Margaret Thatcher Was No Libertarian, Moving Leftward To Adapt Like Sen. Rand Paul

Marco Rubio, are you listening?

Ben Domenech, here:

Thatcher was originally seen as a Heath acolyte within the Tory wing, given a cabinet position in Education – but the distance between them grew, and she became closer to fellow Cabinet member Keith Joseph, forming a tiny band of back benchers disagreeing with the aims of the party leadership. ...

Heath’s approach failed at the ballot box. After losing the election in 1974 and failing to form a coalition government with the Liberal Party (a No Labels-esque Government of National Unity), he took it as a sign that the Tories had to move leftward in order to adapt to the opinions of the nation. Thatcher disagreed, and that made all the difference. When Joseph announced that he would challenge Heath for party leadership, Thatcher was the only Cabinet member to endorse him; when Joseph was forced to withdraw (thanks to demography comments implying the working class really ought to consider using birth control more regularly – the speech is here), he was forced to withdraw. So Thatcher insisted she would run. ...

The dominant assumption was that [Thatcher] would have to moderate to become acceptable to the British people. She did not. Instead, she repackaged conservative principles with a message of common sense and optimism, attacking nonsensical regulation, union dominance, and high taxes with verve. She promised hope and growth, not dour austerity, and insisted that acceptance of a nation in decline was a choice, not an inevitability.

Thatcher: "Socialist governments ... always run out of other people's money."

Llew Gardner:

There are those nasty critics, of course, who suggest that you don't really want to bring them down at the moment. Life is a bit too difficult in the country, and that … leave them to sort the mess out and then come in with the attack later … say next year.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher:

I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers' money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.

Look at the large numbers of people who live on council estates. Many of them would like to buy their own homes. Oh, but that's not approved of by a Socialist government …   . oh no! But that's absurd. Why shouldn't they? Well over thirty per cent of our houses are council houses. Why shouldn't those people purchase their own homes if they can?

-- February 5, 1976, Thames TV interview, here

Thatcher's Finest Hour: And So Say All Of Us

"She always afterwards regarded the Falklands War as the most important period of her premiership."

-- The UK Telegraph, here

"The Prophet Without Honor In Her Own Country": Thatcher Dead at 87

both free at last

'The second negative [which helped end her prime ministership] was [Mrs. Thatcher's] intransigent attitude to further European integration; this put her in a minority in her own party. But re-reading her strident speeches today gives no sense of them being out-of-date or belonging to a by-gone era. She dismissed the idea of a United States of Europe as a fantasy. I believed in it at the time, but now I see that she was correct. She thought that the European Union should be simply a free trade area with limited co-operation between sovereign nations. That is what an increasing number of us who were once fervent Europeans would like to get back to. As she said in a famous speech in Bruges that was widely criticised: “Working closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy… We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the State in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

'... [I]n light of the perpetual crisis in which members of the Eurozone have found themselves since the onset of the financial banking crisis in 2007 as a result of misjudged integration, those negative judgments now appear wrong. In this respect at least, she was an example of the prophet without honour in her own country.'

-- Andreas Whittam Smith in The UK Independent, here

Since ObamaCare Was Upheld 2.03 Million Jobs Have Simply Disappeared

Ho-ney? I shrank the workforce!

The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare on June 28, 2012.

Since July 1, 2012, full-time jobs are down 1.335 million over the eight months.

Part-time employment for economic reasons is down 607,000.

And part-time for noneconomic reasons is down 84,000.

So ObamaCare appears to be more negative for full-time jobs, but part-time employment is down also, by 691,000.

ObamaCare doesn't yet appear to be transforming the workforce into part-time. It just appears to be shrinking it, period.

Why Both Bush And Obama Were Re-elected

Bush and Obama both were re-elected in part because full-time jobs under their respective watches started and ended at almost precisely the same levels. Full-time employment was at 112 million and change at the beginning for each, and at 113 million and change at the end for each. 

Full-time jobs were up 1.6% under George W. Bush, and up 0.8% under Barack H. Obama.

Figures are for first terms beginning after accession to office through calendar election years, beginning on Feb. 1 and ending on Dec. 31.

Strange, but true. 

First They Came For Your Silver . . .

First they came for your silver (1964, last year minted).

Then they came for your dollar (1971, final year of dollar convertibility to gold).

Then they came for your tax deductions (1986 Tax "Reform" repealed deductibility of credit card interest).

Then they came for your mortgages (1997, introduction of two year rule to get you to borrow and churn).

Then they came for your banks (1999, allowed commercial banks to act like investment banks but with FDIC backstop).

Now they are coming for your bank deposits (2013, Cyprus), and not coincidentally, your guns.

Next it will be your 401ks and IRAs.

And then?

Of course there were other firsts before 1964, but these will do for now.

Economic Impact Of Lost Full-Time Jobs Since 2007

The level of full-time jobs for the five years between 2008 and 2012 has averaged about 114.2 million.

Peak full-time was 123.2 million in July 2007, so the average level is down from the 2007 peak by 9 million.

