“Today’s The Last Day” – BuzzFeed Disaster Worsens As News App Shuts Down

“Today’s The Last Day” – BuzzFeed Disaster Worsens As News App Shuts Down

Buzzfeed is being forced to tighten its belt (again) by axing its BuzzFeed News app, which comes a little more than a week after reports indicated the money-losing news organization would shut down its newsroom.  

On Friday evening, the BuzzFeed News app posted its final notification: 

“Well, folks, today’s the last day of the BuzzFeed News app. Thanks for the memories and see y’all out there.” 

The app’s demise comes after the company released abysmal first-quarter results. CNBC noted several large investors urged BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti to shutter the company’s newsroom — what a novel idea to reduce expenses as the company loses more than $10 million a year. 

In February, a hiring freeze was reported as investors were furious with the media company’s lack of profitability, ill-advised shopping spree of other media firms, and crashing stock price post-SPAC debut.  

Investor redemptions have occurred concurrently as the share price has been halved since the SPAC debut in December. 

BuzzFeed’s downward spiral is particularly troubling for Peretti’s buying spree of media companies without a robust valuation. The firm recently bought out Complex and the Huffington Post, two deals that have yet to pay off in terms of revenue.

And as management claimed in a recent presentation to investors, it has grandiose ambitions of expanding its commerce business and its advertising and content businesses.

Troublingly, the abysmal performance of the company’s stock price has placed this post-SPAC growth strategy – hoovering up other failing digital brands – further out of reach (since Buzzeed’s stock is the currency it was supposed to depend on).

The death of BuzzFeed’s News app and newsroom, along with a hiring freeze, may only suggest the money-losing media company is in dire straits. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/7SVXjKJ Tyler Durden

Chicago Fed’s Woke Enemy Of Free Speech Heading For Promotion To Federal Reserve Board

Chicago Fed’s Woke Enemy Of Free Speech Heading For Promotion To Federal Reserve Board

By Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

The United States Senate on Tuesday voted to advance Lisa Cook’s nomination by President Biden to the Federal Reserve Board after a committee deadlocked on her nomination earlier this month. Cook is currently an Executive Committee member of the regional Chicago Federal Reserve Bank Board of Directors. As a member of the national Federal Reserve Board, she would have key influence on the Fed’s monetary policy, which is supposed to be about price stability, i.e., controlling inflation.

In 2020, you may recall that the Chicago Fed bowed to the cancel mob in a particularly egregious manner by cutting ties with a prominent University of Chicago economics professor, Harald Uhlig. We wrote about it here.

What was Uhilg’s sin? He wrote a series of tweets criticizing Black Lives Matters’ call to defund police departments. That’s all.

Cook was one of the leaders in the resulting character assassination that led to firing Uhlig. She said free speech “should have its limits” and accused Uhlig of using it to “spread hatred and violate the dignity of other people.”

Nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley called the Chicago Fed affair “one of the most notorious cancel campaigns” he has covered in his work defending free speech. Uhlig himself described the matter in the Wall Street Journal, listing it among other reasons why she should not be promoted to the Fed.

Senators opposed to Cook’s nomination are furious about not only the Chicago Fed affair but the rest of Cook’s record on free speech, race and political activism. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, said this about Cook on the Senate Floor:

Professor Cook’s history of extreme left-wing political advocacy and hostility to opposing viewpoints also makes her unfit to serve on the Fed….

Professor Cook’s record indicates that she is likely to inject further political bias into the Fed’s work—at a time when hyper-focus on inflation and adherence to the Fed’s dual mandate is at its most critical.

In over 30,000 public tweets and retweets, Professor Cook has supported race-based reparations, promoted conspiracies about Georgia voter laws, and sought to cancel those who disagree with her views, such as publicly calling for the firing of an economist who dared to tweet that he opposed defunding the Chicago police.

After Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted these tweets for the public’s attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account—one day before her nomination hearing. Apparently Prof. Cook not only realizes how inflammatory her own tweets are, but also has no regard for the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to vet her public statements.

Cook indeed has no background or work history in monetary affairs. That concentration is increasingly displaced by woke politics at the national Fed board and the Chicago Fed. Here’s how the Chicago Fed describes itself in its About web page:

The Bank takes a holistic approach to its varied responsibilities, seeking to connect its internal and external practices with key initiatives that include:

Inflation is now at a 40-year high, thanks in large part to the Fed’s creation, out of thin air, of some $5 trillion dollars just in the last three years. Would it be asking too much for Fed nominees to be expert in monetary policy — or at least have some common sense — instead of a record opposing free speech and promoting racial division? Apparently, it is. The Senate appears likely to approve Cook’s nomination, voting on party lines.

Uhlig recently asked these more specific questions about Cook, the answers to which should be obvious:

Should these activist stances be a cause of concern, before appointing someone to one of the highest offices in the country? I do think so. Might she use her then considerable power to shut down speech and disagreement in the Federal Reserve and elsewhere? Is it reasonable to appoint a person as Fed Governor, who so forcefully spoke up against someone critical of defunding the police, when some police protection might occasionally be welcome to, say, help guard the gold reserves and cash delivery trucks, protect bank employees and assure the safety of buildings?

What, then, will happen, when she is appointed Governor? Will Fed researchers continue to speak freely about their findings concerning racial disparities or the importance of policing, or will speech by sullied, for fear of taking a wrong step and seeing a career come to an end? To the degree that these issues matter for monetary policy at all, will the Board be provided with a balanced and reasoned assessment by its researchers, or will only an activist voice be welcome?

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 17:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/7qLcTPS Tyler Durden

Ghislaine Maxwell Pedo Conviction Upheld Despite Juror’s Post-Verdict Admission

Ghislaine Maxwell Pedo Conviction Upheld Despite Juror’s Post-Verdict Admission

Jeffrey Epstein’s “partner in crime” won’t get a new sex trafficking trial, despite one of the jurors – a Carlyle Group staffer – admitting he may have influenced the jury with a tale of his own childhood sexual abuse that materialized during deliberations despite checking “no” on the juror questionnaire.

The juror told news interviews that he had talked about this during jury deliberations to show why the memories of Maxwell’s accusers may not have been perfect.

He told the Reuters news agency that he did not remember being asked about his experiences with sexual abuse when he filled in the juror questionnaire, insisting he would have answered honestly. –Sky News

Maxwell had requested a retrial after she was convicted of helping late financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein abuse underage girls.

During a March hearing, the juror said he had ‘rushed’ through the questionnaire, and made a mistake when he claimed he hadn’t been the victim of sexual abuse or assault.

The juror said in the questionnaire that he had not been sexually abused (via Sky News)

Maxwell’s attorneys argued that the juror would have been excluded from the trial had he answered correctly, and that the false statement tainted the trial. Prosecutors said there was no proof that the juror was biased – which US Circuit Judge Alison Nathon agreed with

According to Nathan, ‘Juror 50’ had testified “credibly and truthfully” at a March hearing to address the matter.

