Global Economic Crisis

On September 15, 2008 the supposedly safe, perpetually prosperous world of post-industrial capitalism blew itself up when Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The iconic Wall Street investment bank was forced into this act of extremis when the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the United States turned the securitized mortgage backed debt obligations engineered by the wizards on Wall Street into toxic assets, in the process extinguishing most of the storied investment banks in the United States, including Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. In those previous cases, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke cobbled together a pseudo rescue, whereby these two firms were absorbed by JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America respectively, with massive financial aid and guarantees against bad debt generously provided courtesy of the American taxpayer. However, when Lehman Brothers stood on the precipice, the economic policymakers in Washington were confronted by the issue of moral hazard, and the growing public distaste with the concept of “too big too fail,” the justification previously issued by Paulson and Bernanke to prop up failing Wall Street firms.

The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve made a decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fold, assuming its demise would not pose a systemic risk to the global financial system.  Shortly afterwards, AIG was also on the verge of bankruptcy, due solely to the exposure of its Credit Default Swap operation spearheaded from its London office. Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that AIG was so large a factor in the global financial system, its business liquidation could not be allowed to occur, regardless of the subsidies required to keep it afloat. Through the middle of 2009, the U.S. government would inject in excess of $180 billion dollars into AIG.

The calculation made by Bernanke and Paulson that Lehman Brothers was expendable, especially in light of the measures taken to save AIG, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was destined to be proved fatally flawed, and in rapid order. As with so much else about the Fed and Treasury Department in terms of assessing the systemic impact of the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and its related financial derivatives, they badly underestimated the destructive forces that had been unleashed upon the global financial system by the collapse of Lehman Brothers. When Lehman Brothers imploded, its debris virtually froze the entire global interbank lending mechanism, and brought the flow of credit to a virtual standstill.

An immediate consequence of the disintegration of Lehman Brothers was the accelerating rise in the LIBOR and Ted Spreads, reflecting frozen global credit markets saturated with counterparty risk aversion. Money market funds were being depleted at a dangerously rapid pace, and economic indicators across the globe were heading south at a pace that soon became a free fall. The possibility of another Great Depression was openly being talked about, as it became abundantly clear that Lehman Brothers and its derivatives were far more embedded with the global financial system than the supposedly smart men of finance and economics who ran the Treasury and Federal Reserve had led themselves and the public to believe.

The rest was history. Paulson and Bernanke, in a state of panic, compelled a terrorized Congress to borrow $700 billion and hand it over to Treasury, supposedly to buy up toxic assets polluting the balance sheets of the nation’s banks, under the auspices of a program that came to be known as TARP. Once Paulson got his money, he changed direction, choosing to inject the TARP funds directly into the banks, as opposed to buying toxic assets. The Fed engaged in an unprecedented degree of monetary measures, becoming the lender to Wall Street and corporate America of last resort.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers undoubtedly was a major factor in the November 2008 presidential election, which witnessed the historic triumph of Barack Obama. The new president maintained many of the policies put in place by Paulson after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, reappointed Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman, and brought in a $787 billion economic stimulus package, also based on borrowed money, to help reverse the worst recession the United States has endured since the Great Depression.

One year after Lehman Brothers disintegrated, the entire world is in the grips of the most severe synchronized global recession since World War II. We are told, however, that things could have been much worse, if the “brilliant” policymakers who had initially misjudged the extent of the economic and financial crisis had not taken such radical steps, all of which have involved an unprecedented level of public debt, and the bailouts generously awarded to the most reckless Wall Street firms. Also, one year afterwards, the extravagant executive bonuses are still being sprinkled on the Wall Street crowd, at levels that rival pre-meltdown levels.

Unquestionably, the demise of Lehman Brothers was a seminal point in global financial and economic history. I do not believe, however, we have witnessed the full consequences of its collapse. I fear that the worst is yet to come.

Back in July,  Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known by the acronym TARP, warned that the vast amount of taxpayer money already spent on banking and corporate bailouts, with the addition of guarantees and backstops for the financial industry, meant that in a worst case scenario, the United States would face $23.7 trillion in liabilities. In the weeks since this apocalyptic estimate was uttered by Barofsky before a congressional committee, scant attention has been paid by the public and mainstream media. But they owe it to themselves to be more attentive.

The number presented by Barofsky dwarfs the annual GDP of the U.S., currently at $14 trillion. It is double the national debt of the United States, standing at present at around $11.7 trillion. Now, many will suggest that this is just a worst case scenario, and things will probably never get this bad. But what if they did? Already, trillions of dollars have  been committed by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and Congress to repair the severe damage to the banking and financial system, bailout Detroit automakers and fund economic stimulus packages. And yet, despite official boasting about economic “green shoots,” the global economy remains very fragile and susceptible to future shocks.

