Four More Years

Obama’s an accomplished individual. Smart, cool, in control. But his standout quality is probably his ability to create euphoria. Create it, sustain it, ride it. Watch the people celebrating with him at his victory rally in Chicago and you could easily believe that the USA had just won a war or beaten a recession.

Unfortunately for Obama, reality doesn’t have much time for speeches. The economy was dire going into the election. Coming out of it, you can almost hear the engine failing.

Let’s take the first indicator of failure – the stock market. The market mood darkened in September and October, then dropped abruptly as news of Obama’s victory sank in. I don’t actually think that’s because Wall Street hates Obama. I think it’s more that as the election hoopla dies away, investors realise how little they can expect from the government, how bad the economic situation really is. And, for that matter, how bad the political situation is. The House remains solidly Republican, the Senate comfortably Democrat – and the whole divisive status quo guaranteeing gridlock for another four years.

Over the next few weeks, you’re going to hear a lot about the fiscal cliff. In January 2013, a whole lot of things happen together. George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire. A payroll credit expires too. Some automatic spending cuts are imposed across the board. (These last cuts, of course, aren’t thanks to some outbreak of sanity in Washington, but a bad compromise cobbled together in the course of 2011’s debt ceiling crisis.)

The fiscal cliff is huge, and real. Its impact is potentially around 5% of American GDP. By contrast, George Osborne’s fiscal tightening amounts to little more than 1% a year. If you want to get your head round what a comparable tightening would imply in the British context, then just imagine that the basic rate of tax increases by 10 pence in the pound overnight. Or that spending in the NHS is halved, again overnight.

No economy is strong enough to take that kind of punishment. The British economy is struggling to come out of a double-dip recession even with its own weak-as-milk pace of tightening – and, indeed, I think a triple-dip recession is highly probable. The fundamentals of the US economy are in some ways better than ours (less reliance on the finance sector, less proximity to European travails) but a 5% cut in economic demand overnight? The result will be crippling.

Although the US jobless rate has improved slightly in recent months, that’s only because dispirited workers have left the jobs market altogether. The US employment rate is a horror story. Piling a massive fiscal shop on top of those weak fundamentals, and you’re going to see a massive rise in unemployment. (If you look at U6 unemployment data for the US it’s hovering close to 15%, a shocking stat.)

You might think that the solution is obvious. If the fiscal cliff is so bad, then simply decrease the slope. Go for a slow-but-sure Osborne-style tightening so the budget deficit floats gently lower. And sure enough, there are plenty of economists, living comfortably in their ivory towers, who suggest just such a solution.

But that solution is not available. The IMF – hardly a sensationalist organisation – says that the elimination of America’s long run fiscal gap requires both a 35% increase in all taxes and a 35% cut in all entitlements. The fiscal gap is heinous, but it’s only the first step. It doesn’t even take America where it needs to go.

It gets worse. If fiscal policy can’t save America, how about monetary policy? Alas, and just like in Britain, monetary policy is all out of gas. Interest rates can’t go any lower. quantitative easing (QE) has reached its limits. (And, in any case, QE is little more than a way to rescue Wall Street at the cost of inflation for the rest of us.) The worst thing that could happen to America is that Ben Bernanke, the unelected Chairman of the Federal Reserve, tries to rescue things. The best thing that could happen is that he goes on holiday for four years, having left his Blackberry in the office.

The Princeton Professors Economic Experiment

In short, America’s problems are profound and there is no way to deal with them except one that imposes huge short-term costs on the economy and the people. I don’t think it’ll get quite as bad as it has done in Greece – the US economy has a lot, lot more about it than that – but most of the pain still lies ahead.

And in matters of finance, everything is circular. So the government needs to raise taxes and slash spending to sort out its debt problems. The result: a huge reduction in demand and heavy job losses. The result: countless homeowners being unable to service their mortgages and a huge rise in ‘jingle mail’, as homeowners send their house keys to the foreclosing banks. The result: an already weakened banking system sinking further under a tide of ill-advised boom era lending. And of course, as all this happens, the economy will shrink, which means that the US government has to slash spending yet further in a desperate effort to keep its deficit reduction efforts on track.

These words might seem apocalyptic, but I’ve been saying these things for a while. (My book, Planet Ponzi, has the whole story, and it’s out in paperback now.) What’s more, we’ve already seen disaster scenarios such as these come true in well-managed countries of the developed West. Spain had a much lower debt to GDP ratio than the US. It had better supervised banks and less casino-banking. But we all know the state that Spain is in: a death-spiral that even Germany may not be able to help with.

And the signs are everywhere in America. Go-go stocks have lost their lustre. Facebook trades at little more than half its IPO price. Apple, for so long a do-no-wrong stock market darling, is down more than 20% from its recent highs. Businesses are hoarding cash, because they don’t dare invest it, don’t dare return it to shareholders.

I don’t suppose Mitt Romney thinks of it like this, but you could argue that the 2012 election was a heck of a good one to lose. America has outrun financial reality for decades now. Debt-fuelled, government-funded. The future bought on the never-never.

But the debts are falling due. Reality is knocking at the door. And the fiscal cliff is only the start.

The British calling in the calvary

A hundred years ago, a generation of men – many of them volunteers – fought an unprecedently bloody war for almost invisible gains. The men were heroes, but the generals commanding them were too often blunderers, too little conscious of the ever-mounting casualties. David Cameron is right to demand that our schoolchildren are reminded of the Great War and the vast sacrifices involved.

He’s right, but he’s also showing some chutzpah. History remembers those men as ‘lions led by donkeys’. Heroes betrayed by blundering and unimaginative leaders. We are not – thank God – at war on that scale now, but in economic terms we are deep in our own version of trench warfare and David Cameron has too little idea how to lead us out.