His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate,” wrote Nathan on Friday. “The court further concludes that Juror 50 harboured no bias toward the defendant and could serve as a fair and impartial juror.”

Maxwell’s attorneys have not addressed Friday’s decision, but have previously said they will appeal the conviction.

If the verdict sticks, Maxwell faces as many as 65 years in prison after being convicted on five of six counts related to the sex-trafficking scheme.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/bRQAYU8 Tyler Durden

Pentagon Clarifies There’s No “Offensive” Bioweapons At US-Linked Ukraine Labs

Pentagon Clarifies There’s No “Offensive” Bioweapons At US-Linked Ukraine Labs

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com, 

A Pentagon official told Congress on Friday that there are no “offensive” biological weapons in any of the dozens of US-linked labs in Ukraine.

“I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with,” Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House Armed Services subcommittee.

The Stepnogorsk biological weapons complex in Kazakhstan. Image source: DOD.

The Pentagon funds labs in Ukraine through its Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). According to a Pentagon fact sheet released last month, since 2005, the US has “invested” $200 million in “supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.”

Moscow has accused Ukraine of conducting an emergency clean-up of a secret Pentagon-funded biological weapons program when Russia invaded. The World Health Organization said it advised Ukraine to destroy “high-threat pathogens” around the time of the invasion.

For their part, the US maintains that the program in Ukraine and other former Soviet states is meant to reduce the threat of biological weapons left over from the Soviet Union. While downplaying the threat of the labs, Pentagon officials have also warned that they could still contain Soviet-era bioweapons.

Robert Pope, the director of the DTRA’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, told the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in February that the labs might contain Soviet bioweapons and warned that the fighting in Ukraine could lead to the release of a dangerous pathogen.

The Biden administration has tried to portray any concerns about the labs as “Russian propaganda.” When the issue gained more media attention, Biden officials started accusing Moscow of plotting to use chemical or biological weapons, but the US hasn’t presented any evidence to back up its claims.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 16:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/DwzGBS6 Tyler Durden

Tech Rout Leads To Record 34% Loss At Tiger Global’s Hedge Fund

Tech Rout Leads To Record 34% Loss At Tiger Global’s Hedge Fund

Back in December, when stocks were still trading at all time highs and few traders were concerned about selling, we waved goodbye to liquidity and wrote that “one of the main reasons sophisticated, wealthy investors would pick hedge funds over private equity firms to manage their wealth – despite variances in fee schedules of course – is access to near immediate liquidity: unlike PE funds which lock up capital for years, hedge funds provide clients with the option to cash out just days or weeks after sending in their redemption request – after all, the money is in “public” equities which can be sold with the flick of a switch. However, as a result of the unprecedented bifurcation of the hedge fund market, where the vast majority of hedge funds continue to underperform their benchmarks and are bleeding AUM while a handful of giant multi-strat funds are swimming in profits, have long lines of willing investors and can therefore change the rules at will without fear of losing clients, access to liquidity at the best performing hedge funds is about to become a thing of the past.”

We were referencing the recent quiet transitions taking place among some of the world’s best performing, and most levered hedge funds…

… such as Millennium and Citadel, which are gradually transitioning away from a conventional redemption schedule toward draconian, PE-like lock ups as long as 5 years. That means that if you send in your redemption notice now, you may get your money some time in 2027, if you are lucky.

Millennium and Citadel were not the only ones that can impose whatever terms they want on their naive clients, who are willing to accept never again seeing their money because if there is a crash and either of these funds is impaired or worse, has an LTCM moment, the probability that the money will be there in 5 years is nil. According to Bloomberg, at least four other large multi-manager funds have changed their terms or started new share classes this year, all extending the time it takes for investors to get out.

But while it is obvious why funds would seek such long lock ups, why are clients agreeing to this format? Well, as Bloomberg explained at the time, investors are complying because, in an industry where many funds have underperformed, these managers produce the steadiest returns and to the winner go the spoils.

“Part of it is just because they can,” said Rishabh Bhandari, a senior portfolio manager at Capstone Investment Advisors, which runs multi-strategy funds as part of its $9.4 billion portfolio. Bhandari added that investments on average have become riskier and less liquid.

* * *

Well, just four months later, following the most brutal bear market in tech names since the covid crash, it has become all too clear why hedge funds are seeking to lock clients in for as long as possible: take one of the world’s most prominent tech investors, Chase Coleman’s Tiger Global, where things have gone from bad to worse very, very fast.

According to Bloomberg, Tiger’s flagship hedge fund fell nearly 34% in the first quarter, due to poor-performing stocks and markdowns of private holdings. But mostly due to poor-performing stocks, i.e., the tech crash.

The hedge fund tumbled more than 13% in March, according to a person familiar with the matter, capping three straight losing months and a tough 2021. The decline was 7% last year, its first annual drop since 2016.  

Tiger Global’s long-only fund sank about 36% in the first quarter, while its Crossover fund, which invests in public and private companies, fell about 21%, according to the letter.

“Stock declines in our focus areas have been steeper, faster, and longer lasting than in prior drawdowns,” the firm said in Friday’s letter, signed by the investing team. While Tiger Global’s shorts generated gains, “they have not kept pace with the decline in our longs.”

Considering that the hedge funds held more than $50 billion in tech names, the dismal Q1 performance is actually surprisingly good.  A quick look at Tiger’s 13F shows why a 34% drop is actually surprisingly low for a hedge funds who only holdings are some of the highest beta names, both in the US and in China.

Tiger Global Management 13F

All of Tiger Global’s biggest stock holdings at year-end, including JD.com and Microsoft, have declined this year and most fell by double digits, with many sliding into a bear market if not far worse.

In addition to the public mauling, Tiger also “adjusted valuations down” for its private investments to account for pressure on their public-market peers, the firm said in the letter, although it is unlikely that the firm applied nearly the right haircuts on its private investments. The hedge fund owns shares of private companies including ByteDance, Stripe, Checkout, and Databricks.

“In hindsight, we should have sold more shares across our portfolio in 2021 than we did,” the firm said. “We are reassessing and refining our models using all the inputs available to us.”

Yes, Tiger, in hindsight you should have been selling more shares starting as far back as July when we first reported that Goldman had been doing just that as it was quietly liquidating a quarter of its prop equity investments, or a net of $4 billion…

… a number which more than doubled by year-end, at which point Goldman indicated a net $11 billion in “dispositions.”

But nobody cared, and the party continued. Then everything crashed, and suddenly everyone cares, and the fingerpointing begins.

“In this moment, we are humbled, but steady in our conviction and confident about the go-forward opportunity,” the firm wrote.