Average hourly earnings for all employees in the private sector for the period is about $22.60, or $47,008 per annum.

Times 9 million jobs that's $423.1 billion per year, or $2.12 trillion over the five years.

That's simply the payroll cost savings to American business, without adding in savings from no longer having to pay Social Security matching, unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation insurance premiums, and all the other benefits like health insurance, retirement and the like. The savings to business could easily have reached $2.5 trillion to date.

If you are wondering where business got the $1.2 trillion it has used for stock buybacks during the crisis, now you know.

March Unemployment Drops To 7.6%, Full-Time Work Still In Depression

You talkin' to me?

The full pdf report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is here.

The official number of unemployed fell to 11.7 million from 12.0 million last month, but nearly 500,000 left the civilian labor force in the seasonally-adjusted measure. In the raw measure the civilian labor force participation rate is down to 63.1%, the only other example of which in the data going back to 1948 was in July 1976. Those not in the labor force rose year over year by about 2.5% to almost 90.5 million.

Multiple job-holding is up barely 2% year over year in the report. Full-time with a secondary part-time job is up 7.7% year over year. Holding two part-time jobs is down 7.9% year over year. Part-time for both voluntary and involuntary reasons is not much changed year over year: Voluntary is up about 1.2%, involuntary is actually down less than one half of one percent in the seasonally-adjusted category, but down 1.7% in the raw numbers. . . . I'm not yet seeing any convincing evidence in the data to date that ObamaCare is part-timing the country in general. Full-time by either measure is actually up a little, by about 0.7% year over year.

Total nonfarm employment is either 134.5 million not-seasonally-adjusted, or 135.2 million seasonally-adjusted, up less than 1.5% year over year. Peak was in January 2008 at 138 million seasonally-adjusted, so the depression in employment continues, driven by the loss of full-time jobs, which in the raw measure are still down 8.4 million from the July 2007 peak, or 6.8%.

Jobs added per month on average for the last year has been at the level of 169,000. Both January and February saw upward revisions to the previous reports of jobs added in the neighborhood of 30,000 each month. Jobs added in March at 88,000 looks like a big stall in the trend, but we'll have to wait a month or two for the revisions to say that with certainty.

At the current rate of job addition, Obama will be long gone (one hopes) before full-time jobs come back. Of the 169,000 jobs added per month on average in the last year, only somewhere between 63,000 and 73,000 are full-time per month based on the year over year gains in full-time. Call it 68,000 per month, that's 816,000 per year, so it will take only 10.3 more years to add back those 8.4 million full-time jobs we're down and get us back to the level of 2007 . . . in the year 2023.

Way to go, Brownie!

The Line of the Day: "I'll Bet Romney's Had Coffee"

Callahan doesn't take sugar in his coffee.

"He just didn't swallow."

h/t 'Nita

Gold: Over 60 Million Krugerrands Circulate, More Than All Others Combined

So says the Rand Refinery's latest brochure, here, showing 2012 mint specimens. Figures through 2008 previously indicated 46 million ounces minted.

These 60 million Krugerrands are not all 1 oz. coins, but if they were, that would mean something like $96 billion worth with current gold prices around $1,600 the ounce.

Presumably therefore, there must be something like 110 million gold coins of all kinds out there if Krugerrands represent more than all the rest combined, with a current value of roughly $176 billion.

Not very much real money when you get right down to it.

Of course, there's lots of bars out there which can be turned into coin.

Official global gold reserves as of last summer were approaching 31,000 metric tons (2,204.6 lbs each), for a grand total of 68,342,600 lbs, which is 1,093,481,600 ounces, in other words, potentially about 1.093 billion more gold coins, with a current estimated value of $1.75 trillion.

Add the current gold coinage and you've got a potential $1.93 trillion in gold money for the world at current prices, 1.2 billion one ounce gold coins, or 12 billion tenth ounce gold coins, or 1.6 tenth ounce gold coins for every man, woman and child on the planet (7.1 billion), or $256 each.

Equality is such a bummer.

Meanwhile at home, current net worth of US households and non-profits in US funny money is $66.072 trillion, or $210 billion for every man, woman and child in the country.

Now, that's more like it!

Forbes: The Fed Is The Most Hypocritical, Thieving, Incompetent Bank In The Country

Richard Salsman for Forbes here savages the thieving, incompetent US Federal Reserve for its utter hypocrisy in keeping comparatively well-capitalized big banks from paying out dividends when its own balance sheet is the most under-capitalized of all and pays out 100% of what it makes.

Not news, but it bears repeating as often as possible, especially when it's stated so well:

'[I]n the century prior to the Fed’s founding in 1913, U.S. commercial banks were far more liquid and far better capitalized; in the century since 1913, however, and especially since the FDIC was established in 1934, the banks’ liquidity and capital adequacy measures have steadily deteriorated. This artificial, policy-induced financial precariousness has been used routinely as a pretext to justify onerous regulations – which, it’s easy to notice, have never quite adequately curbed all the excessive risk-taking and hence periodic banking crises. Bank executives often oppose the onerous regulations, but not the government subsidies which invite them. ...

'What about the Fed? It’s now got the biggest balance sheet of all the major banks in the U.S. – $3.1 trillion in total assets (versus $2.2 trillion at Bank of America, the largest private-sector bank in the U.S.) – and yet the Fed also has only $55.1 billion in capital (versus $160.3 billion at Bank of America). That means the Fed’s capital/assets ratio is a mere 1.8%, less than a quarter of the average capital ratio for the top eighteen banks subject to CCAR (8.0%) and of the three banks recently deemed inadequate (8.2%). The Fed’s capital ratio is only 15% of the ratio of BB&T (11.5%), the most-capitalized of the top private banks. Moreover, the Fed’s dividend payout ratio is hardly conservative or capital-preserving (like 10-33%); it is a 100% payout, since the Fed pays all its income (mainly from Treasury bonds, notes and bills), none of which is taxed, straight to the Treasury. Whereas the Fed is leveraged 56:1 (liabilities/capital), the top eighteen banks are leveraged by just 12:1 (average), while the three censured banks are leveraged by only 10:1 (average). ...

'This is the same Fed which, over the past century, has debased the dollar to such a degree that it’s now worth only 5% of its initial real purchasing power in 1913 (whereas the dollar in 1913 was approximately as valuable as it was in 1813, because it was anchored by the gold standard, not by a flimsy Fed standard). This is the same Fed that Alan Greenspan touted in a 1996 speech as “the ultimate guardian of the purchasing power of our money.” Is it truly a “guardian” – or instead an incompetent, or perhaps a thief – who presides over a loss of 95%? This is the same Fed which now censures private banks for having capital levels many times greater than the Fed’s own capital level. Isn’t it high time we ended the hypocrisy whereby the politically-financially reckless among us rule the day?'

The big banks' off-balance-sheet assets make their capital ratios much worse than stated above, but that just makes them more like the Fed in that respect. Salsman points out that before 1913 when we still had true, private banking, capital ratios averaged 20%+, whereas today 8% is about as good as it gets. 

The Nation: Bill Clinton Wrecked The Economy, Not David Stockman

So Robert Sheer, here:

It wasn’t Stockman who wrecked the economy. It was Bill Clinton who deregulated the too-big-to-fail banks, and it was George W. Bush and Barack Obama who bailed them out. But even Paul Krugman, who knows how bad things are and yet manages to be charitable in appraisals of his Princeton colleague Ben Bernanke, dismisses Stockman’s critique as “cranky old man stuff. ...” ...

Herein is a lesson that the bankers should have been taught back during the Clinton presidency when, as Stockman writes, the principle of a bailout for Wall Street’s hustlers “was reinforced by the Fed’s unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management.”

That fiasco’s enablers—Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers—and the more disastrous ones to follow were crowned “The Committee to Save the World” on Time magazine’s Feb. 15, 1999, cover and are still welcomed in those polite circles where truth-teller Stockman is being treated as a pariah.

Corporations Borrow Cheap, Drive Market Highs Since March 2009 With $1.2T In Buybacks

So reports CNBC.com here, stating individual investors by contrast have pulled out $250 billion:

Corporate stock purchases have been the principal driver of the market's surge off its March 2009 lows, as companies have helped levitate prices through nearly $1.2 trillion in buybacks since the beginning of the third quarter in 2009, according to Standard & Poor's data.

During that same time, individual investors have pulled a net of more than $250 billion out of mutual funds, according to records from the Investment Company Institute that indicate the retail crowd has mostly fled the stock market and put the bulk of its money in cash or bonds. Mutual funds are seen as a proxy for mom-and-pop investors who use funds and 401(k) plans to put money into the market.

Companies have been able to be so aggressive because the Federal Reserve has kept money cheap. The U.S. central bank has held its target funds rate near zero to maintain low borrowing costs, while it also has flooded financial markets with more than $3 trillion in liquidity through money creation.

American Women Abort 3,300/Day, But These Two Think White Men Are More Violent

The clueless Childresses, here:

"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed."

Total Credit Money Creation Has Stalled Since 2007

Total credit money creation, aka total credit market debt outstanding (TCMDO), has stalled since 2007.

Doubling time for TCMDO has averaged 8.25 years between 1949 and 2007. The longest doubling times were 11.5 years from 1949 to 1961 and 10 years from 1989 to 1999. The shortest two episodes were each six years long: from 1977 to 1983, and from 1983 to 1989.

Real GDP over the longest periods increased 56% and 36% respectively. Over the shortest periods it increased 14% and 28% respectively.

Since 2007 TCMDO is expanding at a crawl, comparatively speaking, up at just 12% for the five years ended in July 2012. Real GDP for the period is a pathetic 3%.

At the current snail's pace, $1165 billion per year for the last five years, it will take until the year 2050 for TCMDO to double again.

Current quantitative easing programs continued indefinitely at the current rate of $1020 billion per year are as unlikely as previous iterations to lead to the expansion of TCMDO. The transfer mechanism is broken because the credit money creators, the banks, now prefer the option of investing elsewhere, which they did not have before 1999. The only way to fix that is to overturn Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and to reform mortgage lending. 

Credit money, the lifeblood of the nation, is not even reaching the veins, let alone flowing through them at a rate sufficient to generate any GDP heat.

Ben Bernanke Is Trying But Failing Miserably At Money Printing

And it's not exactly his fault.

Historically in the postwar period, the increase in Total Credit Market Debt Outstanding (TCMDO) has closely shadowed the increase in Total Net Worth, seemingly helping to finance it, until the late great recession when for the first time, and very briefly, net worth flagged below the level of the debt owed. (Ignoramuses in the Doomosphere everywhere cried "Insolvency" at the time, not understanding the meaning of the term "net"). Ex post facto, net worth has made a dramatic upswing while the debt owed has increased at a much reduced rate by historical standards. To quote a famous president, "That doesn't make any sense."

Despite all the debt naysayers out there, total credit market debt is not increasing at anything like it should be, and appears to be disconnected to a significant degree from the recent increase in total net worth, which is up 29% since its nadir at the beginning of 2009, or $14.7 trillion. For the whole five year period from July 2007 (the last time TCMDO doubled, going back to 1999) to July 2012, TCMDO increased at a rate of just 12% and real GDP increased just 2.9%, whereas TCMDO increased at a rate of 100% between 1949 and 2007 on average every 8.25 years. The shortest doubling times have included two periods of 6 years each, one of 6.75 years, one of 8 years, one of 9.5 years, one of 10 years, and one of 11.5 years. The very worst real GDP performance of all of those was for a 6 year doubling period when we got 14% real GDP, nearly 5 times better than we're getting now. All the rest posted real GDP of between 23% and 56%.

It is evident that Ben Bernanke's quantitative easing program (right scale) anticipated the leveling off of TCMDO (left scale). Clearly he expected the troubled banks to need a push to keep the credit money creation process going, but didn't understand how fruitless it would be. One notes that he has added about $2 trillion to the monetary base from the middle of the late great recession. By contrast, TCMDO is up (only!) $9 trillion from the beginning of 2007. By historical standards TCMDO should be up $25 trillion by now if TCMDO is to double again in ten years from 2007. And it should be up a lot more than even $25 trillion by now if it's to double sooner than ten years. At the average doubling time of 8.25 years, the $49.8 trillion of TCMDO in July 2007 should hit $99.684 trillion by October of 2015 if the postwar pattern is to continue. Instead, at the current rate of growth in TCMDO, it's going to take an unprecedented 27 years to double it, unless of course there are limits to borrowing to fuel growth, as many are beginning to tell us. In either event one can only assume there will be only pathetic real GDP growth going forward, if there is any at all.

Clearly something is horribly amiss in the transmission process of credit money creation for the first time in the postwar. Seemingly gargantuan quantities of money from the Fed through the process of quantitative easing should be seeding the banks who in turn should be creating massive amounts of credit way beyond the $9 trillion so far created. Instead, the banks are doing something else with it, by-passing the normal distribution channel. Some of the seed money is being held back to comply with increased capital requirements, to be sure, but more appears to be going directly into household net worth creation through investment gains from the stock market, enriching a very few bondholders, shareholders and banking industry players through the private trading desks of the banks, a unique development by historical standards made possible only since 1999 with the abolition of Glass-Steagall through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As an act of Congress, Ben Bernanke can't do much about that even if he is the most powerful man in the country.

In the absence of a creative policy change from the Fed whereby Congressional intent would be thwarted and money would actually reach the marketplace through a different avenue than the uncooperative banks, one must conclude that the Fed thinks it necessary to continue the various easing schemes because it judges the banks to be still too fragile to risk stopping them. That would be putting the best construction on the matter, to borrow a phrase from Luther's catechism. Either that, or the Fed itself has been completely captured by the bankers.

Cyprus: "Punishing A Whole Country Just To Hit Russians"

'Particularly successful at luring Russians, Cyprus has built up a large infrastructure of lawyers, accountants and other professionals schooled in the arts of tax avoidance. Its corporate registry now has 320,000 registered companies, a staggering number for a country with only 860,000 people. Most are hollow shells set up for foreign companies and wealthy individuals seeking to avoid taxes.

'"We have been thrown to the wolves, and now the wolves have responded," said Nicholas Papadopoulos, who heads the financial and budgetary affairs committee in the House of Representatives.

'Bitterly critical of last week's bailout deal — which is forcing Cyprus to shrink its banking and financial services industry drastically and stick the largest bank depositors with much of the bill — Mr. Papadopoulos said the European Union was "punishing a whole country just to hit Russians."'

More here.

Developing Countries Bail Out Of The Euro Big Time Since 2009

"The choice of where to hold reserves sends a clear signal of which currencies developing countries regard as the most stable, safe and liquid. Euros now make up only 24 percent of their reserves, the lowest since 2002, and down from a peak of 31 percent as recently as 2009. The dollar has held steady at about 60 percent."

Read the rest, here.

David Stockman Hates Everything About America, Except Cash

Just like, you guessed it, The New York Times!

He hates:

Crony capitalism, Keynesianism, imperialism, stimulus, social insurance, incumbency, the constitution, free elections, lobbying, deficit spending, the Fed's discount window, the FDIC, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, quantitative easing, interest rate repression, and currencies in a race to the bottom.

But honestly, all he really hates are the new stock market highs.

"When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse. If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is."

Wah. Wah. Wah.

Read it all here.

The US Dollar Has A Long Way To Go, But The Trend Has Been Up

The US dollar is up for a number of reasons: 

permanency in the tax code effective January 1, 2013;

elevated spending by the federal government arrested, due to PARTISAN gridlock (hurrah!);

and increased US DOMESTIC oil production from technology advances, despite the most anti-oil president ever to sit in the Oval.

Just think where we would be if we actually had a pro-US president.

Well, for one thing, we'd be WORKING, most likely.

Charlie Maxwell Believes Increased US Oil Production Strengthens The Dollar

Summary transcript of his comments from March 24th, here:

Next was a discussion of how the production from the Baaken formation in North Dakota affected supply and demand in the U.S. It has had a favorable affect in that we now import about 8 million barrels per day and 4-5 years ago we imported about 11 million barrels. We are headed for 5-6 million barrels per day (of imports) within the next 10 years. Two favorable outcomes will be a stronger dollar and a delay of the time when we run short of oil, worldwide.

Why Deposit Confiscation On Cyprus Was Wrong

Liam Halligan, for the UK Telegraph, here:

"Across Cyprus this Easter, hundreds of family-owned businesses are trying to come to terms with what they see as the theft of their working capital. Numerous charities, universities and other educational endowments have also been whacked. As I said, depositors are not investors. There is an absolutely crucial distinction between them, or, at least, in a modern society, there should be. Moving on any depositors, large or small, seriously undermines the financial and legal fabric of capitalism itself."

Libertarian John Fund Bails Out Of The Tax Code's Marriage Bonus

Libertarians do not see the value to the country of providing tax incentives to couples who marry and make sacrifices to raise the next generation, usually in the form of one parent staying home and keeping deeply involved in the lives of their children while the other works for a paycheck. Libertarians have become used to the idea that America is OK with an increasingly maladjusted and malcontented population of fruits, nuts and flakes, perhaps because that's who they are.

Only Phyllis Schlafly, it seems, is old enough and conservative enough to remind people today how hard it was and how long it took to achieve "married filing jointly" in 1948, but when she is gone none will be left to carry the torch. Instead we will be left with the fiddlers like Gov. Rick Perry and the kooks like John Fund who will preside over the crack-up of America.

Here is John Fund, for National Review, just another reason I stopped subscribing long ago:

"The cherished principle of separating church and state should be extended as much as possible into separating marriage and state. ... But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval, government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal rights."

You see, it doesn't just stop with the one thing. Everything conservative must go: America's Protestant inheritance, the primacy of the nuclear family and national identity rooted in law and order. Libertarians, like other ideologues, aren't called the terrible simplifiers for nothing.

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.

Uninsured US Deposits May Rise In 2013 Due To Expiry Of Crisis Backstop

So reported The New York Times, here, on December 30, 2012.

The uninsured sums are mostly in the large operating non-interest-paying accounts of businesses, municipal governments and non-profits which now enjoy only $250,000 of FDIC coverage like the rest of us.

The article indicates about $1.5 trillion is involved, supposedly 20% of US deposits, providing new protections for which is now the lucrative business of cash management firms which carve up the sum into chunks at various institutions for a fee to take advantage of the FDIC rules. Private wealthy depositors understand this business by analogy with CDARS, the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service, where up to $50 million can be safely deposited with full FDIC coverage among fewer than 250 banks and all on one statement.

At the end of 2012, the FDIC reported that just 64.27% of $9.447 trillion in deposits in domestic offices was insured, which must mean that of total US deposits of $10.8 trillion at the time, $4.7 trillion were not insured. Presumably that figure will rise during the year.

The Millions Who Lost Their Jobs, 2006-2012

What follows are first time claims for unemployment compensation, not-seasonally-adjusted, by year from 2006 through 2012, using Department of Labor figures, here, rounded to the nearest thousand weekly and totaled:

2006 16.2 million

2007 16.7 million

2008 21.6 million

2009 29.5 million

2010 23.7 million

2011 21.7 million

2012 19.4 million.

ObamaCare Abortion Judas, Bart Stupak, Is Actually Thinking Of Running For Gov.

The Democrats in Michigan must really be desperate if they think this guy is a viable candidate. Do Democrats really want their candidate for governor of Michigan to be Bart Stupak, who sold out pro-lifers everywhere to get ObamaCare passed, when the ObamaCare storm hits next year? Or maybe they're just taking drugs again.

"Bart Stupak Democrat Candidate for Governor" would probably be the only thing on God's green earth that would actually get me to contribute some money to the re-election of Gov. Snyder.

Sounds like a Republican plot.

Story here.

Big Whoop: Final Report Of Q4 2012 GDP Comes In At +0.4%

(click the images, as always, to enlarge)

The report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis is here:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

The pathetic performance is being hailed as good news. It is, like when the guy with the drill stops boring holes in your head, but only good relative to the first awful estimate.

This final revision is a huge revision up from the first estimate of -0.1% and the second of +0.1%. Suddenly growth in the 4th quarter is 4 times better than it was just a month ago. Yet even at that these are remarkable depths for US GDP to be in when the recession is supposed to be long over since 2009.

Speaking of which, it was said by Ben Bernanke back then, here in July 2009, that growth of 2.5% was necessary to keep the unemployment rate constant. So why is unemployment coming down? Even after today we still have growth roundable to zero in Q4, but the unemployment numbers magically came down anyway, from 8.1% last August to 7.7% in February 2013. If weak GDP is having a long term affect on unemployment, I don't see it. Even today's annual averages in the 1.8% and 2.2% range in the report for the last two years do not support Bernanke's assertion in 2009. Unemployment has come down despite such anemic growth rates. And if anything, we should have seen a gradual uptick in unemployment over the last two years because GDP has been insufficient to keep it constant. I don't think Bernanke really knows what he's talking about, and just makes this stuff up to mollify people at the time as he pursues his only real goal: keeping the banks afloat. Everything else is just for public consumption.

And you can put that in your Easter basket, and crack it. 

After 16 Years Minnesota High School Econ Teacher Still Can't Spell

Writing for Forbes, here.

I "disdain" having to point these things out, but someone has to do it.

And, sorry to say, the error is the most illuminating thing about the op/ed.

US Banks Stay In Business Because Of The Fed's Discount Window

So says Jeff Bailey, here:

Bankers will talk about being entrepreneurial and needing the freedom to compete. This is B.S. The only reason they're able to stay in business is FDIC deposit insurance and access to the Fed's discount window for emergency borrowing. They exist by virtue of extraordinary government assistance, and while their shareholders get to [the] upside of this deal, taxpayers are hugely exposed to the downside.

Very few people seem to understand this, or even care anymore. And it's the not-caring that really amazes. The lid was blown off this story by Bloomberg here on Sunday night, November 27, 2011, the end of the Thanksgiving weekend when absolutely nobody was paying attention in the public:

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

The story became the rage for a time among bloggers who blogged about it at length and news organizations who dutifully reported the astounding figures, but the nation shrugged. Tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, 5 million residences were forfeit by their owners, and the federal government basically did nothing about it, even protested there was not much it could do, but it made damn sure the bankers and corporations were made good at great expense and risk to the public. Meanwhile the big banks have grown bigger and more dangerous than ever, re-inflating asset prices in the process as they try to repair their off-balance-sheet balance sheets, along with their public ones, and rank and file Americans are basically set back decades because of their losses.

The poor you have always with you, the man from Galilee once told us. Customers of the banks, no doubt, every last mother's son of them.

Wiped-Out Rich Russians In Cyprus' Banks Should Get Remaining Assets In Return

So Steve Forbes, rightly, here:

The deal in Cyprus spares insured deposits, those of less than 100,000 euros. But deposits above that threshold at the two largest and most troubled banks stand to lose money.

Capitalism might suggest that these uninsured deposits would be lost when the bank fails.

. . . [Steve] Forbes makes the case that the government has “mucked things up” since the beginning.

He argues the senior depositors who stand to be wiped out should be first in line to get what’s left of the “good assets” at the “bad banks,” as the FDIC does in the U.S.

Uninsured Deposits: Cyprus, Maybe 17 Billion Euros, America, $4.75 Trillion

All you high rollers had better hope the big banks don't go bust, but that's what the last five years have been all about now, haven't they?

Government of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks. Big banks. Big mutha banks.

"Married", As In "A Man Provided With A Young Woman" (not with a young man)

Latin maritus, noun -- "married man", "husband", ultimately from Proto-Indo-European "provided with a mari" (a young wife, or young woman). Cf. Sanskrit marya -- "young man", "suitor".

A "bad" person, by contrast, is "inferior in quality" from 1200 C.E., from Old English baeddel or baedling, an "effeminate man", a "hermaphrodite", a "pederast", from baedan, "to defile". 

Robert Shiller Says The Problem Is Insufficient Demand. It's Not.

The estimable Robert Shiller wants the problem to be insufficient demand, when the real problem is everyone in government is doing everything they possibly can to prevent what insufficient demand causes: a lowering of the general price level. In a free market we permit, yeah laud, failure. In ours we loathe it. 

Picked up by Slate, here:

"The fundamental economic problem that currently troubles much of the world is insufficient demand. Businesses are not investing enough in new plants and equipment, or adding jobs, largely because people are not spending enough—or are not expected to spend enough in the future—to keep the economy going at full tilt."

