IMF: Global debt in 2024 was $251 trillion, 235% of global GDP

 

I keep hearing that gold is soaring because of continued dollar weakness lol

On the contrary, gold has risen despite continued dollar strength.

The enormous gains for gold in 2024 and 2025 are not explained by a round trip in the dollar index from 120 to 129 and back again. That's just a little side show in the bigger picture of dollar strength.

 

 

The dollar index has made steady progress out of the pit of despair at 85.46 in July 2011 under Barack Obama, the enemy of fossil fuels, to a place of relative strength today averaging above 120 in 2022 and 2023, 123 in 2024, and 125 in the first half of 2025.

Speaking of a weak dollar in this context is laughable.

Maybe the dollar is so strong again because the United States has become a net exporter of oil. The 1975 ban on oil exports was lifted in December 2015. Net imports of oil went negative for the first time since 1950 in 2020.

Gold is probably so strong in part because of increasing debt globally, which like rising prosperity helps drive demand for it as a hedge. Extreme poverty gripped half the world in 1950 but by 2020 it afflicts just 10%. Meanwhile gold production has nearly tripled over the period.

As a percentage of global GDP, global debt has gone from just above 100% of global GDP in 1980 to a whopping 235% of global GDP in 2024.

 

 

 

 

NATO chief concedes Trump has a point lol

 Stoltenberg knows damn well he might have to deal with Trump again if he's elected in November, and isn't about to alienate him now. After the election and Trump loses? Yeah, maybe then, but not now.

Reported here:

NATO chief concedes 'valid point' of spending criticism as allies up defense budgets

---

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

Susana Vera | Reuters

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg conceded to criticism that some members have been underfinancing the coalition’s defense budget, saying he expects a record 18 allies to meet their military spending goal this year.

His comments come on the footsteps of the controversial remarks of former U.S. president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who said he would not protect NATO nations from Russian hostilities if they fall behind on their membership payments.

Trump’s statements kindled widespread ire from the international community, including from fellow Republicans, drawing Stoltenberg to earlier this week accuse that such a suggestion “undermines all our security.”

“The criticism that you hear is not primarily about NATO, it’s about NATO allies not spending enough on NATO. And that’s a valid point,” Stoltenberg said during a press briefing on Wednesday, in response to a question on whether Trump’s comments aligned with the broader views of Republican officials that the NATO chief has engaged.

“It’s a point and a message that has been conveyed by successive U.S. administrations that European allies and Canada have to spend more, because we haven’t seen fair burden sharing in the alliance,” Stoltenberg added. “The good news is that this is exactly what NATO allies are now doing.”

Surprise, The New York Times thinks Denmark, the land of the drunk, mean and discriminatory, is just wonderful!

Here, lying through its teeth, as usual:

'[Hillary] also said, “We are not Denmark.” Nope. Not by any stretch. Denmark has a slightly higher tax load on its citizens than the United States. But it also has budget surpluses, universal health care, shorter working hours, and was recently rated by Forbes magazine as the best country in the world for business.'

Hm, the same place as this:

"Yeah yeah, I’m being too harsh. Every country has problems, Denmark’s are just different from the ones I grew up used to. Overall, Denmark is quiet, introverted and socialist, my three favorite things. Also, if I ever want to spend a weekend being drunk, mean and discriminatory, at least now I know where to go."

The Danes lately excel at being in hock, in addition to being drunk, mean and discriminatory:

"Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That’s the highest ratio in the world and a level that’s prompted warnings from both the OECD and the International Monetary Fund to rein in borrowing. Danish authorities have argued that households aren’t at risk thanks to high pension and household equity levels."

Denmark has the top tax rate in the OECD in 2014, 60.4%, ahead of Sweden (56.9%), Portugal (56.5%), and France (54.5%). The rate for the US is listed at 46.3%.

Denmark's top tax rate is 30% higher than in the US. That's what The New York Times means by "slightly higher".