The question is whether the firm’s clients share this view and whether Tiger’s latest catastrophic performance will lead to a reassessment of capital allocations. The good news is that the firm manages $35 billion across its hedge, long-only and crossover funds, while the rest of the assets are in its rapidly expanding venture-capital unit. Tiger also said it recently closed its PIP 15 venture fund with $12.7 billion. The bad news is that after losing more than third of their assets in one quarter, LPs won’t be happy and many of them will see to redeem what money they have left especially with the Fed facing down at least 9 more rate hikes which will crippled tech stocks.

Luckily for Tiger, we are confident that it, along with Millennium and Citadel, has locked its clients in for a long time. If not, however, brace for impact as the waterfall of redemptions will lead to relentless selling among the formerly best performing tech stocks for the foreseeable future, leading to a feedback loop where more redemptions lead to more selling, leading to more redemptions and so on.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/MrVfm9a Tyler Durden

The 19 Millionth Bitcoin Has Been Mined: Why It Matters

The 19 Millionth Bitcoin Has Been Mined: Why It Matters

Authored by ‘NAMCIOS’ via BitcoinMagazine.com,

With less than two million bitcoin left to be mined, Bitcoin’s limited supply has just gotten even more limited…

The 19 millionth bitcoin has just been mined, data from Bitbo shows, leaving less than two million BTC remaining for miners to put in circulation as the Bitcoin network tick-tocks its way through a fixed issuance schedule until it reaches the 21 million supply limit and doesn’t create any new bitcoin ever again.

The milestone demonstrates how Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, was able to join together decades of research in different areas of computer science to achieve scarcity in the digital realm, a unique feature central to Bitcoin’s value proposition.

Before Bitcoin, digital cash suffered from the flaw of double spending. Until its creation, the only way to ensure a party wouldn’t spend money twice was through a central authority that had to keep track of coins being sent and received thereby updating users’ balances – much like the traditional financial system. However, Nakamoto’s invention, through the usage of the Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanism in a distributed ledger, enabled computers running a piece of software to enforce strict spending conditions that prevented a digital representation of value to be spent twice for the first time – or at least made it prohibitively expensive to do so.

While miners and nodes together work through the issuance and enforcement of bitcoin, investors interested in acquiring ever-more scarce BTC have to bid their way through the limited supply of the asset. Historically, miners used to offload their freshly minted bitcoin on the market to cover operating expenses in U.S. dollars, however, nowadays it has become commonplace to see mining companies add their produced coins to their balance sheet and issue bitcoin-backed loans as needed. As a result, Bitcoin has gotten even more scarce as a larger percentage of the total bitcoin supply gets locked up long term.

Currently, a miner earns 6.25 BTC per block mined. The block reward, as it is called, has been cut in half every 210,000 blocks – roughly every four years – ever since Nakamoto mined the first one which yielded a 50 BTC reward. Now, ever less new bitcoin are distributed each epoch, further increasing the scarcity of the asset. Therefore, even though it has taken roughly a dozen years to mine 19 million bitcoin, the remaining 2 million won’t be minted until 2140 if the protocol remains as is today.

Curiously, the 21 million supply cap of the Bitcoin protocol isn’t written in its white paper or its code. Rather, it is the ever-decreasing number of bitcoin rewarded by each block in conjunction with the decentralized network of computers enforcing that reward that allows the network to implicitly prevent the issuance of bitcoin above the limit.

“Bitcoin implementations control new issuance by checking that each new block does not create more than the allowed block subsidy,” cypherpunk and Casa co-founder and CTO, Jameson Lopp, wrote in a blog post.

By ensuring that bitcoin cannot be spent twice and that the block reward does not yield more than it should at any given time, the distributed network of Bitcoin nodes can indirectly enforce the supply limit as the block reward trends towards zero over the next century.

In addition to bringing scarcity to the digital realm, Bitcoin therefore also enables a predictable monetary policy scheduled ahead of time, which breaks away from the current monetary system where governments and policymakers can increase the issuance of money as we’ve tangibly experienced over the past couple of years. As a result, currency debasement is not possible in Bitcoin and its users’ purchasing power is protected.

This image plots the trajectory of Bitcoin’s total supply (blue) against its rate of monetary inflation (yellow). Notably, Bitcoin’s inflation rate is known ahead of time through a software protocol enforced by thousands of computers scattered around the globe. As the block reward trends to zero until the next century, new bitcoins will not be issued and miners would reap only the fees of transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Image source: BashCo.

In addition to protecting people’s purchasing power, with its predictable policy Bitcoin enables planning for the future as users can rest assured that nobody will debase their money. Important developments in society are arguably enabled by a strong commitment to long-term work and investment, rather than short-term bets.

But given the paramount scarcity of BTC, why has its price been trading in a range between $30,000 and $60,000 over the past year?

The Bitcoin price in U.S. dollars can be thought of as a lagging indicator of humanity’s understanding of the technology and its innovative value proposition. Currently, only a small percentage of the world’s population truly grasp the unique concepts of programmatically decentralized and scarce money, so while the Bitcoin price might trend to infinity over the long term, that won’t likely become a reality until most of the global population – or most of the world’s capital – starts understanding that. When they do, a sharp supply shock might ensue as an unlimited amount of money flows into a limited amount of bitcoin.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/YLF7u3x Tyler Durden

Tesla Reports 310,048 Deliveries For Q1 2022, Model 3 Deliveries Slip Sequentially

Tesla Reports 310,048 Deliveries For Q1 2022, Model 3 Deliveries Slip Sequentially

Tesla reported Q1 2022 delivery figures this weekend, posting a record 310,048 deliveries for the first quarter. The results were posted on Saturday and slightly exceeded expectations, which stood at an average of 309,158 deliveries, according to Bloomberg.

Tesla said the record was “despite ongoing supply chain challenges and factory shutdowns”. 

The share of Model S/X of total global vehicles continues to wane at 14,724 deliveries for the quarter. This represented 4.7% of all total deliveries.

Model 3 deliveries dropped slightly from the prior quarter, as Model S/X took up slightly more of the company’s total deliveries.

Recall, to end 2021, Tesla reported a record quarter of over 308,000 vehicles. 

For 2021, the automaker delivered “over 936,000” vehicles. Those numbers were up about 87% from the year prior, according to Bloomberg. The report also reminded that Tesla has said “repeatedly it expects 50% annual increases in deliveries over a multi-year period”.

For Q1 2022 – that was not yet the case. Deliveries were up less than 50% from Q1 2021’s total of 182,780.

Recall, in March we noted that GLJ Research analyst Gordon Johnson had said that Tesla’s Q1 2022 delivery estimates “may need to be revised lower”. Earlier in the month, we reported that Tesla officially sold 56,515 Chinese made vehicles in February, according to data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). 

Jonson had called into question the distribution of how the China-made vehicles were sold in a note to clients in early March: 

“In short, in the opposite of what many TSLA pundits expected to occur, an increasingly larger portion of TSLA’s made-in-China cars are being exported to global markets, calling into question both: (a) the viability of TSLA’s demand inside of China, and (b) TSLA’s gross margins later this year given Germany is the most expensive place in the World to mass produce automobiles.”

