The Swiss gold referendum: What it really means

In a few days the Swiss people will go to the polls to decide whether the Swiss central bank is to be required to hold 20% of its reserves in the form of gold

Polls show that the gold requirement is favored by the less well off and opposed by wealthy Swiss invested in stocks. These poll results provide new insight into the real reason for Quantitative Easing by the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.

First, let’s examine the reasons for these class-based poll results. The view in Switzerland is that a gold backed Swiss franc would be more valuable, and a more valuable franc would increase the purchasing power of wage earners, thus reducing their living costs. For the wealthy stock owners, a stronger franc would reduce Swiss exports, and less exports would reduce stock prices and the wealth of the wealthy.

The vote is clearly a vote about income shares between the rich and the poor. The Swiss establishment opposes the gold-backed franc, as does Washington.

A few years ago the Swiss government, after experiencing a strong rise in the exchange value of the Swiss franc as a result of dollar and euro inflows seeking safety in the Swiss franc, decided to expand the Swiss money supply in line with the foreign currency inflows in order to stop the rise of the franc. The liquidity supplied by the central bank creating new francs has stopped the rise of the franc and supports exports and stock prices. As a vote in favor of a gold backed franc is not in the interest of the elite, it is unclear that the vote will be honest.

What does this tell us about the Federal Reserve’s policy of Quantitative Easing, which is an euphemism for printing an enormous amount of new dollars?

The official reason for QE is the Keynesian Phillips Curve claim that economic growth requires mild inflation of 2-3%. This false theory was put to death by the supply-side policy of the Reagan administration, but the misrepresentation of the Reagan administration’s policy by the Establishment has kept the bogus Phillips curve theory alive.

The claim based in disproven Phillips Curve theory that the Fed’s policy is directed at helping the overall economy is another example of the deception practiced by US authorities. The real purpose of QE is to drive up the wealth and income of the one percent by providing the liquidity that flows into financial asset prices such as stocks and bonds.

Since the 2008 US recession, skeptics of the Fed’s explanation of QE as support for the US economy have stressed instead that the purpose of US economic policy has been to support the federal deficit at low interest rate costs and to support the balance sheets of the troubled banks by pushing up the prices of debt-related derivatives on the banks balance sheets.

These have been important purposes, but it now appears that the main purpose has been to make the rich richer. This is why we have a stock market whose high values are not based in fundamentals but, instead, are based on the outpouring of liquidity by the Federal Reserve. As the economic policy of the US is entirely in the hands of the rich, it is not surprising that the rich use it to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. The Fed’s monetary policy that enriches the rich by driving up the prices of stocks and bonds also has robbed retirees of hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps trillions, in lost interest income on their savings.

As I recently explained, QE is not over. The Fed is rolling over its interest and principal payments on its $4.5 trillion bond inventory into new bond purchases, and the banks now infused with $2.6 trillion in cash from the Fed are purchasing the bonds in place of the Fed’s QE purchases.

According to the latest news reports, Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank will print all the money necessary to support financial asset prices. Draghi, like the Federal Reserve, masks his policy of enriching the rich in Phillips curve terms of driving up inflation in order to support economic growth. Of course, the real purpose is to drive up stock prices.

Like the Fed, the ECB pretends that the money it prints flows into the economy. But given the poor condition of the banks and potential borrowers loan volume is low. Instead the money created by central banks flows into paper financial asset prices. Thus, the monetary policy of the Western world is directed toward supporting the wealth of the rich and worsening the inequality in the distribution of income and wealth.

The rich are far from finished with their pillage. In exchange for campaign donations, state governors are turning over state pension funds to the management of high-fee, high-risk private pension fund managers who do a better job of maximizing their fee income than protecting the nest eggs of retirees.

Throughout the Western world economic policy is run for the sole benefit of the one percent and at the cost of everyone else. The greed and stupidity of the rich are creating ideal conditions for violent revolution. Karl Marx might yet triumph.

The Fed is the Great Deceiver

pcrBy Paul Craig Roberts and Dave Kranzler.

Is the Fed “tapering”? Did the Fed really cut its bond purchases during the three month period November 2013 through January 2014? Apparently not if foreign holders of Treasuries are unloading them.

From November 2013 through January 2014 Belgium with a GDP of $480 billion purchased $141.2 billion of US Treasury bonds. Somehow Belgium came up with enough money to allocate during a 3-month period 29 percent of its annual GDP to the purchase of US Treasury bonds.