The current recession is the longest and (almost) the deepest in modern British history. Its costs are borne, primarily, by those least able to afford them. Those responsible for the damage – the bankers, the regulators, the New Labour generation of politicians – have been largely untouched. The fraudsters who manipulated LIBOR, who missold subprime assets, and so much else, are sitting in Monaco, instead of in jail. The politicians in charge now too often rely on soundbite and deflection; there’s still a shocking lack of transparency and accountability.

The British people bear all this with a huge amount of dignity. High inflation, stagnant wages, crazy property prices, an economy that seems only ever to move sideways? ah well, could be worse. Mustn’t grumble. We’re lions, led by donkeys.

What time is Murray Playing?

But it’s not just in Britain where an economic Great War is laying waste to lives and savings.

In the US, a presidential election is unfolding that will do nothing to solve the fiscal crisis that is engulfing the country of my birth. The fiscal problem has become so bad, the politicians can’t even talk about it. Republicans won’t raise taxes. Democrats won’t cut benefits. The result is a fiscal jam so bad that serious economists estimate true US indebtedness at over $200 trillion. That’s more than three times the total GDP of Planet Earth. And virtually no one talks about the issue.

In Europe, meantime, the latest rescue of the latest crisis is beginning to fail. Again. Spanish bond yields have fallen from their high of nearly 8.00%, but they’re still glued close to the 6.00% mark. And a country in deep financial crisis, mounting debt and deepening recession cannot fund itself at that rate for long. Meanwhile, the wealthy Catalans are beginning to reconsider their ties to the rest of Spain. The ratings agencies are cutting their ratings, again. Italy is in pretty much the same position, only a step or two behind. Germany is beginning to backtrack on the deals that averted the crisis that loomed earlier this summer. The slow-mo European crisis is getting ready for the next hideous encore.

Welcome to Spain - nearly 60% youth unemployment - this will not end well

 

 

You might think that nothing changes, but you’d be wrong. A year or two back, the IMF believed that a £1.00 cut in government spending would only reduce economic activity by £0.50, as new private sector growth surged into the gaps created. That clearly hasn’t happened. We’ve had the exact reverse pattern where increasing austerity has led to increasing recession… and an increased deterioration of government finances. The IMF now estimates that the same £1.00 cut actually depletes the economy by £1.30. The task ahead of us is getting worse.

It’s the same with the banks. Forget the pre-Thatcher miners or the teaching unions under Labour – if you want real government largesse, the financial sector still outshines the rest. When you hear of the Bank of England ‘pumping money into the economy’, what it is actually doing is propping up the trading profits of the same handful of bloated institutions that created this mess in the first place. And those self-same institutions are still not lending, the economy still not moving. Meantime, the stock of dubious debts and inflated assets rises just that little bit more. A burden that the rest of us will have to pay for: through absent growth, stagnant wages, high inflation, and a hopelessly unsustainable property bubble.

Amidst such confusion, it would be easy to think that there’s no fix out there. Easy and wrong. We don’t need rocket-science, we need common sense.

Although I don’t like a lot about what the current government is doing, I do like its approach to the deficit. Under George Osborne, the government is still borrowing 8p in every £1.00 generated by the economy. So when you earn £100 at work, the government has just borrowed £8. Since that’s obviously nuts, government borrowing needs to come down. At least Osborne has got that part right.

But then consider monetary policy. The Bank of England is widely expected to announce an expansion of its quantitative easing programme to £425 billion. Which is just a fancy way to say it’s printing £425 billion of new money, which is a sure fire way to create inflation. (Just ask Zimbabwe.) It’s craziness – or, in fact, craziness doubled, given that the intended effects of the policy (boost lending and encourage investment) have clearly not happened.

Or take the banks. It’s pretty obvious that bankers don’t need our sympathy. (Many of them, in fact, need jail terms.) Far from coddling the banks any further, we should force them to play by the same rules that all the rest of us have to live by. If a bank goes bust, it should be left to fail. Small depositors should be protected. Everyone else should get no sympathy. Instead, we pump money into the system and pretend we’re helping the broader economy. It’s insanity squared.

I wrote a book about these matters: Planet Ponzi, which is out now in paperback. That book tells you in detail, and in easy, everyday language, just how bad the problems are – and what we need to do to fix them.

I didn’t write the book because I wanted to make money, but out of belief – even passion. I’ve been involved in the financial markets for thirty years. Over that time I’ve seen a kind of sickness take hold. A belief in the power of debt. A belief that any problem is OK, so long as you can defer the reckoning. The sickness isn’t confined to Britain (though we are now the world’s most indebted country). The problem is equally bad in Europe, maybe worst of all in the United States.

The cure for this disease is, in essence, simple. It’s total transparency, total accountability. That needs to apply to politicians: no more false promises, no more evasions of responsibility. But the same magic formula needs to apply to banking and the media. And we, the voters, need to retain our sense of anger. When we hear politicians evading an important question, we need to demand a real answer. When we see bankers grossly manipulate the financial markets, we need to reject any outcome that does not end up with one or more bankers doing some serious jail time.

I first conceived of writing Planet Ponzi, when the first tremors of the financial quake were starting to strike. I thought the issues covered in the book were the most urgent matters facing the Western world since the end of the Second World War. I still do. It’s not too late to turn things around – but we can’t delay our actions any further. Planet Ponzi has got to stop. We still need our lions, but it’s time to lose the donkeys.

QE has created the worlds biggest housing and equities bubbles in the UK markets

Last week, the Bank of England declared its intention to print another £50 billion. Hardly anyone noticed. That £50 billion will bring the Bank’s total money printing to around £425 billion, or about one quarter of British GDP. No one cares. This evening, the U.S. Federal Reserve will announce its own plans for another round of “quantitative easing” aka QE infinity – a euphemistic term for “destroying the currency.” Not to be left out, the ECB has announced plans for unlimited bond buying (though Germany has, thank goodness, set some limits.) Given that the bonds the ECB wants to buy are issued by increasingly bankrupt Mediterranean governments, the ECB too is doing what it can to wreck the currency it’s charged to protect.