He also noted the impact of rising nickel prices on the auto manufacturer, stating that based on his analysis and checks with traders and EV experts in London/Shanghai, that current nickel prices “equate to ~$998.97/car in added costs for TSLA”.

But the nickel theory has apparently been debunked, thanks to a little known “secret deal” that Tesla reportedly has with miner Vale for supply of nickel that we wrote about just days ago. 

But Johnson’s assertions of Tesla’s Q1 2022 numbers were pretty close. He stated in March that he expected a material revision lower in first quarter 2022 production estimates. Johnson said that estimates were too high by “at least 12k to 20k vehicles”, and he put Tesla’s Q1 2022 delivery number at an estimate of 304k to 312k.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 15:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ORLQ7mj Tyler Durden

Edging Towards A Gold Standard

Edging Towards A Gold Standard

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

Commentators are trying to make sense of Russian moves… However, there is a back story which differs from much of the speculation, which this article addresses.

The Russians have not put the rouble on some sort of gold standard. Instead, they have repeated the Nixon/Kissinger strategy which created the petrodollar in 1973 by getting the Saudis to agree to accept only dollars for oil. This time, nations deemed by Russia to be unfriendly will be forced to buy roubles – roughly 2 trillion by the EU alone based on last year’s natural gas and oil imports from Russia — driving up the exchange rate. The rouble has now doubled against the dollar from its low point of RUB 150 to RUB 75 yesterday in just over three weeks. The Russian Central Bank will soon be able to normalise the domestic economy by reducing interest rates and removing exchange controls.

The Russians and Chinese will be acutely aware that Western currencies, particularly the yen and euro, are likely to be undermined by recent developments. The financial war, which has always been in the background, is emerging into plain sight and becoming a battlefield between fiat currencies, and it is full on.

The winner by default is almost certainly gold, now the only reliable reserve asset for those not aligned with Russia’s “unfriendlies”. But it is still a long way from backing any currency.

Putin is losing the battle for Ukraine

President Putin is embattled. His army as let him down — it turns out that his generals lack the necessary leadership qualities, the squaddies are suffering from lack of food, fuel, and are suffering from frostbite. It is reported that one brigade commander, Colonel Yuri Medvedev, was deliberately run down by one of his own men in a tank, a measure of the chaos at the front line. And Putin is not the first national leader to have misplaced his confidence in military forces.

Conventional wisdom (from Carl von Clausewitz, no less) suggested Putin might win the battle for Ukraine but would be unable to hold the territory. That requires the willingness of the population to accept defeat, and a lesson the Soviets had learned in Afghanistan, with the same experience repeated by America and the UK. But Putin has not even won the battle and word from the Kremlin is of accepting a face-saving fall-back position, perhaps taking Donetsk and the coast of the Sea of Azov to join it up with Crimea.

There was little doubt that if Putin came under pressure militarily, he would probably step up the commodity and financial war. This he has now done by insisting on payments in roubles. The mistake made in the West was to believe that Russia must sell commodities, and even though sanctions harm the West greatly, the strategy is to put maximum pressure on the Russian economy for a quick resolution. It is obviously flawed because Russia can still trade with China, India, and other significant economies. And thanks to rising commodity prices the Russian economy is not in the bad place the West believed either.

Besides nations representing 84% of the world’s population standing aside from the Western alliance’s sanctions and with some like India sorely tempted to buy discounted Russian oil, we would profit from paying attention to some very basic factors. Russia can certainly afford to sell oil at significant discounts to market prices, and there are buyers willing to break the American-led embargoes. The non-Western world is no longer automatically on-side with American hegemony; that is a rotting hulk which the Americans are desperately trying to keep afloat. Observing this, the Kremlin seems relaxed and has said that it is willing to accept currencies from its friends, but Western enemies (the “unfriendlies”) would have to pay for oil in roubles or, it has also been suggested, in gold.

On 23 March the Kremlin drew up a list of these unfriendly countries, which includes the 27 EU members, Switzerland, Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea.

Payment in roubles is easy to understand. We can assume that all oil and natural gas long-term supply contracts with the unfriendlies have force majeure clauses, because that is normal practice. In the light of sanctions, the Russians are entitled to claim different payment terms. And it is this that the Russians are relying upon for insisting on payment in roubles.

Germany, for example, would have to buy roubles on the foreign exchanges to pay for her gas. Buying roubles supports the currency, and this was the tactic that created the petrodollar in 1973 when Nixon and Kissinger persuaded the Saudis to take nothing else but dollars for oil. It was that single move which more than anything confirmed the dollar as the world’s international and reserve currency in the aftermath of the temporary suspension of the Bretton Woods Agreement. That’s not quite the objective here; it is to not only underwrite the rouble, but to drive it higher relative to other currencies. The immediate effect has been clear, as the chart from Bloomberg below shows.

Having halved in value against the dollar on 7 March, all the rouble’s fall has been recovered. And that’s even before Germany et al buy roubles on the foreign exchanges to pay for Russian energy.

The gold issue is more complex. The West has banned not only Russian transactions settling in their currencies but also from settling in gold. The assumption is that gold is the only liquid asset Russia has left to trade with. But just as ahead of the end of the cold war Western intelligence completely misread the Soviet economy, it could be making a mistake again. This time, intel seems to be misled by full-on Keynesian macro analysis, suggesting the Russian economy is vulnerable when it is inherently stronger in a currency shoot-out than even the dollar. There is no need for Russia to sell any gold at all.

The Russian economy has a broadly non-interventionist government, a flat rate of income tax of 13%, and a government debt of 20% of GDP. There are flaws in the Russian economy, particularly in the lack of respect for property rights and the pervasive problem of the Russian Mafia. But in many respects, Russia’s economy is like that of the US before 1916, when the highest income tax rate was 15%.

An important difference is that the Russian government gets substantial revenues from energy and commodity exports, taking its income up to over 40% of GDP. While export volumes of energy and other commodities are being hit by sanctions, their prices have risen substantially. But it remains to be seen what form of money or currency for future payments will be used for over $550bn equivalent of exports, while $297bn of imports will be substantially reduced by sanctions, widening Russia’s trade surplus considerably. Euros, yen, dollars, and sterling are ruled out, worthless in the hands of the Central Bank. That leaves Chinese renminbi, Indian rupees, weakening Turkish lira and that’s about it. It’s hardly surprising that Russia is prepared to accept gold. Putin’s view on the subject is shown in Figure 1 of stills taken from a Tik Tok video released last weekend.

Furthermore, Russia’s official reserves are only a small part of the story. Simon Hunt of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, who I have found to be consistently well informed in these matters, is convinced based on his information that Russia’s gold reserves are significantly higher than reported — he thinks 12,000 tonnes is closer to the mark.

