Bulgaria: From the Lion to the Euro

Just weeks after the government of the E.U. state of Bulgaria resigned amid protests against the rampant corruption, the state traded in its currency, the levs, which means lion, for the federal currency, the euro. In the new year, 2026, Bulgaria stood to relieve holders of the state’s debt and to tame the endemic inflation that has plagued the state’s economy. In November, 2025, for example, food prices had risen by 5% year-on-year, “more than double the eurozone average.”[1] The term “eurozone” is actually problematic, as it, like the application of the jargon, “bloc,” to the E.U. itself is meant to obfuscate readers regarding the genre of the political, federal union. To claim that Bulgaria joined a currency zone is inferior stating that the state adopted the federal currency. Stated properly, the currencies in the E.U. can be compared with those that were in the early U.S., and all of those combinations of state and federal currencies can be held to be compatible with federalism.

When the U.S. “bloc” began in 1776, the members were sovereign countries and therefore they had their own currencies. The federal dollar commenced in 1785. The member-states had their own currencies until 1788, so those currencies were concurrent with the federal dollar for three years. The E.U.’s model has been that state governments can choose whether to retain their own currency or adopt the euro, so no state can have both its own currency and the euro as legal tender at the same time. The E.U. and U.S. provide us with various combinations regarding currencies in a federal system, none of those combinations being at variance with federalism itself. In fact, the salient feature of dual-sovereignty that characterizes early-modern federalism—which is distinct from confederalism, wherein the states hold all rather than just some of governmental sovereignty—is arguably most consistent with two currencies being legal tender. This is not to say that the U.S. got this right for three years when both state and federal currencies were legal tender in their respective jurisdictions. The American “bloc” was a confederation until 1989, after which the federal governmental institutions and the states both had at least some portion of the governmental sovereignty in the system. When dual-sovereignty came into effect, only the federal currency was legal tender throughout the union.

Of course, like the U.S. in its first several decades, the E.U. in 2025 still suffered from being dominated by its states at the expense of collective action at the federal level. Because one of the chief benefits of a federal system of dual sovereignty is that the states can operate as a check against excessive federal encroachment and the federal institutions can operate as a check against excesses, such as corruption and anti-democratic tyranny, in state governments. The latter check has been severely hampered in the E.U. because the state governments dominate even at the federal level. The adoption of the federal currency by Bulgaria can be viewed as a step in the direction of achieving federal-state balance of power because, as Christine Legarde, president of the E.U.’s central bank, said at the time, the euro is a “powerful symbol” of “shared values and collective strength.”[2] Such strength has been the big loser as the heads of the state governments have resisted, as per their political self-interest, proposing and voting for additional transfers of governmental sovereignty to the federal governmental institutions (i.e., government) in the executive and legislative branches.

So perhaps it can be said that dual currencies fits best with dual sovereignty, at least theoretically, but that this presupposes a balance of power between the state and federal governmental institutions. In the case of a “bottom-heavy” federal system, such as the U.S. was through the nineteenth century, and as the E.U. has been through at least its first three decades, as many states as possible should replace their respective currencies with the euro. Admittedly, even if the 27 rather than just 21 E.U. states would adopt the euro, this would not in itself mean that the E.U.’s hand would be strengthened in defense and foreign policy to push Russia back from Ukraine and Israel out of Gaza and the West Bank. Given the tremendous imbalance of power, however, such that the E.U. has had trouble in asserting collective action for the benefit of the whole union rather than just a few states, a powerful symbol of collective strength could help to dispel the allure of the anti-federalist, or Euroskeptic, ideology.

That intangible benefit is irreducibly political, and as such, it can be easily dismissed by E.U. citizens who are in denial regarding the distinctively political genre of their union. For such people, the adoption of the federal currency by more states is viewed primarily as potentially strengthening weak state economies and bad monetary policies. This applies especially to the adoption by small, corrupt states—Bulgaria being roughly equivalent to Maryland in population in 2025. After being turned out of office by mass protests against the systemic governmental corruption, the state government of Bulgaria certainly could not be relied upon to resist the temptation to inflate its currency given the public debt there. Generally speaking, corrupt people lack the self-discipline necessary to govern anything. The E.U.’s central bank was much more reliable, especially with Lagarde having been at the helm for many years, than the government of the E.U. state of Bulgaria. As salient as this benefit is in the state’s adoption of the euro, the impact, although subtle and largely symbolic, on European political integration, already under way, is worthy enough not to be relegated or ignored outright. The power of symbol can be louder in the long run that a lion’s roar.

---

1. Aleksandar Brezar, “Bulgaria Switches to the Euro Amid Mixed Reactions from Its Citizens,” Euronews.com, 1 January, 2026.
2. Ibid.

Adding Anti-Trust to Monetary Policy: The Case of Groceries

Monetary inflation is a complex phenomenon. Not only can its causes be several; it can make it more difficult to distinguish immediate and medium-term economic conditions from more long term, or structural changes impacting our species economically.  Of the former, the relationship between inflation and whether the markets are competitive or oligarchic (or even monopolies) can be better understood, and this in term can put us in a better position to assess the impact of longer-term changes, such as those stemming from the huge increase in the population of human beings since before the industrial age. The price of food (i.e., groceries) is a case in point. Specifically, the impact from presumably temporary shocks during the Covid pandemic should be distinguished from the impact of oligopolistic markets in keeping prices high, and of the increase in human mouths more generally (and longer term) representing increased demand for foodstuff in on a relatively fixed planet.

