Rick Santelli: Rant of the Year
On CNBC
Labels: central bank, credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation, investing, video
Home Multimedia Books ArticlesNew! BlogNew!
Labels: central bank, credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation, investing, video
There needs to be a in-depth comparison between the market and policy response of the 1921 depression and the Great Depression and what it means for the current crisis. Here it is:
Someone should really point to the 1921 depression for President Obama to study rather than the Great Depression of 1929-1933.
According to J.R. Vernon in "The 1920-21 Deflation: The Role of Aggregate Supply," the one-year deflation of this time is the largest ever recorded: “This is true whether the Department of Commerce [ 1986 ] estimates or the recently provided Balke and Gordon [ 1989 ] or Romer [ 1989 ] estimates are used. These estimates produce one-year deflation figures of 18 percent, 13.0 percent, and 14.8 percent, respectively. The closest competitor is the 11.5 percent deflation recorded for 1931-32, the third year of the Great Depression.” Furthermore, the "ratio of the percentage decline in the GNP deflator for 1920-21 to the percentage decline in real GNP is 2.6 using the Department of Commerce figures, 3.7 using the Balke and Gordon data, and 6.3 using the Romer data." But "the ratios of the percentage decline in GNP prices to the percentage decline in real GNP for 1930-31, 1931-32, 1932-33, and 1937-38, the other Great Depression years in which real GNP declined, were 1.0, 0.9, 1.2, and 0.3, respectively, all well below the 1920-21 figures."
According to the monetarist story, the sharp deflation of the Great Depression is the dis-equilibrating factor which the Fed did not fix by counteracting with aggressive money supply inflation. The Austrians, however, saw the sharp deflation as the equilibrating factor to the great inflation of the 1920s.
Whatever the take on whether the deflation was "good" or "bad," both schools seemed to agree that what really mattered was how prices reacted to the change in the money supply. Monetarists (and Keynesians) seemed to believe that prices were "sticky" downward, especially wage rates. Therefore, in a sharp deflation, a monetarist wouldn't trust the market to adjust nominal wages down fast enough to keep up with the deflation, so the policy response should be to "reflate" the money supply back up to the pre-deflation levels to avoid massive unemployment.
For example, using the figures for the 1921 deflation, real wages would be in the range of being 15%-22% higher after one year if the nominal wage rates didn't decline at all. The sudden increase in the real wage would not be a product of higher productivity, so therefore would not be sustainable, and for such a large amount in a short period of time, firms would have to lay off workers quickly to remain profitable.
Austrians also recognize this fact about deflations and wage rates, but instead argue that wage rates will fall to reflect the fall in the money supply. There will be unemployment for a time because a worker's wage is not like the price of wheat, meaning there is some stickiness downward, but not enough to be economically destructive. Furthermore, since Austrians believe that the inflation is the dis-equilibrating factor, reflation will just sow the seeds for the next bust in the economy, so it is better to swallow the bitter pill of temporary unemployment and move forward on a sustainable path after that rather than endure chronic boom-bust cycles caused by the inflation-deflation-reflation-inflation-etc. cycle.
Now that the severity of the 1921 deflation has been shown to be greater than the Great Depression deflation and that a severe deflation forces markets and policymakers to adjust quickly to reassert a sustainable economic path, let’s compare how the market and the government reacted to the 1921 depression and to the Great Depression. In any account that I have seen of the 1921 depression, even though the deflation was the sharpest ever seen, wage rates fell to accomadate the deflation and the depression was over before the government could even do anything. In fact, it is noted that under the Harding administration, the response was to lower taxes and government expenditures and to not hector businesses into keeping wages high, against the “wisdom” of then-Commerce secretary Herbert Hoover. Hoover laid the groundwork for such meddling by having many conferences and committees study how to get out of the depression (the President's Conference on Unemployment being the lead conference). Unfortunately for Hoover (and fortunately for the economy), all his hard work was for naught because the economy had fixed itself too quickly.
But as President, Hoover would be able enact the policies for the Great Depression that he dreamt up for the 1921 depression. Chapters 7-12 of Murray Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression” detail his numerous interventions to keep nominal (and thus, real) wages high during a sharp deflation as well as prices in general for crops and other products. And the bite of government steadily increased during his term, as reflected on page 347 of the book:
1929 – 14.3% of gross private product, 15.7% of net private product
1930 – 16.4% of gross private product, 18.2% of net private product
1931 – 21.5% of gross private product, 24.3% of net private product
1932 – 24.8% of gross private product, 28.9% of net private product
Lots have said that the Hoover administration was a repudiation of the laissez-faire approach to dealing with an economic downturn, particularly one of the size of the Great Depression. By reading the chapters noted above and looking at the increasing burden of government during the Hoover administration, it is safe to say that laissez-faire wasn’t found wanting because it isn’t anywhere to be found at all. Hoover, “the Great Engineer,” had by his words in 1921 and his actions in his presidency was the antithesis of laissez-faire. In fact, Rexford Tugwell, leading advisor to Franklin Roosevelt, said "The ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover."
