virulent and potentially uncontrollable outbreak of hyperinflation.

The bank rescue mission the U.S. Treasury Department and the Fed are currently embarked upon reminds me of what a U.S. Army spokesman once told journalists during the Vietnam War: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

I fear that this same reasoning may be at work among the policy-makers in Washington, through the enactment of decisions that will destroy what remains of the U.S. economy in order to bailout the “too big to fail banks.” In this instance, however, it is not a village, but the whole global economy that hangs precariously in the balance.

It is not only those who were myopic a year ago that want to avoid talk of a depression, at all costs. Even the most prescient analysts and experts have held back on their vocabulary in defining the Global Economic Crisis. However, more and more credible economists and experts have begun describing our current economic catastrophe as a depression. The Economist magazine was one such authority, as was the most recent recipient for the Nobel Prize for economics, Paul Krugman.

Perhaps the most astute observer of the unfolding disaster resulting from the implosion of the U.S. housing bubble has been NYU economics professor Nouriel Roubini. A year ago, amid the happy talk being proffered by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, he accurately warned of the systemic financial collapse that would ensue in short order, unless urgent, coordinated steps of global intervention were swiftly undertaken. History vindicated the judgement of Roubini, while also applying to him the moniker of “Dr. Doom.”

As clear-cut as Nouriel Roubini has been in assessing the Global Economic Crisis, even he has been reluctant to use the “D” word. Now, however, he is warning that the worldwide economic crisis will get much worse, and in the absence of effective global intervention that is coherent and synchronized, a “near depression” was a serious possibility. His most recent warning comes in conjunction with his current assessment of the losses he projects for the global financial system due to “toxic assets,” in the range of $3.6 trillion. His conclusion is chilling in the extreme: the banking system in the U.S. is effectively insolvent.

Added to the mounting evidence of banking insolvency, not only in the United States but other major economies, in particular the U.K., are the horrendous unemployment numbers. The U.S. Labor Department has released its statistics on job losses for January of this year, indicating that another 600,000 Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed. This translates into an official unemployment rate of 7.6%. However, in reality, the situation is far worse than those numbers indicate. In the first place, the Labor Department’s monthly reports are never complete, owing to lagging tabulations from small firms and businesses. This is reflected in that the current report revised substantially higher the unemployment numbers for November and December of 2008. In all probability, more than 700,000 Americans were terminated in January, with every indication that this trend will continue far into 2009. In addition, the official unemployment rate, since the 1960s, subtracts “discouraged” workers, meaning the permanently unemployed, as well as part-time workers unable to find full-time employment. If these numbers are added into the unemployment figure, it exceeds 14%.

At its worst level, the unemployment rate in the U.S. during the Great Depression stood at 25%. After the advent of the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt, it temporally declined to near 10%, but then rose to a much higher level, reaching the range of 16-17% prior World War II. Accordingly, a true current unemployment rate of 14% is within the levels experienced by the United States during the 1930s. Factor in the structural insolvency of the American banking sector, the rampant demand destruction infecting the global economy and other catastrophic asset bubbles set to burst during the next several months, and it becomes clear that the United States and the rest of the world have now entered a dark economic territory that can no longer be defined as merely a recession.

The Global Economic Crisis has now achieved levels of economic contraction in all major indices that can only be described as a depression of worldwide dimensions. The global depression train has left the station, and will bring a level of economic and financial carnage to every corner of our world on a scale so staggering, it would have been unimaginable to even the most sober pessimists-until recently.

According to Roubini, his latest calculations indicate that U.S. banks face potential losses from the credit crisis in the region of $3.6 trillion, a figure that is both stratospheric and apocalyptic, reaching a level previously beyond the worst nightmares of major financial analysts. Professor Roubini points out that with only $1.4 trillion in total capitalization, this means if his projection is accurate, the entire U.S. banking sector is insolvent. This is the equivalent of economic and financial Armageddon.

Last October, Treasury Secretary Paulson warned Congress that without an immediate injection of $700 billion into the financial system (all of it borrowed money) the entire global credit system faced imminent collapse. It appears that this money, designated TARP, has been used almost entirely by banks and financial institutions to shore up their rapidly eroding balance sheets. What Roubini’s numbers suggest is that the TARP is nowhere near enough money to recapitalize a banking sector that appears to be collectively insolvent.

Is the solution more TARPs? Putting aside the issue of moral hazard, we must comprehend that this is an economic and financial crisis that is global, not national. That means if the United States decides to bail out its banks through the largess of the taxpayers, it will either have to borrow the money, print it, or raise taxes to a level that will be draconian.

