Quantitative Easing

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers’ August 26 op-ed in the Washington Post is an excellent commentary of the Federal Reserve’s policy of “quantitative easing.”  Under quantitative easing, the Fed buys bonds, which keeps down interest rates and adds more money to the economy, greasing the wheels of commerce.  Summers says that this was necessary during the financial crisis of 2008 and during the first shock of the Covid crisis in 2020, but not now.  Quantitative easing tends to benefit the wealthy, pushing the stock market and other asset prices, like homes, higher, but not doing much for regular people. 

Furthermore, because of the way Fed borrowing works, quantitative easing tends to shorten the term of the debt.  Summers says that with interest rates so low at present, the Fed and Treasury should be financing long term debt, locking in the current low interest rates.  Summers is not convinced that interest rates will stay low forever.  Inflation is a bigger threat than the Fed currently acknowledges. 

Summers warns that the Fed has followed the course of quantitative easing without examining where it is going.  He fears that following the easy path of the status quo will lead us into a financial quagmire similar to the way our continuation of unexamined policies led eventually to disasters in Vietnam and Afghanistan. 

I think that Summers is right on.  But Wall Street and most people love quantitative easing because it is good for almost everyone in the short term, just better for the rich.  However, the question is whether there is a problem in the longer term.  While inflation is the immediate concern, there might be other disruptions of the market, a stock market crash, or problems in the labor market, or failure of supply chains for food and other daily needs.  It’s also possible that nothing bad will happen.  We are in uncharted territory by letting quantitative easing and “easy money” run so long. 

China is tightening up its financial markets.  Most people think this is political, to reign in the power the Chinese billionaires vis-à-vis the government.  I think the Chinese may also be worried about dislocations in their economy.  They may think that tightening up now may prevent worse consequences in the future.  If so, I share their concerns.  I wish the Fed did, too.  I think Larry Summers does. 

 

Vietnamese and Afghan Refugees

I have had two brushes with Vietnam during my life: one was serving in the Army artillery in Vietnam during the war, the second was overseeing databases of Vietnamese who wanted to go to the United States after the war. 

When I was in Vietnam from 1969 to 1970, I had very little interaction with the Vietnamese. I was in a heavy artillery battery that supported American Army soldiers on the ground.  Most of the time we were stationed at firebases in the middle of nowhere, with no Vietnamese around.  A few times we had Vietnamese units on the same firebase, but we did not interact.  They supported Vietnamese units and we supported American units.  We were in northern South Vietnam, which the Army called I Corps.  Occasionally I would ride into town with supply trucks; so, I occasionally saw Hue and Quang Tri. At Firebase Barbara, on a lonely mountaintop not too far south of Khe Sanh on the Laotian border, all of our resupply was done by helicopter.  When Saigon fell, I had no personal connection to any South Vietnamese left behind. 

At the American Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, from 1984 to 1986, I was in charge of the embassy’s computers.  I was primarily responsible for the computers in the embassy, which mainly handled administrative tasks like maintaining personnel and financial records.  However, as the senior computer person in the embassy, I had oversight responsibility for several other computer operations.  One of them handled data for the Orderly Departure Program for Vietnamese still in Vietnam who wanted to leave the country.  The Orderly Departure Program had been established to try to stop the dangerous exodus of Vietnamese “boat people.” Another handled data for Vietnamese refugees who had already escaped across Laos or Cambodia to Thai refugee camps and who wanted to go to the United States.  This was about ten years after the fall of Saigon, but I don’t know how many of these people had worked for the US during the war. 

According to Wikipedia, from 1980 to 1997, 623,509 Vietnamese were resettled abroad under the Orderly Departure Program, of whom 458,367 went to the United States.  As I recall, a friend at the embassy in Bangkok who worked in the Orderly Departure Program went to Vietnam about once a week to process a planeload of Vietnamese going to the US.  Outside of the Orderly Departure Program, the number of “boat people” leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totaled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 boat people died at sea without reaching their destination.  About 40,000 Vietnamese refugees were held in Thai border refugee camps until they could be resettled. 

If Vietnam is an example, there will continue to be many refugees fleeing Afghanistan for years to come. 