But, there are some who might look at the data and say that, yes, Hoover was a proto-New Dealer, but that he didn’t do enough. But by looking at the 1921 depression, we can see that the laissez-faire reaction did not lead to chronically high unemployment, unlike the Great Depression years of 1929-1940, when unemployment hit 24.9% in 1933 and the best unemployment numbers afterwards were at about 14% for 1937 and 1940. If “doing something” is better than “doing nothing,” then the “Hoover-didn’t-do-enough” crowd would have to explain why the “do-nothing” policy of Harding was a success (at least in the relative sense, but also in the absolute sense) and Hoover’s “did-something-but-not-enough” policy was a complete failure, rather than the reverse. I do not see how a completely unrestrained Keynesian prescription could have solved the 1921 depression in substantially less time than the laissez-faire policy.
If President Obama wishes to come out of this recession as quickly as the 1921 depression, he should adopt the policies of Harding and not those of Hoover-Roosevelt. But we know that he won’t because he, like 99.99% of Americans, has no knowledge of the 1921 depression, its wise remedy, and its good results. Unfortunately, he will choose the policies of persistent stagnation/depression that should have been discredited long ago by doing a simple comparison case study.
Labels: credit bubble, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation

1929-1932 chart is of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as it collapsed 90%. That level of crash, if it were to occur now, will bring the DJIA down to about 1400. In otherwords, another 80% down from today's levels. That is an implausible scenario, if not impossible.
Rest of the charts are that of S&P500, which goes back only till 1957. It is a much broader index, more representative of the entire market. DJIA contains only 30 of some of the largest companies in the U.S., where as S&P 500 contains 500 of some of the largest companies in the U.S.
The tech crash at the earlier part of this decade happened over a period of 2.5 years.
On a positive note:
1. Dollar index staged a spectacular rally.
2. Option ARMs reset will be moderated by the collapse in interest rates, at least for now.
Big Three Update:
Executives at the Big Three flew into Washington in their corporate jets, carrying a tin cup
All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.
Writes IOUSA team:
“We have to face reality,” admitted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Not the reality that an automaker bailout is a bad idea… but the reality that no one outside of Washington supports it.
Congress will recess until the week of Dec. 8, so members can go home, collect bribes, patronize their constituents, sleep with young aides and so on. When they return, the “Big Three” will present their case -- make one last stand -- and maybe, just maybe, this thing will be over.
Kashkari in the Hot Seat:
During last week's congressional testimony about the 700 billion TARP program, one of the congressmen asked Kashkari if he is a chump. With millions watching them on TeeVee, congressmen were just swinging for the bleachers. Despite what Kashkari wants you to believe, neither he nor Hank Paulson could care less about the home owners.
Status Quo Update:
President Elect Obama is likely to pick President of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, for the post of the Treasury Secretary. Boyish looking Timmy has been part and parcel of the NY banking establishment for the last 20 years, wheeling and deeling for the bankers, even as an epic credit bubble was ballooning in his backyard. If there is a shining beacon of unchange anywhere, Timmy is where you are likely to find it.
In another act of unchange, Democrats have decided to keep Neocon Joe Lieberman at helm of Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Labels: automobile, banking, central bank, dollar, economy, forex, investing, politics
The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to lower its target for the federal funds rate 50 basis points to 1 percent.
The pace of economic activity appears to have slowed markedly, owing importantly to a decline in consumer expenditures. Business equipment spending and industrial production have weakened in recent months, and slowing economic activity in many foreign economies is damping the prospects for U.S. exports. Moreover, the intensification of financial market turmoil is likely to exert additional restraint on spending, partly by further reducing the ability of households and businesses to obtain credit.
In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities and the weaker prospects for economic activity, the Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters to levels consistent with price stability.
Recent policy actions, including today’s rate reduction, coordinated interest rate cuts by central banks, extraordinary liquidity measures, and official steps to strengthen financial systems, should help over time to improve credit conditions and promote a return to moderate economic growth. Nevertheless, downside risks to growth remain. The Committee will monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh.
In a related action, the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 50-basis-point decrease in the discount rate to 1-1/4 percent. In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston, New York, Cleveland, and San Francisco.