In addition to a spike in the prices of raw materials, or, moreover, factors of production, and a growth in the money supply above the growth in GNP, the gradual consolidation of an industry from market competition to oligopoly and even a monopoly can increase inflation. The consolidation of the U.S. meat-producer market, for example, could be expected to result in higher meat prices at grocery stores. Similarly, barriers to entry facing discount grocery stores could result in food prices staying high even after a temporary increase in factor costs. In short, government action to keep markets competitive or return them to the discipline of competition should go side by side with monetary policy, lest it be assumed that inflation is primarily a result of the growth in the monetary supply. Otherwise, keeping interest rates higher than would otherwise be the case could unnecessarily put a damper on job growth.

In June, 2024, the U.S. official unemployment rate increased to 4.1 percent; the next month, that figure was even high, standing at 4.3 percent. This triggered the “Sahm rule,” according to which “a recession is imminent or underway if the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate rises by 0.5 percentage points or more relative to its prior 12 month low.”[1] The U.S. economy added 114,000, rather than the expected 175,000 jobs in July, and some people were nervous that a recession might be on the way.[2]

Accordingly, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote, “Fed Chair Powell made a serious mistake not cutting interest rates. . . . He’s been warned over and over again that waiting too long risks driving the economy into a ditch. The jobs data is flashing red.”[3] The Fed kept the interest rate in place in order to fight inflation even though 4.3 percent is above the acceptable range for unemployment according to the Fed. In fact, Austan Goolsbee, President of the Chicago Federal Reserve, said at the time that 4.3 percent was something the Fed “has to respond to” by cutting interest rates.[4] Besides, he added, the “trends show inflation coming down across the board, multiple months in a row” as the labor market was cooling.[5]

Anyone shopping in a grocery store, however, would beg to differ, however, as the rise in food prices during the Coronavirus pandemic had not come down after the shocks, which included shipping as well as hoarding, had ended following the pandemic. Meat prices in particular had stayed very high even though such levels would be expected to attract new suppliers (or more supply) in a competitive market. But the meat-producer industry had been consolidating so a few large companies could essentially dictate prices to grocery stores, a related industry that had itself become oligopolistic. That the discount chain, Aldi, was not in the San Francisco region of California, for example, even in 2024 while Safeway and Whole Foods kept prices high suggests that the competitive mechanism, which protects consumers from the excessive greed of producers unrestrained by market discipline, was not working, for the basic logic of market competition holds that higher prices (and profits) attracts new producers such that supply increases and prices fall rather than stay high unless the cost of a factor of production has increased and stayed high.

To be sure, limits to the supply of food (and the cost of fuel for shipping) could be expected to become more salient as the human population level continues to increase dramatically. Whereas the 20^th century had begun with about 2 billion human beings on the planet, the 21^st century mark stood at 6 billion; by just 2023, that number had increased to 8 billion. At some point, the Earth’s agricultural potential being relatively fixed, could be expected to run up against increased demand for food. The common experience of having to pay more for groceries during and even after the pandemic due to temporary shocks and the lack of competition that would otherwise increase supply and thus reduce prices could be just a taste of what humans could expect in the 22^nd century.

That a species’ population can increase beyond its ability to feed itself was posited by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) in An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in 1798. The theological significance alone was startling, as the possibility threw off the notion that God had designed Creation and so the existence of God could be inferred from the excellence of the design found in nature itself. Malthus also claimed that famine, war, or disease is nature’s means of naturally correcting a schizogenic (i.e., maximizing) population, and subjecting the creatures who are in God’s image to such hardship hardly seems like part of the design of an omnibenevolent deity.

Therefore, the mechanism of a competitive market assumes not only lower barriers to entry, but also the capacity for increased supply when prices are relatively high, and this second assumption may be increasingly untenable as our species continues to grow while the natural resources of Earth remain relatively fixed, allowing of course for efficiency gains from technological advances. At the very least, from this macro perspective, governments should not shy away from enacting and enforcing anti-trust mechanisms so prices reflect not only demand, but also whatever supply is possible, given the Earth’s natural resources, especially in terms of energy and food (and also housing). Moreover, concurrent and sustained increases in several industries oriented to human sustenance ought to be especially concerning regarding toll from both uncompetitive markets and our species’ growth.

---

1. Alicia Wallace et al, “Markets End the Day Sharply Lower . . . “ CNN.com, August 2, 2024.
2. David Goldman, “Elizabeth Warren: The Fed Made ‘a Serious Mistake,” CNN.com, August 2, 2024.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Limits to Overused Fiscal and Monetary Policy Can Result in Self-Induced Governmental Impotence

“The [U.S.] federal budget deficit is growing faster than expected as President Trump’s spending and tax cut policies force the United States to borrow increasing sums of money.”[1] This observation was made just after the Federal Reserve Bank relented under pressure from the White House to lower interest rates because bond investors had been investing with a possible future recession in mind. With the U.S. Government’s accumulated debt standing at $22.4 trillion and interest rates already low, the limits to both fiscal and monetary policy were apparent even if most Americans in the political and business elite were focused on avoiding a possible recession in 2020.

According to the Congressional Budget Office in August, 2019, the federal deficit for fiscal 2019 would reach $960 billion; the deficit for the next year would reach $1 trillion.[2] Back during the Reagan administration in the 1980’s, deficits were in the hundreds of billions and the debt was in the trillions. It would seem that the fiscal imbalance had gotten worse since then, in spite of the fact that recessionary periods were greatly outweighed by stretches of growth. In fact, the U.S. in 2019 was in its longest period of economic expansion. Yet the deficits and thus debt rose rather than dropped. President’s tax cuts in that period of expansion played a significant role. Tax revenues for 2018 and 2019 fell more than $430 billion short of what the Congressional Budget Office had predicted.[3] In August of 2019, the president made public his consideration of payroll tax cuts just to guard against a possible recession (especially if one should hit before the next election day).