Given such public sector diligence, it’s hardly surprising that the private sector is getting creative all over again. And while creativity is normally thought of as a good thing, the same ingenuity in the hands of Wall Street is always a disaster. Take one recent news story. New rules, due to come in place next year, will force derivatives-traders to post collateral for their risky bets. Proper collateral. You know: U.S. Treasury bonds and the like, stuff you can rely on. Trouble is, the derivatives market is huge and good quality collateral is scarce. (Which is a good outcome, right? It would mean that only the most necessary derivatives trades get done.)

QE1 a failure, QE2 a failure, QE3 ??, money printing is all Bernanke knows...

Only that’s not how Wall Street sees these things. When they see the phrase “good quality collateral,” they instantly think, ‘how can we fake things so that crappy collateral manages to sneak through anyway?” And, what do you know, they’ve come up with a solution called collateral transformation. That solution is twisted enough that I won’t even describe it here — but suffice to say that it’s like the subprime markets all over again. It’s worse than that, actually, because at least with subprime there was a house at the end of the chain. Here, there’s dodgy collateral supporting a derivatives trade backed by a financial security backed by something else altogether. It’s subprime squared or subprime cubed.

But enough of all that. The Bank of England (and the Fed and the ECB) are all thrilled to the bottom of their inflation-creating hearts because the financial markets are boosted by all these interventions. The German stock market index, the DAX, is up 46 percent in the past twelve months and has almost doubled from its 2009 lows. Doubled. Would you like to write down on a sheet of paper all the good things that have happened to the German economy since 2009? If you do, you can use a very small sheet and still have room for plenty of doodles. The simple fact is that these financial market interventions have almost nothing to do with the real economy.

That same basic point is obvious in a million different ways. The London property market is hitting new heights — just when the British economy is spluttering to get out of its double-dip recession. The FTSE index is romping away — but George Osborne is hastily rewriting his budget projections as corporate tax revenues fall far short of what was expected. In the U.S., Apple, Inc. is hitting new extraordinary heights, even as the latest U.S. jobless figures show that people are quitting the labor force on a historically unprecedented scale.

That’s not to say that monetary expansion has no effect, just that the effects are almost entirely destructive. So property inflation is bad (that’s part of what got us into this mess), but it’s one of the most obvious symptoms of Mervyn King’s policies. Bubbliness in the financial markets is also terrible (that’s the other major part of what caused this mess), yet there they are once again, bubbling away, utterly disconnected from the brutal truth of the real economy. And of course as the major currencies fight each other in a race to the bottom, the commodities produced by the rest of the world, with their strengthening currencies, becomes more expensive too. Inflation starts to get baked in.

Inflation, and also indebtedness. The ECB wants to protect Europe by buying up ever larger chunks of poor-quality debt. But who are they kidding? Next year, Spain and Italy alone have to refinance more than €600 billion. The same again, give or take, the year after. And those numbers are as nothing compared with the amounts of private sector (mostly financial) debt that has to be refinanced. A trillion euros next year, €1.2 trillion the year after. These numbers can’t be rolled over by more smoke-and-mirrors. They can only be funded by sound public finance and strong private sector business growth. Needless to say, we don’t have either.

In truth, the lessons aren’t difficult to see. We need sound money and an end to financial engineering. If the rules say that derivatives trades need sound collateral, then any scheme which looks to evade those rules needs to get kicked into touch. (Or more. Rules need to be enforced or there’s no point in having them. In a sane world, the banks and bankers currently busy on ‘collateral transformation’ need to be stopped and held accountable.) Central banks need to forget about the ‘health’ of the financial markets altogether. It’s not their health that matters, it’s ours.

People will say — correctly — that coming off these drugs will produce one hell of a withdrawal period. That’s true, but it’s not a reason to keep someone on heroin. Quite the opposite. The Western world needs to relearn some simple lessons. If you make a bad loan, you’ll lose money. (You won’t get rescued by the taxpayer.) Investment banks are there to deliver useful services to real companies. (Anything else is yet another Ponzi scheme, and probably fraud.) Businesses will succeed by making and marketing fantastic products at competitive prices. (Financial engineering is meaningless and will always destroy value in the end.)

QE addicted market participants line up for another central bank fix

These lessons are obvious, but our policy-makers don’t hear them. Maybe George Osborne does to some extent, and Vince Cable too. But they’re swimming against a tide of denial. That tide is running as high as the global equities and fixed income markets. One day soon, the tide will drown us.

Accountable: A letter in the Sunday Times called for Osborne to begin spending cuts a year earlier than planned

In February 2010, twenty economists published a letter in the Sunday Times calling on George Osborne to begin spending cuts a year earlier than planned. The key sentence of that letter stated that, ‘In order to be credible, the government’s goal should be to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over the course of a parliament.’

The logic was clear. If you say you’re going to do something hard but essential, you need to do it at a credible pace. Saying you’re aiming to do something in five years time and after a general election is rather like admitting that you’ve no intention of doing it at all.

You probably agree with that logic. If you are in charge of your household budget and you notice that your expenditures are running ahead of your income, you’ll almost certainly want to address that gap right now this minute. It’s not pleasant doing it, but you do it anyway. Businesses think the same way.

What’s strange then is why those same economists have now reversed themselves. Just three of the original twenty economists are thought to stand by their original view. The Daily Telegraph will this week print opinion pieces from a range of other economists all calling upon the Chancellor to reverse course, slow down the fiscal tightening. Spend more, tax less.