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. . . . [That] will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people"However, using the above quote as evidence of laissez-faire is distortion of the truth. In fact, President Hoover was too much of an activist to sit on his hands and let the markets work. Until the crash of 1929, the general policy of the federal government to an economic crisis was a relatively hands-off approach. However, Hoover wanted to bail out the failing enterprises. Here is what he said during one of his campaign speeches in 1932 on this matter.
"we might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. . . . No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. . . . For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered. . . . They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world. Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for . . . “the common run of men and women.” Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom. . . . We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction."Again from Hoover's memoirs...
"We developed cooperation between the federal, state, and municipal governments to increase public works. We persuaded employers to “divide” time among their employees so that as many as possible would have some incomes. We organized the industries to undertake renovation, repair, and, where possible, expand construction."Rhetoric is one thing and reality is another. Reality was a Keynesian's delight. Huge deficit spending by the Hoover administration. The following is from America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard(PDF format).
"I determined that it was my duty, even without precedent, to call upon the business of the country for coordinated and constructive action to resist the forces of disintegration. The business community, the bankers, labor, and the government have cooperated in wider spread measures of mitigation than have ever been attempted before. Our bankers and the reserve system have carried the country through the credit . . . storm without impairment. Our leading business concerns have sustained wages, have distributed employment, have expedited heavy construction. The Government has expanded public works, assisted in credit to agriculture, and has restricted immigration. These measures have maintained a higher degree of consumption than would otherwise have been the case. They have thus prevented a large measure of unemployment. . . . Our present experience in relief should form the basis of even more amplified plans in the future."
Federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion in 1930 to $5.5 billion in 1931—excluding government enterprises, it rose from $3.1 billion to $4.4 billion, an enormous 42 percent increase. In short, in the midst of a great depression when people needed desperately to be relieved of governmental burdens, the dead weight of government rose from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent of the gross private product (from 18.2 percent to 24.3 percent of the net private product). From a modest surplus in 1930, the Federal government thus ran up a huge $2.2 billion deficit in 1931.And so President Hoover, often considered to be a staunch exponent of laissez-faire, had amassed by far the largest peacetime deficit yet known to American history. In one year, the fiscal burden of the Federal government had increased from 5.1 percent to 7.8 percent, or from 5.7 percent to 8.8 percent of the net private product.Hoover's (not FDR) Glass-Steagal
One thing Hoover was not reticent about: launching a huge inflationist program. First, the administration cleared the path for the program by passing the Glass–Steagall Act in February, which (a) greatly broadened the assets eligible for rediscounts with the Fed, and (b) permitted the Federal Reserve to use government bonds as collateral for its notes, in addition to commercial paper.Does the following sound familiar?
During 1932, President Hoover greatly stepped up his one man war on the stock market, particularly on shortsellers, whom he naïvely and absurdly persisted in blaming for the fall in stock prices. Hoover forgot that bulls and bears always exist, and that for every bear bet there must be an offsetting bull, and also forgot that speculation smooths fluctuations and facilitates movement toward equilibrium. On February 16, Hoover called in the leaders of the New York Stock Exchange and threatened governmental coercion unless it took firm action against the “bears,” the shortsellers. The Exchange tried to comply, but not aggressively enough for Hoover, who declared himself unsatisfied.Federal Home Loan Bank, a Hoover creation
Having warned the Exchange of a Congressional investigation, Hoover induced the Senate to investigate the Stock Exchange, even though he admitted that the Federal Government had no constitutional jurisdiction over a purely New York institution. The President used continual pressure to launch the investigation of what he termed “sinister” “systematic bear raids,” “vicious pools . . . pounding down” security prices, “deliberately making a profit from the losses of other people.” Beside such demagogic rhetoric, constitutional limitations seemed pale indeed. Secretary of Commerce Lamont protested against the investigation, as did many New York bankers, but Hoover was not to be dissuaded. In answering the New York bankers, Hoover used some unknown crystal ball to assert that present prices of securities did not represent “true values.”
President Hoover, we remember, had wanted to establish a grandiose mortgage discount bank system to include all financial institutions, but the rejection of the scheme by insurance companies forced him to limit compulsory coverage to the building-andloan associations. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act was passed in July, 1932, establishing 12 district banks ruled by a Federal Home Loan Bank Board in a manner similar to the Federal Reserve System.It didn't end there...
$125 million capital was subscribed by the Treasury, and this was subsequently shifted to the RFC.
Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, worksharing, maintaining wage rates (“a large majority have maintained wages at high levels” as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, Hoover declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, Hoover urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:Did I mention Smoot-Hawley or Hoover Dam?
(1) Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;
(2) Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;
(3) Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had beenwarmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;
(4) Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;
(5) Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;
(6) Legalize Hoover’s order restricting immigration;
(7) Do something to weaken “destructive competition” (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;
(8) Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;
(9) Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor). Hoover also displayed anxiety to “protect railroads from unregulated competition,” and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment.