Using recessionary fiscal tools during an economic expansion means the deficits in good times won’t counter those in bad times. The result in the case of the U.S. has been a steadily increasing accumulated debt, rather than a debt from bad times being paid off in good times. That’s the fiscal theory, but it ignores the insatiable desire for instant gratification in human nature that can easily find power in a representative democracy. Accordingly, the use of leverage, or debt, by a democratic government should be extremely limited; tax cuts during periods of expansion can be seen as a red flag that a government has already gone too far.

Fortunately, lower than expected interest rates even before the Fed’s announced rate cut in August, 2019, reduced the amount of money the U.S. Treasury had to pay to its borrowers. So the public as well as policy makers could conveniently overlook the fact that the projected deficit for fiscal year 2019 was 25% higher than the prior year’s deficit. One weakness of a democracy is that if things look ok on the surface, needed work on the fundamentals—the substratum—will likely be put off. It’s more understandable that the electorate would have this weakness—less so for the elected representatives who know or should know the fundamentals and look out for the fiscal balance of the government. Speaking of balance, it is interesting that the federal system too was so much out of balance with the federal level holding most of the governmental power even though the States technically still had residual sovereignty. In other words, the tremendous fiscal imbalance can be viewed as an indication or manifestation of a more fundamental imbalance in the U.S. system of governments. In contrast, the E.U. suffered from an imbalance in the other direction, as the state governments anxiously guarded most of their powers.

See: Skip Worden, Essays on Two Federal Empires. Available at Amazon.

---

1. Jim Tankersley and Emily Cochrane, “Budget Deficit Is Set to Surge Past $1 Trillion,” The New York Times, August 22, 2019.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

Monetary and Fiscal Policy and Structural Reform: Each Had a Role to Play after the Financial Crisis

With fiscal policy hamstrung by public debt in both the E.U. and U.S., monetary policy was a major beneficiary of the financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing state-debt crisis that stammered on at least until 2013 in Europe. Lest it be concluded that central bank policy had reached an unassailable peak of salvation, the expanded role actually made its limitations transparent, at least in financial circles.
Speaking to Charlie Rose on March 11, 2013, Jeremy Grantham of a Wall Street firm argued that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank's extremely low interest-rate policy would be unlikely to spark an increase in employment even in the severe recession following the financial crisis. In fact, a low interest rate is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Fiscal policy, such as the Conservation Civilians Corps of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, is a much better tool to achieve full employment. Yet even the New Deal did not have enough fire-power to bring the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression; it took the breaking out of a second world war to get America's military-industrial complex to create enough jobs. One implication is that a competitive market alone is not sufficient to reach full employment. Even though such a market can sport great efficiency if kept competitive by the enforcement of anti-trust law, natural consumption levels have been unable to spark enough jobs for full employment to be achieved. Not even low interest rates can do that, as per the decade of the 2010's. We ought to accept that a lot of fiscal stimulus is needed to achieve full employment, even if it is not optimally efficient. 
Meanwhile, Jens Weidmann, the president of the Bundesbank, argued that monetary policy in the E.U. “can only buy time at best..” He went on to say he was “a bit concerned about some of the expectations around the power and potential of monetary policy.”[1] In other words, the ECB should have gotten back to monetary policy in a stricter sense, rather than trying to spark economic growth and employment through low interest rates and buying state-government bonds.
Behind the view of interest-rate, or monetary, policy as being capable of giving us economic salvation was the paralysis of fiscal policy determination in both federal unions.  Divided government at the federal level stymied fiscal policy in the U.S. after President Obama’s insufficient “stimulus” package in 2010. In the E.U., the vetoes retained by the fiscally- and debt-conservative state governments such as Germany at the federal level through the European Council put pressure on state governments strapped fiscally to take on even more debt even just to avoid defaulting on existing debt, not to mention keeping their fiscal policy-levels sufficient that their residents would not be imperiled. Increasing debt-loads for fiscal reasons did not serve states like Greece and Spain well. Fiscal redistribution at the federal level is one of the benefits of federalism, and yet the E.U. was stymied because each state government had too much power at the federal level (quite unlike the states in the U.S. at its federal level). 
In short, much of the allure of monetary policy actually came from fiscal frustration at the federal levels of both unions. Alternatively, both fiscal and monetary policy could have been used, and pointed in the same direction: toward full employment. Using low interest rates and the issuance of debt, respectively, to pull up an economy out of severe recession and even as political coverage (in the U.S.) or leverage (in the E.U.) for needed structural reforms of a financial system and indebted states, respectively, may not have been sufficient or even smart. Taking on a corruption-induced financial system in the U.S. required a lot of political guts, which not even the Obama administration had, for the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 did not go far enough in deconstructing the conflicts of interest in the system. Also, feeding Wall Street with infusions of government money appropriated by Congress and much more created by the Federal Reserve Bank, with no strings attached, did not make the bankers at the big banks any more willing to accept structural reforms even though they would have protected the banks by fixing the system. Not even fiscal stimulus plus low interest rates could keep the U.S. out of a severe recession, though arguably the U.S. could have entered a severe depression otherwise. Both fiscal and monetary policy and going politically after dysfunctional systems, whether that of Wall Street or those of heavily-indebted E.U. states, all must be used so none of the tools is over-relied upon and thus overused.  

See Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Essays on the Financial Crisis, and Essays on the E.U. Political Economy. All are available at Amazon.

1. Katy Barnato, “Central Banks Alone Can’t Fix Europe: Weidmann,” CNBC, March 12, 2013.  

Structural Reform and Economic Sustenance in European Austerity

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 25, 2013, Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank(ECB), said the bank’s program to buy the bonds of heavily indebted E.U. states had been “very helpful” in reducing the perception that the euro was on the verge of collapse. He also pointed to the structural reforms that heavily indebted states had enacted as “now bearing fruit.”[1] He urged those governments to continue to implement structural reforms so those states could take advantage of the ECB’s low interest rates and easy credit to banks. In short, the strategy of the ECB was to use monetary policy as leverage for long-term-oriented structural reforms at the state level. Political risk analysts listening to the central bank official likely came away with a more optimistic stance on the long term prospects for the E.U. economy.

Even though the progress achieved already on the debt crisis provided “light at the end of the tunnel,” the matter of structural reforms at the state level was subject to politics and was thus more uncertain. Also, economic conditions could worsen, hence making it politically and economically more difficult to make the needed structural changes. Chancellor Angela Merkel of the state of Germany warned the governors of heavily-indebted states such as Greece and Spain against the impulse to reduce the pace of structural reform in the face of economic stagnation. She pointed to the record unemployment numbers announced in Spain on January 24, 2013 as fodder for the anti-austerity political forces there. She further observed that “experience tells us that often pressure is required to enable structural reform.” The obstacles could have come from political officials or bureaucrats at the state level, and even from the people, upset at the economic austerity cut-backs hitting themselves and even the poor who depend on funding for sustenance. Advocates for those people were doubtlessly contesting that survival in the short run should not be sacrificed for long-term structural reform. 
Interestingly, making a qualitative (i.e., difference in kind) distinction between government programs that keep people alive on a daily basis and all the other budget items could actually permit more budget cutting because so much would be found to be subject to cuts without risking lives. In the U.S. at least, the qualitative difference has typically been made between domestic and military spending. This dichotomy has enabled huge increases to military programs even as cuts to food assistance have been proposed. Of course, the unemployment caused by a cancelled defense contract could put people in danger of losing their house or going without food. However, such individuals would be covered by the continuance of the programs providing sustenance as long as they were held apart from the other spending categories. Having an indirect effect on sustenance, such as military contracts can, does not render a particular budget item itself in the category of vital programs for sustenance, such as building more halfway houses for the mentally ill who are homeless.  This reflects the American culture more, wherein much more is deemed conditional than in Europe, where the principle of solidarity has been and is still more salient politically.
In short, long-term fiscal reform need not be at the expense of people eating and having shelter as well as medical care. Based on the firm foundation of human rights, programs primarily geared to sustenance can be isolated and protected such that the structural reform can be implemented more smoothly. Buffering sustenance programs from the massive cuts everywhere else would significantly reduce the vehemence of the protests and soothe the path of structural reform by isolating the entrenched officials and bureaucrats as the only primary obstructionists. 

See also Essays on the E.U. Political Economy, available at Amazon.  

1. “Davos: ECB’s Draghi Says ‘Real’ Economy Still Stagnant,” Deutsche Welle, January 25, 2013.

Is Modest Growth vs. Full Employment a False Dichotomy?

As Summer slid into Autumn in 2012, the Chinese government was giving no hint of any ensuing economic stimulus program. This was more than slightly unnerving for some, as a recent manufacturing survey had slumped more than expected, to 49.2 in August. A score of 50 separated expansion from contraction. A similar survey, by HSBC, came in at 47.6, down from 49.3 the previous month. Bloomberg suggested that China might face a recession in the third quarter. So why no stimulus announcement?  Was the Chinese government really just one giant tease? I submit that the false dichotomy of moderate economic growth and full employment was in play. In short, the Chinese government did not want to over-heat even a stagnant economy even though the assumption was that full employment would thus not be realizable.

Wang Tao, an economist at UBS, explained the “very reactionary, cautious approach” as being motivated by the desire to avoid repeating the “excesses of last time.”[1] The stimulus policy in the wake of the 2008 global downturn had sparked inflation and caused a housing bubble in China. According to The New York Times, China was avoiding “measures that could reignite another investment binge of the sort that sent prices for property and other assets soaring in 2009 and 2010.”[2] A repeat of any such binge could not be good, for it can spark the sort of irrational excitement that have a life of its own.
In short, too much stimulus in an economy can cause inflation and put people’s homes at risk of foreclosure once the housing bubble bursts, whereas a lack of stimulus means that a moderate growth rate is likely, rather one that could give rise to full employment. Is there no way out of this trade-off? 
Keeping fiscal or monetary stimulus within projections of a moderate growth can occur with more government spending targeted to a combination of giving private employers a financial incentive to hire more people and increasing the number of people hired by state enterprises. In principle with the Full Employment Act of the U.S. in 1946, a government can see that anyone who wants a job has one, while still maintaining a moderate stimulus. A modest growth-rate can co-exist with full employment. 

1, Bettina Wassener, “As Growth Flags, China Shies From Stimulus,” The New York Times, September 3, 2012. 
2. Ibid.