Some of the specific ideas have real merit. Britain has an acute shortage of good affordable housing. Plenty of people would seek to buy a house if suitable properties were available at a vaguely sane price. Yet, as things stand, planning restrictions artificially restrict supply while the construction industry is staggering under its post-Olympic hangover. In principle, therefore, you could release demand and reignite an industry by changing planning laws so as to enable the provision of new homes.

Another good idea is widespread tax reform. The British tax system is too complicated and tax rates are too high. Simpler, broader taxes would allow tax rates to be lowered without any overall loss of revenue. The economy would surely benefit from such a reform. There would also be a huge boost to fairness, as the super-wealthy would find themselves having to pay tax instead of dodging it.

Bad plan: Certain other plans for spending cuts are just bananas, such as cutting stamp duty. Britain has long suffered from a huge property bubble, which is at its worst in London
So some of the ideas floating around at the moment are entirely valid. Some of the reforms mooted are obvious and overdue. But certain other ideas are just bananas. Cut stamp duty? Really? Britain has long suffered from a huge property bubble, which is at its worst in London.

A valid alternative? Alistair Darling wants new investment in power stations, airports and railways

Stamp duty is a tax that’s hard to evade and which keeps some kind of lid on prices. Abolishing the tax will just encourage prices upwards: a disastrous step backwards to the bubble economy of 1997-2008.

And higher prices will of course make it even harder for ordinary people to own their own homes, which should be a perfectly reasonable aspiration for working families in a twenty-first century democracy.

Other ideas are more marginal. Alistair Darling wants new investment in power stations, airports and railways.

He’s right, of course, that Britain’s infrastructure does look ragged compared with that of our European competitors. New investment makes good sense, in principle. But why should we expect the government to fund that investment? If there’s a market demand for new airport capacity, the private sector should be able to fund it. If planning restrictions get in the way, Osborne needs to look at the planning laws – he shouldn’t just pull his chequebook out. Same with the railways. Same with power. Those services need to exist, but they need to be funded by the people who use them. Any other approach is a reversion to the jam-today, pay-tomorrow culture of the previous decade.

This debate is going to rumble away for some time to come. Osborne will face a thousand calls from a thousand directions to reverse course, to back off, to ease the pain. But before you join that chorus, please just remember the position we’re in. According to the IMF’s data, the British government will this year borrow 8% of GDP. That’s £124 billion. Of every £1 that the government spends, about 18p is borrowed money. That’s plainly unsustainable.  If you look at all debt in the economy – household, government, corporate, banking – then our debt to GDP ratio is a terrifying 500%.

Those numbers were produced in April. Since then, the economy has deteriorated, the outlook darkened. That doesn’t make is less needful to get the finances in order, but more needful. This entire crisis – from the collapse of Northern Rock to the travails of the Eurozone – arose because of too much debt. Too much stupid debt. Urging George Osborne to borrow more for longer is like telling an alcoholic to use cider as a way to get through his whisky withdrawal pangs.

For the same reason, it’s sheer madness for the Bank of England to cast around for new ways to loosen policy. The IMF’s commodity price index has almost doubled from its early-2009 lows. London house prices are crazy. The financial markets are also at unsupportable levels. These things are certain harbingers of inflation – and sure enough, last month, the RPI inflation index rose again, to 3.2% and it won’t stop there.

You would think these things would act like a cold shower on policy-makers. That they would remind them of basic truths: that debt is bad, that fiscal responsibility matters, that money-printing is destructive. Instead, though, it sometimes seems that those in charge of policy will do anything but face the facts. There’s talk about changing the way inflation is calculated – the classic government dodge: if the facts don’t change, fiddle the numbers. Meanwhile, the IMF wants the Bank of England to cut the base rate from 0.5% to 0.0%, as though current rates aren’t already absurd. The lunatics are trying to take over the asylum.

But personally, I think George Osborne understands all this. He’s not a dummy. He gets that you can’t cut expenditure without causing pain. He understands that too many people are still hooked on the Ponzi-ish belief that we can enjoy things today and pay for them tomorrow. Over the next few years, George Osborne might not be Mr Popular. He may yet prove to be Mr Right.

Solution? Business secretary Vince Cable has said he wants to nationalise the 18pc of RBS that isn’t already owned by the taxpayer

Vince Cable wants to nationalise RBS. You can see his logic. The taxpayer owns 82% of the firm already. Nationalisation is hardly such a radical idea; it’s more the logical completion of a process.

It’s true that full nationalisation was never the advertised outcome. We were promised that these part-nationalised banks would be rapidly strengthened and restored to full private ownership.There were even muttered suggestions that the government could end up making a profit on its stake.

But it would be daft to make policy on the basis on what bankers and governments choose to tell us. In 2007, the US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, told the world that he didn’t see the subprime mortgage market as ‘imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to it’s going to be largely contained.’ Sure, Hank. We know how that prediction worked out.

That same year, the head of financial insurance giant AIG’s financial products division said ‘it is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions.’ He was almost right – he was off target by just $183 billion, the amount the US government ended up spending on AIG’s bailout.

It’s the same in Europe. Greece has missed 210 of 300 economic targets given it during the course of its extended bailout misery. More recently, the Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy promised financial markets that it would meet its deficit targets and that a bailout was out of the question… until of course it missed those targets and the only bailout question remaining is how many hundreds of billions of euros are required. It was much the same thing in Ireland and Portugal. It will be much the same in Italy too.

So let’s set intentions and promises to one side and look at the facts. First of all, it’s clear that RBS is not about to return to the private sector. The company has just made a six-monthly loss of £1.5 billion. Its computer systems are clearly dysfunctional. It seems certain to get hit with major fines for its role in the LIBOR fixing scandal. The bank’s core business of lending to British companies is gummed up and directionless. The bank’s size makes proper management difficult and restricts competition both on the high street and in business lending.