Denmark not coincidentally is a global frontrunner in depression and mental illness. It consumes 84 antidepressant doses per day per 1000 of population, second only to Iceland (101 doses).

IMF signals that it cannot now participate in the third bailout of Greece

Here, which The Guardian considers a "cannonball" shot into the bailout:

Greece’s debt can now only be made sustainable through debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe has been willing to consider so far. ... Greece cannot return to markets anytime soon at interest rates that it can afford from a medium-term perspective. ... Greece is expected to maintain primary surpluses for the next several decades of 3.5 percent of GDP. Few countries have managed to do so. ... Greece is still assumed to go from the lowest to among the highest productivity growth and labor force participation rates in the euro area, which will require very ambitious and steadfast reforms. ... [G]overnance issues ... are at the root of the problems of the Greek banking system. There are at this stage no concrete plans in this regard. ... The dramatic deterioration in debt sustainability points to the need for debt relief on a scale that would need to go well beyond what has been under consideration to date—and what has been proposed by the ESM. There are several options ... maturity extension ... of, say, 30 years on the entire stock of European debt, including new assistance. ... Other options include explicit annual transfers to the Greek budget or deep upfront haircuts. The choice between the various options is for Greece and its European partners to decide [i.e. not the IMF].

IMF may have to back out of latest Greek bailout deal reached in Brussels early Monday

According to the story here, the International Monetary Fund, which has finally been calling for debt restructuring for Greece, i.e. haircuts, forgiveness, some say too little and too late, now believes the agreement reached this weekend falls far short of making Greece's debt sustainable. 

That fact means the IMF cannot agree to additional bailout sums according to its rules, which means the latest bailout would fall apart as the IMF would have to withdraw the 16+ billion Euros it has pledged in the deal.

In addition London is objecting to the proposed source of summer bridge loans to Greece which it says were previously ring-fenced against use for future bailouts. The Eurogroup doesn't seem to care about this very much, signaling that it intends to break the rules.

What a shock, huh?

The New York Times speaks out against free-trade

Here:

Since the 1970s, economic orthodoxy has argued for low tariffs, free capital flows, elimination of industrial subsidies, deregulation of labor markets, balanced budgets and low inflation. This philosophy — later known as the Washington Consensus — was the basis of advice the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank gave to developing countries in return for financial help. The irony is that during the Industrial Revolution, today’s rich countries — Britain, France and the United States — pursued the very opposite policies: high tariffs, government investment in industry, financial regulations and fixed values for currencies. Trade expanded, and capital flowed anyway. ... Nations that have ignored the nostrums of the Washington Consensus — China, India and Brazil — have grown rapidly and raised their standards of living. Improvements in poverty and inequality occurred in Latin America only in the 2000s, after the I.M.F. and the World Bank reduced their grip on those nations.

Central Bankers Buying Stocks: Is This Another Sign Of A Top?

Bloomberg reports here:

Central banks, guardians of the world’s $11 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, are buying stocks in record amounts as falling bond yields push even risk-averse investors toward equities.

In a survey of 60 central bankers this month by Central Banking Publications and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, 23 percent said they own shares or plan to buy them. The Bank of Japan, holder of the second-biggest reserves, said April 4 it will more than double investments in equity exchange-traded funds to 3.5 trillion yen ($35.2 billion) by 2014. The Bank of Israel bought stocks for the first time last year while the Swiss National Bank and the Czech National Bank have boosted their holdings to at least 10 percent of reserves. ...

Currency reserves among the world’s central banks climbed by $734 billion in 2012 to a record $10.9 trillion, according to data from the Washington-based International Monetary Fund. That’s about 20 percent of the $55 trillion market value of global stocks, data compiled by Bloomberg show. ... 

Even so, 70 percent of the central bankers in the survey indicated that equities are “beyond the pale.”