 

Covid and the Stock Market

Mohamed El-Erian’s opinion piece on Bloomberg says it will take a huge shock to deter risk-taking investors.  He cites five mantras that stock traders have followed over the years:

·       Never fight the Fed.

·       The trend is your friend.

·       There is no alternative.

·       Fear of missing out.

·       Buy the dip.

For me, the first one is the most significant, “Never fight the Fed.” The Fed has become more and more important over the years. When inflation, which had started under Nixon, took off under Jimmy Carter, Fed Chair Paul Volker inflicted painfully high interest rates that got it under control.  Previously at Treasury, Volker had been instrumental in making Nixon’s decision take the US off of the gold standard work without destroying the US or the world economy. 

Fed Chair Greenspan was famous for holding up the stock market with the “Greenspan put,” named for a market option trade that enables an investor to avoid losses on a stock that goes down.  He was tested by the 1987 stock market crash just a few months after he was nominated to succeed Paul Volker.  He presided over a second crash, the dot.com bubble of 2000, and he was Fed Chair during the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center attack, which was a huge blow to Wall Street. 

Ben Bernanke was Fed Chair when the housing crisis hit in 2008, which threatened to bring down many of Wall Street’s most famous banks.  In the end, thanks to Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and others at the Fed and Treasury, only one major bank failed, Lehman Brothers. 

When the Covid-19 lockdown crisis hit, Fed Chair Powell reacted even more strongly than Bernanke had.  Although many of the Fed measures to fight the 2008 crisis were still in place, Powell opened the flood gates of liquidity even wider, flooding the financial world with cash. 

The Fed “put” still exists and is more powerful today than it was in Greenspan’s day, justifying the maxim, “Never fight the Fed.”   The “put” has a double sided effect of keeping the US out of recession, but also magnifying inequality by enriching stock market investors.  This is a larger group that it was in previous generations, but still by no means includes everyone, and does not benefit investors equally.  It clearly favors the richest investors.  It subsidizes the rich to prevent the economy from collapsing for everyone. 

El-Erian mentions a phenomenon that has existed mainly since the the 2008 housing crash: low interest rates and bond yields.  People are buying stocks because bonds are such a bad deal.  Bond prices go down when interest rates go up.  There is no way for interest rates to go but up from here, and that means there is nowhere for bond prices to go but down. 

Interest rates are low for several reasons, but the main one is that the Fed buys them all as soon as they are issued by the Treasury.  If there is  no demand for bonds the interest rate goes up.  The Feds “quantitative easing” policy of buying bonds like crazy means that there is no reason for rates to go up because the Fed buys so many bonds quickly, no matter what the interest rate is, thus preventing the normal bond market from operating for normal investors. This is a global phenomenon because almost all central banks, particularly in Europe, have programs similar to the Fed’s “quantitative easing” resulting in negative interest rates in some countries, where banks charge you for holding your money instead of paying you interest. 

The loss of the bond market as an alternative to the stock market has meant that the stock market has risen even faster than in the past because of another of El-Erian’s maxims:  “There is no alternative.”  This is illustrated by the fact that the market has risen so much even as the Covid pandemic has played havoc with the economy.  Most recently the US suffered one if its most embarrassing defeats in Afghanistan in the last few days, but the defeat has almost no effect on market optimism.  The world may see the US as incompetent, weak and vulnerable, but investors see it as strong and vibrant. 

US investors have turned against China in recent days because it has cracked down and restricted many of its most famous high-tech companies.  They see this as a Chinese turn away from innovation toward more repressive government control.  There is an element of this, but I think China may be reacting to what it sees as excesses in the world financial markets, and is trying to limit this excess in China.  If this is the case, then I think it is good thing.  I worry that the excessive optimism in the US markets may be leading to a fall at some point, but I thought we would have seen something crack long before now. 

Finally, I think the US needs to repair its infrastructure, but I am not sure that now is the best time to do it.  We have spent like drunken sailors since the Covid crisis, running up the most debt since World War II.  I think this may be an overreaction.  Covid has killed many, but mainly it has killed older people, while war mostly kills people in their 20s, some of their most productive years; so, there is less of an effect on the economy.  Despite the fact that the damage to the economy was not as great as a war, the US government borrowed as if it were.  The borrowing was encouraged by the new, trendy idea that deficits don’t matter.  For some reason the economists have decided that governments never have to pay off their debts and so it doesn’t matter how much debt they have.  I don’t believe this idea.  I think someday interest rates will go up and it will become very expensive to pay off a gigantic federal debt.  Therefore, I don’t think this is the best time to start a very expensive infrastructure project.  It is as if you had just gotten out of the hospital with big medical bills and when you got home said, “Now is the time to build that new swimming pool we’ve been talking about for years.”  You should spend on big projects when you don’t have extra bills, like we have for the Covid stimulus.  We should get our house in order first.  We can always spend on essentials, like repairing bridges before they fall down, but we shouldn’t take on big, new projects now.  

Yellow Rain

This article from ADST reminds me of a trip I made to Udorn, Thailand, while serving at the embassy in Bangkok.  Udorn had been a huge Air Force base during the Vietnam War, but when I was in Thailand in the 1980s there was very little left there, except an American Consulate with very few employees. As the embassy computer systems manager, I went up to Udorn to help them with their computers. An embassy secretary (administrative assistant) with a lot of time on her hands used her new PC to inventory everything in the consulate, down to the number of pencils. I was happy to help her do something constructive.

On my way home to Bangkok one of the officers at the consulate asked me if I would take something back for the embassy. He gave me a picnic cooler with biohazard labels on the side. This was about the time when the dispute about “yellow rain” was at its peak. Was it bee pollen or a deadly biochemical weapon? I was inclined toward the bee pollen viewpoint, so I wasn’t too worried, but I wondered what Thai Airlines would say about putting a biohazard in the overhead luggage rack. They didn’t say anything. We all arrived safely, and I took the picnic cooler into the embassy. I never knew what happened to it.

 

Bitcoin

 Cybercurrencies are here to stay.  Maybe Bitcoin is too, but not at the levels it currently holds.  Tulips are still here, but the tulip mania of the 1630s has passed.  Bitcoin was originally intended to be a medium of exchange that would be insulated from almost all external control.  This anonymity made it an excellent means of exchange for illegal activities, most recently illustrated by the fact that most of the ransomware attacks on private data have demanded payment in Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin transactions are recorded by blockchain, which is like an old accounting ledger.  It contains every Bitcoin transaction, although looking at blockchain from the outside, you can tell that a transaction is verified, but you cannot tell who the parties were or how much Bitcoin was involved.  As one of the parties to the transaction, however, you can pull out the specific information.  So, if Elon Musk for example says you never paid him for your Tesla, you can prove that you did using blockchain. 

The Economist magazine recently explored what would happen to the financial markets if Bitcoin went to zero.  It illustrates how far Bitcoin has come from mainly being a payment mechanism for drug dealers and other criminals to store of value rivaling gold bullion.  Many old school financial institutions -- banks, hedge funds, and payment systems like PayPal -- have begun to invest in and accept Bitcoin.  The Economist speculates that a Bitcoin crash would also crash the broader financial markets, and the more widely accepted Bitcoin becomes, the bigger the crash would be.  Because there is so much speculation today in Bitcoin, much of the investment is leveraged, likely leading to margin calls and liquidations in the event of a Bitcoin crash. 

The Economist says that “because changing dollars for bitcoin is slow and costly, traders wanting to realize gains and reinvest proceeds often transact in stablecoins” pegged to the dollar, like Tether.  The fact that traders think Bitcoin transactions are slow and costly is ironic, since Bitcoin was conceived as a payment mechanism.  But the reliance on Tether and other stablecoins creates problems for these currencies, which are somewhat like money market funds that are vulnerable if they are insufficiently backed, which many regulators believe they are. 

It is ironic that as Bitcoin has become seen as a store of value, it has become less used as a transaction mechanism, which was its original purpose.  But many Bitcoin proponents tout Bitcoin as a way for the poor, unbanked people around the world to participate in the financial system with their wealthier cohorts. 