Larry Summers Bowed Out of the Race for Fed Chair: “Advise and Consent” Triumphant

On September 15, 2013, the White House announced that Larry Summers, Barak Obama’s prior chief economic advisor and a Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Clinton administration, no longer wanted to be considered to fill the upcoming vacancy as chairman of the Federal Reserve. In the announcement, Obama (or an advisor) wrote, “Larry was a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today.”[1] Unfortunately, this statement suffers from a sin of omission, which admittedly had been minimized by the media as well. Accordingly, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who had just come out against a Summers nomination can be regarded as done the nation a vital service. Moreover, the “check” of the “check-and-balance” feature of the U.S. Senate’s confirmation power worked.
With all its open points of access, democracy can have a splintering effect on a point worthy of public debate. The media dutifully plays its “scattering” role before any reasoned train of thought can gain traction in the public domain. For example, at the time of Summers’ retraction, the New York Times reported that a “reputation for being brusque, his past comments about women’s natural aptitude in mathematics and science, and his decisions on financial regulatory matters in the Clinton and Obama administrations had made [Summers] a controversial choice.”[2] A reader could be forgiven for concluding that personal vendettas, public gossip, and single-issue (not even monetary policy!) political activists have points just as important as the matter of Summers’ past decisions on financial regulation.
Any political interest having succeeded in getting its point to a microphone is deemed just as relevant or decisive as any other. Democracy is the great relativiser. The great equalizer. Is rule by "members of the club" the only practical alterative, or is it American democracy merely its front, only superficially relativising and equalizing the relevant and the less-than-relevant?

       Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin. In the late 1990s, they pressed Congress to keep financial derivatives unregulated. A case of government doing Wall Street's bidding?   Image Source: pbs.org


Obviating the scattering effect, we can zero in on Obama’s attribution of “expertise, wisdom and leadership” and ask whether they apply to Summers when he joined Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin in the late 1990s to lobby Congress to remove the CFTC’s authority to regulate financial derivatives. At the time, Brooksley Born, chairwoman of the CFTC, was recommending to Congress that mortgage-backed derivatives be regulated. That the unholy triumvirate, blessed by Clinton and supported by Wall Street, succeeded with the help of Sen. Phil Gramm in discrediting Born kept the financial system vulnerable to being blind-sided by a collapse in any of the securitized derivatives markets.
It is difficult to fathom how financial regulatory expertise, wisdom, or leadership could possibly pertain to Summers in his lobbying capacity during the Clinton administration, even if he did go on to help Obama mop up the fiscal thaw after Lehman's bankruptcy. Yet, sadly, Summers’ down-right discraceful bullying of Born, and being wrong on top of that on whether financial derivatives should be regulated were barely mentioned in the public discourse leading up to Summers’ decision to withdraw his name from the president's consideration.
Fortunately, the public can rely on the informed advise and consent power of the U.S. Senate. Is it just a coincidence, however, that bullish financial markets answered Summers' decision? Or was it the other way around: Summers' decision being the answer to a message he had received from Wall Street?
To be sure, Summers was "generally considered to be in the pocket of Wall Street."[3] Citibank had been paying him for what the Federal Reserve refers to as "participation" in "Citi events."[4] Additionally, his efforts to keep financial derivatives, including CDOs, unregulated enabled Wall Street banks to make "kazillions of dollars."[5] However, bankers have short memories, given the inertia of the financial interest of the moment. Traders and bankers tended to favor Yellen, according to a poll conducted by CNBC; whereas Yellen got 50 percent, Summers came in at a mere 2.5 percent.[6] Besides sporting an abrasive (Harvard?) manner, Summers had given vocal hints that he might tighten monetary policy, even reduce the Fed's bond-purchase program sooner than Yellen would.
Particularly given Summers' nature, I have trouble believing that he woke up one nice fall morning and decided to cave in to anticipated "political obstacles" to his getting confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Put another way, more was likely behind his loss of support among Democrats on the Senate committee than even concerns the senators might have had about Summers' prior participation in turning Congress against Born's plea to regulate derivatives. Could it be that Wall Street CEOs were pulling the strings, reaching from Boston to Capitol Hill without even leaving finger-prints?    

---

1. Annie Lowrey and Michael D. Shear, “Summers Pulls Name from Consideration for Fed Chief,” The New York Times, September 15, 2013.
2. Ibid.
3. Mark Gongloff, "Larry Summers' Withdrawal from Fed Race Is Good News for Wall Street and the Economy," The Huffington Post, September 16, 2013.
4. Reuters, "Fed Contender Larry Summers Cancels Citigroup Events," CNBC, September 14, 2013.
5. Gongloff, "Larry Summers."
6. Mark Gongloff, "Wall Street Overwhelmingly Favors Yellen Over Summers for Fed Chair: CNBC Poll," The Huffington Post, July 26, 2013.

Exaggeration on the U.S. Economy “Going Over the Cliff” after the Financial Crisis of 2008

As the U.S. Government faced down its own deadline in 2012 before the Bush tax cuts would expire and across-the-board budget cuts would commence, the Federal Reserve, which had been struggling to prop up the economy by buying bonds and keeping interest rates low, would, according to the Chairman, Ben Bernanke, be largely powerless to do more in the face of a recessionary policy on taxes and spending. "We cannot offset the full impact of the fiscal cliff," he said of the Fed. "It's just too big." That he had written a doctoral dissertation on the Great Depression and had specialized on it as a professor at Princeton lends a lot of weight to his judgment on the matter. However, he had also managed to be re-appointed to the Fed and thus knew how to play the game. In the case of the automatic budget cuts, major power-brokers, specifically in the military industrial complex, had a lot riding on Congress and the White House making a deal that would obviate the cuts in defense spending. The chairman of the Fed could have been carrying their water.