As the U.S. is reliant on foreigners to finance its fiscal and current account deficits, it will have to compete with many other countries also seeking deficit financing to salvage their own insolvent banks, the UK being a conspicuous example. Even with higher interest rates, it is unlikely that there is enough credit available to cover the total cost of bailing out the U.S. banking industry (it must also be factored in that the Obama administration plans on borrowing one trillion dollars for an economic stimulus program, not directly related to salvaging the banks). Printing the money and monetizing debt will lead to crippling inflation and the inevitable destruction in the value of the U.S. dollar. Finally, the level of increased taxation required to pay for full recapitalization of the American banks without resort to credit markets would be so severe, it is probably both politically and fiscally unsustainable.

With the numerical analysis of Nouriel Roubini adding a quantitative reality to the impending meltdown of the global banking sector in general and U.S. banks in particular, it appears that a bankers hell is in store for us all. In a perverse paradox, instead of banks lending to people, it will be the people called upon to save what can be salvaged from an insolvent banking system, even at the cost of economic ruin that may endure for generations.

A global panic by policy makers has been in overdrive since the initial financial crisis brought the world’s credit markets to the brink of total meltdown. Staggering sums of money that boggle the human imagination are being heaved at the global crisis. With a fully-fledged global economic crisis now underway, the spigot of debt-driven cash is flowing out of governments like Niagara Falls. The most conspicuous example is the Obama stimulus package, now in preparation for rapid passage once the 44^th U.S. President is sworn in. The planned American stimulus package alone may top one trillion dollars over two years. This comes on top of the $700 billion TARP program of Hank Paulson infamy, now conceded by many economists to have been a poorly conceived boondoggle.

The global public square is being told that this massive amount of money must be spent, or the world economy will fall into even worse distress. Conveniently being veiled is the inconvenient fact that these monstrously large expenditures must be made with borrowed money, as many nations, especially the United States, have treasuries that have long been laid bare by accumulated deficit spending.

Even economists who are convinced that huge amounts of deficit spending must be tolerated to salvage the global economy are aware that the “medicine” may be the harbinger of its own financial disease. Consider what Nouriel Roubini, the “prophet of doom,” told BusinessWeek in a recent interview about the U.S. stimulus spending:

“…the cost of issuing a huge amount of public debt will be trillion-dollar budget deficits this year and next, which eventually is going to have a crowding-out effect on private demand. So either we issue a huge amount of public debt to finance it, and that’s going to push up interest rates, or we print a lot of money that eventually is going to be inflationary and again damaging to the economy. We have no choice but to have an aggressive policy response, but it’s not a free lunch.”

Not a free lunch, states Roubini, a reality that policymakers are hiding from their publics. These, the very same mediocre political leaders who facilitated the global economic crisis, surrendering to the “logic” of the unregulated market place. What does “no free lunch” mean?

The United States is currently broke, from a fiscal standpoint. The trillions of dollars in excess expenditures being planned by the policy makers will inevitably require massive borrowing, at a time when foreign countries whose credit markets the American authorities depend on will be doing their own stimulus deficit spending. The only way the U.S. will be able to attract foreign credit in this context is through much higher interest rates. This will kill private borrowing, stifling investment and ultimately defeating the purpose of the stimulus spending. The other alternative is to simply print the money, and produce the hyper-inflationary hell that now exists in Zimbabwe.

Virtually every serious economist agrees that massive deficit spending in the United States by both the public and private sector was the driver of the global economic crisis. Strange that the identical prescription that led to this disaster is now being advertised as the cure.

Nouriel Roubini is known as “Dr. Doom” for his earlier predictions that a housing bubble in the United States would lead to disaster for the international financial and banking system. Roubini, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University and also Chairman of RGE Monitor, an economic and financial consultancy, was proven correct. Now he is considered the wisest sage on the future course of the Global Economic Crisis. His latest prediction will not lighten the hearts of investors.

In a recent article, Roubini stated that “the worst is still ahead of us. In the next few months, the macroeconomic news and earnings/profits reports from around the world will be much worse than expected, putting further downward pressure on prices of risky assets, because equity analysts are still deluding themselves that the economic contraction will be mild and short.”

Nouriel Roubini adds that the credit crisis will grow worse, pointing to a grim year ahead for global financial markets. He suggests in his article that “2009 will be a painful year of global recession and further financial stresses, losses, and bankruptcies. Only aggressive, coordinated, and effective policy actions by advanced and emerging-market countries can ensure that the global economy recovers in 2010, rather than entering a more protracted period of economic stagnation.”

While Roubini has thus far avoided using the term “Great Depression” to describe what he thinks may happen, it is clear that the world’s top economist on forecasting the Global Economic Crisis sees no grounds for optimism. His sobering assessment of what lies ahead for 2009 makes clear that a catastrophic year ahead awaits the global economy. He warns that the severe deflation now threatening will nullify monetary policy as a means of addressing the economic crisis, further enhancing the grave danger of a liquidity trap.