The payment choice for those on Russia’s unfriendly list, if we rule out gold, is effectively of only one — buy roubles to pay for Russian energy. By sanctioning the world’s largest energy exporter, the effect on energy prices in dollars is likely to drive them far higher yet. Additionally, market liquidity for roubles is likely to be restricted, and the likelihood of a bear squeeze on any shorts is therefore high. The question is how high?

Last year, the EU imported 155 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia, valued at about $180bn at current volatile prices. Oil exports from Russia to the EU were about 2.3 million barrels per day, worth an additional $105bn for a combined total of $285bn, which at the current exchange rate of RUB 75.5 is RUB 2.15 trillion. EU Gas consumption is likely to fall as spring approaches, but payments in roubles will still drive the exchange rate significantly higher. And attempts to obtain alternative sources of LNG will take time, be insufficient, and serve to drive natural gas prices from other suppliers even higher.

For now, we should dismiss ideas over payments to the Russians in gold. The Russian gold story, initially at least, is a domestic issue. Though it might spill over into international markets.

On 25 March, Russia’s central bank announced it will buy gold from credit institutions at a fixed rate of 5,000 roubles per gramme starting this week and through to 30 June. The press release stated that it will enable “a stable supply of gold and smooth functioning of the gold mining industry.” In other words, it allows banks to continue to lend money to gold mining and related activities, particularly for financing new gold mining developments. Meanwhile, the state will continue to accumulate bullion which, as discussed above, it has no need to spend on imports.

When the RCB’s announcement was made the rouble was considerably weaker and the price offered by the central bank was about 20% below the market price. But that has now changed. Based on last night’s exchange rate of 75.5 roubles to the dollar (30 March) and with gold at $1935, the price offered by the central bank is at a premium of 7.2% to the market. Whether this opens the situation up to arbitrage from overseas bullion markets is an intriguing question. And we can assume that Russian banks will find ways of acquiring and deploying the dollars to do so through their offshore facilities, until, under the cover of a strong rouble, the RCB removes exchange controls.

There is nothing in the RCB’s statement to prevent a Russian bank sourcing gold from, say, Dubai, to sell to the central bank. Guidance notes to which we cannot be privy may address this issue but let us assume this arbitrage will be permitted, because it might be difficult to stop. And if Russia does have undeclared bullion reserves more than those allegedly held by the US Treasury, then given that the real war is essentially financial, it is in Russia’s interest to see the gold price rise in dollars.

Not only would Eurozone banks be scrambling to obtain roubles, but the entire Western banking system, which takes the short side of derivative transactions in gold will find itself in increasing difficulties. Normally, bullion banks rely on central banks and the Bank for International Settlements to backstop the market with physical liquidity through leases and swaps. But the unfortunate message from the West to every central bank not on Russia’s unfriendly list is that London’s or New York’s respect for ownership rights to their nation’s gold cannot be relied upon. Not only will lease and swap liquidity dry up, but it is likely that requests will be made for earmarked gold in these centres to be repatriated.

In short, Russia appears to be initiating a squeeze on gold derivatives in Western capital markets by exploiting diminishing faith in Western institutions and their cavalier treatment of foreign property rights. By forcing the unfriendlies into buying roubles, the RCB will shortly be able to reduce interest rates back to previous policy levels and remove exchange controls. At the same time, the inflation problems faced by the West will be ameliorated by a strong rouble.

It ties in with the politics for Putin’s survival. Together with the economic benefits of an improving exchange rate for the rouble and the relatively minor inconvenience of not being able to buy imports from the West (alternatives from China and India will still be available) Putin can retreat from his disastrous Ukrainian campaign. Senior figures in the Russian army will be disciplined, imprisoned, or disappear accused of incompetence and misleading Putin into thinking his “special operation” would be quickly achieved. Putin will absolve himself of any blame and dissenters can expect even greater clampdowns on protests.

Russia’s moves are likely to have been thought out in advance. The move to support the rouble is evidence it is so, giving the central bank the opportunity to reverse the interest rate hike to 20% to protect the rouble. Foreign exchange controls on Russians can shortly be lifted. Almost certainly the consequences for Western currencies were discussed. The conclusion would surely have been that higher energy and other Russian commodity prices would persist, driving Western price inflation higher and for longer than discounted in financial markets. Western economies face soaring interest rates and a slump. And depending on their central bank’s actions, Japan and the Eurozone with negative interest rates are almost certainly most vulnerable to a financial, currency, and economic crisis.

The impact of Russia’s new policy of only accepting roubles was, perhaps, the inevitable consequence of the West’s policies of self-immolation. From Russia’s failure in Ukraine, Putin appears to have had little option but to go on the offensive and escalate the financial, or commodity-currency war to cover his retreat. We can only speculate about the effect of a strong rouble on the international gold price, but if Russian banks can indeed buy bullion from non-Russian sources to sell to the RCB, it would mark a very aggressive move in the ongoing financial war.

China’s position

China will be learning unpalatable lessens about its ambition to invade Taiwan, and Taiwan will be encouraged mightily by Ukraine’s success at repelling an unwelcome invader. A 100-mile channel is an enormous obstacle for a Chinese invasion that Russia didn’t have to navigate before Ukrainian locals exploited defensive tactics to repel the invader. There can now be little doubt of the outcome if China tried the same tactics against Taiwan. President Xi would be sensible not to make the same mistake as Putin and tone down the anti-Taiwan rhetoric and try the softer approach of friendly relations and economic integration to reunite Chinese interests.

That has been a costless lesson for China, but another consideration is the continuing relationship with Russia. The earlier Chinese description of it made sense: “We are not allies, but we are partners”. What this means is that China would abstain rather than support Russia in the various supranational forums where the world’s leaders gather. But she would continue to trade with Russia as normal, even engaging in currency swaps to facilitate it.

More recently, a small crack has appeared in this relationship, with China concerned that US and EU sanctions might be extended to Chinese entities in joint ventures with Russian businesses linked to sanctioned oligarchs and Putin supporters. The highest profile example has been the suspension of a joint project to build a petrochemical plant in Russia involving Sinopec, because of the involvement of Gennady Timchenko, a close ally of Putin. But according to a report from Nikkei Asia, Sinopec has confirmed it will continue to buy Russian crude oil and gas.

As always with its geopolitics, we can expect China to play its hand with great care. China was prepared for the consequences of US monetary policy in March 2020 when the Fed reduced its funds rate to zero and instituted quantitative easing of $120bn every month. By its actions it judged these moves to be very inflationary, and began stockpiling commodities ahead of dollar price rises, including energy and grains to project its own people. The yuan has risen against the dollar by about 11%, which with moderate credit policies has kept annualised domestic price inflation subdued to about 1% currently, while consumer price inflation in the West is soaring out of control.