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in front of the lights.   Reuters

In September 2012, Bernanke had announced an open-ended mortgage-backed-security purchasing program that would put $40 billion a month into the economy. At the time, he said, “If we do not see substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market, we will continue the MBS purchase program, undertake additional asset purchases, and employ our policy tools as appropriate until we do. We will be looking for the sort of broad-based growth in jobs and economic activity that generally signal sustained improvement in labor market conditions and declining unemployment.” Presumably the Fed would continue the mortgage-bond purchases were the automatic budget cuts and end of the Bush tax breaks to forestall a “broad-based growth in jobs and economic activity.”

In terms of economic impact, a stimulus of $40 billion a month, or $480 billion annually, would just about match the anticipated $500 billion hit from the “cliff.” How is it then, that the latter is “just too big”? Were the $480 billion insufficient, the Fed would be free to increase its purchases.  Time magazine describes the stimulus mechanism as follows: “Open-ended purchases of mortgages will have the effect of lowering interest rates, helping more people qualify for mortgages or refinance. But more importantly it will — in theory — have the effect of creating an expectation of generally higher asset prices in the future, which will motivate people to get off their duffs and spend money now. If companies and individuals are indeed convinced that prices will rise in the future, that would encourage them to spend, hire, and jump-start the economy out of its chronic underperformance.” Whereas monetary policy was contracted in response to the Great Depression, the scholar of that mistake could presumably do the opposite should we—in his words, “go over the cliff.” His $480 billion mountain of money could turn his $500 billion cliff into a mere bump.

To be sure, purchasing mortgage-bonds can only do so much. As David Dayen of Firedoglake argues, there’s only so much the lifting of asset prices can do without appropriate fiscal policy to accompany it: “(Y)ou have to question the role of monetary actions by themselves to generate an economic boost, especially at this time. Lower mortgage rates may or may not prove helpful . . . without fiscal stimulus and a reversal of the current trajectory of deficit reduction, we will never get to the desired trend for growth.” However, the Fed could presumably buy up more than mortgage-bonds, freeing banks up to lend more in the process.

Most telling is Bernanke’s claim that the Fed could not increase its stimulus enough to counter the anticipated $500 billion hit from sequestration and the end of the Bush tax breaks—and yet the Fed was already on record that it would spend $480 billion in 2013 unless the economy improved in the meantime. His inflexibility seems arbitrary, or dogmatic, in other words, given what the Fed can do, and this leads me to the alternative explanation that the chairman was actually doing someone else’s bidding rather than proffering a judgment steeped in decades of study. The real task would be one of locating the real power-brokers whose financial interests were so threatened.

Whereas the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and cutting entitlement programs had been perennially on the block for years, the sacred-cow of defense spending was all of a sudden susceptible as well. Hence, I believe, all the dire doomsday warnings coming out of Washington to the contrary, the pressure on a political deal was oriented to protecting the status quo of the military-industrial complex rather than obviating certain economic collapse. That is, even more fundamental than the interest of politicians and the media to over-dramatize “going over the cliff” in order to gain attention, the subterranean financial interest of the American military-industrial complex may have been pulling many strings—many puppets—to veer the debate toward a deal. Even as the major players on stage were posturing, a two-step could have been going on behind the scenes—dancing around the sacred cows. Perhaps the real news behind the Bernanke’s warning is that even the “non-politicized” central bank was “doing the dance.”

Sources:

John Cushman, “To Bernanke, ‘Cliff’ Says It All” The New York Times, December 12, 2012.

Christopher Matthews, “Ben Bernanke’s Heavy Artillery: Will Open-Ended Bond Buying Drive Down Unemployment?” Time, September 14, 2012.

The U.S. Federal Reserve as a Regulator of Banks: An Institutional Conflict of Interest

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve “has operated almost entirely behind closed doors as it rewrites the rule book governing the U.S. financial system.” The paper notes that this has been in sharp contrast to the trend at the Fed toward greater transparency in its interest-rate policies and emergency-lending programs. The complaint of a dearth of public meetings misses, however, not only the scripted nature of such displays, but also the more fundamental question of whether a central bank buffered from political pressure should play such a salient role as regulator. At the very least, the democratic deficit and a lack of accountability may be exacerbated by the Fed’s greater role as a regulator of banks—particularly after the major investment banks become commercial banks, and thus subject to the Fed’s regulations.

“While many Americans may not realize it,” the Journal continues, “the Fed has taken on a much larger regulatory role than at any time in history. Since the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul became law in July 2010, the Fed has held 47 separate votes on financial regulations.” This was as of February 22, 2012. In the process, the Fed was “reshaping the U.S. financial industry by directing banks on how much capital they must hold, what kind of trading they can engage in and what kind of fees they can charge retailers on debit-card transactions.” Unlike other regulatory agencies, not even the Fed governor’s votes were made public. Considering the contact that Fed officials had with their regulated banks on these issues and the Fed’s ties to banking itself, the lack of public meetings (only two on the 47 votes) suggests an opportunity for a conflict of interest to operate below the radar in the interest of the banks while the public holds the risk.

On the Volker Rule, which was to be the part of the Dodd-Frank law that prohibits banks from proprietary trading using their own funds because doing so is too risky for a bank too big to fail, Fed officials met with bankers at JP Morgan Chase sixteen times, Bank of America ten times, Goldman Sachs nine, and Barclays and Morgan Stanley seven each. On the Dodd-Frank provision on regulating derivatives—something a dissenting Fed governor claimed has exemptions that are too wide—Fed officials met with JP Morgan Chase fourteen times, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs twelve each, and Bank of America, Barclays, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo eleven each. Even just in relying on these banks for information and feedback, the Fed risks getting biased input on which to make judgments.