Struggling: RBS has been dogged by technical problems and poor management, running up a £1.5bn first half loss

And if private ownership remains a pipe-dream, the current arrangement seems like the worst of all worlds. The principal shareholders (you and me) can’t take effective operating decisions because of the private minority. Meanwhile the entire country suffers from a failing banking system. So nationalisation is the first part of the answer – and Vince Cable is brave and right to suggest it.

But nationalisation is only the first step of a long and difficult journey. The next step – the tough one – involves utter honesty about the balance sheet. European sovereign bonds need to be valued at their actual market value. That’ll imply huge losses. Loans backed by British real estate also need to be fiercely written down. Outside a developing property bubble in London and surrounding areas, UK property prices are nosing down. That’s not surprising. In a world where real wages are decreasing, and after a decade long property bubble, prices have nowhere to go but down. That means RBS’s property book is softer than a baby’s bottom.

So government auditors need to bring reality to these accounts. No soft-soaping for the stockmarket. No desperate excuses about ‘trading out of trouble’. (You can’t trade out of trouble if you make losses of £1.5 billion in half a year. That’s trading into trouble, right?)

My own suspicion is that if RBS’s assets were properly valued, it would not be solvent. (I don’t think RBS is alone there, by the way. I think most European banks are insolvent: a belief that others, including the head of Deutsche Bank, share with me.) The traditional government response to financial distress is to pour your money into the stricken institution. It’s what Gordon Brown did like crazy in 2008-09. It’s what countless other governments did too.

And it’s the wrong way. Funnily enough, capitalism already has a solution to insolvency, and it’s called bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a wonderful thing. In most cases, bankruptcy doesn’t mean the death of a company. If a company is a going concern – that is, if its core business is fundamentally OK, just encumbered by too much debt and too much bad management – bankruptcy is the place to clean it up. Shareholders lose their money (but it’s already lost anyway). Creditors lose a slice of theirs (and it’s already gone too, just slowly and painfully.)

But that’s good. Those losses are good. They’re good for two reasons. One, if creditors make bad loans, they need a reminder to do their due diligence. That’s the only way to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Secondly, as creditors take their losses, RBS can emerge from the ashes with a strong balance sheet, and a sense of confidence. It can start to invest again: in computer systems, in business lending, in all that bread and butter stuff that the firm has neglected so long.

Bankruptcy would help for a third reason too. RBS is too big, too bloated. It needs to be broken up into smaller, nimbler firms that can reintroduce competition to our dysfunctional industry. That can’t be done with a firm that’s already struggling for financial solvency. It needs to be done on the back of a new, strong balance sheet. And it needs to be done without taxpayers contributing a single penny more to the process. We’ve done enough already. It’s time for a new start. It’s over to you, Vince.

Mitch Feierstein is CEO of Glacier Environmental Fund and author of Planet Ponzi: How Politicians and Bankers Stole Your Future

Cassandra, in ancient Greek myth, was the daughter of King Priam of Troy. After Helen, she was considered the most beautiful woman on earth. Curly red hair, blue eyes, fair skin. (I know: she sounds more Irish than Turkish, but work with me.) Because of her beauty, the god Apollo fell in love with her and gave her the gift of prophecy. When she did not return his love – always a dangerous game when dating a god – he cursed her, ensuring no one would ever believe her prophecies.

But Cassandra saw it all coming: the Trojan war, the Trojan horse, the fall of the city and the slaughter of its citizens. She explained clearly and repeatedly what was happening. And no one believed her. Even after her early forecasts had proved to be bang on the money, still no one believed her. Even as the Trojan horse, bursting at the joins with Greek soldiers, trundled up to the gates of Troy, no one believed her.

Greece: We can’t see the 10-year depression just yet – but that doesn’t mean it’s not coming

So Cassandra feels like a good term to apply to people like me. (I’ve never been wooed by a goddess and cruel observers might suggest I’m very slightly past my physical peak, but I’m trying to focus on the prophesy side of things here. Work with me, folks.)

I’ve said for ages that the euro will fail, that the countries of the Mediterranean are bankrupt, that Germany doesn’t have the resources to fill the void, and that the Western world is entering not a recession, but a depression: a huge, 10-year, economic slump.

And here we are. If you look outside the city gates right now, I think you’ll find a giant wooden horse with a trapdoor in its belly. Because I’m a Cassandra, you won’t believe me of course, but I’ll give it a try anyway. That’s what I’m fated to do.

So number one, the interest rates on Spanish government debt are now heading up towards 8%. If you want to borrow money from the bank, you can likely do it cheaper than that. You personally may have a better credit rating than the Spanish government right now. In any case, a government can’t pay those punitive rates when its debt is gaping, its deficit out of control, and its economy in recession.

There’s muttering about a €300 billion bailout, which would keep Spain away from the financial markets for three years, but so what? For reasons I’m about to come to, I don’t think such a bailout could possibly happen, but even if it did, so what? Spain’s problem is too much debt piled onto a creaky economy. That €300 billion ‘bailout’ wouldn’t be a gift, it would be a loan. The solution to too much debt is not more debt. (And, for that matter, Mr King, the solution to weak money is not to print an endless supply of the stuff.) Naturally a giant bailout would kick the problem down the road, but bankruptcy is bankruptcy no matter when you meet it.

That’s point one. Point two is that Germany (and creditworthy northern Europe in general) is coming to the end of its borrowing capacity. There’s no reason at all why the German government should fail to meet its obligations, but it can’t be the Atlas that shoulders all the burdens of its southern neighbours too.

