babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Credit Watch

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Credit Watch
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 August 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Credit Watch

quote:
It is actually credit, and not money, that makes the world go around. That is why the upset in credit markets, provoked by the issue and sale of poor quality “sub-prime” mortgage debt by U.S. financial institutions, has captured world attention.

When borrowers cannot borrow, because lenders will not lend, you have a credit crunch. Without credit—the willingness to lend money today in the expectation it will be repaid later—those affected cease their activity, and the economy slows, causing job losses, personal bankruptcies, and cessation of business by many firms.

It was to ensure healthy credit conditions that the Bank of Canada was created. With the great depression as a backdrop, the need for government action to restore lending was obvious, so Canada created a central bank, and gave it a legislative mandate to act as a lender of last resort to financial institutions, to be the government's banker, and manage government debt, “regulating credit and currency in the best interests of economic life of the nation.”

For decades, finance ministers and central bank heads from the leading industrial nations (G10) have met to set the agenda for monetary policy. In recent years, a monomaniacal concern with controlling consumer inflation has dominated other legitimate concerns, such as runaway asset prices, where the value of stocks, companies, old masters and real property including houses has skyrocketed.

More importantly, the G10 have concluded, quietly and in secret with virtually no public debate, that central banks lending to governments was what provoked consumer inflation and that such lending should be kept to a minimum. ...



From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 August 2007 02:46 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Canada Infrastructure Bonds - Amortized Over Time

quote:

Government-guaranteed Canada Infrastructure Bonds, to be purchased by the Bank of Canada, would serve to cover our most urgent needs, such as:

  • hospitals
  • schools
  • roads
  • waterworks
  • other essential services

The repayment term of the bonds would match the estimated life span of the asset being considered, and in return for abiding by federal standards, part of the interest savings due to dividends could be passed on to the provinces or municipalities (leaving a net cost to the federal government of say 1% - 2%).

Rebuilding Canada's Infrastructure would create desireable new jobs for Canadians of all ages, ideally reducing today's unconsionable 7.5%(6 point something today) unemployment rate to a more modest 5% or less.



From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 22 August 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have to admit to being confused by Duncan Cameron's article.

Not to discount the importance of borrowing, but equity investment plays a much larger role in what "makes the world go round" than credit.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 August 2007 03:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Duncan Cameron said in his opening statement:

"It is actually credit, and not money, that makes the world go around"

He's talking about investments in government and private sector debt as well as credit in home equity. The U.S housing bubble is all over the news and how the Federal Reserve has nothing but interest rate targeting to deal with the fallout. Our BoC has agreed to forgo an interest rate hike here.

Being somewhat familiar with Duncan's previous articles, he's likely referring to the fact that 95 percent of Canada's money creation is supplied by private banks to governments, businesses and people as interest-owing debt.

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 22 August 2007 04:57 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose the problem in government lending from the central bank is that it becomes easier to go to the bank to create money than to go to citizens and corporations to collect it in taxes and if repeated too often, yes, this will cause inflation.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 August 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
I suppose the problem in government lending from the central bank is that it becomes easier to go to the bank to create money than to go to citizens and corporations to collect it in taxes and if repeated too often, yes, this will cause inflation.

And yet runaway inflation wasn't a problem between 1938 and 1974 when our nationalised Bank of Canada loaned money to the feds at low to near zero interest rates. Economists tell us that inflation shouldn't be an issue if the overall money supply isn't affected, and that rule can still be applied while using the central bank to finance important infrastructure and social needs.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 24 August 2007 01:31 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1.Canada financed the debt during the period 1939-1945 with war bonds, I don't know if the Bank of Canada provided loans or not.

2.Canada's debt as a share of GDP went down significantly from 1945-1974. I haven't looked at the numbers for each year, but my guess is the government probably ran a surplus for many of those years. The Bank of Canada probably could have financed a small amount of debt when needed.

3.I finally figured out how the Bank of Canada could finance the debt. If the government raised reserve requirements to a very high level (say 50%), the money expansion multiplier would be very small and the Bank of Canada would be able to print more currency and supply some of it to the government of Canada.

There are obviously problems with such a system with the government crowding out private sector borrowing. The obvious consequence would be that private sector borrowers would pay higher interest.

The more practical problem would be the transition of raising the reserve requirement ratios. The only way this could be done would be for banks to call in many of the loans they now have in order to meet the higher reserve requirements. This would obviously result in economic devistation. I suppose a transition could be done over a long enough period of time, say 50 years or so.

The great thing though, is that this is entirely academic. Canada has been running a surplus for the past eight or nine years and has paid down over $70 billion in debt. This is good news.

As I've said before, there are times where I can see federal governments needing to go into deficit, but by and large, there is no reason why governments should not be able to finance all their operations through present taxes. If the government wants more money, it should raise taxes and not look for ways to get 'free money'.