Because of that prospect of some kind of cybercoin becoming a worldwide medium of exchange, central banks around the world, like the US Federal Reserve, are looking a creating cybercurrencies that would not have some of the negative aspects of Bitcoin.  If cybercurrencies become widespread, will that take some of the luster off of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoins will always represent the massive amounts of energy that were required to produce them.  This unenvironmental aspect of Bitcoin is supposedly what make Elon Musk change his mind and refuse to accept Bitcoins for Teslas.  If Bitcoin were to go to zero, that would be an awful lot of wasted energy and greenhouse gases. 

Bitcoin will have to find its long-term value.  When it was first being mined, it was worth a few thousand dollars.  I would guess that in the long term, it will return to something like that, less than $10,000 per Bitcoin.  It will retain some value as a medium of exchange for criminals, since national cybercurrencies will be more traceable.  Also, national central banks will probably be able to print their new cybercurrencies like the Fed now prints paper dollars, making the new currencies less valuable as a hedge against inflation. 

Anne Applebaum on Mike Lindell

I was disappointed by this Atlantic Magazine article by Anne Applebaum about Mike Lindell, the “My Pillow” guy.  The title says, “The MyPillow Guy Really Could Destroy Democracy,” and the subtitle says, “In the time I spent with Mike Lindell, I came to learn that he is affable, devout, philanthropic – and a clear threat to the nation.” 

After reading the article, I failed to see the threat he presents. Presumably, this is the threat that Democrats see everywhere: Trump’s attempt to undo the last election and reinstate himself as President. I don’t see this a likely to happen and I am thus not alarmed by it.

Apparently, Lindell has something called “packet captures,” which are some kind of computer data proving that the Chinese stole the last election from Trump. But her article never makes clear what these packet captures are, or how the Chinese altered electoral results. I do not believe that there is anything to this. Perhaps, if you thought it would prove that Trump won the election, then it would throw the country into turmoil, but it would not be a threat to democracy. It would mean that Biden’s fake election was a threat to democracy, and that Trump was honestly re-elected and thus democracy would require that he be reinstated.

I do think Trump personally is a threat to democracy. The icing on the cake was the January 6 invasion of the Capitol, but in general Trump was a terrible President who surrounded himself with third-rate people, unable to carry out business of government. I don’t think Lindell is going to reinstate Trump.

The rest of Applebaum’s article supports her characterization of Lindell as a basically nice guy who is wacky on some subjects. I do not think her examples of other wacky businessmen who supported questionable causes are comparable to Lindell. I don’t really know anything about Aschberg, but I doubt that he was responsible for the success of Lenin’s Russian revolution. And Henry Ford is not single-handedly responsible for anti-Semitism, which is probably thousands of years old. Mike Lindell may stir up the waters a little, but he is not going to bring about a sea change in politics.

World Heritage Convention

This Economist article on World Heritage sites in Africa misses a distinction between the US and the European approach to the World Heritage Convention.  When I was on the US delegation to the World Heritage Convention annual committee meeting many years ago, I learned that over the years, the US has favored designating natural sites as additions to the World Heritage List, while the Europeans have favored adding manmade cultural and historical sites to the List. 

This preference for natural sites may date back to the US accession to the World Heritage Convention in 1973, when Richard Nixon was President.  I don’t think of Nixon as an environmental President, but he created the Environmental Protection Agency as well as joining the World Heritage Convention.  His supporters included many rich businessmen, whose environmental interests generally run toward preserving nature as it is.  I think of the Nature Conservancy as the kind of environmental organization rich people would support, as opposed to Greenpeace, for example.  Both of these organizations are genuinely interested in preserving the environment, but they go about it in different ways.  A Congressional Research Service report on the Convention was prepared in 2011, giving a lot of background on the US participation. 

There is an additional reason for the lack of African World Heritage sites described in the Economist article.  The Convention requires that countries where sites are located must take care of them.  Many African countries with wonderful natural sites do not have the resources to preserve them.  We are all familiar with the damage done by elephant poaching over the years, for example, even though elephant habitat is in some of the more advanced African countries.  On the protection issue there is a division between the overseers.  I come down on the side of those who support naming a worthwhile site even if there is some doubt about whether the host country can care for it properly.  Others will only support a new site if they are confident the country can care for it.  I think designating a site at least gives the Convention the ability to pressure and cajole the host country to preserve the site.  Otherwise, development or poaching is almost sure to lead to its destruction.