The ratings agencies have noticed this. Germany is now on credit watch for possible downgrade. If Germany commits to a monster bailout of Spain (not directly, of course, but via some Euro acronym), that downgrade would happen faster than Helmut Kohl could guzzle a schnitzel. Because Germany knows this, and because its citizens know it, those German purse strings are going to be drawn ever tighter as eurozone discussions progress. And quite right too. Germans have worked hard to restrain wage costs, export goods, innovate new products, and boost productivity. There’s no reason on earth why the fruit of those efforts should be handed out to economies which have steered a very different course.

Germany is now on credit watch for a possible downgrade. No wonder Angela Merkel is showing the strain

Point three: the terrible data, released today, about the British recession. I said we were in recession back in autumn last year. (No one believed me but, hey, I’m used to it.) And now we find that we’ve actually had three successive quarters of recession, with the last quarter the worse of the lot. Even if things turn up – and, pardon me for asking, but do you see any grounds for optimism right now? – we’ve still experienced the worst recession in British economic history. Not a bit worse than the Great Depression but, by now, very significantly worse.

Like I say, I’ve been saying all this for a while. Me and Cassandra both. The Greeks are coming. There’s going to be war. It’ll last for ten years. That wooden horse looks mighty iffy to me.

And no one listens. Maybe it’s nothing to do with being cursed by a God. Maybe it’s just the way with people who tell the truths that people don’t want to hear. But we Cassandras just go on prophesying anyway. There’s a big storm coming and it’s about to strike.

This was published in todays Daily Mail.

The post garnered a remarkable number of comments, the majority of which agreed strongly with the view I expressed. Just one thing disturbed me, however, which was the number of people who assumed I was taking a partisan position. To remind you: the article argued strongly for a full and open enquiry into the Fast and Furious affair. I guess a lot of people reasoned as follows, ‘The Republicans are bashing the Democrats over this enquiry, this guy Feierstein wants an enquiry, so he must be a Republican.’

I don’t blame people for making these assumptions. Our whole country has become infected with this kind of logic. Our entire political debate has caught the virus. Yet it makes no sense. No sense at all. Here are two facts and one conclusion. Fact One: A federal agent has been shot dead. Fact Two: there are allegations — which may be true or false — that the gun used to shoot him was in circulation only because of an ineptly managed operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco. Conclusion: These allegations are serious enough to deserve an open investigation, period. Partisan bickering and political spin is simply a diversion from the action that a dead federal agent deserves — and the truth that the American people require.

I say all this because I’m about to call attention to another government department. That department is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now I know that Republicans are currently bashing President Obama over his jobs record. I know that Obama is bashing back. But, people, the issue at stake is the creation of jobs in America and the way those things are being recorded and reported. The issues I’m about to address were present under George W. Bush. They haven’t changed under Barack Obama. The depression which struck this country in the wake of financial crisis might have peaked under a Democrat, but it was born in a Republican era. If you yourself are so partisan that you want to make fine distinctions about these things, you should go ahead and make them. Me: I see two peas in a pod.

Good. Preamble over. Here’s the issue. The number of jobs created in America stood at 80,000 in June. That wasn’t nearly enough to budge the jobless rate, which remains stuck at a high 8.2%. (Mitt Romney’s comment: ‘another kick in the gut to middle-class families.’ Barack Obama’s rejoinder: ‘a step in the right direction’ whilst he acknowledged, ‘it’s still tough out there.’)

But let’s put the partisan spin-factory to one side, and instead have a think about the number of jobs being reported. Businesses are born and businesses die. When a business is occupied with either of those processes, it has better things to do than call up the BLS and discuss hires and fires. The BLS therefore estimates the net impact on the joblessness figures of the birth and death of businesses. You can read its full discussion here, but the key line says:

‘There is an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business and its appearing on the sample frame and being available for sampling. Because new firm births generate a portion of employment growth each month, non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth.’

A non-sampling method: that’s geek-speak for ‘guess.’ We don’t know how many new jobs are being created or lost by business churn, so we’ve got to guess. And you want to know the BLS’s estimate for the number of such jobs ‘created’ (net of losses) in June? Answer: 124,000. In May, the answer was over 200,000.

So, in crude terms, the net jobs growth reported by the BLS — the same one being lambasted by Romney and praised by Obama — is only in positive territory at all because of some number that’s simply a guess. A smart guess probably. One made by intelligent statisticians… but still. In this economy? With Europe in turmoil, China slowing, the country heading for a fiscal cliff which could thrust us back into recession, plus massive uncertainty over the path of healthcare costs per employee? The BLS has never been in this position before, because the economy hasn’t been. And after all, who in their right minds would be hiring new staff given these conditions? Most savvy businesspeople will be watching, waiting… deferring spending and hiring.

The truth is employment in the U.S. might be growing or shrinking. We just plain don’t know. What we do know is that if you add together the unemployed, workers discouraged from seeking work, plus those working part-time when they’d prefer to be working full time… you have an ‘underemployment’ rate of at least 15% — while our labor force participation rates are kicking around decade long-lows. These things are terrible economic news, but they’re terrible on a human scale too. Let’s consider the graduates looking to repay the more than $1 trillion in government-guaranteed student loans. These graduates are America’s future. Those BLS data points represent human lives, human potential. And the outlook is grim.

Vangelia Pandeva Dimitrova

To repeat, I’m not making a partisan point here. I’m making a bigger one. The American economy is in deep trouble. The reported data we have is unreliable. What we do know is that we have too much debt, too much money printing, a culture of total irresponsibility on Wall Street and consequently an absence of credibility in the financial and political promises that underpin our economy. All this, plus a political culture which is not addressing these things in a mature and responsible way.

This country’s in a mess. And partisan bickering will never pull us out of it. We all need to change our mindsets. I voted for change in the last election and I believe that today’s DC landscape is the most polarized in my lifetime. Are things better? Are we going to be offered a real choice in this election year? And where can I get a refund?

I published this article in today’s Huffington Post.