China is not therefore in the weak financial position of Russia’s “unfriendlies”; the highly indebted governments whose finances and economies are likely to be destabilised by rising energy prices and interest rates. But it does have a potential economic crisis on its hands in the form of a collapsing property market. In February, its response was to ease the credit restrictions imposed following the initial pandemic recovery in 2021, which had included attempts to deleverage the property sector.

Property aside, we can assume that China will not want to destabilise the West by her own actions. The West is doing that very effectively without China’s assistance. But having demonstrated an understanding of why the West is sliding into an inflation crisis of its own making China will be keen not to make the same mistakes. Her partnership with Russia, as joint leaders in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, is central to detaching herself from what its Maoist economists forecast as the inevitable collapse of imperial capitalism. Having set itself up in the image of that imperialism, it must now become independent from it to avoid the same fate.

Gold’s wider role in China, Russia, and the SCO

Gold has always been central to China’s fallback position. I estimated that before permitting its own people to buy gold in 2002, the state had acquired as much as 20,000 tonnes. Subsequently, through the Shanghai Gold Exchange the Chinese public has taken delivery of a further 20,000 tonnes, mainly through imports from outside China. No gold escapes China, and the Chinese government is likely to have added to its hoard over the last twenty years. The government maintains a monopoly on refining and has stimulated the mining industry to become the largest national producer. Together with its understanding of the West’s inflationary policies the evidence is clear: China is prepared for a world of sound money with gold replacing the dollar’s hegemony, and it now dominates the world’s physical market with that in mind.

These plans are shared with Russia, and the members, dialog partners and associates of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation — almost all of which have been accumulating gold reserves. Mine output from these countries is estimated by the US Geological Survey at 830 tonnes, 27% of the global total.

The move away from pure fiat was confirmed recently by some half-baked plans for the Eurasian Economic Union and China to escape from Western fiat by setting up a new currency for cross-border trade backed partly by commodities, including gold.

The extent of “off balance sheet” bullion is a critical issue, because at some stage they are likely to be declared. In this context, the Russian position is important, because if Simon Hunt, quoted above, is correct Russia could have more gold than the US’s 8,130 tonnes, which it is widely thought to overstate the latter’s true position. Furthermore, Western central banks routinely lease and swap their gold reserves, leading to double counting, which almost certainly reduces their actual position in aggregate. And if fiat currencies continue to decline we could find that the two ringmasters for the SCO have more monetary gold than all the other central banks put together — something like 30,000-40,000 tonnes for Chinese and Russian governments, compared with perhaps less than 20,000 tonnes for Russia’s adversaries (officially ,the unfriendlies own about 24,000 tonnes, but we can assume that at least 5,000 of that is double counted or does not exist due to leasing and swaps).

The endgame for the yen and the euro

Without doubt, the terrible twins in the major fiat currencies are the yen and the euro. They share much in common: negative interest rates, major commercial banks highly leveraged with asset to equity ratios averaging over twenty times, and central bank balance sheets overloaded with bonds which are collapsing in value. They now face rising interest rates spiralling beyond their control, the consequences of the ECB and Bank of Japan being trapped under the zero bound and being in denial over falling purchasing power for their currencies.

Consequently, we are seeing capital flight, which has accelerated dramatically this month for the yen, but in truth follows on from relative weakness for both currencies since the middle of 2021 when global bond yields began rising. Statistically, we can therefore link the collapse of both currencies on the foreign exchanges with rising bond yields. And given that rising interest rates and bond yields are in their early stages, there is considerable currency weakness yet to come.

Japan and its yen

The Bank of Japan has publicly stated it would buy an unlimited amount of 10-year Japanese Government Bonds at a 0.25% yield to contain the bond sell-off. A higher yield would be more than embarrassing for the BOJ, already requiring a recapitalisation, presumably with its heavily indebted government stumping up the money. Figure 2 shows that the 10-year JGB yield is already testing the 0.25% yield level (charts from Bloomberg).

Fig 2. JGB yields hits BoJ Limit and Yen collapsing

As avid Keynesians, the BOJ is following similar policies to that of John Law in 1720’s France. Law issued fresh livres which he used to prop up the Mississippi venture by buying shares in the market. The bubble popped, the venture survived, but the livre was destroyed.

Today, the BOJ is issuing yen to prop up the Japanese government bond market. As the issuer of the currency, the BOJ is by any yardstick bankrupt and in desperate need of new capital. Since it commenced QE in 2000, it has accumulated so much government and corporate debt, and even equities bundled into ETFs, that the falling value of the BOJ’s holdings makes its liabilities significantly greater than its assets, currently to the tune of about ¥4 trillion ($3.3bn).

Ignoring the cynic’s definition of madness, the BOJ is doubling down on its commitment, announcing on Monday further unlimited purchases of 10-year JGBs at a fixed yield of 0.25%. In other words, it is supporting bond prices from falling further, echoing Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” and confirming its John Law policy. Last Tuesday’s Summary of Opinions at the Monetary Policy Meeting on March 17 and 18 had this gem:

“Heightened geopolitical risks due to the situation surrounding Ukraine have caused price rises of energy and other items, and this will push down domestic demand while raising the CPI. Under the circumstances, it is necessary to improve labour market conditions and provide stronger support for wage increases, and therefore it is increasingly important that the bank persistently continue with the current monetary easing.”

No, this is not satire. In other words, the BOJ’s deposit rate will remain negative. And the following was added from Government Representatives at the same meeting:

“The budget for fiscal 2022 aims to realise a new form of capitalism through a virtual circle of growth and distribution and the government has been making efforts to swiftly obtain the Diet’s approval.”

A virtuous circle of growth? It seems like intensified intervention. Meanwhile, Japan’s major banks with asset to equity ratios of over twenty times are too highly geared to survive rising interest rates without a bank credit crisis threatening to take them down. It is hardly surprising that international capital is fleeing the yen, realising that it will be sacrificed by the BOJ in the vain hope that it can continue to maintain bond prices far above where they should be.

The euro system and its euro

The euro system and the euro share similar characteristics to the BOJ and the yen: interest rates trapped under the zero bound, Eurozone G-SIBs with asset to equity ratios of over 20 times and market realities forcing interest rates and bond yields higher, as Figure 3 shows. Furthermore, Eurozone banks are heavily exposed to Russian and Ukrainian debt due to their geographic proximity.

Fig 3: Euro declining as bond yields soar

There are two additional problems for the Eurosystem not faced by the BOJ and the yen. The ECB’s shareholders are the national central banks in the euro system, which in turn have balance sheet liabilities more than their assets. The structure of the euro system means that in recapitalising itself the ECB does not have a government to which it can issue credit and receive equity capital in return, the normal way in which a central bank would refinance its balance sheet by turning credit into equity. Instead, it will have to refinance itself through the national central banks which being insolvent themselves in turn would have to refinance themselves through their governments.