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation
Labels: agriculture, banking, central bank, commodities, credit bubble, deficits, dollar, economy, gold, inflation/deflation, oil, video
Labels: central bank, commodities, credit bubble, currency, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, gold, housing, inflation/deflation, investing, politics, precious metals, video
Only the free market can judge risks. The failures are not of the free market,
the failures happened because we did not have a free market.
Instead we had
governments sponsorship of the GSEs, government sponsorship of the ratings
agencies, micro management of interest rates by the Fed, fractional reserve
lending compounded by Greenspan himself authorizing sweeps of checking
accounts.
Sweeps permitted nearly every penny of money that is supposed to be
available on demand to be lent out. Money that you think is in your checking
account is simply not there. It has been lent out.
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, gold, inflation/deflation, precious metals
Back in July, around the time the oil price peaked, common consensus wentClick the subject line for the link to the Motley Fool article
along the lines of ...
The world is running out of oil.
World demand for oil is high and only going to get higher still in the years and decades ahead.
Most of the world's cheap oil has already been discovered.
Oil exploration companies increasingly have to drill for oil in more and more
difficult places. This adds to the cost of exploration and in the event of a
discovery, the cost of extraction. Either the price of oil stays high and goes
even higher, so that it makes these new discoveries economical for the oil
companies, or the oil stays in the ground. Given the increasing demand and the
world's complete reliance on the naturally depleting natural resource called
oil, it has to come out of the ground.
Oil was seen as a natural hedge for the falling U.S. dollar.

Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, currency, dollar, economy, fun, housing, inflation/deflation, liberty
Labels: commodities, credit bubble, dollar, inflation/deflation, investing, oil, peak oil, price
“Can I ask a question?
With oil at $84 ....
Where is Oil Shock?
Mish
Like this comment?
link to the post
Labels: banking, central bank, commodities, credit bubble, currency, derivatives, dollar, economy, europe, forex, gold, inflation/deflation, oil, precious metals, real estate
Labels: central bank, credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, housing, inflation/deflation, real estate, video
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, ethanol, forex, inflation/deflation
Labels: banking, central bank, currency, deficits, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation, precious metals, video
If capitalism depends on designating a person of godlike abilities to manage demand and supply for all forms of money and credit -- currency, demand deposits, money-market funds, repurchase agreements, equities, mortgages, corporate debt -- we are as doomed as those wretched citizens who relied on central planning for their economic salvation.
Think of it: Nothing is more vital to capitalism than capital, the financial seed corn dedicated to next year's crop. Yet we, believers in free markets, allow the price of capital, i.e., the interest rate on loanable funds, to be fixed by a central committee in accordance with government objectives. We might as well resurrect Gosplan, the old Soviet State Planning Committee, and ask them to draw up the next five-year plan.
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, currency, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation
Chart: Monetary baseLabels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation
In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal and on this very page, have made declarations in favour of the massive “injection of liquidities” engineered by central banks in recent months, the government takeover of giant financial institutions, as well as the still stalled US$700-billion bailout package. Some of the same voices were calling for similar
interventions following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001.“Whatever happened to the modern followers of my free-market opponents?” Marx would likely wonder.
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, currency, deficits, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation, precious metals
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, housing, inflation/deflation, real estate
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, investing, video
An email from Manhattan: "I just walked by the New York Stock Exchange. Hundreds of demonstrators have gathered to protest the government's bailout of Wall Street. Several were holding placards that read "Stop the bailout! Read The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek. Read mises.org " They were also handing out copies of Ron Paul's 2003 speech introducing his bill to eliminate subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ( from blog.mises.org/blog )
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, inflation/deflation
Labels: banking, central bank, credit bubble, dollar, economy, inflation/deflation, oil, peak oil, price
Labels: central bank, china, credit bubble, dollar, economy, gold, housing, inflation/deflation, real estate, video
Labels: central bank, dollar, economy, forex, inflation/deflation, ron paul, video
Labels: credit bubble, deficits, dollar, economy, video
Labels: central bank, credit bubble, currency, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, gold, housing, real estate
Labels: central bank, credit bubble, currency, deficits, dollar, economy, europe, forex, inflation/deflation
Labels: credit bubble, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, housing
Labels: central bank, commodities, credit bubble, currency, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, gold, investing, precious metals, real estate
Labels: central bank, china, credit bubble, dollar, economy, gold, housing, japan
Labels: central bank, china, currency, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, gold, india
Labels: china, credit bubble, currency, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, housing, inflation/deflation, real estate
Labels: deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex, inflation/deflation
Labels: credit bubble, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex
Labels: central bank, currency, deficits, derivatives, dollar, economy, forex