If the commercial real estate sector implodes as many of us believe it will, than Barofsky’s worst case scenario is no longer just a marginal possibility. If the ultimate cost to the United States  of the global economic crisis  approaches anywhere near the sum of $23.7 trillion, than it will be Washington that is in need of a bailout. Only problem with that scenario, the IMF is nowhere near big enough to take on the debt crisis of the United States.

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.

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.

The American consumer has been the driver of the global economic expansion that impacted the Eurozone, the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), Southeast Asia and Japan and emerging markets. The capacity of Americans to consume was not based on intrinsic productivity but rather on debt from overseas creditors, further lubricated by irrationally loose monetary policies enacted by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The American consumer has been leveraged to a level that is unsustainable, and that bubble has burst.

The first symptoms were manifested in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. A complex architecture of financial engineering exported toxic securitized paper investments based on these non-performing sub-prime loans. The result has been the virtual destruction of the financial world as we knew it, with the extinction of many of the largest American investment houses, some of which had been in existence for more than a century, having weathered the Great Depression.

While the financial world and now sovereign governments are currently inundated with the consequences inflicted by the sub-prime meltdown, which have cost trillions of dollars, much worse is about to be set loose on the global house of financial cards. There are other asset bubbles that will be popping with lethal force.

While sub-prime mortgages continue to devastate the American housing market, near-prime and prime mortgages are about to get hammered, as the over-leveraged American consumer becomes financially debilitated by rapidly rising unemployment rates, restricted access to credit and collapsing value of their retirement funds and household equity. Car loan delinquencies and credit card defaults will also accelerate, while consumer spending in the United States plummets, leading to the next asset bubble: commercial real estate. Retail trade declines will bring about a horde of commercial bankruptcies and foreclosures, creating vast square footage of vacant offices and storefronts. Shopping malls will become deserted, leading to unpaid commercial mortgages that will rival the sub-prime disaster in intensity.

An American Government that is already consumed with mountains of debt may promise to bail out every American consumer and business, however this is just not possible in the real world. Yet, this is the course the incoming Obama administration seems determined to follow. And leading the charge will be Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary.

Paulson of the $700 billion TARP debacle, preceded by his numerous wrong assumptions about the direction of the U.S. and global economy, was clearly a disastrous Treasury Secretary for coping with the onset of the Global Economic Crisis. However, will Geithner be an improvement? A revelation just released raises disturbing doubts. It has now been disclosed that the man President-elect Obama wants to entrust the Treasury Department to, at a time of the gravest economic crisis, failed to pay $34,000 in back taxes. Failure to pay $34,000 in back taxes? This is the genius supposed to run the Treasury Department, which supervises the IRS, and strategize our way out the current global economic disaster? This leads to another signpost on the road to global economic catastrophe. When excellence in leadership is essential for coping with the Global Economic Crisis, throughout the world the political establishment is represented by mediocrities. Mister Thirty-Four-Thousand in back taxes is a metaphor for this failure by the global political elites to identify and select the most competent professionals to confront the world’s most chronic economic disaster.

When one aggregates the cumulative affects of the asset bubbles about to burst with incendiary destructiveness, factoring in mediocre decision makers, the case for a crisis as bad as the Great Depression is solidified. There remains another element that will make it much worse.

In the 1930s the world was not as financially interconnected as it is today. Globalization has massively increased the vulnerability of the world’s financial and economic system. To take one example, a corrupt stock or bond trader in Singapore or Paris can, by manipulating his computer, gamble away billions of dollars of his company’s assets, undiscovered until calamity has struck. Every day trillions of dollars is transacted at the speed of light, much of it unregulated, particularly with those mysterious entities known as hedge funds. The derivative products they have engineered have accrued to the stratospheric level of hundreds of trillions of dollars, unmonitored by any governmental authority. In essence, a vast global financial superstructure has been erected on a foundation of quicksand as fragile as the worst of the sub-prime securities. As the global economy sinks, hedge funds will begin to deleverage and liquidate, in effect multiplying the already catastrophic global economic downturn. The result: global economic Armageddon.

The Great Depression led to the most destructive war in the history of human civilization. Will the Global Economic Crisis so disrupt social stability and international relations that an even more terrible global conflict erupts? It may be that however calamitous the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis becomes, it will be the inevitable geopolitical consequences that will exceed our worst nightmares.