I suppose a more knowlegable person in economics than me could take a theoretical look at who the winners and losers would be if the government shifted from getting money via taxes to getting money from the central bank (I would think that taxpayers who don't have loans would be the obvious winners, anybody with a loan would lose), however, as I said above, given that the transition required to increase reserve requirements makes the possibility of the government getting money from the Bank of Canada entirely impractical, the question really is moot.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
duncan cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 43

posted 24 August 2007 08:30 AM      Profile for duncan cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the end of World War II Canada had a debt equal to 125% of GDP. Much of this was Bank of Canada held government of Canada debt. In effect we fought the war using the CCF economic programme of planned production and price controls supported by public credit.
That debt decreased until by 1975 it was about 25% of GDP. Why? Economic growth and low interest rates provide the explanation. When the debt grows more slowly than the economy, it declines as a share of the economy. In other words, if the rate of growth is 4% and the interest rate is 2%, the capacity to pay down the debt grows by 2%.
The end of the Bretton Woods regime announced by Nixon on Aug. 15, 1971 also spelt the end of central banks being subservient to the need to maintain fixed exchange rates when setting interest rates. Generalized floating rates encouraged central bank autonomy and U.S. spending deficits abroad (think Vietnam) and the credit expansion of the unregulated Eurodollar markets fueled inflation world wide, until the oil producers ended the party by increasing prices from $3 a barrel to $36 over a six year period.
The central banks shut down the world economy with interest rates going to the plus 20% range, creating the third world debt crisis which is still with us, and the 1982 world recession.
The explosion of credit that continues today has its origins in the end of Bretton Woods and the de-linking of the dollar from gold. Without a deflationary mechanism in place to control U.S. credit creation, the open world economy allowed big players to borrow in low interest rates and lend at high rates. For example interest rates in Japan are very low so borrow in Yen for 1% and lend at 8% in New Zealand. This “carry trade” has just been shut down by the credit crunch.
While the central banks shut down government borrowing, they turned a blind eye to the speculative flows of credit across frontiers. That was the point of my rabble.ca piece.
As Fidel points out a lot of the credit was used to purchase stocks and bonds. The total equity and debt market today is about $46 trillion I am told. Much of that is funded by loans.
Every business depends on banks to provide a line of credit so they can do business. The Phoenicians invented banking many centuries ago and it has been part of commerce ever since.
The banks need to be controlled. Since parliament created them (they are banks with charters from parliament or chartered banks) it should oversee them. Instead parliament has delegated its power to the Bank of Canada which in turn ignores its own parliamentary mandate, preferring to constrain government action. This was the other point of my piece.
Thanks for the comments.

From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 August 2007 09:31 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm going to regret posting in haste like this because I don't really understand it, but I read somewhere that the total debt including all "debt instruments" markets around the world is somewhere above $375 trillion dollars?. World GDP is something like $40 trillion. And Pacific Rim countries' central banks like Japan's, and the U.S., have been pumping money into the system to float/service all this debt and avoid financial armageddon.

There are people using Weimar Germany and "John Law bubble" as examples of the situation that's building now but on a global scale. Apparently the debts in those examples grew larger and faster than the amount of money they were able to print to service or roll over total debt without causing inflation. I get the feeling there has been a financial highwire act taking place for many years now, and something like this credit crunch has the potential for snowball effect. I think it doesn't sound good for the "new economy" that never was and is now disappearing anyway.

I recall Stephen Gordon and some other babblers discussing something along these lines a number of months ago. There was mention of a need for another Bretton Woods agreement between countries to reorganize these huge debts and prop up currencies for the good of humanity. Or something.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 24 August 2007 09:44 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also am posting in hurry. In short, Bretton Woods is where the US strongarmed the world into accepting the US dollar as the preeminent currency.

In general,I agree with Mr.Cameron. The reason for today's derivative meltdown is greed and big bank chicanery. No-one understands derivatives,not even the banks who create them.

A bank takes a group of specialist employees and consultants who each vett a small detail of aderivative agreement but have no inkling of the many other details. The result is a document that in its many parts may meet legal obligations but as a whole takes on a life of its own.

The Bretton Woods agreement started a trend of trust in the US dollar that enabled the financial industry to trade on that trust until they could literally sell any sort of worthless crap to an ever more liquid market greedy for ever higher returns.

Make no mistake, the perpetrators will walk as central banks bail them out and YOU will pick up the tab.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 September 2007 06:20 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Following Tomorrow’s Leaders by William Krehm

quote:
China and India have the attention of the world for their massive economic advances in acquiring Western technology. They are even taking over Western firms, and keeping their interest rates relatively low, while the central banks of Europe, the US, and Canada are relying on higher interest rates, to keep prices down and "cool" the economy. Instead of licking inflation, using interest rates as the only means of controlling their economies, prosperity has rewarded us with the subprime mortgages that threaten to cut the legs of our banks off at the knees.

It sounds like India and China have tightened bank reserve ratios instead of relying solely on targeting inflation with interest rates alone. Canada could use a Chinese-style sovereign wealth fund, or a Norwegian-style Petroleum Fund, or a Russian style oil stabilization fund ...


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca