The Five Stages Of Central Bankers' Failure

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/31/2016 12:47 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-31/five-stages-central-bankers-failure
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
Central bankers must accept the complete and utter failure of their policies if we are to move forward.
Central bankers are now in the denial and anger stages of Kubler-Ross's famed stages of loss: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Central bankers are in denial that all their trillions of dollars, euros, yen and yuan have completely and utterly failed to achieve the desired result: "organic" (i.e. unmanipulated by central states/banks) expansion of productivity, investment and household earnings.
Central bankers not only continue to insist their free money for financiers will eventually "trickle down" to the masses--they're angry that the masses aren't buying it. Central bankers are now blaming the masses for maintaining a perverse psychological state of disbelief in the omnipotence of central banks and their policies.
Central bankers are raging at the psychology of hesitant households, which they finger as the cause of global weakness: if only people believed everything was great, they'd borrow and blow tons of money, and the ship would leave port with a full head of steam.
The central bankers have spent seven years constructing "signals" that are supposed to create a psychological state of euphoria that leads to more borrowing and spending. The stock market is at all-time highs--don't those stupid masses get it? That's the "signal" that all's well and they should get out there and borrow more money to enrich the banks!
Central bankers' anger is not directed at the source of the policy failures--themselves--but at the masses, whose BS detectors suggest all the signals are manipulated and therefore worthless. The skeptical psychology of the masses is akin to the mark at the 3-card monte table: the crooked dealer (in this case, the central banks) has let the mark win a few rounds to "prove" the game is honest, but the mark remains skeptical.
This is infuriating central bankers, who counted on the marks falling for the rigged game. This wasn't supposed to happen, they rage; the Keynesian bag of tricks was supposed to work. Stage-managed perception (i.e. rising markets mean the economy is healthy and vibrant) was supposed to trump reality (i.e. the economy is sick, dependent on the dangerous drugs of debt and speculation).
Next up: bargaining. Central bankers are kneeling at the false gods of the Keynesian Cargo Cult and saying that they'll offer "helicopter money" (more fiscal stimulus) if only the financial gods restore "growth."
They hope that by being "good central bankers" the gods will delay the inevitable destruction of their empires of debt.
There are now signs of debilitating depression in central bankers. The failure of their policies is finally sinking in, and central bankers are sagging under the depressing reality. They look somber, freeze up at the microphone, and have withdrawn from "whatever it takes" euphoria as they realize that another round of free money for financiers and manipulated markets will only make the problems worse and erode what's left of their crumbling credibility.
Only when central bankers accept the complete and utter failure of their policies and accept the reality that their policies have increased wealth inequality and crippled the global economy with debt, speculation and manipulation, can we finally move forward.
Until then, we're stuck with the world central bankers have created: a world of rising wealth and income inequality, of permanent manipulation of markets as a means of managing perceptions and of speculative debt/leverage bubbles that will burst with a ferocity few expect or understand.

Trump On Debt Renegotiation: "You Never Have To Default Because You Print The Money"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/09/2016 08:56 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/trump-debt-renegotiation-you-never-have-default-because-you-print-money

Following Donald Trump's Thursday comments that rising interest rates would be disastrous for the economy, saying that "we're paying a very low interest rate. What happens if that interest rate goes up 2, 3, 4 points?" hinting that the U.S. should "renegotiate longer-term debt" with creditors and that if the economy crashes he "can make a deal", various media outlets went to town on Trump, most notably the NYT, which took Trump to task:

Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Experts also described Mr. Trump’s proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess.

“No one on the other side would pick up the phone if the secretary of the U.S. Treasury tried to make that call,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. “Why should they? They have a contract” requiring payment in full.

As the NYT admits, when "pressed to elaborate on his remarks, Mr. Trump did appear to step back. He said that he was not suggesting a default, but instead that the government could seek to repurchase debt for less than the face value of the securities. The government, in other words, would seek to repay less money than it borrowed."
In any case, the confusion about Trump's intentions continued and ultimately led to his latest CNN appearance in which he explained what he meant earlier this morning.

"If interest rates go up, we can buyback debt at a discount if we are liquid enough as a country. People say I want to default on debt - these people are crazy. First of all you never have to default because you print the money I hate to tell you, so there is never a default. It was reported in the NYT that I want to default on debt - you know I am the king of debt, I love debt, but debt is tricky and its dangerous. But let me just tell you: if interest rates go up and bonds go down, you can buy debt - that's what I'm talking about. So here is the story, if we have an opportunity where interest rates go up and you can buy back debt at a discount. I always like to be able to do that if you can do that. That's all I was talking about, they have it like I'm going to go back to creditors and I am going to renegotiate or restructure debt. It's ridiculous."

Here is the clip:
http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#
Aside from the comment that "one never has to default if one is printing the money", which has not exactly led to favorable outcomes for countries which have done just that and the only difference in the case of the US is possession of the reserve currency for now, what Trump is really talking about is inflating away the debt, something the Fed and all other central banks have been desperately trying to do for the past 7 years, so far without much success. 
In effect, Trump's point is really just a continuation of Fed policies: boosting inflation, and leading to a spike in long end yields; all Trump does is explain mechanistically how the US can take advantage of this "debt inflation", which as he correctly points out, can simply be repurchased at a price well below par if rates are surging in effect reducing the nominal debt burden.
Which incidentally brings us back to Trump's point about wanting lower interest rates: if the "king of debt" is so eager to buyback debt at a discount, what he should be urging is not lower but far higher interest rates. Now that is a proposal the Fed, Goldman and all global banks would love to get behind, even if it means leaving the economy in a state of even bigger collapse...

"A Total Game Changer" - From Over-Population To De-Population

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/25/2016 23:55 -0400

Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Hambone's Stuff blog,
Strangely, the world is suffering from two seemingly opposite trends...overpopulation and depopulation in concert.  The overpopulation is due to the increased longevity of elderly lifespans vs. depopulation of young populations due to collapsing birthrates.  The depopulation is among most under 25yr old populations (except Africa) and among many under 45yr old populations.
So, the old are living decades longer than a generation ago but their adult children are having far fewer children.  The economics of this is a complete game changer and is unlike any time previously in the history of mankind.  None of the models ever accounted for a shrinking young population absent income, savings, or job opportunity vs. massive growth in the old with a vast majority reliant on government programs in their generally underfunded retirements (apart from a minority of retirees who are wildly "overfunded").  There are literally hundreds of reasons for the longer lifespans and lower birthrates...but that's for another day.  This is simply a look at what is and what is likely to be absent a goal-seeked happy ending.
In a short yet economically valid manner, every person is a unit of consumption.  The greater the number of people and the greater the purchasing power, the greater the growth in consumption.  So, if one wanted to gauge economic growth, (growth in consumption driving economic growth), multiply the annual change in population by purchasing power (wages, savings) per capita.  Regarding wage growth, I hold wages flat as from a consumption standpoint, wage growth is basically offset by inflation.  Of course, there is another lever beyond this which central banks are feverishly torqueing; substituting the lower interest rates of ZIRP and NIRP to boost consumption from a flagging base of population growth.  (There is one more boost to consumption, huge increases in social transfer payments primarily among the advanced economies...but while noted, these are a story for another day.)

THE DETAILS

The chart below is total annual population growth broken down by OECD nations (33 wealthiest nations...representing 1.3 billion people, OECD members), BRIICS (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, S. Africa...representing 3.4 billion people), and the RoW (Rest of the World...representing about 3 billion people).  Takeaways - 1) total annual population growth peaked in 1988 and has been decelerating since falling 13% & now down 12m/yr from peak.  2) Growth has been shifting away from the BRIICS to the RoW.

 

Below, global annual total population change vs. under 45 annual population change broken down by OECD, BRIICS, and the Rest of World.  What should be clear...1) under 45 population growth has fallen by nearly 60% & is down 44m/yr from peak growth.  2) All under 45 population growth (net) is among the poorer nations of the Rest of the World.  Growth has shifted from rich to middle to poor nations and from young to old.  Those with little income, savings, and/or access to credit can't consume much.  Elderly on fixed incomes, declining vitality, and credit averse won't consume much.  Clearly, the impact of the slowing and shifting population growth on slowing growth of consumption should be easily understood.

 

Global annual population growth by GDP per capita.  OECD nations given an average of $40k per capita, BRIICS $15k per capita, and the RoW $8k per capita (below).  Annual growth in consumption peaked in 1989 and has been falling since...of course this is unadjusted for the big impact that credit has to increase real consumption.

 

 

Global annual under 45 population growth by GDP per capita further broken down by growth among OECD, BRIICS, & RoW (below).  The deceleration of global GDP per capita is entirely among the under 45 OECD and BRIICS which have nearly entirely ceased.  The only under 45 growth in consumption is among the decelerating RoW.

 

Below, 0-64yr/old annual global population growth vs. 0-64yr/old population growth among combined OECD, China, Brazil, and Russia vs global debt growth.  The surge in debt since 1988 coinciding with the collapse of growth among the wealth OECD and aspiring BRIICS (growth has fallen from 30m/yr to 3m/yr (90% decline) and growth among the RoW has entirely stalled since '88 at +55m/yr.  The central bank response to take interest rates to ZIRP (and now NIRP) has been an attempt to maintain consumption growth against declining population growth.  Only central bankers know what they'll do as under 65yr/old populations begin outright shrinking nearly everywhere but Africa?!?

 

 

A look at annual global populations; young vs. old (below).  The 0-5yr/old population has stalled but nowhere near so for the 75+yr/old population.  In 1950 there were ten "babes" for every 75+yr/old...by 2050, the two groups are estimated to be 1:1 but this estimate is likely to be far too optimistic if economic conditions continue deteriorating.

US 20-59yr/old annual population growth vs. the Federal Reserves FFR (%) and US total debt (below).  Federal Reserve actions have been and remain a simple (ultimately unwinnable) fight vs. the decelerating growth among the core US population since the early 1980's.  The great recession of 2008-'09 shouldn't be a shocker given the sharp 20-59yr/old population growth deceleration culminating in '07.

 

Below, Japan's 20-59yr/old annual population growth vs. BOJ interest rate and Japanese federal debt.  Japan's annual core population turned negative in '00 and interest rates hit ZIRP and debt creation took off.  Japan's plan to monetize likely well in excess of 100% and maybe ultimately 1,000% or 10,000% of GDP is a curious solution which may lead to an eventual hiccup which leaves Japanese society in absolute chaos (2nd chart below).  But if it were only Japan that had this plan...but alas, it is the same for all major central banks presently or eventually facing depopulation.  (Debt in chart below is denominated in Yen, not dollars).

 

 

Below, Germany's 20-59yr/old annual population change vs. debt to GDP.  Germany's 20-59yr/old population turned negative in '94 but the implementation of the Euro and Euro wide market (with the Maastrich treaty in 1992 and implementation Euro area wide in 1999) quintupled Germany's available export base under a now common currency (2nd chart below).  The impact was a stay of execution for Germany but a grinding, terminal cancer for the remainder of the Euro area.

 

 

Below, China's annual 20-59yr/old population change, Bank of China interest rates, and China total debt growth.  Annual Chinese core population growth has collapsed since '08 by 90% and will turn negative in 2018 and remain increasingly negative for decades thereafter.  The insane Chinese debt ramp to offset the declining population growth has no possible means to resolve in any manner but catastrophe. 

 

***Noteworthy, despite China's recent elimination of it's "one child policy", it should be noted that China's birthrates are higher than Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and many EU nations...none of whom have any policies restricting births and most with policies to encourage higher fertility.  The elimination of the "one child" policy in China is unlikely to have significant impact...family finances and struggling economies are far more likely to determine family formation in China and world-over.***

CONCLUSION

An economic and financial system premised on perpetual growth was bound to run into trouble (what do you do when you have taken a wrong turn?...apparently just keep going!).  The inevitable deceleration of population growth was the trigger that turned central bankers into pushers offering ever cheaper credit.  The lower rates drove unsustainable rates of consumption absent even further rate cuts and likewise drove overcapacity which likewise needed even lower rates.  But negative rates of NIRP are simply no longer under the heading of capitalism (a market that doesn't value capital likely isn't capitalism?!?).  When we've clearly changed "ism's"...we've crossed the Rubicon.
What happens as population growth turns to population decline is honestly and literally a complete and total game changer.  A flat to declining number of buyers and consumers opposite ramping elderly sellers plus their unfunded liabilities is a problem with no happy resolutions.  Currencies (what will constitute "money"), "free-markets", and perhaps the basis of civilization hang in the balance of the transition from high population growth to potential outright depopulation.
I believe this is the correct lens through which to view and understand why growth is perpetually weakening, why commodity overcapacity and slowing demand will only accelerate, why the Treasury market continues to see "buying" despite the near total absence of buyers (Treasury Mystery), why equities are a "buy" (but for all the wrong reasons), and why precious metal valuations are so extremely suspect in the face of a monetary onslaught.