Shiller wants to create demand by raising taxes, whereas free-marketeers want demand to develop the natural way, by letting prices fall. Prices falling means some go bankrupt, except for savers who have wisely prepared for such an eventuality by having NOT spent too much in the past. They survive and are rewarded with cheaper goods and services. If they have saved enough they acquire directly the businesses which produce them. Or if not enough, indirectly through purchase of stocks at lower prices.

Preventing such failure, which is really preventing opportunity, is job one in a credit-driven economy, which is why unleashing capital stored in housing was critical in the 1990s, and why the Fed is doing what it is doing now to keep things "at full tilt" in the hollowed out economy. If it didn't, it would expose all the spendthrifts for what they are, and the entire thing would fail.

One can always hope.

Rush Limbaugh's Junk Math Unnecessarily Discourages Republicans

Rush Limbaugh keeps repeating that 4 million Republicans stayed home and didn't vote for Romney, for example, here, on March 12:

"[H]ad four million Republicans shown up to vote, who did vote in '08 but didn't vote in 2012, we wouldn't be talking about an Obama victory."

This just isn't so. I understand Rush wants to blame the base and not the candidate, but this '4 million' assertion simply has no basis in fact.

McCain received 59.95 million votes in 2008, of 131.5 million cast: 45.6%.

Romney received 60.93 million votes in 2012, of 129.2 million cast: 47.2%.

That's almost a million more votes for Romney than for McCain, and as I've said before, in the swing states Romney lost the entire election by just 770,000 votes. McCain lost to Obama in roughly those same states by 1.4 million votes.

You can argue that lower turnout overall by 2.3 million was all Republican lower turnout, but I don't know how you'd know that. Besides, it's a fact Obama received 3.59 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. A good share of them must be represented in that 2.3 million total. Splitting the difference, which is probably more unfair to Romney than to Obama, you are left with 1.15 million Republicans staying home minus the 980,000 by which Romney bested McCain.

The bottom line is you're left with 170,000 Republicans who may have stayed home. Peanuts compared to what was needed to prevail in the swing states.

If Rush wants to argue those 4 million he thinks stayed home were somehow replaced by some new Republican voters no one's ever heard of, he's welcome to do so, but as far as I can make out Republican registrations have remained constant longer than just the last two cycles, while Democrat registrations have declined as a percentage of the eligible voter base as more and more people, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPPC), here, bail out of partisan affiliation altogether:

These revised figures further support the trend in the states which have partisan registration toward increased registration for neither party, rising for the 13th consecutive presidential election year. Based on raw and unadjusted registration figures, Democratic registration is 36 percent of eligible voters, down by 2.2 percentage points from 2008; Republican registration is 27.2, unchanged from 2008 and on the same level as it has been for several election cycles. Republican registration has remained steady due to an increase in Southern and Mountain states registration that have compensated for losses in the West and New England. Registration for neither major party is at 23.8 percent of eligible voters, up from 22.0 in 2008 and now nipping at the heels of the two major parties.

In 2012 BPPC estimated eligible voters at roughly 219 million, meaning Republican registrations were nearly 60 million, Democrat nearly 79 million. But as a share of the eligible voters, Democrats continue to lose affiliation while Republicans tread water, which is why Democrats have to work like dogs, lie, slander and spend gobs of cash to win in still pretty conservative places like Ohio, where the margin was 167,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast.

Rush Limbaugh should stop dumping on his peeps. They haven't let anybody down, but their leaders sure have.

Uninsured Deposits Make America A Much Bigger Casino Than Cyprus

According to the FDIC, here, at the end of 2012 there were $7.406 trillion in insured deposits, but that report covers commercial banks only.

According to the FDIC, here, at the end of 2012 there were $9.447 trillion in domestic deposits in the entire system of 7,083 institutions.

Does that mean there are $2.041 trillion in uninsured deposits? It's not that simple, and the number is actually much bigger than that.

Separately in its statistics on depository institutions the FDIC states that at the end of 2012 there were $8.6 trillion held in "domestic offices" of 6,096 commercial banks, of which 62.6% were insured, and $.8 trillion held in "domestic offices" of 987 savings institutions, of which 86.3% were insured. That's a total of 7,083 institutions with $6.1 trillion insured, and $3.3 trillion uninsured. Just over a year ago Felix Salmon put the figure then at about $3.1 trillion, properly not counting those deposits held outside of domestic offices in running the numbers, so the current $3.3 trillion today looks about right for one year later.

With $10.8 trillion in total deposits, however, both inside and outside of "domestic offices", does it not shock you that just $6.1 trillion is insured? That's insurance for just 56% of total deposits, and no insurance for 44%. It's a little misleading of the FDIC to say 64.27 is the percentage insured. Yeah, the percentage of "deposits held in domestic offices", not the percentage of "total deposits". The relevant line is indented in the illustration attached for a reason. It's a subset of what immediately comes before, not of "total deposits".