You know, there would have been a time when a financial contributor for the Daily Mail was restricted to the little stuff. Share tips, muttering about monetary policy, that sort of thing.

Not any more. Over the last few years, there’s been no breaking news like finance news. No war, no election, no natural disaster has long been able to displace finance from the front pages. This new emphasis makes perfect sense. When your job is threatened, your pension demolished, your child’s prospects seriously impaired, you need to know why these things are happening. The answers all revolve around matters financial.

So: another week, another row. Hot on the heels of last week’s news – another banking scandal, another repentance-free resignation – we have this week’s headline. Ed Miliband wants to force the big banks to sell up to 1000 branches each. He wants a specialist financial unit inside the Serious Fraud Office. Vince Cable has lambasted the banking sector’s ‘anti-business’ culture and accuses it of ‘throttling’ an incipient British recovery.

And they’re right. Bang-on-the-money, hole-in-one, jackpot-hittingly right.

Take each of those points in turn. Should the big banks be forced to sell branches? Of course they should! How is there even any argument? The mergers, acquisitions and bank failures which took place during the 2007-09 period have left British high streets with a dangerously oligopolistic industry. That means less competition. It means aworse deal for borrowers, a worse deal for savers – and a much-reduced capacity for corporate lending. It’s a market gone badly rotten. Competition from sizeable, properly funded institutions is essential for us all.

As for a specialist finance unit inside the SFO – I’m frankly astonished there isn’t one already. What’s more, such a unit needs to be lavishly funded. It needs to be able to employ professionals who understand the nuances of the financial markets. If that means paying top dollar, so be it. The money would easily be recaptured from the fines that would result.

And after all, how much more evidence do we really need that these banks have utterly lost touch with their ethics? They are happy to mis-sell a wide array of products to consumers. They are happy to fiddle interest rates. They are happy to sell totally inappropriate derivatives to corporate users. They will help an entire country, Greece, fiddle its books so it can enter the Euro.

I was about to write that there is nothing these people won’t do, and then I wondered. Mass murder? Genocide? Are there perhaps some limits still prevailing? Some matters a board of bankers would still not countenance? I don’t know. Maybe. But until those bankers find their ethics again, we need a fraud unit with as much finding and as much investigative authority as it plausibly needs. The hard truth is that until we see a fair few bankers serving long jail terms, these people will continue to feel immune. And no wonder. They have been immune. Bob Diamond may have resigned last week, but he hasn’t apologised, he hasn’t handed back any of his £100 million pay, he hasn’t indicated that he intends to waive his £20 million odd serverance package – and he isn’t facing jail. (Incidentally, Barclays stock price has declined 52% since February 2011 and 75% in the past five years. So how exactly does he think he earned that money?)

Blame: Vince Cable has slammed the banking sector’s ‘anti-business’ culture and accused it of stifling the chances of a speedy British economic recovery

As for Vince Cable’s comments about the anti-business culture of these firms – well, duh! Of course they have an anti-business culture. Banks have made money over recent years by (i) acquiring lousy assets (Greek bonds, American subprime debt, over-leveraged domestic mortgages), (ii) mispricing them on their books (so they don’t recognise the true impairment in value), (iii) waiting for the Bank of England to print more money as a way to support creaking asset markets and, when in dire straits, (iv) waiting for a handout from the taxpayer. None of these items have anything at all to do with real, ordinary banking business. None of them supports the broader economy. You’ll also note that the last two items involve massive support from the state, yet that support is somehow not inconsistent with the payment of massive bonuses. Explain that one if you can.

The trouble is that many banks are a zillion miles from becoming responsible citizens again. Their balance sheets are rotten. They may not admit that rottenness in public – there would be a bank run if they did – but they know perfectly well that their balance sheets are in a desperately weakened state. Because of that, they flinch from offering corporate loans – which involve real business risks in a difficult climate – and prefer to trade government paper. That way, their capital ratios look alittle better, no matter than no real banking work is being done.

You don’t have to take my word for these things. A strong bank will have a stock market ‘price to book’ ratio of more than one. That is: the stock market regards a given bank as being worth more than the collection of financial assets (less debt) on the bank’s balance sheet. A ratio of one exactly would mean that the bank was worth its financial assets but that its actual franchise – its ability to generate additional profits from those assets – was worth zero.

Action: Labour leader Ed Miliband wants to force the big banks to sell up to 1000 branches each

Most of our banks are today rated at far less than one. Barclays Bank, for example, has a price to book ratio ofjust 0.36. That is: the market regards the bank’s valuation of its own assets as laughably optimistic. While that continues to be the case, the bank willhave neither the strength nor the outlook needed to finance recovery.

So Miliband is right. Cable is right. The Tories are, on the whole, lamentably silent on this issue. (The worst offender is the bankers’ own apologist, Boris Johnson.) That’s not to say the Labour record has been glorious – very far from it. Ed Balls’s recent Oscar winning performance in front of the LIEBORgate enquiry was a frightening reminder of how useless and responsibility-evading his party was when in power. Until we have politicians ready to accept accountability and transparency while in power, we will continue to have a government that is wholly ineffective in the face of the banking lobby.

Nevertheless, and that said, Miliband and Cable are currently seeing these things more accurately than George Osborne and his colleagues. So here’s what has to be done. Break up the banks. Stop printing money. Deflate the housing bubble created by QE. Punish fraud. Force banks to publish honest balance sheets. The solutions are obvious. But will they happen? Of course they will: a Brit just needs to win at Wimbledon first…

Mitch Feierstein is CEO of Glacier Fund and author of Planet Ponzi: How politicians and bankers stole your future

I published this in the Daily Mail.

Barclays will not be alone in its wrong-doing, and other banks may even have exceeded Barclays’ brazen contempt for truth and right-dealing.

So what happens? So far, we’ve seen all the standard responses.