Certainly Belgium did not have a budget surplus of $141.2 billion. Was Belgium running a trade surplus during a 3-month period equal to 29 percent of Belgium GDP?

No, Belgium’s trade and current accounts are in deficit.

Did Belgium’s central bank print $141.2 billion worth of euros in order to make the purchase?

No, Belgium is a member of the euro system, and its central bank cannot increase the money supply.
So where did the $141.2 billion come from?

There is only one source. The money came from the US Federal Reserve, and the purchase was laundered through Belgium in order to hide the fact that actual Federal Reserve bond purchases during November 2013 through January 2014 were $112 billion per month.

In other words, during those 3 months there was a sharp rise in bond purchases by the Fed. The Fed’s actual bond purchases for those three months are $27 billion per month above the original $85 billion monthly purchase and $47 billion above the official $65 billion monthly purchase at that time. (In March 2014, official QE was tapered to $55 billion per month and to $45 billion for May.)

Why did the Federal Reserve have to purchase so many bonds above the announced amounts and why did the Fed have to launder and hide the purchase?

Some country or countries, unknown at this time, for reasons we do not know dumped $104 billion in Treasuries in one week.

Another curious aspect of the sale and purchase laundered through Belgium is that the sale was not executed and cleared via the Fed’s own National Book-Entry System (NBES), which was designed to facilitate the sale and ownership transfer of securities for Fed custodial customers. Instead, The foreign owner(s) of the Treasuries removed them from the Federal Reserve’s custodial holdings and sold them through the Euroclear securities clearing system, which is based in Brussels, Belgium.

We do not know why or who. We know that there was a withdrawal, a sale, a drop in the Federal Reserve’s “Securities held in Custody for Foreign Official and International Accounts,” an inexplicable rise in Belgium’s holdings, and then the bonds reappear in the Federal Reserve’s custodial accounts.

What are the reasons for this deception by the Federal Reserve?

The Fed realized that its policy of Quantitative Easing initiated in order to support the balance sheets of “banks too big to fail” and to lower the Treasury’s borrowing cost was putting pressure on the US dollar’s value. Tapering was a way of reassuring holders of dollars and dollar-denominated financial instruments that the Fed was going to reduce and eventually end the printing of new dollars with which to support financial markets.The image of foreign governments bailing out of Treasuries could unsettle the markets that the Fed was attempting to sooth by tapering.

A hundred billion dollar sale of US Treasuries is a big sale. If the seller was a big holder of Treasuries, the sale could signal the bond market that a big holder might be selling Treasuries in large chunks. The Fed would want to keep the fact and identity of such a seller secret in order to avoid a stampede out of Treasuries. Such a stampede would raise interest rates, collapse US financial markets, and raise the cost of financing the US debt. To avoid the rise in interest rates, the Fed would have to accept the risk to the dollar of purchasing all the bonds. This would be a no-win situation for the Fed, because a large increase in QE would unsettle the market for US dollars.

Washington’s power ultimately rests on the dollar as world reserve currency. This privilege, attained at Bretton Woods following World War 2, allows the US to pay its bills by issuing debt. The world currency role also gives the US the power to cut countries out of the international payments system and to impose sanctions.

As impelled as the Fed is to protect the large banks that sit on the board of directors of the NY Fed, the Fed has to protect the dollar. That the Fed believed that it could not buy the bonds outright but needed to disguise its purchase by laundering it through Belgium suggests that the Fed is concerned that the world is losing confidence in the dollar.

If the world loses confidence in the dollar, the cost of living in the US would rise sharply as the dollar drops in value. Economic hardship and poverty would worsen. Political instability would rise.

If the dollar lost substantial value, the dollar would lose its reserve currency status. Washington would not be able to issue new debt or new dollars in order to pay its bills.

Its wars and hundreds of overseas military bases could not be financed.

The withdrawal from unsustainable empire would begin. The rest of the world would see this as the silver lining in the collapse of the international monetary system brought on by the hubris and arrogance of Washington.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

South African finance minister warns on weak currency, declining taxes

Pravin Gordhan
Pravin Gordhan

The revenue outlook could dim even more if markets react adversely to an awaited announcement by the US Federal Reserve, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan warned on Tuesday.

“In respect of the revenue outlook in relation to the current economic growth that we are experiencing,… we are today facing more difficulties than anticipated.

“[This is] partly because of the very uncertain and volatile environment that we are experiencing globally, which could become worse when the chairman of the Federal Reserve of the US addresses us,” Gordhan told the National Assembly during debate on the 2013 Appropriation Bill.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is expected to indicate on Wednesday whether the US central bank will taper off its massive quantitative easing programme, which was designed to boost the recovery of the US economy.