The second problem is a further complication. The euro system’s TARGET2 settlement system reflects enormous imbalances which complicates resolving a funding crisis. For example, on the last figures (end-February), Germany’s Bundesbank was owed €1,150 billion through TARGET2, while Italy owed €568 billion. It would be in the interests of a recapitalisation for the Italian government to want its central bank to write off this amount, while the Bundesbank is already in negative equity without writing off TARGET2 balances. Germany’s politicians might demand the balances owed to the Bundesbank be secured. This problem is not insoluble perhaps, but one can see that political and public wrangling over these imbalances will only serve to draw attention to the fragility of the whole system and undermine public trust in the currency.

With Germany’s CPI now rising at 7.6% and Spain’s at 9.8%, negative deposit rates are wildly inappropriate. When the system breaks it can be expected to be sudden, violent and a shock to those in thrall to the euro system.

Conclusion

For decades, a showdown between an Asian partnership and hegemonic America has been building. We can date this back to 1983, when China began to accumulate physical gold having appointed the Peoples’ Bank for the purpose. That act was the first indication that China felt the need to protect itself from others as it ventured into capitalism. China has navigated itself through increasing American assertion of its hegemony and attempts to destabilise Hong Kong. It has faced obstacles to its lucrative export trade through tariffs. It has been cut off from Western markets for its advanced technology. China has resented having to use the dollar.

After Russia’s ill-advised invasion of Ukraine, it now appears that the invisible war over global financial resources and control is intensifying. The fuse has been lit and events are taking over. The destabilisation of the yen and the euro are now as certain as can be. While the yen is the victim of John Law-like market-rigging policies and likely to go the same way as France’s livre, perhaps the greater danger is for the euro. The contradictions in its set-up, and the destruction of Germany’s sound money principals in favour of the inflationism of the PIGS was always going to be finite. The ECB has got itself into a ridiculous position, and no amount of conjuring and cajoling of financial institutions can resolve the ECB’s own insolvency and that of all its shareholders.

History shows that there are two groups involved in a currency collapse. International holders take fright and sell for other currencies and assets they believe to be more secure. They drive the exchange rate lower. The second group is the public in a nation, those who use the currency for transactions. If they lose confidence in it, the currency can rapidly descend into worthlessness as ordinary people accelerate its disposal for anything tangible in a final crack-up boom.

In the past, an alternative currency was always the sounder one, one backed by and exchangeable for gold coin. That is so long ago that we in the West have mostly forgotten the difference between money, that is gold and silver, and unbacked fiat currencies. The great unknown has been how much abuse of money and credit it would take for the public to relearn the difference. Cryptocurrencies have alerted us, but they are not a widely accepted medium of exchange and don’t have the legal standing of gold and gold substitutes.

War is to be our wake-up call — financial rather than physical in character. Western central banks and their governments have been fiddling the books, telling us that currency debasement is good for us. That debasement has accelerated in recent years. But by upping the anti against Russia with sanctions that end up undermining the purchasing power of all the West’s major currencies, our leaders have called an end to the reign of fiat.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/02/2022 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/tVXM82k Tyler Durden

Pope Frances For 1st Time Denounces Putin As “Potentate” Fomenting “Savage War” – Mulls Ukraine Trip

Pope Frances For 1st Time Denounces Putin As “Potentate” Fomenting “Savage War” – Mulls Ukraine Trip

Pope Francis on Saturday for the first time rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin for launching a “savage” war on Ukraine, but stopped short of naming him directly

“We had thought that invasions of other countries, savage street fighting and atomic threats were grim memories of a distant past,” the Pope said during a weekend visit to the Mediterranean, largely Catholic island of Malta. 

    Yet it was clear precisely the world leader the Pope was referencing, given he immediately followed by saying, “Once again, some potentate, sadly caught up in anachronistic claims of nationalist interest, is provoking and fomenting conflicts, whereas ordinary people sense the need to build a future that will either be shared or not be at all.”

    In prior statements he’s made on the conflict, he denounced the war but did not personalize it in the sense of calling out a specific “potentate” who is “fomenting conflicts”. 

    Last month, for example, he had urged the “massacre” to stop, which he called an “unacceptable armed aggression” – yet without naming Russia. 

    “Faced with the barbarity of killing of children, of innocents and unarmed civilians, no strategic reasons can hold up,” Francis said on March 19.

    However, he’s previously only named Russia while offering prayers, and after Roman Catholic groups issued requests for him to “consecrate” Russia to the Virgin Mary.

    Francis also for the first time confirmed that a potential trip to Ukraine’s capital of Kiev is “on the table” – this after last month offering to mediate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. According to The Associated Press:

    ​​Francis told reporters en route to Malta that a possible visit to Kyiv was “on the table,” but no dates have been set or trip confirmed. The mayor of the Ukrainian capital had invited Francis to come as a messenger of peace along with other religious figures.

    Another possibility is that the pontiff could simply go to Poland or another neighboring or adjacent Catholic-majority country, also akin to Biden speaking from Warsaw. While the vast majority of Ukraine adheres to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic minority in the country is commonly estimated at 3-4 million.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/02/2022 – 14:00

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/vu4yRDk Tyler Durden

    The Fed Cannot Undo The Damage It Has Already Caused

    The Fed Cannot Undo The Damage It Has Already Caused

    Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

    On Wednesday, March 16, 2022, the US central bank, the Federal Reserve System, raised the target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percent, to 0.50 percent. According to Fed officials, the increase in the federal funds rate target was in response to the strong increases in the yearly growth rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which stood at 7.9 percent in February against 7.5 percent in January and 1.7 percent in February of the year before.

    Most commentators believe that by raising the interest rate target, the central bank can slow the increase of prices of goods and services. Supporters of this strategy often refer to May 1981, when then Fed chairman Paul Volcker raised the fed funds rate target to 19 percent from 11.25 percent in May 1980. The yearly growth rate in the CPI, which stood at 14.8 percent in April 1980, fell to 1.1 percent by December 1986 (see chart).

    Figure 1: CPI vs. Federal Funds Rate

    Source: Bloomberg

    Note that commentators identify the growth rate in the CPI as inflation. We hold, however, that increases in money supply are what inflation is all about. Also, we do not say that inflation is caused by increases in money supply, as some commentators are suggesting. Instead, we hold that inflation is about increases in money supply. 

    The price of a good is the amount of money paid for it, but whenever there is an increase in the money injected into a particular goods market, this means that the price of the goods in money terms will rise. This increase in the price is not inflation, however, but rather the manifestation of inflation as a result of the increase in money supply, all other things being equal.

    The damage inflation inflicts to the wealth generation process is more important than the increases it causes in the prices of retail goods. This is inferred from the fact that increases in money supply set in motion an exchange of something for nothing, which generates a similar outcome to counterfeit money moving through the economy. It weakens wealth generators, thereby weakening their ability to create wealth, which, in turn, undermines living standards.

    When money is injected, it initially enters a particular goods market. Once the price of a good rises to a level at which the good is perceived as fully valued, the money leaves for another market that is considered as undervalued. The shift from one market to another market gives rise to a time lag between increases in money and their effect on the wealth generation process.