Exit: Bob Diamond has quit Barclays after days of pressure but what will happen next?

Barclays’ Chairman, Marcus Agius, tried to fall on his sword, but the political commotion was such that the bank’s CEO, Bob Diamond, was forced to fall on his instead. It is said that there will be significant pressure on the board to avoid paying a monster ‘golden farewell’ to its departing boss, but don’t place too much faith in that pressure.

For one thing, if a deal has not already been penned (a big IF), Diamond will have lawyers pushing for maximum compensation and the Barclays board will want to avoid a protracted legal fight and even more negative publicity. But in anycase, Diamond has already earned £100 million in pay and and perks from hisstint at the firm. The guy’s hardly going to be destitute.

Neither destitute nor (what a surprise!) repentant. Diamond’s arrogant and self-serving spin said, ‘I am deeply disappointed that the impression created by the events announced last week about what Barclays and its people stand for could not be further from the truth. I know that each and every one of the people at Barclays works hard every day to serve our customers and clients.’

What? ‘The impression created’? Every one of the people at Barlclays ‘works hard’ to serve customers? Bob, you haven’t got it at all. Your bank was involved in fraud on a massive, multi-trilliondollar scale.

I don’t necessarily mean fraud in the way that the law defines it – I’m not a lawyer – but I do mean fraud in its ethical, moral and human sense: the manipulation of interest rates to fit the bank’s position. Emails prove Barclays bank employees are guilty of conspiring to manuplate interest rates on a massive scale. Bob, your bank was rotten as hell and your bankers were part of that rot.

Probe: The Conservative party have ordered an inquiry into the scandal

Meantime, the Tories have ordered an enquiry into the scandal. Andrew Tyrie, the putative head of that enquiry, describes his remit as dealing with these questions: ‘What does the Libor scandal, what does this scandal in the market, where people have made money by rigging the market, say about the standards and the corporate culture of banks?’

Those are dumb questions. The LIBOR “Fixing” scandal provides one small illustration of what my book, Planet Ponzi, details in 394 pages: banks no longer have any functional ethical standards and that the corporate culture of the City of London has been degraded beyond all recognition. We know that already. (And remember I’ve been talking about this LIBOR “Fixing” scandal long before it hit the main stream news.)

But it’s not just LIBOR. It’s the PPI scandal. It’s the bonuses paid out by taxpayers to the employees of failed, nationalised banks based on lax if not fraudulent accounting practices. It’s the gross misselling of mortgages which led to those bank failures. It’s any number of derivatives scandals. I’ve accused regulators oftentimes in the past of being useless and toothless. And so they mostly are. But a near £300 million fine is a good start. We need to encourage those regulators to stay in action mode, to find their teeth.

Meantime, Labour is reluctant to endorse Tyrie’s enquiry because it wants any probe to be run by a judge under quasi-courtroom conditions.

Reluctant: Labour is reluctant to endorse Tyrie’s enquiry because it wants any probe to be run by a judge under quasi-courtroom condition

And Labour is half-right. If you’re going to do this job, do it properly. Get a judge. Give that judge a budget, as much time as he needs, and the power to sub-poena documents and compel witnesses. The Tory enquiry will only have eleven weeks to complete its mission. That’s pathetically insufficient. You might as well try to fix the England football team in that time, or restore Nick Clegg’s image.

But Labour’s no more than half-right. We don’t need an enquiry, we need prosecutions.

The Feierstein rule of criminal justice says that for every million pounds of financial misselling or manipulation, one banker should spend one year in jail. That’s a reasonable, modest, and proportionate rule. If you started to nick stuff from your local Tesco’s, you’d find a much fiercer rule applied to you.

And where are the prosecutions? Where are the bankers in handcuffs, in custody, applying for bail, their passports confiscated and (ideally) a block on any movement or transfers ofassets? A fine of a few hundred million quid means something to a bank – though not much – but it means little or nothing to the guilty individuals.

Please note that I’m not calling for the writing of new laws to bolt the stable doors behind this most recently escaped horse. I’m calling for the vigorous application of existing laws that have never been enforced.

It cannot be the case that kids who pilfer from ashop in Hackney are sent to jail, while the bankers who manipulate hundreds of millions on an industrial scale and over a period of years, are allowed to walk free.

Oh, and because the bankers will have the best lawyers that money can buy, the state should respond in kind. There should be no financial limits placed on prosecutors. If they need more money to secure convictions, they should get it. If they need to hire in top-dollar financial consultants, they should get them. Without limit. (Oh, and again, this isn’t a new theme of mine. It’s right there in my book Planet Ponzi: enforce the laws, send corrupt bankers to jail. It’s so simple, but what has happened? What ever happens?)

Enlarge 

Uncapped: There should be no financial limits placed on prosecutors

So, enforcement of existing laws would be my very first recommendation, but it doesn’t stop there.

The Tory Party needs to stop taking money from the finance industry. That industry is too vastly compromised and has done far too much harm to this country – yet some half of all Tory funding comes from that source.

Just as the Leveson enquiry will force a much greater distance between politicians and the media, so too should this Barclays scandal force a proper separation of finance and politics. There should be a crocodile filled moat between the two. And searchlights, machine guns and electric fencing.

These things matter for two reasons.

One, it’s a simple question of justice. We don’t have a fair or equitable society if the rich aren’t held to account the same way as the poor.

But two, it’s a question of saving our society from civil unrest. Last summer saw the London riots. There were multifarious causes of those riots of course, but the essential heart of them was the sense – the perfectly correct sense – among the rioters that ours has become an unjust society. Where the rich too often don’t deserve their riches, where their crimes go unpunished.

If we want to save this country from more civil unrest, more riots, we need justice. We need bankers in jail. Lots of them and for long, long sentences.

This was published in the UK Daily Mail