“It is likely that if the markets don’t like what he is saying, or interpret what he is saying in a particular way, that could introduce shockwaves very similar to what we experienced about two weeks ago in the financial markets around the world, so prepare ourselves for that.

“All these uncertainties actually introduce uncertainty around the revenue picture,” Gordhan said.

Two weeks ago, the rand fell to a four-year low against the dollar. The US currency has strengthened in recent weeks, raising expectations that the Federal Reserve might start retreating from its bond-buying stimulus programme.

The bill putting into effect Gordhan’s R1.1 trillion 2013 budget was passed after often acrimonious debate, with opposition parties criticising the performance of one department after another and refusing to support the budget allocations for many.

Rising on the finance ministry’s budget, Democratic Alliance finance spokesman Tim Harris said it was not legitimate to blame the volatility of the rand and South Africa’s bleak growth outlook on quantitative easing.

Harris said the DA would vote for the department’s budget this year, but threatened not to do so in future if Gordhan were to bow to pressure from the ANC’s left-wing allies on fiscal policy.

Gordhan dismissed the criticism on finance policy as electioneering.

“As we get closer to elections, the temptation for fabrication becomes quite strong,” he said.

“The ANC, for the past 19 years, has led this country extremely well in terms of the fiscal management of this country…. There is no piece of fact that anybody can produce anywhere in South Africa that can accuse the ANC of being profligate, of being irresponsible, of not responding timeously to the events around us.

“We can’t be subjecting our public to the DA model of neo-liberalism and laissez-faire, which they want to cast upon South Africa.”

All opposition parties refused to support the presidency budget, in effect turning this vote into one of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma, with DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko saying South Africa could not afford another term of “leadership failure”.

Congress of the People leader Mosiuoa Lekota said he would not vote for the state security budget in protest against the Protection of State Information Bill which is awaiting the president’s signature.

Lekota said former president Nelson Mandela would never have signed the bill because it was a setback for freedom of speech. – Sapa

Zuma blames quantitative easing for rand decline

President Jacob Zuma denied on Thursday being responsible for the sharp decline in the value of the rand.

Responding to the Presidency Budget Vote debate, Zuma roasted opposition parties for linking his news briefing more than two weeks ago on the state of the economy to the depreciation of the rand, hours after he spoke.

“The fact is that markets were very volatile on the day of the media briefing on the economy,” Zuma said.

“Traders responded to news from the United States on quantitative easing, a form of very lax monetary policy in the United States. This led to the strengthening of the dollar,” said Zuma.

The rand plummeting was as a result of a stronger dollar and lower commodity prices.

Zuma conceded that labour unrest and the weak GDP would have added to the situation.

“There had been an expectation that growth would be between one and two percent. When the 0.9 percent growth figures were released, there was a sell-off of the rand,” he said.

Zuma warned opposition parties to steer clear of statements which could make matters worse.

Instead, parties should “put the country first” and work with the government to help build confidence in the economy.

The president said concerns in the mining sector, which has been hard hit by labour unrest, were being dealt with.

Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe would meet players in the sector on Friday to discuss disputes in an attempt to bring an end to the instability.

While there appeared to be some recovery in the mining sector this year, following a tumultuous 2012, it was far from out of the woods.

“It is for this reason that we place a high premium on restoring stability in the mining sector.”

Zuma asked opposition parties to support the government’s efforts to broker a peace deal between unions in the sector.

“The bottom line is that we should exercise caution when dealing with such matters, and avoid uninformed or loose talk that may exacerbate the situation.”

The US dollar was beaten by major currencies in a week that saw extreme volatility, especially around the yen. Rate decisions in Japan and NZ, and US Federal Budget Balance, Retail Sales and inflation figures are the top events this week. Will this kind of market action continue? Here is an outlook on the main market-movers awaiting us.

The US economy gained 175K jobs in May, exceeding Analysts’ Forecast of  a 167,000 job addition , following a series of weak readings.

Furthermore, this was the third straight month that payrolls increased less than 200,000, indicating the US job market is not strong enough to be turning the corner, especially in light of the government’s austerity measures, weighing in the economy.

This enabled only a partial recovery of the US dollar after a major crash, following the mediocre US data and the ECB decision: Draghi practically put the negative deposit rate on the backburner.

Standing out from the crowd were the New Zealand and Australian dollars. The Aussie dollar is getting close to critical support. – SAPA