For over a year, while the U.S. economy was mired in recession and exporting its economic disasters globally, the senior political and business leaders of the American establishment proclaimed to the American people that all was well, that the fundamentals of the economy were “strong,” while they threw taxpayers money at corporations and financial institutions “too big to fail” in a vain and desperate attempt to keep the floodtide of financial failure from inundating the whole economy. The collapse of Lehman Brothers exposed the fragility and rot for all to see and now the entire world is mired in a Global Economic Crisis that more and more economists are labeling as a second Great Depression.

While no one can predict with exactitude what the ultimate outcome will be after the world’s economies have completed their march through Calvary, it is likely that the denouement of this economic and financial apocalypse will see the end of American power as the hegemony-driven master of the planet.

America’s superiority was based on its military infrastructure, and the capability to project power thousands of miles from its shores, inflicting “shock and awe” on any foreign entity that inspired its ire. However, that military industrial complex required a massively productive and successful economy to maintain itself. During the last eight years, while America replaced its ability to create goods that the world needed with complex financial instruments and securitized mortgages as its primary export product, it relied on foreign creditors to subsidize the American military establishment and the cost of the foreign wars it was engaged in. That bubble is now in the process of bursting with tectonic force.

The U.S. government managed to double its national debt during the last 8 years, even before the onset of the Global Economic Crisis. Since then, the government has borrowed $700 billion for the TARP Wall Street Bailout, and is projecting a budget deficit of over one trillion dollars in 2009. That is before the Obama administration passes its own stimulus package after it takes office, possibly boosting the deficit to the stratospheric level of over two trillion dollars! With foreign countries America relies on to finance its deficit now about to embark on their own massive stimulus spending based on deficits, that source of credit will either dry up or become costly beyond tolerance. A few years more of multi-trillion dollar deficits and the single largest item in the federal budget will be the servicing of the national debt. When that happens, it will be fiscally impossible for the United States to maintain its current military outlay, which equals if not exceeds the rest of the world combined.

At present the U.S. pours roughly a trillion dollars into its military industrial complex. What must be understood about the U.S. defense budget is the depth of its deceptive architecture. While the official Pentagon budget is in the range of $600 billion, it excludes other expenditures scattered throughout the line items of the federal budget that properly belong under the category of military allocations. For example, the official defense budget excludes nearly two hundred billion dollars of unfunded (meaning borrowed) spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It excludes military benefits for veterans, intelligence gathering and other national security activity. Most deceptively excluded is most spending on nuclear weapons, measured in the tens of billions of dollars, which is clearly a military allocation, but is budgeted under the Department of Energy.

The smoke and mirrors is about to be shattered, as the Global Economic Crisis gathers momentum. The U.S. will lose its capacity to finance its military establishment, unless it replicates the example of the once-mighty Soviet Union, which placed its military first and civilian economy last, ultimately leading to the implosion of both.

We are truly witnessing a global economic trauma that will also radically reorder the geopolitical configuration of our planet. What is uncertain is if America will emerge as a constitutional, democratic republic at peace with the world, or as a desperate actor that will grasp at retaining its once invincible economic and military power no matter the cost to its future 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.

America’s car industry is on the verge of extinction amidst the global economic crisis. The Senate tuned down a bill offering Detroit automakers a $14 billion dollar bridge loan. Now it is up to the Bush administration to grant the 3 domestic auto manufactures the money from its TARP fund for the temporary rescue of the Detroit automakers; TARP was originally set up by Congress to save the financial industry from the global economic crisis.

The downturn in the auto business is not only an American phenomenon. The global economic crisis has ravaged auto producers throughout the world. Among the major European car producers come warnings of a bleak and barren 2009. The indications are growing that the deepening crisis in the automobile sector is global, going beyond the American auto industry’s desperate life and death struggle.

Recently, the CEOs of Renault-Nissan and Fiat stated that the automobile markets would undergo sustained declines in 2009. This parallels the catastrophic sales declines that have pushed the American “Big Three,” Ford, GM and Chrysler, to beg for bailouts from the government. The global economic crisis is destroying demand for cars in virtually every market.

The world’s number one car company, Toyota Motor Corp, will be reporting a loss of about 100 billion-yen ($1.11 billion at current exchange) for October-March. This is according to Japanese media. If even Toyota is losing money and cutting automobile production, how many weaker car companies will become extinct during the global economic crisis? For the auto business, as with many other enterprises, the worst is yet to come as the global economic crisis picks up the pace of its destructive impact on the world economy and global financial system.