    Central Banks Do Not Set Interest Rates. Individuals Do.

    Note that contrary to popular thinking, interest rates are determined not by central bank monetary policy but by individual time preferences. According to the founder of the Austrian school of economics, Carl Menger, the phenomenon of interest is the outcome of the fact that individuals assign a greater importance to goods and services in the present versus identical goods and services in the future.

    The higher valuation is not the result of capricious behavior, but rather that life in the future is impossible without sustaining it in the present. According to Menger:

    Human life is a process in which the course of future development is always influenced by previous development. It is a process that cannot be continued once it has been interrupted, and that cannot be completely rehabilitated once it has become seriously disordered. A necessary prerequisite of our provision for the maintenance of our lives and for our development in future periods is a concern for the preceding periods of our lives. Setting aside the irregularities of economic activity, we can conclude that economizing men generally endeavor to ensure the satisfaction of needs of the immediate future first, and that only after this has been done, do they attempt to ensure the satisfaction of needs of more distant periods, in accordance with their remoteness in time.1

    Goods and services required to sustain one’s life at present must be of a greater importance to that individual than the same goods and services in the future. The person is likely to assign higher value to the same good in the present versus the same good in the future.

    Those with paltry means can only consider very short-term goals, such as making a basic tool. The meager size of one’s means does not permit him to undertake the making of more advanced tools. With the increase in the means at his disposal, the individual could consider undertaking the making of better tools. With the expansion in the pool of means, individuals are able to allocate more means towards the accomplishment of remote goals in order to improve their quality of life over time.

    While prior to the expansion of means, the need to sustain life and wellbeing in the present made it impossible to undertake various long-term projects, but with more resources at one’s disposal, this becomes possible.

    Few, if any, individuals will embark on a business venture that promises a zero rate of return. The maintenance of the process of life over and above hand-to-mouth existence requires an expansion in wealth and wealth expansion implies positive returns.

    Are Lower Rates behind Increased Capital Goods Investment?

    Contrary to the popular thinking, a decline in the interest rate does not drive increases in the capital goods investment. What permits the expansion of capital goods is not the lowering of the interest rate but rather the increase in the pool of savings.

    The pool of savings sustains people employed in the enhancement and the expansion of capital goods such as tools and machinery. With the increased and enhanced capital goods, it is possible to increase the production of future consumer goods.

    One’s decision to allocate a greater amount of means towards the production of capital goods is signaled by the lowering of individual time preferences by assigning a relatively greater importance to the future goods versus the present goods. Hence, the interest rate reflects individuals’ decisions regarding the present consumption versus future consumption. (Again, the decline of the interest rate is not the cause of the increase in capital investment. The decline mirrors the decision to invest a greater portion of savings towards the capital goods investment).

    In a free market, a decline in the interest rate informs businesses that individuals have increased their preference towards future consumer goods versus present consumer goods. Businesses wishing to be successful must abide by consumers’ instructions and organize a suitable infrastructure to accommodate the demand for consumer goods in the future. Through the lowering of time preferences, individuals signal that they have increased savings which will support the expansion and enhance the production structure.

    Fluctuations in interest rates in a free market will be in line with changes in consumers’ time preferences. Thus, a decline in the interest rate is in response to the lowering of individuals’ time preferences. When businesses observe a decline in the market interest rate, they respond to it by increasing their investment in capital goods to accommodate the likely increase in demand for future consumer goods. (Note that in a free-market economy a decline in the interest rate indicates that on a relative basis individuals have lifted their preference towards future consumer goods versus present consumer goods).

    The discrepancy between the market interest rate and the interest rate that reflects individual’s time preferences is caused by the central bank. For instance, an aggressive loose monetary policy by the central bank leads to the lowering of the observed interest rate. Businesses respond to this lowering by increasing the production of capital goods in order to be able to accommodate the demand for consumer goods in the future. Consumers, however, have not indicated a change in their preferences toward present consumer goods. The time preference interest rate did not go down, and so a gap grows between the time preference rate and the market rate.

    Because of the breach between the time preference interest rate and the market interest rate, businesses responding to the declining market interest rate have malinvested in capital goods relative to the production of present consumer goods. At the future, businesses will discover their past investment decisions with regard to the capital goods expansion were in error.

    Why Tightening Cannot Undo the Negatives of a Previous Loose Stance

    According to Ludwig von Mises, a tight monetary stance cannot undo the negatives of the previous loose stance. (In other words, the central bank cannot generate a “soft landing” for the economy.) The misallocation of resources due to a loose monetary policy cannot be reversed by a tighter stance. According to Percy L. Greaves Jr. in the introduction to Mises’s The Causes of the Economic Crisis, and Other Essays before and after the Great Depression:

    Mises also refers to the fact that deflation can never repair the damage of a priori inflation. In his seminar, he often likened such a process to an auto driver who had run over a person and then tried to remedy the situation by backing over the victim in reverse. Inflation so scrambles the changes in wealth and income that it becomes impossible to undo the effects. Then too, deflationary manipulations of the quantity of money are just as destructive of market processes, guided by unhampered market prices, wage rates and interest rates, as are such inflationary manipulations of the quantity of money.

    A tighter interest rate stance, while undermining current financial bubbles, will also generate various distortions, thereby inflicting damage to wealth generators. A tighter stance is still intervention by the central bank, which falsifies the interest rate signal. A tighter interest rate stance does not result in the allocation of resources in line with consumers’ top priorities. Therefore, it does not follow that a tighter interest rate stance can reverse the damage caused by inflationary policy. If we accept that inflation is about increases in money supply, then all that is required to erase inflation is to seal off the loopholes for the generation of money out of “thin air” by the central bank.

    Policies aimed at stabilizing price increases actually produce economic upheavals. Observe that by February 2021, the yearly growth rate of our monetary measure for the USA jumped to almost 80 percent. Against the background of this massive increase, one should not be surprised that the yearly growth rate of the CPI has accelerated. Policies that aim at slowing the growth rate of the CPI rather than arresting the growth rate of money supply will likely undermine economic conditions.

    Conclusion

    As long as life sustenance remains the ultimate goal of individuals, they will assign a higher valuation to present goods than future goods, and no central bank interest rate manipulation will change this. Any attempt by central bank policy makers to overrule this fact will undermine the process of wealth formation and lower individual living standards. It will not help economic growth if the central bank artificially lowers interest rates when individuals have not allocated adequate savings to support the expansion of capital goods investments. It is impossible to replace savings with more money and the artificial lowering of the interest rate because it is not possible to generate something from nothing. By raising interest rates the central bank cannot undo the damage from its previous easy interest rate stance. A tighter stance will likely generate various other distortions. Therefore, policy makers should leave the economy alone.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/02/2022 – 13:30

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rNu5IMh Tyler Durden