Notice how the first paragraph calls central banks "risk-averse investors", showing that the line between investing and banking has been completely erased in the popular reporting even as the evidence of the survey shows that for most central bankers the line remains boldly drawn. Banks don't invest, they bank.

Purchases of gold by central banks in recent years is interesting in that context. While buying stocks might mean investing to central bankers, something to be shunned, buying gold is not really investing, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing so much of it.

Gold reserves in the world now total roughly 31,000 tonnes, or about $1.5 trillion if gold is $1,500 the ounce. This amounts to 13.7% of the total forex reserves of $10.9 trillion mentioned in the article. In the context of the Basel III capital rules, that's considerably more hard collateral being set aside by the folks running the show as time goes by than by the downstream bankers who protest against building up to seven, eight or nine percent capital ratios.

I'm glad central banks are buying more gold. They should do even more of it. But investing in stocks by banks, central or otherwise, isn't banking. It's gambling, especially at these levels.

US Bank Failures 2009-2011 See $3.92 Billion In Uninsured Deposits Lost

Click each to enlarge.

Losses from 2012 payoffs remain as yet unconcluded at the FDIC website. These things do take time.

"Payoffs" involve those relatively few institutions for which no one could be found to Purchase and Assume the failed bank. Typically depositors with funds in excess of FDIC limits are still made good in P&As, but not in Payoffs.

By way of contrast, bank failures have cost industry far more directly than customers directly during the late financial crisis. Uninsured depositors may have lost nearly $4 billion, but the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC, paid into by every member bank, has had to shell out $87 billion from 2007. Just think what you'd have been hearing in the US if that sum had been sought from the uninsured depositors, who with $4.7 trillion today certainly have pockets deep enough! America actually treats its depositors, both insured and uninsured, far more fairly than in the EU, which is one important reason why the euro is doomed and net foreign investment in the US is gaining.

Uninsured deposits in little Cyprus are going to get hit to the tune of $6.5 billion to shore up its banks, which in turn are in trouble only because they held the bonds of Greece, on which the infamous Troika -- the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund -- demanded haircuts in excess of 50% for the bailout of Greece. The Troika is actually directly responsible for causing the problem in Cyprus which the Troika now demands Cyprus depositors pay for. No wonder the European periphery hates the center.

Expect capital flight from Europe to accelerate to the US.

Possible LIBOR Penalties Hardly Match The Enormity Of The Crimes

CNBC reports, here:

Activity in the Libor investigation, which has been going on for three years, has quickened since Barclays agreed last month to pay $453 million in fines and penalties to settle allegations with regulators and prosecutors that some of its employees tried to manipulate key interest rates from 2005 through 2009. ...

Morgan Stanley recently estimated that the 11 global banks linked to the Libor scandal may face $14 billion in regulatory and legal settlement costs through 2014.

These sums are paltry in comparison with the enormity of the skim operation siphoning off profits on hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of transactions.

It almost sounds like the lowball fines were themselves defined by the very regulators already suffering from "regulatory capture".

Satyajit Das, here, provides an in-depth exploration of the LIBOR scandal which includes considerable speculation about the sums lost. He points out that by one unrealistic estimate up to $80 billion is involved, which means the actual damages are far south of that.

On the other hand, he includes this:

Many American corporations and municipalities entered into interest rates swaps where low rates would have resulted in significant losses. The International Monetary Fund estimates the amount lost by municipalities at US$250 billion to US$500 billion in 2010. If successful action is brought under US anti-trust regulation, then banks may be liable for punitive triple damages.

Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimates that losses to banks could total (up to) US$22 billion in regulatory penalties and damages to investors and counterparties, equivalent to around 4-13% of banks’ 2012 earnings per share and 0.5% of book value. In reality, it is difficult to accurately quantify potential losses.

It would seem as of this moment that both banks and regulators have a significant legal and financial interest in suppressing the actual extent to which those last in line for money were fleeced.