2010 will be worse

From Monty Pelerin, writing in The American Thinker, on the FedGov's funding dilemma:

... There are only three possibilities with respect to meeting 2010 funding needs:

* The Fed continues its QE beyond their planned cessation in March 2010.
* The Fed raises interest rates to levels that would attract the capital necessary to fund government operations via conventional credit markets.
* No Fed action is taken. That would cause the government to default on some of its obligations.

None of these alternatives is attractive. The unpalatable choices arise from prior Fed and governmental policies. To avoid recessions over the past fifty years, the government abused and then finally exhausted all reasonable options. After years of mismanagement, the government is in a quandary of its own making from which there is no escape.

All alternatives will be very painful, and none offer the possibility of a traditional recovery. No matter what alternative is chosen, the country cannot avoid a depression. At this point, "do no further harm" should guide policy.

Of the three alternatives, what is best economically is worst politically. This natural conflict between good economics and good politics is not unusual. Economically, the country would be harmed least by implementing alternative 2. From a political standpoint, alternatives 2 and 3 are probably unacceptable. Thus, it is likely that alternative 1 will be tried (again!). It is precisely the continual overuse of this alternative that has led to the current sad state.

Alternative 1 cannot work. It will not avoid a depression. Worse, it will likely result in hyperinflation. Thus, we likely end up with the worst of all worlds. With hyperinflation, money will cease to be a medium of exchange. Markets will cease to work, except on a barter basis. The middle class will be wiped out. Their savings will become worthless along with the dollar. The end will be as Mises warned so many years ago.

The possibility of losing our form of government is a real risk under any of the alternatives. So is civil unrest and strife. All are probably more likely under alternative 1 because of the corrosive effects of high inflation combined with a depression. ...

Read it here.

Get ready for Bernanke, Round 2

The Boy King has nominated Ben ("Helicopter") Bernanke for a second term as Fed Chairman. You know, because of his "stellar" track record:

The Black Hole at the Federal Reserve

From NewsMax, on the black hole accounting program evidently in use at the Fed:

The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know.

Worse, nobody at the Fed seems to have any idea what the losses on its $2 trillion portfolio really are. [emphasis added]

"I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track of anything," Grayson says.

Grayson asked Coleman if her agency had done any research into the decision not to save Lehman Brothers, which “sent shockwaves through the entire financial system,” Coleman said it had not.

“What about the $1 trillion plus expansion of the Federal reserve’s balance sheet since last September?” Grayson asked.

“We have different connotations,” Coleman replied. “We’re actually conducting a fairly high-level review of the various lending facilities collectively.”

Translation: Nobody at the Fed knows where the money went. [emphasis added]



Do you know what who got the $1 trillion or more in the Fed's expansion of its balance, Grayson pressed.

"I do not know. We have not looked at this specific area at the particular point on that specific review," Coleman answer. ...

Article here. So much for transparency. Imagine spending trillions and not knowing what you spent it on. No wonder we're in a world of hurt.