(Incidentally, at the end of 2003 there were 9,181 total institutions in the FDIC system. Today there are just 7,083, a decline of 23% in almost 10 years, most of it due to consolidation and just 22% due to bank failures since 2003.)

We're told that in the EMU bank heist in Cyprus, 38 billion euros of 68 billion euros in total deposits is held in accounts over 100,000 euros. But that's not saying 38 billion euros is uninsured. Anything over 100,000 euros is not insured, and that's what's getting plundered. But how much is that?

We're told the idea is to raise about 5 billion euros by expropriating depositors' funds, and that now all of it is going to come from the big depositors, not from the people with up to 100,000 euros. Reports say that the hit to these high rollers is going to be in the neighborhood of 30%. Simple math tells you therefore that 5 billion euros raised at a 30% rate must mean uninsured deposits in Cyprus run in the neighborhood of 17 billion euros, or just 25% of total deposits.

In the US it's 44% of total deposits, so whose banking system is the bigger casino, huh Mr. Moscovici?

With banks closed for the last week, the Central Bank of Cyprus imposed a 100-euro daily limit on withdrawals from cash machines at the two biggest banks to avert a run.

French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici rejected charges that the EU had brought Cypriots to their knees, saying it was the island's offshore business model that had failed.

"To all those who say that we are strangling an entire people ... Cyprus is a casino economy that was on the brink of bankruptcy," he said.

EMU Sees Something Big On Cyprus And Decides To Tax It

Reuters, here:

Cyprus clinched a last-ditch deal with international lenders to shut down its second-largest bank and inflict heavy losses on uninsured depositors, including wealthy Russians, in return for a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout. ...

Deposits above 100,000 euros in both banks, which are not guaranteed under EU law, will be frozen and used to resolve Laiki's debts and recapitalize Bank of Cyprus through a deposit/equity conversion. ...

The tottering banks held 68 billion euros in deposits, including 38 billion in accounts of more than 100,000 euros - enormous sums for an island of 1.1 million people that could never sustain such a big financial system on its own.

Velocity of Money Soared Over 35% During the Housing Bubble

Velocity of M1 money soared to unprecedented heights during the housing bubble, dating from the housing provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Money changed hands at a rate over 35% faster at the peak reached in October 2007 at 10.367 than at the previous high levels around 7.4.

The burst bubble has seen velocity of M1 plunge to 6.5 today after all those years of new highs from 7.5. Velocity in the 6s was common for twenty years between the 1970s and 1990s, and looks to be again.

This is what happens when you convince Americans to unleash all the stored up capital in their homes, and squander it. Thanks Bill Clinton. Thanks Newt Gingrich.

Your Real 5-yr. Rate Of Return In Stocks Has Been Poor, Actually

The real rate of return in the S&P500 for the five years from February 2008 to February 2013 hasn't been all that good, actually. Just 2.61% per year. And long term investors have had to stomach all the volatility just to get that measly return. Meanwhile investors in the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund have received returns in excess of 5%, while being able to sleep at night.

Has it all been worth it, Ben?

Calculator available here.

Case Shiller Home Price Index In February 2013 Dollars Flirts With Historic Highs

The Case Shiller Home Price Index re-calculated for inflation in February 2013 dollars at 136.11 is today 11.6% elevated from the historic mean of 121.96 going back to . . . the 19th Century.

The 122 level on the index is a veritable polestar of housing prices for forty years from the 1950s until the recent housing bubble, with 140 representing the rare high water mark of prices in the 1980s . . . and the 1890s.

From a long term perspective prices today are elevated and represent a good time to sell. Prices are only low if you think the housing bubble is repeatable.

And it must not be forgotten that the data from the housing bubble itself contributes to elevated mean and median prices on the index, biasing them upward.

First Time Claims For Unemployment NSA Below 300K For Only 2nd Time For Obama

The report is here. The report is good news.

Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul Embraces Form Of Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

Hardly anything good ever comes from libertarianism, including this "not-amnesty-amnesty" from so-called conservative Republican Sen. Rand Paul:

In year two of [Sen. Paul's] plan, illegal immigrants would begin to be issued temporary work visas, and would have to wait in line behind those already in the system before moving forward toward citizenship. A bipartisan panel would determine the number of visas per year. High-tech visas would be expanded and a special visa for entrepreneurs would be issued.

Different from other approaches, Paul would not attempt to crack down on employers by expanding working verification systems, something he says is tantamount to "forcing businesses to become policemen."

"My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line," Paul says. "But what we have now is de facto amnesty."

All this will do is encourage a flood of more illegals looking for temporary work visas. And if it were really true that we have de facto amnesty now, one wonders then what is the urgency of the issue. Issuing a temporary work permit is the real de facto amnesty.

Sen. Paul must think that telling bald-faced lies works for Obama, so he might as well try it.

Chinese Abortion Ratio To US Perfectly Mirrors Exchange Rate

336 million dead from abortion in China v. 55 million in US over 40 years. That's a ratio of 6.11:1.

The yuan currently trades at 6.22:$1.