Morgan Stanley may have insisted that the regulation of commodity derivatives would put farmers who rely on the futures market at risk. Moreover, the bankers could have insisted that an exemption would not be abused, or they could coordinate their own pressure with a farming lobby and U.S. senators from farm states. The bankers’ intent was obviously to minimize the cost to them in the regulations that are put in place. The public interest, or risk to the public, was beside the point.

The banks played a similar role in the late 1990s as they lobbied the White House and Sen. Phil Gramm to keep derivatives unregulated. That unseen monster winded up biting us in the ass in 2008. Therefore, putting the public interest at risk is not just part of some theory; giving the regulated too much influence in the writing of regulations involves a conflict of interest that can literally result in the collapse of the global financial system. A public-level perspective, rather than that of a firm or industry, must be primary among regulators or the system itself is put at risk.

Pointing to the lack of public meetings in the Fed’s approach as a regulator, Sheila Bair, former chair of the FDIC, stated, “People have a right to know and hear the discussion and hear the presentations and the reasoning for these rules. All of the other agencies which are governed by boards or commissions propose and approve these rules in public meetings.” Fed officials point out that open meetings tend to be scripted and even perfunctory. As if to state good intentions are sufficient, Fed chair Bernanke said in a 2010 speech, “As an agent of the government, a central bank must be accountable in the pursuit of its mandated goals, responsive to the public and its elected representatives and transparent in its policies.” However, a central bank is closer to its banks in many ways that it is to the public or its elected representatives. In fact, a central banks is supposed to be buffered from political influence. While this makes sense in terms of monetary policy, regulating is a separate function and a democratic deficit there is problematic.

I think the public meeting issue is a red herring. The real problem lies in a central bank going beyond monetary policy and acting as a bank for the banks to also be a regulatory agency. That the Fed’s regulatory process differs from those of the “real” agencies suggests that the Fed officials do not even seen the Fed as such an agency. As Bernanke said, “a central bank is . . .” This is the Fed’s identity. It is distinct from a regulatory agency. Accordingly, Congress should establish a separate regulatory agency to cover the banks, leaving the Fed officials to concentrate on their core functions in operating a central bank. It is not as if Bernanke “got it right” leading up to September 2008. Even in 2007, he did not think the declining housing market would cause much of a problem. He had no idea that the swap and derivative markets were about to implode. This is not a good basis on which take on additional responsibilities, particularly writing new banking regulations. In other words, it is not like much would be lost were banking regulation written and enforced by a regulatory agency rather than the Fed. In addition, such an agency would not be so closely tied to the banks as the Fed is, as hinted at by its myriad of meetings with them. Such an agency would not be explicitly distanced from political pressure as the Fed is.

There is nothing wrong with elected lawmakers and executive branch officials making sure that the laws they have passed and are enforcing, respectively, are being operationalized and enforced by regulators who keep the public interest foremost in mind. As a central bank, the Fed is neither under the U.S. President in the executive branch nor under Congress. Meanwhile, Fed officials are very close to the banks they regulate. The problem of accountability that is in the Fed’s independence from the two branches added to the conflict of interest of the Fed being so close to the banks it regulates sets the public up for the sort of thing we saw in September 2008. That crisis did not come out of nowhere, and the reasons for it go beyond the housing market. At the very least, relying so much on an “agency” (and chair!) that failed to anticipate September 2008 and then geared a bailout to the banks rather than to the millions of foreclosed borrowers (hint: conflict of interest!) to write and enforce additional banking regulations on an industry that does not want them is beyond stupid; it is suicide. Meanwhile, the issue was presented as one of public meetings, which were scripted anyway and did not prevent the Fed from meeting with its bankers.

Source:

Victoria McGrane and Jon Hilsenrath, “Fed Writes Sweeping Rules From Behind Closed Doors,” The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2012.

Related books: 

Essays on the Financial Crisis

Institutional Conflicts of Interest

On the Danger to the United States of Living off Government Debt: The Case of the Dollar as World Reserve in 2010

Given the $13 trillion of U.S. Government debt in 2010, the dollar was losing out at the time in percentage terms to other currencies as the global reserve currency. To be sure, in absolute terms, there were still more dollars being held abroad than twenty or thirty years earlier, but as a report from Emma Lawson of Morgan Stanley showed, other currencies were taking on more of a relative presence. The lesson concerning excessive public debt was not grasped at least through the 2010's, as the debt continued to increase trillions of dollars more.

The Euro had been making the greatest strides in percentage terms, particularly in 2002. The slight downturn in 2009 might have reflected the impact of the financial crisis of 2008 in Europe, though the Greek debt issue had not yet reached a boil (it would be interesting to see the figures from 2010).  In any case, the dramatic drop in the dollar’s percentage terms also came in 2002, before the Iraq war and the bank bailout spending (i.e., the $13 tillion dollar debt). The drop could have been in reaction to September 11, 2001, though it would seem an exaggeration even then to say that the US financial system would be undone by the attack.  Even so, as we know from 2008, irrational exuberance can take hold in even a global market. We ought nevertheless not lose sight of the fact that the number of dollars held in reserves around the world increased. The pie got bigger, and even though the dollar piece became larger, it was a smaller proportion of the pie in 2010.  Even so, the $13 tillion in US Treasury debt, the decision of the Chinese to allow their currency to appreciate to a limited extent, Russia’s call for a mix of global reserve currencies, and the EU’s bailout of the Greek bonds all pointed to trouble for the US dollar as “the” reserve currency. Also troubling was the UN report at the end of June, 2010, which urged that the US dollar is no longer stable enough to be the world’s reserve currency. Ouch! The dollar slid %5 in June. Fortune reports that central banks had been preferring gold to the greenback.

Lawson believed that  ”over time we anticipate that reserve managers may reduce their holdings further.” She is looking at the significance of small percent changes over a short time—and this I see as perhaps susceptable to overblowing small trends. For example, she found that central banks had dropped their allocation to U.S. dollars by nearly a full percentage point to 57.3% from 58.1%, and calls this “unexpected given the global environment.” But was such a change, relative to those shown in the chart, really significant? She argued that other dollars - the kind that come from Australia and Canada - had been benefiting from skiddishness on the dollar. The allocation to those currencies, which fall under “other” in the data, rose by a full percentage point to 8.5%, accounting almost exactly for the drop in the U.S. dollar allocation. She was undoubtedly assuming that the trend would continue, but a look at the chart can demonstrate that even the dramatic changes in 2002 had not continued at such a rate (e.g., for the euro and the US dollar). 

Even so, Treasury’s huge debt could not but undermine the US dollar over the long term. This point ought not to be minimized or ignored under the fiscal pressure to push the US economy out of recession. Even if the US did not admit that the debtload was too high to be paid down one day (the debt then approaching the annual GNP of the US), the market rendered its verdict. Relative the huge debt facing the US dollar (and remember there are huge state debts, such as in California, Illinois and Florida!), the “crisis” facing the euro in 2010 paled in comparison.  As of mid 2010, the euro was still over $1.20. Years earlier, it had been at parity. The media frenzy on Greece's debt in 2010 ought therefore to be put into some kind of perspective, and the impact of the dollar’s public debt not be lost. 

It’s not clear to me that the human mind can conceptualize a trillion, not to mention thirteen of them. Yet we glide over the public debts in the US as though they were sustainable. If the US falls, it will be from within--from consolidation at the empire-level.  Such a fall will likely come as a surprise to most Americans, who in being oriented to external threats tend to miss the gravity of the black hole amassing under our very noses.  To be sure, the additional debt enables us to live beyond our means as a society, and such a condition can be very addictive.  Perhaps the parallel question for us to reflect on is whether Rome fell from within or simply from the Goths.

Sources:

 http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-dollar-euro-reserve-holdings-2010-7#ixzz0tBDYFjMd

 http://wallstreet.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/09/central-banks-start-to-abandon-the-u-s-dollar/

The E.U.’s Central Bank: Beholden to State-Level Politics

Faced with the rise of anti-euro candidates for state offices throughout the E.U., Mario Draghi, the president of the E.U.’s central bank deemed it politically prudent to depart from the light world of cool economic data to mount a spirited defense of the euro and even free trade in March, 2017. With the UK having voted to secede from the Union, he could not assume that the state of the Union would continue to be inherently viable. Indeed, some political candidates at the state level were “questioning the whole idea of a united Europe and the European Central Bank’s fundamental reason for being.”[1] 

The complete essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.

---

[1] Jack Ewing, “As E.C.B. Charts Economic Course, Politics Complicate the Picture,” The New York Times, March 9, 2017.

Disentangling a Worsening Trade Deficit: Sector-Specific Industrial and Macro Economic Policy

he U.S. trade deficit rose 9.6% in January, 2017, to the highest level since 2012. The gap of $48.5 billion of exports exceeding imports looks daunting, yet the story is more complex at the sector level.[1] According to Neil Irwin of The New York Times, “What really matters is not whether the trade deficit is rising or falling. What matters is why?”[2] Distinguishing macro factors such as a strengthening dollar from sectoral strengths and weaknesses is thus necessary.

 The Port of Oakland. (source: Jim Wilson/NYT)

In the automotive sector, a $1.3 billion increase in exports corresponds to a $900 million increase in imports—essentially a draw. The $2.1 billion more in exports of industrial supplies is favorable, suggesting that that sector is doing well, but exports of civilian aircraft fell by $611 million, and other high-tech capital goods were also down, while imports of consumer goods—notably cell phones—increased by $2.4 billion. Boeing may simply have had a bad month, though it is also possible that Airbus had been out-competing its American competitor. The numbers on electronics add to the general perception that the U.S. is not competitive in such manufacturing. Industrial policy could address the possibility that automation and tax incentives (and penalties on American companies producing abroad only to import the finished goods back to the domestic market) could rectify this weakness in the American economy. 

Meanwhile, the balance of trade in services worsened by $5.3 billion. The fact that the money that foreign travelers spend in the U.S. on hotels and restaurants counts as exports suggests that a strengthening dollar could have been in play.[3] The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy was thus in play, for rising interest rates mean a strengthening of the dollar. Industrial policy may thus be less relevant here.

“A big piece in the rise in imports was crude oil and other petroleum products. They were up by a combined $2.2 billion.”[4] Exports also increased, by $1.2 billion, so this sector obviously contributed significantly to the overall trade deficit. To be sure, an increase in the price of oil favored producers, but this matter is dwarfed by the strategic national-security goal of self-sufficiency on fossil fuels. In terms of industrial policy, an expansion of domestic sources of oil and refining capacity may have been advisable at the time—not so carbon emissions would increase, but, rather, so imports of oil could drop.

In short, analyzing changes in a trade deficit requires distinguishing sectors, and, moreover, discerning where industrial policy recommendations are in order from cases in which macro political economic policy is at issue. Ideally, sector-specific industrial policies and macro policies are “on the same page.”

---

[1] Neil Irwin, “The Huge January Trade Deficit Shows Trump’s Hard Job Ahead,” The New York Times, March 7, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.